Isn't a "first cause" something? If there was a first cause, what created it? A first cause from nothing? Is it easier to imagine that existence has always existed, or that a "prime mover" has always existed? As an atheist I'm happy with saying "I don't know the answer, but I hope someday we have evidence that brings clarity." Because right now we're just arguing from ignorance.
@@thotslayer9914 Well, the guy said "nothing" ... a total absence of light, matter, energy, space, time and even the potential for these things to exist. If there's "nothing" then there's "nothing", not even a first cause, right?
@@FormsInSpace I'm not questioning causation, which is a very thorny subject as Hume pointed out. I'm perfectly willing to grant the "common sense" view of cause and effect for the sake of this argument. I'm saying that we should not try to remedy our ignorance with conjecture. For instance, if the universe came from a singularity, and that singularity requires a Cause, and that Cause is presently unknowable, We shouldn't rush to fill the darkness of our understanding with the comforting light of myth or dogma. Let those areas remain dark to us. Embrace your ignorance and hate it. Let it spur you to further exploration. The person who says "I don't know" is JUST as ignorant as the one who says "God did it", but the second person is content while the first is still desperately seeking understanding.
Monad (from Greek μονάς monas, "singularity" in turn from μόνος monos, "alone") refers, in cosmogony, to the Supreme Being, divinity or the totality of all things. The concept was reportedly conceived by the Pythagoreans and may refer variously to a single source acting alone, or to an indivisible origin, or to both. The concept was later adopted by other philosophers, such as Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, who referred to the Monad as an elementary particle. It had a geometric counterpart, which was debated and discussed contemporaneously by the same groups of people. Q: Is the Monad (first emanation of God) the zero-dimensional space binding our quarks together with the strong nuclear force? A: Leibniz's "The Monadology" is a philosophical work that explores the concept of monads as indivisible, immaterial substances that make up the fabric of reality. While the notion of monads is primarily philosophical and not directly related to modern physics, I can attempt to draw a connection between some of Leibniz's ideas and the strong nuclear force holding quarks together. Here are seven points of connection you could consider: 1) Indivisibility and Unity: Leibniz's monads are indivisible and lack parts. In a similar vein, quarks are elementary particles, indivisible according to our current understanding, and are the building blocks of hadrons, the particles held together by the strong force. 2) Interconnectedness: Leibniz's monads are interconnected, each reflecting the entire universe from its own perspective. In particle physics, the strong force binds quarks within hadrons, creating a complex interconnected system of particles. 3) Inherent Properties: Monads possess inherent perceptions and appetitions. In particle physics, quarks are associated with intrinsic properties like color charge, which influences their interactions through the strong force. 4) Harmony: Leibniz describes monads as creating harmony in the universe. Similarly, the strong nuclear force maintains stability within atomic nuclei by balancing the repulsive electromagnetic forces between positively charged protons. 5) Pre-established Harmony: Leibniz's concept of pre-established harmony suggests that everything is synchronized by design. In particle physics, the strong force ensures that quarks interact in ways that give rise to stable particles, exhibiting a form of "harmony" in their interactions. 6) Non-Mechanical Interaction: Leibniz's monads interact non-mechanically through perceptions. In the context of the strong force, quarks interact through the exchange of gluons, which doesn't follow classical mechanical rules but rather the principles of quantum field theory. 7) Holism: Leibniz's emphasis on the holistic nature of reality could be compared to the way quarks contribute to the overall structure and behavior of hadrons through their interactions mediated by the strong force. em·a·na·tion noun an abstract but perceptible thing that issues or originates from a source.
