This an example of the best kind of lecture-style RUclips video. Straight to the point and consolidated enough to get the full idea across in 7 minutes, yet comprehensive enough that it's now easy to search online for more depth into specific ideas. Personally, this helped me mentally consolidate the aspects of this subject that I hadn't yet fully cemented from lectures in the philosophy course I'm taking. Huge thumbs-up and an even larger thanks!
only strange because light/energy cannot be created. His original monadology was made for the Christian masses. If we make the logical assumptions that our souls/ monad cannot be created because they are pure energy then there is no strangeness only obvious realizations. Life is mental and the basic building blocks are mental not physical, the supreme monad explained here is the Monad, with a capital M, made up of the infinite monads, with a lower case m. We are all the creators of this universe every big bang, and we are the god level minds that decide to end the universe with the big crunch. Its a beautiful system when looked at the way he intended for it to be studied. Monads are windowed, not windowless. If I stab you then my free will has directly effected your body/mind and ends your free will. You then feel either some type of subjective feeling to me/ my soul/ my self. This subjective feeling is either anger, sadness, pain or a combo of all of these. Your soul is naturally unconscious, the human body has the potential for developing qualia and even more then that conscious reasoning.
In this speculative scenario, let's consider Leibniz's Monad (first emanation of God), from the philosophical work "The Monadology", as an abstract representation of the zero-dimensional space that binds quarks together with the strong nuclear force: 1) Indivisibility and Unity: Monads, as indivisible entities, mirror the nature of quarks, which are deemed elementary and indivisible particles in our theoretical context. Just as monads possess unity and indivisibility, quarks are unified in their interactions through the strong nuclear force. 2) Interconnectedness: In the Monadology, monads are interconnected in a vast network. In a parallel manner, the interconnectedness of quarks through the strong force could be metaphorically represented by the interplay of monads, forming a web that holds particles together. 3) Inherent Properties: Just as monads possess inherent perceptions and appetitions, quarks could be thought of as having intrinsic properties like color charge, reflecting the inherent qualities of monads and influencing their interactions. 4) Harmony: The concept of monads contributing to universal harmony resonates with the idea that the strong nuclear force maintains harmony within atomic nuclei by counteracting the electromagnetic repulsion between protons, allowing for the stability of matter. 5) Pre-established Harmony: Monads' pre-established harmony aligns with the idea that the strong force was pre-designed to ensure stable interactions among quarks, orchestrating their behavior in a way that parallels the harmony envisaged by Leibniz. 6) Non-Mechanical Interaction: Monads interact non-mechanically, mirroring the non-mechanical interactions of quarks through gluon exchange. This connection might be seen as a metaphorical reflection of the intricacies of quark-gluon dynamics. 7) Holism: The holistic perspective of monads could symbolize how quarks, like the monads' interconnections, contribute holistically to the structure and behavior of particles through the strong force interactions. em·a·na·tion noun an abstract but perceptible thing that issues or originates from a source.
Nice explanation! This was a perfect primer to give me the context I needed to actually read The Monadology, so I thank you for helping me to understand this interesting work by Leibniz:)
Enjoy your read. The Monadology is great. Leibniz goes into some more details in Discourse on Metaphysics. It's an interesting text to leaf through after The Monadology.
Great video! For something so far out there to someone like me, you have explained this very well. Excited to go through the rest of your catalog as it aligns with my studies.
Believe what you want for what you Believe doesn't matter, the monadology of a monad computated an isolated reality for you compounding your existence and calling it justice. It's a hierarchy of monads.
explained very well! thank you. I wish leibniz thought deeper into a monad being divisble into like waves or connecting strings. Because what is the reason for the gathering of certain monads to lead to the formation of mountains and trees and forrests and what not.
Many thanks, the very definition of the monad is that it is not made of parts, and hence indestructible. To destroy is to break a whole into parts. So, monads are pure partless substances that are either fulgurated into existence or annihilated by the supreme monad. You described Spinoza's substance. It's a simple indivisible substance too, but one that is immanent. It has Modes that are mountains, animals, people and all things that exist. Its relationship with its modes is simalar to the sun's relationship to sun-rays, light and the heat it engenders.
Excellent video. Top marks. This video cleared up a few things for me. Leibniz was an idealist like Berkeley and this video provides a great explanation of Leibniz's theory of the "pre-established harmony". Thanks.
I was looking for mathematical monads and haskell ones, but somehow ended up there Was pretty nice to listen, and learning stuff different from what I normally do.. is curious experience.. And you have a nice way with words, well done video
In this speculative scenario, let's consider Leibniz's Monad (first emanation of God), from the philosophical work "The Monadology", as an abstract representation of the zero-dimensional space that binds quarks together with the strong nuclear force: 1) Indivisibility and Unity: Monads, as indivisible entities, mirror the nature of quarks, which are deemed elementary and indivisible particles in our theoretical context. Just as monads possess unity and indivisibility, quarks are unified in their interactions through the strong nuclear force. 2) Interconnectedness: In the Monadology, monads are interconnected in a vast network. In a parallel manner, the interconnectedness of quarks through the strong force could be metaphorically represented by the interplay of monads, forming a web that holds particles together. 3) Inherent Properties: Just as monads possess inherent perceptions and appetitions, quarks could be thought of as having intrinsic properties like color charge, reflecting the inherent qualities of monads and influencing their interactions. 4) Harmony: The concept of monads contributing to universal harmony resonates with the idea that the strong nuclear force maintains harmony within atomic nuclei by counteracting the electromagnetic repulsion between protons, allowing for the stability of matter. 5) Pre-established Harmony: Monads' pre-established harmony aligns with the idea that the strong force was pre-designed to ensure stable interactions among quarks, orchestrating their behavior in a way that parallels the harmony envisaged by Leibniz. 6) Non-Mechanical Interaction: Monads interact non-mechanically, mirroring the non-mechanical interactions of quarks through gluon exchange. This connection might be seen as a metaphorical reflection of the intricacies of quark-gluon dynamics. 7) Holism: The holistic perspective of monads could symbolize how quarks, like the monads' interconnections, contribute holistically to the structure and behavior of particles through the strong force interactions. em·a·na·tion noun an abstract but perceptible thing that issues or originates from a source.
