/roulette_archive/ - roulette archive

WTF ULP REFERENCE WOAAAAAAH WTF BREZH MONADS OBOK MOIST LCAT JACONDO DANOV FATNOV CROCNIC FEMTO STEVEBOINK AWOOOOOOOOOOGA

>>89
Lol ULP? On my leftychan?

>>89
Im the OP and I've never used fbi.gov before.
I was just reading monadology in preparation for Kant, and eventually Hegel, but I've come to understand that monads are real ephemeral substances that embody everything in our world, only connected loosely by a great mover or God with infinite perception

>>91
gr8 job m8

>>91
>monads are real ephemeral substances that embody everything in our world
that sounds like it's made up

>>93
They are the smallest molecule in out world.
The smallest, must simplest substance.
It is impossible to divide it any further than a monad.
They are so small and simple, they do not even exist materially.
They are akin to an idea.
Yet they are everywhere, making up the substance of a quark, electron, proton, neutron.
Everything is made up of infinite numbers of monads, because they are infinitely small.

>>94
The smallest molecule is hydrogen, oh wait you mean this like "greek atoms", as in atomism, where it's the smallest unit of matter that cannot be divided into something else. I'm not sure physicists have found the smallest most fundamental particle yet.

Ideas are very complex, they require something like a brain to exist for one thing.

The smallest possible size would be one plank-length so there is nothing that is infinitely small.

>>95
>The smallest possible size would be one plank-length so there is nothing that is infinitely small.
What's to stop you from splitting this into a half plank, besides technological limitations?
This implies that the smallest most simplest substance cannot be a plank in size, nor even have a size, as anything with mass can be divided.
Anyway, I havent finished reading Monadology. It's actually pretty short, being a collection of mathematical axioms that start simple, and get more complicated as it goes on. But the endnotes add a lot of context that is pretty much required for a modern reading.

>>96
the plank length is derived from fundamental constants which are measured experimentally. It basically means that on a fundamental level reality is quantized, it exists in discrete chunks instead of being continuous.

>>97
Interesting, I never thought of it like that before.
Our reality has a crystalized structure. What would happen if this reality was fractured "unnaturally"?
Would space time rip apart and cease to be as it was? Is this what happened during the big bang?

>The term Planck scale refers to quantities of space, time, energy and other units that are similar in magnitude to corresponding Planck units.
Leibniz deals exclusively with the quality of a monad, stating that every monad is unique. As such, a monad is not defined by quantity but by quality.
Monads are only created by God, and only destroyed by God. Only moves by God.
Monads do not interact with one another, but is moved by a great mover, God.

<51. But in simple substances, the influence of one monad over another is merely ideal: it can have its effect only through the intervention of God, inasmuch as in the ideas of God a monad rightly demands that God have consideration for it when organising the others from the beginning of things. For since a created monad cannot have a physical influence on the interior of another, this is the only way that one can be dependent on another.
I suppose this is the best 18th century science could do when describing what we call quantum physics.

>>96
I tried reading Leibniz's original text (public domain one), and read some online articles about his monadology, but I still don't quite understand it. When I asked my philosopher professors about it, they just said it's not relevant and that they don't understand it. This was 5+ years ago…

Is Monadology just a big meme like a lot of other conties? I feel like there's good ideas buried in there, I just have no clue what it's about.

>>99
Monadology is basically just metaphysics and trying to btfo Descartes mind and body problem through the great mover (god). I dont think he tried to be some great philosopher or change how people thought of the world, it was just his personal theory on the world and how it operates. He was educated in philosophy but that was hardly his main calling, as he was a mechanic and scientist first and foremost.
He also liked Spinoza very much, although he disliked the antichristian leanings in the unpublished works he read.

>When I asked my philosopher professors about it, they just said it's not relevant
Like, 90% of philosophy isn't relevant lol

>>96
>What's to stop you from splitting a plank length.

Literally no amount of energy could be generated to do so. It's only theoretically possible in mathematics it's not possible on reality much like transgressing the speed of light