Metaphysics Context The monad, the word and the idea, belongs to the Western philosophical tradition and has been used by various authors. Leibniz, who was exceptionally well-read, could not have ignored this, but he did not use it himself until mid-1696 when he was sending for print his New System. Apparently he found with it a convenient way to expound his own philosophy as it was elaborated in this period. What he proposed can be seen as a modification of occasionalism developed by latter-day Cartesians. Leibniz surmised that there are indefinitely many substances individually 'programmed' to act in a predetermined way, each substance being coordinated with all the others. This is the pre-established harmony which solved the mind-body problem, but at the cost of declaring any interaction between substances a mere appearance. Summary The rhetorical strategy adopted by Leibniz in The Monadology is fairly obvious as the text begins with a description of monads (proceeding from simple to complicated instances), then it turns to their principle or creator and finishes by using both to explain the world. (I) As far as Leibniz allows just one type of element in the building of the universe his system is monistic. The unique element has been 'given the general name monad or entelechy' and described as 'a simple substance' (§§1, 19). When Leibniz says that monads are 'simple,' he means that "which is one, has no parts and is therefore indivisible". Relying on the Greek etymology of the word entelechie (§18), Leibniz posits quantitative differences in perfection between monads which leads to a hierarchical ordering. The basic order is three-tiered: (1) entelechies or created monads (§48), (2) souls or entelechies with perception and memory (§19), and (3) spirits or rational souls (§82). Whatever is said about the lower ones (entelechies) is valid for the higher (souls and spirits) but not vice versa. As none of them is without a body (§72), there is a corresponding hierarchy of (1) living beings and animals (2), the latter being either non-reasonable or reasonable. The degree of perfection in each case corresponds to cognitive abilities and only spirits or reasonable animals are able to grasp the ideas of both the world and its creator. Some monads have power over others because they can perceive with greater clarity, but primarily, one monad is said to dominate another if it contains the reasons for the actions of other(s). Leibniz believed that any body, such as the body of an animal or man, has one dominant monad which controls the others within it. This dominant monad is often referred to as the soul. (II) God is also said to be a simple substance (§47) but it is the only one necessary (§§38-9) and without a body attached (§72). Monads perceive others "with varying degrees of clarity, except for God, who perceives all monads with utter clarity". God could take any and all perspectives, knowing of both potentiality and actuality. As well as that God in all his power would know the universe from each of the infinite perspectives at the same time, and so his perspectives-his thoughts-"simply are monads". Creation is a permanent state, thus "[monads] are generated, so to speak, by continual fulgurations of the Divinity" (§47). Any perfection comes from being created while imperfection is a limitation of nature (§42). The monads are unaffected by each other, but each have a unique way of expressing themselves in the universe, in accordance with God's infinite will. (III) Composite substances or matter are "actually sub-divided without end" and have the properties of their infinitesimal parts (§65). A notorious passage (§67) explains that "each portion of matter can be conceived as like a garden full of plants, or like a pond full of fish. But each branch of a plant, each organ of an animal, each drop of its bodily fluids is also a similar garden or a similar pond". There are no interactions between different monads nor between entelechies and their bodies but everything is regulated by the pre-established harmony (§§78-9). Much like how one clock may be in synchronicity with another, but the first clock is not caused by the second (or vice versa), rather they are only keeping the same time because the last person to wind them set them to the same time. So it is with monads; they may seem to cause each other, but rather they are, in a sense, "wound" by God's pre-established harmony, and thus appear to be in synchronicity. Leibniz concludes that "if we could understand the order of the universe well enough, we would find that it surpasses all the wishes of the wisest people, and that it is impossible to make it better than it is-not merely in respect of the whole in general, but also in respect of ourselves in particular" (§90). In his day, atoms were proposed to be the smallest division of matter. Within Leibniz's theory, however, substances are not technically real, so monads are not the smallest part of matter, rather they are the only things which are, in fact, real. To Leibniz, space and time were an illusion, and likewise substance itself. The only things that could be called real were utterly simple beings of psychic activity "endowed with perception and appetite." The other objects, which we call matter, are merely phenomena of