You sir are a benefit to the philosophical search. Thanks for this. I'm a Leibniz freak but Monads I've failed to properly grasp. Now I kind of, "get it" in the larger sense of his philosophy. All the best Leevark.
Can I ask you why the history of psychology timeline credits Leibniz for the first postulate of the subconscious, using his Theory of Continuity? (The timeline is funny, btw, because every time someone *almost* discovers the subconscious, you can read the disappointment. ...And then Freud popularizes it in 1900, inspired by the technique of hypnosis)
If Liebnitz lived now and knew about holography his philosophy would be the foundation of everything we know about ourselves and this 'playground' we, as monads, occupy.
Yes, science continues to consolidate many of Leibniz's ideas, and certainly gives him the upper hand over Newton. Leibniz has anticipated a lot of massive scientific forays. He built a mechanic calculator. He was set to build the first computer, and didn't only to the lack of funding. Surprisingly, his computer design was later recovered and apparently his computer would have been more performant than the enigma machine. Also, Lagrangian mechanics is heavily influence by Leibniz's dynamics.
I think that scrutiny has shown that conciousness as a emergent process resides within the brain, either in it's enterity or to such an extent that the two are defacto unseparables.
I have a question: if we are a monad (or our brain is) and every monad has the knowledge of everything in the past, present and future (as it is "windowless" and self sufficient meaning there is no second causasion) how does it come that we apparently have no access to this knowledge?
His idea is that the human is made one thing, the monad. And he describes the monad is an immaterial substance. Our bodies are just extensions of monads. You can argue that this is a form of simulation.There are many philosophers who had questioned the existence of the physical world before Bostrom formulated the simulation hypothesis, philosophers like Georgias, Plato and his cave, Ibn Arabi and Berkeley.
Hello, appetition refers to what drives us towards action or change. It includes our desires, our tendencies, our strivings, and everything that whets our appetite for change. Perception refers to how we perceive the world. The world is accessible to us through our perception of it. Our perception of the world changes according to our desires, inclinations and strivings: our appetition. Hence, appetition is what motivates the change in perception. Let's go back to monads. The only activity that monads can exercise is the change of perception caused by appetition. Now, we look at apperception. If perception refers to the perception of the world, apperception refers the peception of oneself. It involves consciousness at different levels, from simple consciousness of one's existence to self reflection to even reflective consciousness. It is an accepted view that Leibniz denies higher levels of apperception to animals, and all monad-types that are below humans.
@@Leevark Thank you! I understood that perception is a monad's view of the world and that appetition is how that perception changes and allows monads to be windowless and still change, but I didn't quite understand how appetition drove change. You are good at explaining these things and I was wondering if you are also familiar with Leibniz's theory of space and time or have a video on it? Why does Leibniz believe space and time is relative? If you are not super familiar with it that's fine, I am just having some trouble unpacking it and might as well try!
@@lowl582You're very Welcome. The ideas of Leibniz are always exciting to discuss. His refutation of the reality of time and space is related to the Principle of Sufficient Reason, and to the Principle of the Identity of Indiscernibles. The PSR is the idea that there is always a reason behind every effect, every choice, and every occurrence. If space were absolute, and God chose to create the world in a certain spot within absolute space, there wouldn't be any reason why God chose to position the world in that spot, and not in another spot. In this situation, God would act without having a reason that justifies God's choice, the choice of creating the world in that particular spot and not say seven inches to the right. This would violate the PSR. The refutation of Time, too, is based on a similar similar grounds. Why was the world set to start existing when it did, and not a second before or a second after? I have made a video about the Principle of Sufficient Reason, but it is not centred around Leibniz's refutation of space and time as intrinsic properties. It's more about the PSR and its relationship to Leibniz's Theory of Truth. Here's the link: ruclips.net/video/glJFFHFl_co/видео.html The Principle of the Identity of Indiscernibles is the idea that no two things can be exactly the same. If two things are exactly the same, they are not two separate things. They are one. Now, if space were absolute, two identical worlds could be created and placed in different spots in the continuum of space. Nobody would be able to differentiate between them, and they would be indiscernible. Similarly, two identical worlds could be created and set to start existing at chronologically different points in time, and they would be indiscernible. I hope that puts things in perspective.
In this speculative scenario, let's consider Leibniz's Monad (first emanation of God), from the philosophical work "The Monadology", as an abstract representation of the zero-dimensional space that binds quarks together with the strong nuclear force: 1) Indivisibility and Unity: Monads, as indivisible entities, mirror the nature of quarks, which are deemed elementary and indivisible particles in our theoretical context. Just as monads possess unity and indivisibility, quarks are unified in their interactions through the strong nuclear force. 2) Interconnectedness: In the Monadology, monads are interconnected in a vast network. In a parallel manner, the interconnectedness of quarks through the strong force could be metaphorically represented by the interplay of monads, forming a web that holds particles together. 3) Inherent Properties: Just as monads possess inherent perceptions and appetitions, quarks could be thought of as having intrinsic properties like color charge, reflecting the inherent qualities of monads and influencing their interactions. 4) Harmony: The concept of monads contributing to universal harmony resonates with the idea that the strong nuclear force maintains harmony within atomic nuclei by counteracting the electromagnetic repulsion between protons, allowing for the stability of matter. 5) Pre-established Harmony: Monads' pre-established harmony aligns with the idea that the strong force was pre-designed to ensure stable interactions among quarks, orchestrating their behavior in a way that parallels the harmony envisaged by Leibniz. 6) Non-Mechanical Interaction: Monads interact non-mechanically, mirroring the non-mechanical interactions of quarks through gluon exchange. This connection might be seen as a metaphorical reflection of the intricacies of quark-gluon dynamics. 7) Holism: The holistic perspective of monads could symbolize how quarks, like the monads' interconnections, contribute holistically to the structure and behavior of particles through the strong force interactions. em·a·na·tion noun an abstract but perceptible thing that issues or originates from a source.
You're mentioning all kinds of sciences to do with physical substances. Leibniz proposes here the idea the physical does not exist; rather, it is spiritual substances which make up this world, according to him If you're looking for a philosopher who does science, Francis Bacon kind of outlined the method for it in the 1600s. In his most famous work he roasts all his peers for never doing any good experiments, and coming up with all sorts of fantastical grand narratives based on single sources While Leibniz probably made great contributions, this theory on monads is one of those fantasies which Bacon would probably have disliked
It's as if you've read my mind. I'm planning to make a video later today on the analysis of Philip K Dick's "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep". And then, I'll try to make a video on Spinoza because in lots of discussions Spinozism is wrongly equated with Pantheism. I think it'll be interesting to discuss Spinoza's God and how it's different from Pantheism. I hope the video will be to your liking.
Listening to what it is that you are saying now and I find that I am glad that I can't 'read'... else I would have wasted my time with this Leibniz guy. My 'understanding' of God and Evil is a lot easier to understand - and even though I toss a 0 x 0 = God into the mix - makes 'sense'. Take me to your leaders. Shalom.
Alright video though it makes some of his views seem a bit crazy by the virtue of not going in-depth. I think, for example, that explaining how Leibniz thought that an infinitely divisible cartesian body substance could have no true being would make his phenomenal view on matter more sensible. And wouldn't your tv be composed of basic monads? your tv is still participating in the universe so there has to be a monad telling its own "unique perspective."
A television does not mesh with any of the four hierarchical types of monads. Each one of the four types is sentient. Even the lowest class of monads has perception and appetition. It is aware of its own existence. In panpsychism, all natural object have mental properties and are sentient yes, but a television is not a natural object. Even in the panpsychist view, the television itself would not constitute a basic monad. The copper in it, the glass and all the natural components would be basic monads.
So each humam being maybe having many person but in a sense of different matter fluid , air , the thought or light so MRI and gravity can fine tune and use certain mapping to have soul travel in or out of solid or reproduce into lighter exact duplication but with half of composition or miror image in geometry to become coupke wife and husband
There isn't any evidence that consciousness is located in the brain. The most widely accepted understanding of consciousness is offered by the theory of Emergence. It's the idea that sometimes elements that lack complexity come together and then something complex emerges. Body organs like the heart, the brain, the liver are not conscious but when they constitute a human being. The human being is conscious. Consciousness isn't located anywhere specifically, but it is unseen and emergent. Other examples of Emergence are ascribed to swarms of bees that are very complex with division of labour, class stratification and management of resources while if you take a bee itself, it is not very complex. A bee's intelligence is basic, but the intelligence of a swarm of bees is developed. Kurzegast have a good video on Emergence. Personally, I think Emergence is just a way of saying we don't know.
Maybe this video helps you with that question: ruclips.net/video/oezDpw1DK5w/видео.html it's a long video, but worth it! You can skip the beginning talk by going to: 15:44 :)
Unfortunately, all physical matter is bound by monadic forces, the physical chemistry of a thing resulting from the energy density, charges, and comingling of its particles. But if you drop the assertion that nonphysical things can not make physical things, then you get something compatible with quantum physics to build from.
At 2:11 you suggest that non-materiality is the same thing as non-existence. This is not a self-evident truth and is contested by all dualists, as well as others. And I don’t think it was Leibniz’ view.
By no means is non-materiality equated to non-existence. The idea is that materiality doesn't independently exist as it is perceived to. Materiality is only a projection. Leibniz is a monist. He's not a dualist. The only thing that truly exists is the idea, as it's what Idealism is built around. For Leibniz, it's the monad. For other Idealists, it's other things. Material substances only exist as projections. That doesn't amount to non-existence especially to humans who can't access what underneath the projection. But if you look at it from a purely ontological perspective, only monads exists.
I remember taking my first chemistry class, and hearing matter can not be created or destroyed. I incorrectly assumed that matter must, therefore, not be divisible. Getting to the higher level quantum courses, this idea gets smashed. What did leibnitz believe the devil, or evil to be? This video made me think of the verse from the New Testament, "My name is Legion, for we are many." Non monadic?
With respect to Leibniz, what you describe as infinity is not true infinity. In New Essays on Human Understanding, Leibniz posits that matter, and everything that is made of parts, cannot be infinite. It is infinitely divisible, but not absolutely infinite. Space, time and numbers, too, are not infinite because they are wholes made of parts. They can all get bigger by having more parts added to them, or smaller by having them broken into smaller parts. The only thing that is truly infinite is that which is not made of parts, the Supreme Monad.
But don’t quarks also sort of behave like monads in that they are not further divisible? Also it doesn’t seem to follow that because monads are immaterial that everything is. For example when computing the area under a curve we cut up the space into an infinite number of strips without volume yet their sum does have volume. And as he invented calculus surely he was aware of this objection?
That's tricky. The argument against the creation of something material out of something immaterial is reductio ad absurdum. Let us say it is possible to keep dividing something material until we reach bits that have zero mass. In this situation, you cannot rebuild the divided object by recollecting its zero-mass pieces since no number of zeros would amount to non-zero. Quarks are not immaterial because they have mass.
@@Leevark It feels like, like Descartes, he was looking for a justification for the existence of God... maybe to fit in. Super-geniuses such as them aren't immunized against their time's beliefs.
Reason is what sets apart philosophers from mysticics, and Leibniz is a philosopher. His ideas are not that radical. He subscribes to Idealism, reality is made of ideas not of objects.