these simple perceivers. "Leibniz says, 'I don't really eliminate body, but reduce [revoco] it to what it is. For I show that corporeal mass [massa], which is thought to have something over and above simple substances, is not a substance, but a phenomenon resulting from simple substances, which alone have unity and absolute reality.' (G II 275/AG 181)" Leibniz's philosophy is sometimes called "'panpsychic idealism' because these substances are psychic rather than material". That is to say, they are mind-like substances, not possessing spatial reality. "In other words, in the Leibnizian monadology, simple substances are mind-like entities that do not, strictly speaking, exist in space but that represent the universe from a unique perspective." It is the harmony between the perceptions of the monads which creates what we call substances, but that does not mean the substances are real in and of themselves. (IV) Leibniz uses his theory of Monads to support his argument that we live in the best of all possible worlds. He uses his basis of perception but not interaction among monads to explain that all monads must draw their essence from one ultimate monad. He then claims that this ultimate monad would be God because a monad is a “simple substance” and God is simplest of all substances, He cannot be broken down any further. This means that all monads perceive “with varying degrees of perception, except for God, who perceives all monads with utter clarity”. This superior perception of God then would apply in much the same way that he says a dominant monad controls our soul, all other monads associated with it would, essentially, shade themselves towards Him. With all monads being created by the ultimate monad and shading themselves in the image of this ultimate monad, Leibniz argues that it would be impossible to conceive of a more perfect world because all things in the world are created by and imitating the best possible monad.
[2D is not the center of the universe, 0D is the center of the mirror universe]: The mirror universe theory is based on the concept of parity violation, which was discovered in the 1950s. Parity violation refers to the observation that certain processes in particle physics don't behave the same way when their coordinates are reversed. This discovery led to the idea that there might be a mirror image of our universe where particles and their properties are flipped. In this mirror universe, the fundamental particles that make up matter, such as electrons, protons, and neutrinos, would have their charges reversed. For example, in our universe, electrons have a negative charge, but in the mirror universe, they might have a positive charge. Furthermore, another aspect of the mirror universe theory involves chirality, which refers to the property of particles behaving differently from their mirror images. In our universe, particles have a certain handedness or chirality, but in the mirror universe, this chirality could be reversed. Leibniz or Newton: Quantum mechanics is more compatible with Leibniz's relational view of the universe than Newton's absolute view of the universe. In Newton's absolute view, space and time are absolute and independent entities that exist on their own, independent of the objects and events that take place within them. This view implies that there is a privileged observer who can observe the universe from a neutral and objective perspective. On the other hand, Leibniz's relational view holds that space and time are not absolute, but are instead relational concepts that are defined by the relationships between objects and events in the universe. This view implies that there is no privileged observer and that observations are always made from a particular point of view. Quantum mechanics is more compatible with the relational view because it emphasizes the role of observers and the context of measurement in determining the properties of particles. In quantum mechanics, the properties of particles are not absolute, but are instead defined by their relationships with other particles and the measuring apparatus. This means that observations are always made from a particular point of view and that there is no neutral and objective perspective. Overall, quantum mechanics suggests that the universe is fundamentally relational rather than absolute, and is therefore more compatible with Leibniz's relational view than Newton's absolute view. What are the two kinds of truth according to Leibniz? There are two kinds of truths, those of reasoning and those of fact. Truths of fact are contingent and their opposite is possible. Truths of reasoning are necessary and their opposite is impossible. What is the difference between Newton and Leibniz calculus? Newton's calculus is about functions. Leibniz's calculus is about relations defined by constraints. In Newton's calculus, there is (what would now be called) a limit built into every operation. In Leibniz's calculus, the limit is a separate operation. What are the arguments against Leibniz? Critics of Leibniz argue that the world contains an amount of suffering too great to permit belief in philosophical optimism. The claim that we live in the best of all possible worlds drew scorn most notably from Voltaire, who lampooned it in his comic novella Candide.