-I posted this comment 4-5 days ago on a RUclips video with intuitive thinking and today I got exposed to the monads theory. Some aspects are resonating. Others completely different. But still I have started to believe on what i have written. Scarily.- ``You have only one universe which is the one around you. The rest of the people are not really here, it is just the projections of those people. Those people have their own individual universes in which you would be the projection for them. But that projection is an unconscious pre-programmed being, just like those around you. Yes you can touch, feel sense them but it still is a projection. They are molded in a certain way to be aligned with how your story is made to be progressed. I'm writing this from my own uni verse where I m the main character. I don't exis t in your universe as this councious, but only as a projection. But if we meet at one place in person then who would be the projection and who the main character(councious). That's the kicker. If you're really councious and main character in your universe then it's impossible for us to make a contact in person. All the people I see around me are projections, the real people have their own universes. They can't be in mine. There would be a projection of mine in their uni verse that is uncouncious and pre-programmed to behave in a certain way right now or maybe after this life If you're the main character of your uni verse and not a projection then you currently ex ist on a separat e earth of a different uni verse and we won't be able to meet. (By projection I mean a programmed person who would only behave in a certain way, that person can feel,sense,think,laugh but only to the extent to which that person is programmed to be. Have you ever had a moment where you said that person is so dumb. That's you( councious) interacting with a projection. -my theory
Sounds like Leibniz breaks down the physical until he finds the nonphysical and then claims by piling up these nonphysical monads you get what only appear to us to be physical things.... _Yeeeeetttt_ these nonphysical physical appearing things can be cut and divided down to some uncuttable nonphysical thing? It gets confusing. And seemingly circular and contradictory. However, recently listening to a marvelous youtube video where Brian Magee discusses Leibniz (and Spinoza also) with another philosopher, he postulates that what Leibniz may have been struggling with is similar to the recognition we have today that _energy_ is the basis for matter -- but back then did not have either the science or terminology for such concepts -- so expressed his ideas in terms on nonphysical spiritual substance vs the material physical world. Interesting.
The physical body, of a human or an animal, is only an extension of the monad. You can think of bodies as very advanced holographic extensions. Reality is not made of extensions because they're not real enough.
Seems like a big leap of logic, even for an abstract concept. I don't see why anyone would believe in the four monads any more than say... seven pools of mana, a hundred chakra points, 108 stars of destiny, thirteen unlucky Shrödinger cats that may (or may not) cross your path, or just one God spirit 😵
I agree that it's a leap of logic, but the thing about logical leaps is that they're still logical. The most diligent examination of the human body still can't locate where consciousness resides. And yes consciousness is explained away through Emergence. But don't you think that Emergence, too, is a leap of logic. It's devoid of causation, and isn't really backed up.
you're right. Leibniz was known for using the principle of sufficient reason, there is no sufficient reason for anything more then 1 type of monad. The monodology this guy in the video speaks of is the published version that was made by liebniz as a way to reach the christian population. The hidden version speaks of window monads who are uncreated, all at different levels of consciousness but all the same type of monad. There is no creator "god" monad. There is a monad of monads however that all the infinite monads are contained in. This is called the singularity. So the infinite monads are contained within the singularity and the material world is created by the infinite monads together as in a shared dream "projection". A 6D hologram, all mathematically consistent and equal to 0 (Zero). its actually quite amazing what liebniz did in his life.
What I mean by logical leap is that he's begging the question. From what I know of monadology it seems to rely on the assumption that God exists, and also assumes there has to exist an indivisble substance, as opposed to a world where all substances can be divided no matter how small. I'm mainly curious about how Leibniz concluded that these premises were true, or even plausible.
Leibniz grounds his philosophy mostly on rationalist principles. The video is just limited to explaining monads rather than elaborating on his reasoning. For example, Leibniz grounds the existence of God on classical philosophical arguments for his existence (the ontological argument, the contingency argument, etc.), so it's not like he's just taking it for granted. And then, for example, he takes that to provide the principle of the best (that God would freely choose the best of all possible worlds), which he then uses to prove that stuff like atomism (in the non-modern sense) or absolute Newtonian space and time is incoherent and that each monad has to be unique (since it's a contradiction for God to be unable to choose between two different worlds which are essentially the same, but still different if you accept atomism or Newtonian metaphysics; God would have no reason to set "absolute space" at a 30 degree angle compared to some other absolute space, so it cannot be the case that "God has to choose").
Monad is the jigsaw puzzle piece of light/data(info)/energy ..all one and the same thing. They only buried Leibniz's work because it was very powerful understanding about the power of information energy ...which can give one the ability to see the future as well as understand what we are creating as a whole (the God-head) and man is too fearful (or of the self) to know these things as its through selfish fear that man coagulates into beastly mobs and can out of fear slow progress (under subject of great importance... "Cycles") ...Cern collects monads below JWST collects monads (above) ...we are processing monads of light energy making up time and reality as we know it ..synchronicity is our reward
In this speculative scenario, let's consider Leibniz's Monad (first emanation of God), from the philosophical work "The Monadology", as an abstract representation of the zero-dimensional space that binds quarks together with the strong nuclear force: 1) Indivisibility and Unity: Monads, as indivisible entities, mirror the nature of quarks, which are deemed elementary and indivisible particles in our theoretical context. Just as monads possess unity and indivisibility, quarks are unified in their interactions through the strong nuclear force. 2) Interconnectedness: In the Monadology, monads are interconnected in a vast network. In a parallel manner, the interconnectedness of quarks through the strong force could be metaphorically represented by the interplay of monads, forming a web that holds particles together. 3) Inherent Properties: Just as monads possess inherent perceptions and appetitions, quarks could be thought of as having intrinsic properties like color charge, reflecting the inherent qualities of monads and influencing their interactions. 4) Harmony: The concept of monads contributing to universal harmony resonates with the idea that the strong nuclear force maintains harmony within atomic nuclei by counteracting the electromagnetic repulsion between protons, allowing for the stability of matter. 5) Pre-established Harmony: Monads' pre-established harmony aligns with the idea that the strong force was pre-designed to ensure stable interactions among quarks, orchestrating their behavior in a way that parallels the harmony envisaged by Leibniz. 6) Non-Mechanical Interaction: Monads interact non-mechanically, mirroring the non-mechanical interactions of quarks through gluon exchange. This connection might be seen as a metaphorical reflection of the intricacies of quark-gluon dynamics. 7) Holism: The holistic perspective of monads could symbolize how quarks, like the monads' interconnections, contribute holistically to the structure and behavior of particles through the strong force interactions. em·a·na·tion noun an abstract but perceptible thing that issues or originates from a source.
what is a non-aseitous monad? surely thats a contradiction in terms and the 'set of all possible monads' could only possibly be the necessarily aseitous monad how can you say nothing material can come from the immaterial, when while the immaterial isn't necessarily contingent on the material, the material is always implicitly contingent on the immaterial?
All monads lack aseity. God creates monads and continuously bestows existence on them. The only being that has aseity is the Supreme monad, God, because the Supreme monad is the only un-caused cause that does not depend on anything for its existence. What is material can be affected by what is immaterial, yes. What I meant is that no amount of an immaterial substance can create something material. If we assume that monads are the building blocks of reality and that monads are immaterial, then reality cannot be material because its constituents are immaterial.
@@Leevark so the supreme monad is the only true monad, being the only aseitous monad, there is no other possible monad, as all that exists, has its existence contingent not on it's own possible aseity, but on the aseity of the distinctly supreme monad All that is material is indistinguishable from the immaterial properties of the material, and could have only been created by the immaterial... Whatever you want to call the material, if you believe its "building blocks" are created by the supreme monad, than you have everything that we call material, along with everything else, having been created by the the eternally uncaused first cause, the supreme immaterial aseitous monad
Though I despise Leibniz's idea of theodicy because this obviously is NOT the best of all possible worlds which can be easily proven, I appreciate his depth of thinking on his philosophy concerning the soul the material & the invisible realm. He even gets his philosophy mixed into his mathematics where monads become a part of a mathematical concept. This also goes into modern day computing languages. Are monads immutable?
I think Leibniz's theodicy is interesting. It was unique in his time, and it has later been espoused by different philosophers. It certainly has detractors, namely Voltaire. Leibniz defends the idea that this world that God created is the best possible world and that it has sufficient reason for existing. Yes, you can argue that this world is not the best world we can live in. There are many things we could do without like genetic defects, slow-killing diseases and natural disasters, but Leibniz tries to answer all this. This is the best world that could be created, but not every event is the best event that could happen, especially from our perspectives. Those evil-seeming events have sufficient reason for existing. The perfection of the world is not judged only by disseminating happiness over all conscious beings that inhabit the world. While this is one of the things that make a world perfect, it is not the only thing. According to Leibniz, one of God's purposes in creating the world is to share his infinite divine essence with humans. But since humans are infinetely weak compared to God, they can experience only watered down doses of divine sympathy, empathy, love, justice and all of God's divine attributes. Humans, also, need different events and situations to be able to experience God's divine attributes, even in diluted fashions. Some of those events that are required to allow us to experience those feelings are evil-seeming. For example, justice can only be felt, understood and longed for in face of injustice. This is for evil that doesn't come from people. The other evil, which comes from people, like heinous crimes is a little less complex. God created the best possible world. The best possible world has humans in it. Humans are imperfect. Hence, imperfections are bound to happen. The type of causation that Leibniz believes in is pre-established harmony. It is not physical vertical causation, nor is it Occasionalism a la Malebranche and Al-Ghazali where God directly causes every single thing that every human does. Leibniz's pre-established harmony is in between. He argues that God Decrees goodness to happen while he Permits evil to happen. Monads do change because they are driven by perception and appetition, and this is what motivates change. But the monad cannot cause change in the body since the body is only an extension. Monads obey their laws, and physical bodies obey theirs. But they are set in pre-established harmony that they appear to affect each other.
@@Leevark hello again - just browsing through everyone’s thoughts and found your reply to Soteriology101; very interesting. Have you thought about ‘Intent’ in addition to perception and appetite? God’s intent remains the same regardless the circumstances. Evil or good - He moves all ‘things’ forward toward that end - perfect harmony in the creative power of love - this the ultimate destiny of eternity.
@@yvonnehumphery7390 Hi, the problem of the existence of evil, especially natural evil that is not caused by people, is one of the strongest attacks on Theism. The evil caused by people is a little easier to address. It is the direct consequence of free will. If God has given humans free will, they should be able to choose whether to do good or evil. Preventing the evil that humans can do would defeat their free will. Natural evil, however, is a little harder to account for. Tsunamis, genetic deformities, slow killing diseases could all be prevented by an omnipotent God. The best theodicy I've found is John Hick's. He argues that natural evil is also meant to test humans' free will. When you're in the middle of the road and see an accident, you're free to stop and help the injured or to keep moving and not offer any help. Natural evil tests people's free will in how they react to this evil. It is the same reason why an omnipotent God doesn't give definitive proof for his existence. If he did, people would immediately be good because they'll be afraid of such an indescribable force. But God chooses not to directly reveal his existence to test people's free will. Despite their doubt about the existence of God, there are people who would choose to do good. If there was no doubt, there wouldn't be any choice.