Theology is broken because Religious Dogmatics won't call Yahweh Elohim from Genesis 2 the false Elohim. If they'd only read an uncensored Bible they'd see that Yahweh is introduced as an Elohim, not El (nullifying the "no two powers in heaven" heresy). Can the smartest person in the world get the right answer to an incorrect equation? "Deus" means "God", "Dea" means "Goddess", and "Dei" could either mean "gods" (plural) or "God's" (possessive) based on context. The Hebrew counterparts to the Latin above are El, Elah and Elohim. The Hebrews "syncretized" these three titles of God into all just meaning "El (God)". The sheer amount of biblical contradictions that has caused is staggering. Elohim from Genesis 1 is God's Chosen (Christ in Latin) Elohim. Possessive context Elohim so "God's Son." Yahweh Elohim from Genesis 2 is the false, fallen Elohim. Plural context Elohim so "gods/goddesses." Simply use the NOG translation on Bible Gateway to avoid the nearly 70,000 biblical contradictions this causes in most every Bible on earth. Also, it's nice to see where and how El, Elah and Elohim are used in your Old Testament. Physics is broken because we chose Newton instead of Leibniz (Newton said 0 is contingent and 1 is necessary/Leibniz said 0 is necessary and 1 is contingent). Thankfully that Nobel Prize proving quantum entanglement and that the universe is contingent (or, in three words, "not locally real") happened a year or so ago. NASA's mirror universe theory with 0D at the center matches theology perfectly you should check it out. The Monad (first emanation of God) is the zero-dimensional space binding our quarks together with the Strong Nuclear Force. Read Leibniz's Monadology 📖. This is the contingent and less real side of the zero-of you. Logos side. The other side of the zero-of you is the necessary and more real side. Theos side. There's Evil here because God (Theos, El, Deus) is on the other side of the zero-of yourself. Kabbalah says that God's first act of creation was the "self-withdrawal" to allow emptiness/ space for creation to take place in. This side of 0D (the zero-of you) is Holy Trinity (Genesis 1 true Elohim) vs Unholy Trinity (Genesis 2 false Elohim led by Blind Fool Yahweh). God (El/Theos/Deus, etc.) is right on the other side of the zero-of you. Don't let anyone tell you they (or their Institution) are between you and God (El/Theos/Deus). They are not. There's a mathematical construct called a Rindler Horizon at the quantum scale (zero-of yourself) with the Monad and at the cosmological scale with black holes. 1D, 2D, 3D spatial extension stuff cannot pass this barrier. Everything 1D, 2D, 3D is created at the quantum and destroyed at the cosmological. 0D quarks have no problems with event horizons. Closed-system entropy is a failed theory, it's now open-system ectropy (always has been). 2D gravity is a failed theory, it's now 0D ether (always has been). Yahweh Elohim (plural context; gods) from Genesis 2 is the false Elohim (always has been). Elohim (possessive context; God's) from Genesis 1 is the true Elohim (always has been). God is right on the other side of the event horizon at the zero-of yourself, we have the Logos and the best of all possible worlds on this side, pack your shit we're going to a wedding (the marriage of theology and physics).
Heidegger makes it clear : there is no such thing as "nothing". it's only an abstract thought of the negation of "something". ("nothing" does not exist)
This article operates under a deeply flawed misunderstanding. Arthur Eddington, (who first proved Einstein correct and was way smarter than this author,) observed that there is no way-philosophically OR scientifically-to distinguish between absolute nothing and everything in the universe being exactly the same. Maybe your problem is that your definition of nothing is far too narrow and slanted to prove your point? Perhaps you should have started out with a proper scientific or philosophically correct definition of "nothing"? But then you might have seen your mistake from the beginning. The pretentiousness of this article is off-putting... stridently ignorant. People who understand so little should be asking questions more and criticizing less. There are definitely flaws in Krauss' argument but this article multiplies them, adding its own.
Isn't a "first cause" something? If there was a first cause, what created it? A first cause from nothing?
Is it easier to imagine that existence has always existed, or that a "prime mover" has always existed?
As an atheist I'm happy with saying "I don't know the answer, but I hope someday we have evidence that brings clarity."
Because right now we're just arguing from ignorance.
@@thotslayer9914 Well, the guy said "nothing" ... a total absence of light, matter, energy, space, time and even the potential for these things to exist. If there's "nothing" then there's "nothing", not even a first cause, right?
@@thotslayer9914 I try to work inductively.
@@thotslayer9914 Attempting to cover up ignorance with baseless assumption is dishonest. I'll go where evidence takes me, thanks.
this was a david hume argument in 1700's.
@@FormsInSpace I'm not questioning causation, which is a very thorny subject as Hume pointed out. I'm perfectly willing to grant the "common sense" view of cause and effect for the sake of this argument.
I'm saying that we should not try to remedy our ignorance with conjecture.
For instance,
if the universe came from a singularity,
and that singularity requires a Cause,
and that Cause is presently unknowable,
We shouldn't rush to fill the darkness of our understanding with the comforting light of myth or dogma.
Let those areas remain dark to us. Embrace your ignorance and hate it. Let it spur you to further exploration. The person who says "I don't know" is JUST as ignorant as the one who says "God did it", but the second person is content while the first is still desperately seeking understanding.
Monad (from Greek μονάς monas, "singularity" in turn from μόνος monos, "alone") refers, in cosmogony, to the Supreme Being, divinity or the totality of all things.
The concept was reportedly conceived by the Pythagoreans and may refer variously to a single source acting alone, or to an indivisible origin, or to both.
The concept was later adopted by other philosophers, such as Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, who referred to the Monad as an elementary particle.
It had a geometric counterpart, which was debated and discussed contemporaneously by the same groups of people.
Q: Is the Monad (first emanation of God) the zero-dimensional space binding our quarks together with the strong nuclear force?
A: Leibniz's "The Monadology" is a philosophical work that explores the concept of monads as indivisible, immaterial substances that make up the fabric of reality. While the notion of monads is primarily philosophical and not directly related to modern physics, I can attempt to draw a connection between some of Leibniz's ideas and the strong nuclear force holding quarks together. Here are seven points of connection you could consider:
1) Indivisibility and Unity: Leibniz's monads are indivisible and lack parts. In a similar vein, quarks are elementary particles, indivisible according to our current understanding, and are the building blocks of hadrons, the particles held together by the strong force.
2) Interconnectedness: Leibniz's monads are interconnected, each reflecting the entire universe from its own perspective. In particle physics, the strong force binds quarks within hadrons, creating a complex interconnected system of particles.
3) Inherent Properties: Monads possess inherent perceptions and appetitions. In particle physics, quarks are associated with intrinsic properties like color charge, which influences their interactions through the strong force.
4) Harmony: Leibniz describes monads as creating harmony in the universe. Similarly, the strong nuclear force maintains stability within atomic nuclei by balancing the repulsive electromagnetic forces between positively charged protons.
5) Pre-established Harmony: Leibniz's concept of pre-established harmony suggests that everything is synchronized by design. In particle physics, the strong force ensures that quarks interact in ways that give rise to stable particles, exhibiting a form of "harmony" in their interactions.
6) Non-Mechanical Interaction: Leibniz's monads interact non-mechanically through perceptions. In the context of the strong force, quarks interact through the exchange of gluons, which doesn't follow classical mechanical rules but rather the principles of quantum field theory.
7) Holism: Leibniz's emphasis on the holistic nature of reality could be compared to the way quarks contribute to the overall structure and behavior of hadrons through their interactions mediated by the strong force.
em·a·na·tion
noun
an abstract but perceptible thing that issues or originates from a source.
Metaphysics
Context
The monad, the word and the idea, belongs to the Western philosophical tradition and has been used by various authors. Leibniz, who was exceptionally well-read, could not have ignored this, but he did not use it himself until mid-1696 when he was sending for print his New System.
Apparently he found with it a convenient way to expound his own philosophy as it was elaborated in this period. What he proposed can be seen as a modification of occasionalism developed by latter-day Cartesians. Leibniz surmised that there are indefinitely many substances individually 'programmed' to act in a predetermined way, each substance being coordinated with all the others.