@@Leevark Again, my appreciation for continuing the dialogue. As I see it, evil, as people define it, does not ‘exist’ . In my opinion, evil and good are man’s preconceived, recognized, accepted words to describe differences in outcome of cause and effect. ‘Evil’ already effidenced is not causal, it is the effect of the imbalanced presence of so motivated, up to the point of decision undeclared monads, and gives them purpose. Intent motivates outcome! If the effects of ‘evil’ intent ‘outweigh’ the effects of ’good’ intent, then this will tilt the outcome toward ‘evil’, and the other way around. Natural ‘evil’ does not exist either. The laws governing physical, biological, energy manifestations are immutable, except by divine intervention. Tsunamis etc. are not designed to kill, they happen due to their own laws. God gives His natural laws a wide berth to do that which is assigned to theme, but He, as the designer of concept and manifestation has the ‘right’ and power to intervene. Man’s true safety lays within his heart’s intent. As I see it, God gave definitive proof of His existence. One only need to be able to ‘see’ it with the revelatory mind and not with the limited, physical mind using only reason, hypothesis and theory. The true philosopher’s mind, in my opinion, includes spiritually revealed truth. Deep, fundamental truth resides in the mind of God and is only revealed with a purpose, ultimately to direct man’s action toward ever increasing alignment with the perfect will of God. If this awareness is present in the mind of man, intentional acts for good will be chosen rather than acts intended for harm. I am still hoping for you to share your thoughts about my understanding of: “life takes place between the molecules.” :-)
@@yvonnehumphery7390 Your take on evil is very interesting. I don't agree with you, thought, on the definitiveness of God's existence. There are arguments for theism, but those arguments are in no way definitive. I think that God chooses not to provide such unequivocal evidence to preserve Man's free will. If God were to reveal himself in a decisive way, Man would no longer have fee will. Man would be obliged to follow the commands of God. Doubt is what preserves free will. I searched the "life takes place between the molecules" video the first time you mentioned it, but there are many videos with similar titles. I'm not sure which one you're referring to. Could you please provide the link.
@@roddydykes7053 as far as we know. If we look at the goal of life is to live and reproduce. I think plants have got it figured out a lot better then us humans.
I'd say that he thought about "the world is a simulation" for the first time. Maybe that's why he creates monads since God is the one who do anything with them... Idk lol
This an example of the best kind of lecture-style RUclips video. Straight to the point and consolidated enough to get the full idea across in 7 minutes, yet comprehensive enough that it's now easy to search online for more depth into specific ideas. Personally, this helped me mentally consolidate the aspects of this subject that I hadn't yet fully cemented from lectures in the philosophy course I'm taking. Huge thumbs-up and an even larger thanks!
oh wow, half a semester reading the monadology and this clears up a lot of things. what a strange idea Leibniz had.
only strange because light/energy cannot be created. His original monadology was made for the Christian masses. If we make the logical assumptions that our souls/ monad cannot be created because they are pure energy then there is no strangeness only obvious realizations. Life is mental and the basic building blocks are mental not physical, the supreme monad explained here is the Monad, with a capital M, made up of the infinite monads, with a lower case m. We are all the creators of this universe every big bang, and we are the god level minds that decide to end the universe with the big crunch. Its a beautiful system when looked at the way he intended for it to be studied. Monads are windowed, not windowless. If I stab you then my free will has directly effected your body/mind and ends your free will. You then feel either some type of subjective feeling to me/ my soul/ my self. This subjective feeling is either anger, sadness, pain or a combo of all of these. Your soul is naturally unconscious, the human body has the potential for developing qualia and even more then that conscious reasoning.
@@dilonsingh4554 How can the supreme monad be made of the infinite monads if it is not dividible?
Yeah, now read the physical monadology lmao
In this speculative scenario, let's consider Leibniz's Monad (first emanation of God), from the philosophical work "The Monadology", as an abstract representation of the zero-dimensional space that binds quarks together with the strong nuclear force:
1) Indivisibility and Unity: Monads, as indivisible entities, mirror the nature of quarks, which are deemed elementary and indivisible particles in our theoretical context. Just as monads possess unity and indivisibility, quarks are unified in their interactions through the strong nuclear force.
2) Interconnectedness: In the Monadology, monads are interconnected in a vast network. In a parallel manner, the interconnectedness of quarks through the strong force could be metaphorically represented by the interplay of monads, forming a web that holds particles together.
3) Inherent Properties: Just as monads possess inherent perceptions and appetitions, quarks could be thought of as having intrinsic properties like color charge, reflecting the inherent qualities of monads and influencing their interactions.
4) Harmony: The concept of monads contributing to universal harmony resonates with the idea that the strong nuclear force maintains harmony within atomic nuclei by counteracting the electromagnetic repulsion between protons, allowing for the stability of matter.
5) Pre-established Harmony: Monads' pre-established harmony aligns with the idea that the strong force was pre-designed to ensure stable interactions among quarks, orchestrating their behavior in a way that parallels the harmony envisaged by Leibniz.
6) Non-Mechanical Interaction: Monads interact non-mechanically, mirroring the non-mechanical interactions of quarks through gluon exchange. This connection might be seen as a metaphorical reflection of the intricacies of quark-gluon dynamics.
7) Holism: The holistic perspective of monads could symbolize how quarks, like the monads' interconnections, contribute holistically to the structure and behavior of particles through the strong force interactions.
em·a·na·tion
noun
an abstract but perceptible thing that issues or originates from a source.
Nice explanation! This was a perfect primer to give me the context I needed to actually read The Monadology, so I thank you for helping me to understand this interesting work by Leibniz:)
Enjoy your read. The Monadology is great. Leibniz goes into some more details in Discourse on Metaphysics. It's an interesting text to leaf through after The Monadology.
Precisely what I need for my exams, thanks🙏
Great video! For something so far out there to someone like me, you have explained this very well. Excited to go through the rest of your catalog as it aligns with my studies.
Welcome aboard.
I was reading the monadology and struggling... this video helped me grasp the basics in order to better tackle the text! thanks
Believe what you want for what you Believe doesn't matter, the monadology of a monad computated an isolated reality for you compounding your existence and calling it justice. It's a hierarchy of monads.
It could be those little birds that keeps flying into my window
explained very well! thank you. I wish leibniz thought deeper into a monad being divisble into like waves or connecting strings. Because what is the reason for the gathering of certain monads to lead to the formation of mountains and trees and forrests and what not.
Many thanks, the very definition of the monad is that it is not made of parts, and hence indestructible. To destroy is to break a whole into parts. So, monads are pure partless substances that are either fulgurated into existence or annihilated by the supreme monad.
You described Spinoza's substance. It's a simple indivisible substance too, but one that is immanent. It has Modes that are mountains, animals, people and all things that exist. Its relationship with its modes is simalar to the sun's relationship to sun-rays, light and the heat it engenders.
Excellent video. Top marks. This video cleared up a few things for me. Leibniz was an idealist like Berkeley and this video provides a great explanation of Leibniz's theory of the "pre-established harmony". Thanks.