This is the pre-established harmony which solved the mind-body problem, but at the cost of declaring any interaction between substances a mere appearance.
Summary
The rhetorical strategy adopted by Leibniz in The Monadology is fairly obvious as the text begins with a description of monads (proceeding from simple to complicated instances),
then it turns to their principle or creator and
finishes by using both to explain the world.
(I) As far as Leibniz allows just one type of element in the building of the universe his system is monistic. The unique element has been 'given the general name monad or entelechy' and described as 'a simple substance' (§§1, 19). When Leibniz says that monads are 'simple,' he means that "which is one, has no parts and is therefore indivisible".
Relying on the Greek etymology of the word entelechie (§18), Leibniz posits quantitative differences in perfection between monads which leads to a hierarchical ordering. The basic order is three-tiered:
(1) entelechies or created monads (§48),
(2) souls or entelechies with perception and memory (§19), and
(3) spirits or rational souls (§82).
Whatever is said about the lower ones (entelechies) is valid for the higher (souls and spirits) but not vice versa. As none of them is without a body (§72), there is a corresponding hierarchy of
(1) living beings and animals
(2), the latter being either non-reasonable or reasonable.
The degree of perfection in each case corresponds to cognitive abilities and only spirits or reasonable animals are able to grasp the ideas of both the world and its creator. Some monads have power over others because they can perceive with greater clarity, but primarily, one monad is said to dominate another if it contains the reasons for the actions of other(s). Leibniz believed that any body, such as the body of an animal or man, has one dominant monad which controls the others within it. This dominant monad is often referred to as the soul.
(II) God is also said to be a simple substance (§47) but it is the only one necessary (§§38-9) and without a body attached (§72). Monads perceive others "with varying degrees of clarity, except for God, who perceives all monads with utter clarity". God could take any and all perspectives, knowing of both potentiality and actuality. As well as that God in all his power would know the universe from each of the infinite perspectives at the same time, and so his perspectives-his thoughts-"simply are monads". Creation is a permanent state, thus "[monads] are generated, so to speak, by continual fulgurations of the Divinity" (§47). Any perfection comes from being created while imperfection is a limitation of nature (§42). The monads are unaffected by each other, but each have a unique way of expressing themselves in the universe, in accordance with God's infinite will.
(III) Composite substances or matter are "actually sub-divided without end" and have the properties of their infinitesimal parts (§65). A notorious passage (§67) explains that "each portion of matter can be conceived as like a garden full of plants, or like a pond full of fish. But each branch of a plant, each organ of an animal, each drop of its bodily fluids is also a similar garden or a similar pond". There are no interactions between different monads nor between entelechies and their bodies but everything is regulated by the pre-established harmony (§§78-9). Much like how one clock may be in synchronicity with another, but the first clock is not caused by the second (or vice versa), rather they are only keeping the same time because the last person to wind them set them to the same time. So it is with monads; they may seem to cause each other, but rather they are, in a sense, "wound" by God's pre-established harmony, and thus appear to be in synchronicity. Leibniz concludes that "if we could understand the order of the universe well enough, we would find that it surpasses all the wishes of the wisest people, and that it is impossible to make it better than it is-not merely in respect of the whole in general, but also in respect of ourselves in particular" (§90).
In his day, atoms were proposed to be the smallest division of matter. Within Leibniz's theory, however, substances are not technically real, so monads are not the smallest part of matter, rather they are the only things which are, in fact, real. To Leibniz, space and time were an illusion, and likewise substance itself. The only things that could be called real were utterly simple beings of psychic activity "endowed with perception and appetite."
The other objects, which we call matter, are merely phenomena of these simple perceivers. "Leibniz says, 'I don't really eliminate body, but reduce [revoco] it to what it is. For I show that corporeal mass [massa], which is thought to have something over and above simple substances, is not a substance, but a phenomenon resulting from simple substances, which alone have unity and absolute reality.' (G II 275/AG 181)" Leibniz's philosophy is sometimes called "'panpsychic idealism' because these substances are psychic rather than material". That is to say, they are mind-like substances, not possessing spatial reality. "In other words, in the Leibnizian monadology, simple substances are mind-like entities that do not, strictly speaking, exist in space but that represent the universe from a unique perspective." It is the harmony between the perceptions of the monads which creates what we call substances, but that does not mean the substances are real in and of themselves.
(IV) Leibniz uses his theory of Monads to support his argument that we live in the best of all possible worlds. He uses his basis of perception but not interaction among monads to explain that all monads must draw their essence from one ultimate monad. He then claims that this ultimate monad would be God because a monad is a “simple substance” and God is simplest of all substances, He cannot be broken down any further. This means that all monads perceive “with varying degrees of perception, except for God, who perceives all monads with utter clarity”.
This superior perception of God then would apply in much the same way that he says a dominant monad controls our soul, all other monads associated with it would, essentially, shade themselves towards Him. With all monads being created by the ultimate monad and shading themselves in the image of this ultimate monad, Leibniz argues that it would be impossible to conceive of a more perfect world because all things in the world are created by and imitating the best possible monad.
[2D is not the center of the universe,
0D is the center of the mirror universe]:
The mirror universe theory is based on the concept of parity violation, which was discovered in the 1950s. Parity violation refers to the observation that certain processes in particle physics don't behave the same way when their coordinates are reversed. This discovery led to the idea that there might be a mirror image of our universe where particles and their properties are flipped.
In this mirror universe, the fundamental particles that make up matter, such as electrons, protons, and neutrinos, would have their charges reversed. For example, in our universe, electrons have a negative charge, but in the mirror universe, they might have a positive charge.
Furthermore, another aspect of the mirror universe theory involves chirality, which refers to the property of particles behaving differently from their mirror images. In our universe, particles have a certain handedness or chirality, but in the mirror universe, this chirality could be reversed.
Leibniz or Newton:
Quantum mechanics is more compatible with Leibniz's relational view of the universe than Newton's absolute view of the universe.
In Newton's absolute view, space and time are absolute and independent entities that exist on their own, independent of the objects and events that take place within them. This view implies that there is a privileged observer who can observe the universe from a neutral and objective perspective.
On the other hand, Leibniz's relational view holds that space and time are not absolute, but are instead relational concepts that are defined by the relationships between objects and events in the universe. This view implies that there is no privileged observer and that observations are always made from a particular point of view.
Quantum mechanics is more compatible with the relational view because it emphasizes the role of observers and the context of measurement in determining the properties of particles. In quantum mechanics, the properties of particles are not absolute, but are instead defined by their relationships with other particles and the measuring apparatus. This means that observations are always made from a particular point of view and that there is no neutral and objective perspective.
Overall, quantum mechanics suggests that the universe is fundamentally relational rather than absolute, and is therefore more compatible with Leibniz's relational view than Newton's absolute view.
What are the two kinds of truth according to Leibniz?
There are two kinds of truths, those of reasoning and those of fact. Truths of fact are contingent and their opposite is possible. Truths of reasoning are necessary and their opposite is impossible.
What is the difference between Newton and Leibniz calculus?
Newton's calculus is about functions.
Leibniz's calculus is about relations defined by constraints.
In Newton's calculus, there is (what would now be called) a limit built into every operation.
In Leibniz's calculus, the limit is a separate operation.
What are the arguments against Leibniz?
Critics of Leibniz argue that the world contains an amount of suffering too great to permit belief in philosophical optimism. The claim that we live in the best of all possible worlds drew scorn most notably from Voltaire, who lampooned it in his comic novella Candide.
Theology is broken because Religious Dogmatics won't call Yahweh Elohim from Genesis 2 the false Elohim. If they'd only read an uncensored Bible they'd see that Yahweh is introduced as an Elohim, not El (nullifying the "no two powers in heaven" heresy).
Can the smartest person in the world get the right answer to an incorrect equation?