Thank you. Yes, Leibniz's system is one the strongest formulations of German Idealism.
I was looking for mathematical monads and haskell ones, but somehow ended up there
Was pretty nice to listen, and learning stuff different from what I normally do.. is curious experience..
And you have a nice way with words, well done video
Thank you, I'm glad it was a pleasant surprise.
Shake hands :D
In this speculative scenario, let's consider Leibniz's Monad (first emanation of God), from the philosophical work "The Monadology", as an abstract representation of the zero-dimensional space that binds quarks together with the strong nuclear force:
1) Indivisibility and Unity: Monads, as indivisible entities, mirror the nature of quarks, which are deemed elementary and indivisible particles in our theoretical context. Just as monads possess unity and indivisibility, quarks are unified in their interactions through the strong nuclear force.
2) Interconnectedness: In the Monadology, monads are interconnected in a vast network. In a parallel manner, the interconnectedness of quarks through the strong force could be metaphorically represented by the interplay of monads, forming a web that holds particles together.
3) Inherent Properties: Just as monads possess inherent perceptions and appetitions, quarks could be thought of as having intrinsic properties like color charge, reflecting the inherent qualities of monads and influencing their interactions.
4) Harmony: The concept of monads contributing to universal harmony resonates with the idea that the strong nuclear force maintains harmony within atomic nuclei by counteracting the electromagnetic repulsion between protons, allowing for the stability of matter.
5) Pre-established Harmony: Monads' pre-established harmony aligns with the idea that the strong force was pre-designed to ensure stable interactions among quarks, orchestrating their behavior in a way that parallels the harmony envisaged by Leibniz.
6) Non-Mechanical Interaction: Monads interact non-mechanically, mirroring the non-mechanical interactions of quarks through gluon exchange. This connection might be seen as a metaphorical reflection of the intricacies of quark-gluon dynamics.
7) Holism: The holistic perspective of monads could symbolize how quarks, like the monads' interconnections, contribute holistically to the structure and behavior of particles through the strong force interactions.
em·a·na·tion
noun
an abstract but perceptible thing that issues or originates from a source.
You sir are a benefit to the philosophical search. Thanks for this. I'm a Leibniz freak but Monads I've failed to properly grasp. Now I kind of, "get it" in the larger sense of his philosophy. All the best Leevark.
Can I ask you why the history of psychology timeline credits Leibniz for the first postulate of the subconscious, using his Theory of Continuity?
(The timeline is funny, btw, because every time someone *almost* discovers the subconscious, you can read the disappointment. ...And then Freud popularizes it in 1900, inspired by the technique of hypnosis)
Finally I understood the concept of monads
Keep it up👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻
Thanks you very much!! you have the mastery of the subject and a clear language in explaining. I am grateful.
You're very welcome, and thank you🖤
Brillant summary of what monads are! Thanks.
Great video . Thank you for the concise and clear explanation
If Liebnitz lived now and knew about holography his philosophy would be the foundation of everything we know about ourselves and this 'playground' we, as monads, occupy.
Yes, science continues to consolidate many of Leibniz's ideas, and certainly gives him the upper hand over Newton. Leibniz has anticipated a lot of massive scientific forays. He built a mechanic calculator. He was set to build the first computer, and didn't only to the lack of funding. Surprisingly, his computer design was later recovered and apparently his computer would have been more performant than the enigma machine. Also, Lagrangian mechanics is heavily influence by Leibniz's dynamics.
very well explained.
This was very clear and well explained, thank you.
Thank you so much you saved my comprehensive exam 👍👍👍👍👍👍
amazing job in explaining a tough subject
Excellent exposition! 🤩 Thank you! I’m with Leibniz 😇🤩
I think that scrutiny has shown that conciousness as a emergent process resides within the brain, either in it's enterity or to such an extent that the two are defacto unseparables.
Very clean explanations thank you.
Oh thank you. I thoroughly enjoyed this. Great way to start the day. Aquarius I gotta get my brain going on some good info. 😁🌻💚🎶
Enjoyed your video, Leevark. 😊
I have a question: if we are a monad (or our brain is) and every monad has the knowledge of everything in the past, present and future (as it is "windowless" and self sufficient meaning there is no second causasion) how does it come that we apparently have no access to this knowledge?
Amazing explanation 👍
So Leibniz was the first to propose the simulation theory and monad as "functional monads"?
His idea is that the human is made one thing, the monad. And he describes the monad is an immaterial substance. Our bodies are just extensions of monads. You can argue that this is a form of simulation.There are many philosophers who had questioned the existence of the physical world before Bostrom formulated the simulation hypothesis, philosophers like Georgias, Plato and his cave, Ibn Arabi and Berkeley.
@@Leevark thanks man. Appreciate it.
@@ujjwalgyawali you're very welcome.
Now I have a fashionable way to call my apartment
You literally saved me. Thank you.
Thanks for beautiful video ⭐️
Thank you for the help on my essay ! ^^
Very well explained 👏👏👏👏
Just let me know the momnet You divide magnet into 2 monopoles. (indivisible)
Btw You never touch objets. You just feel repelling subatomic forces.
Hello, this was a very helpful video, but could you explain how Leibniz defines/uses perception, appetition, and aperception in relation to monads?
Hello, appetition refers to what drives us towards action or change. It includes our desires, our tendencies, our strivings, and everything that whets our appetite for change. Perception refers to how we perceive the world. The world is accessible to us through our perception of it. Our perception of the world changes according to our desires, inclinations and strivings: our appetition. Hence, appetition is what motivates the change in perception.
Let's go back to monads. The only activity that monads can exercise is the change of perception caused by appetition.
Now, we look at apperception. If perception refers to the perception of the world, apperception refers the peception of oneself. It involves consciousness at different levels, from simple consciousness of one's existence to self reflection to even reflective consciousness. It is an accepted view that Leibniz denies higher levels of apperception to animals, and all monad-types that are below humans.