"Deus" means "God", "Dea" means "Goddess", and "Dei" could either mean "gods" (plural) or "God's" (possessive) based on context.
The Hebrew counterparts to the Latin above are El, Elah and Elohim. The Hebrews "syncretized" these three titles of God into all just meaning "El (God)". The sheer amount of biblical contradictions that has caused is staggering.
Elohim from Genesis 1 is God's Chosen (Christ in Latin) Elohim. Possessive context Elohim so "God's Son."
Yahweh Elohim from Genesis 2 is the false, fallen Elohim. Plural context Elohim so "gods/goddesses."
Simply use the NOG translation on Bible Gateway to avoid the nearly 70,000 biblical contradictions this causes in most every Bible on earth. Also, it's nice to see where and how El, Elah and Elohim are used in your Old Testament.
Physics is broken because we chose Newton instead of Leibniz (Newton said 0 is contingent and 1 is necessary/Leibniz said 0 is necessary and 1 is contingent). Thankfully that Nobel Prize proving quantum entanglement and that the universe is contingent (or, in three words, "not locally real") happened a year or so ago. NASA's mirror universe theory with 0D at the center matches theology perfectly you should check it out.
The Monad (first emanation of God) is the zero-dimensional space binding our quarks together with the Strong Nuclear Force. Read Leibniz's Monadology 📖.
This is the contingent and less real side of the zero-of you. Logos side.
The other side of the zero-of you is the necessary and more real side. Theos side.
There's Evil here because God (Theos, El, Deus) is on the other side of the zero-of yourself. Kabbalah says that God's first act of creation was the "self-withdrawal" to allow emptiness/ space for creation to take place in.
This side of 0D (the zero-of you) is Holy Trinity (Genesis 1 true Elohim) vs Unholy Trinity (Genesis 2 false Elohim led by Blind Fool Yahweh).
God (El/Theos/Deus, etc.) is right on the other side of the zero-of you. Don't let anyone tell you they (or their Institution) are between you and God (El/Theos/Deus). They are not.
There's a mathematical construct called a Rindler Horizon at the quantum scale (zero-of yourself) with the Monad and at the cosmological scale with black holes. 1D, 2D, 3D spatial extension stuff cannot pass this barrier. Everything 1D, 2D, 3D is created at the quantum and destroyed at the cosmological. 0D quarks have no problems with event horizons.
Closed-system entropy is a failed theory, it's now open-system ectropy (always has been).
2D gravity is a failed theory, it's now 0D ether (always has been).
Yahweh Elohim (plural context; gods) from Genesis 2 is the false Elohim (always has been).
Elohim (possessive context; God's) from Genesis 1 is the true Elohim (always has been).
God is right on the other side of the event horizon at the zero-of yourself, we have the Logos and the best of all possible worlds on this side, pack your shit we're going to a wedding (the marriage of theology and physics).
2 options : 1. there is only "something" and it is eternal. 2. there is only consciousness/self/solipsism ie "life is a dream"
Heidegger makes it clear : there is no such thing as "nothing". it's only an abstract thought of the negation of "something". ("nothing" does not exist)
Great
I am..therefore..it is.. simple..science misses the obvious
god only think
This article operates under a deeply flawed misunderstanding. Arthur Eddington, (who first proved Einstein correct and was way smarter than this author,) observed that there is no way-philosophically OR scientifically-to distinguish between absolute nothing and everything in the universe being exactly the same. Maybe your problem is that your definition of nothing is far too narrow and slanted to prove your point? Perhaps you should have started out with a proper scientific or philosophically correct definition of "nothing"? But then you might have seen your mistake from the beginning. The pretentiousness of this article is off-putting... stridently ignorant. People who understand so little should be asking questions more and criticizing less. There are definitely flaws in Krauss' argument but this article multiplies them, adding its own.
It’s not strident at all. But I provided the definition of nothing as the absolute *universal negation* of all things. I stated this very clearly.
👂