@@Leevark Thank you! I understood that perception is a monad's view of the world and that appetition is how that perception changes and allows monads to be windowless and still change, but I didn't quite understand how appetition drove change.
You are good at explaining these things and I was wondering if you are also familiar with Leibniz's theory of space and time or have a video on it? Why does Leibniz believe space and time is relative? If you are not super familiar with it that's fine, I am just having some trouble unpacking it and might as well try!
@@lowl582You're very Welcome. The ideas of Leibniz are always exciting to discuss. His refutation of the reality of time and space is related to the Principle of Sufficient Reason, and to the Principle of the Identity of Indiscernibles.
The PSR is the idea that there is always a reason behind every effect, every choice, and every occurrence. If space were absolute, and God chose to create the world in a certain spot within absolute space, there wouldn't be any reason why God chose to position the world in that spot, and not in another spot. In this situation, God would act without having a reason that justifies God's choice, the choice of creating the world in that particular spot and not say seven inches to the right. This would violate the PSR. The refutation of Time, too, is based on a similar similar grounds. Why was the world set to start existing when it did, and not a second before or a second after?
I have made a video about the Principle of Sufficient Reason, but it is not centred around Leibniz's refutation of space and time as intrinsic properties. It's more about the PSR and its relationship to Leibniz's Theory of Truth. Here's the link:
ruclips.net/video/glJFFHFl_co/видео.html
The Principle of the Identity of Indiscernibles is the idea that no two things can be exactly the same. If two things are exactly the same, they are not two separate things. They are one. Now, if space were absolute, two identical worlds could be created and placed in different spots in the continuum of space. Nobody would be able to differentiate between them, and they would be indiscernible. Similarly, two identical worlds could be created and set to start existing at chronologically different points in time, and they would be indiscernible.
I hope that puts things in perspective.
In this speculative scenario, let's consider Leibniz's Monad (first emanation of God), from the philosophical work "The Monadology", as an abstract representation of the zero-dimensional space that binds quarks together with the strong nuclear force:
1) Indivisibility and Unity: Monads, as indivisible entities, mirror the nature of quarks, which are deemed elementary and indivisible particles in our theoretical context. Just as monads possess unity and indivisibility, quarks are unified in their interactions through the strong nuclear force.
2) Interconnectedness: In the Monadology, monads are interconnected in a vast network. In a parallel manner, the interconnectedness of quarks through the strong force could be metaphorically represented by the interplay of monads, forming a web that holds particles together.
3) Inherent Properties: Just as monads possess inherent perceptions and appetitions, quarks could be thought of as having intrinsic properties like color charge, reflecting the inherent qualities of monads and influencing their interactions.
4) Harmony: The concept of monads contributing to universal harmony resonates with the idea that the strong nuclear force maintains harmony within atomic nuclei by counteracting the electromagnetic repulsion between protons, allowing for the stability of matter.
5) Pre-established Harmony: Monads' pre-established harmony aligns with the idea that the strong force was pre-designed to ensure stable interactions among quarks, orchestrating their behavior in a way that parallels the harmony envisaged by Leibniz.
6) Non-Mechanical Interaction: Monads interact non-mechanically, mirroring the non-mechanical interactions of quarks through gluon exchange. This connection might be seen as a metaphorical reflection of the intricacies of quark-gluon dynamics.
7) Holism: The holistic perspective of monads could symbolize how quarks, like the monads' interconnections, contribute holistically to the structure and behavior of particles through the strong force interactions.
em·a·na·tion
noun
an abstract but perceptible thing that issues or originates from a source.
This was very helpful. Thanks for sharing it
Is it quantum physics? Particle theory or string theory? Im trying to understand the science behind the philosophy??
You're mentioning all kinds of sciences to do with physical substances. Leibniz proposes here the idea the physical does not exist; rather, it is spiritual substances which make up this world, according to him
If you're looking for a philosopher who does science, Francis Bacon kind of outlined the method for it in the 1600s. In his most famous work he roasts all his peers for never doing any good experiments, and coming up with all sorts of fantastical grand narratives based on single sources
While Leibniz probably made great contributions, this theory on monads is one of those fantasies which Bacon would probably have disliked
This was an excellent way to spend 6.40 - thank you!
Cheers, that's class of you to say.
'The Supreme Monad' is so much more badass than 'God'
no
Sir,Can you pliz make a video on'' spinoza attributes ''?
It's as if you've read my mind. I'm planning to make a video later today on the analysis of Philip K Dick's "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep". And then, I'll try to make a video on Spinoza because in lots of discussions Spinozism is wrongly equated with Pantheism. I think it'll be interesting to discuss Spinoza's God and how it's different from Pantheism. I hope the video will be to your liking.
Nice video! You should do the modernized version of monads from Ontological Mathematics!
Can you please explain the last point?
Which Planets Corresponds with Supreme and Spirit Monad?
Didn't understand much, but I did understand something. I think I should be more patient so I can understand that.
thank you very much, now it’s clear.
Fantastic video - fascinating concept well explained. What sort of accent is that?
I'm delighted it appealed to you. I'd say East of Dundee.
Listening to what it is that you are saying now and I find that I am glad that I can't 'read'... else I would have wasted my time with this Leibniz guy. My 'understanding' of God and Evil is a lot easier to understand - and even though I toss a 0 x 0 = God into the mix - makes 'sense'.
Take me to your leaders.
Shalom.
It sounds like the monad is the soul and has the potential to be apart of everything
The monad is consciousness projecting reality
Alright video though it makes some of his views seem a bit crazy by the virtue of not going in-depth. I think, for example, that explaining how Leibniz thought that an infinitely divisible cartesian body substance could have no true being would make his phenomenal view on matter more sensible.
And wouldn't your tv be composed of basic monads? your tv is still participating in the universe so there has to be a monad telling its own "unique perspective."
A television does not mesh with any of the four hierarchical types of monads. Each one of the four types is sentient. Even the lowest class of monads has perception and appetition. It is aware of its own existence. In panpsychism, all natural object have mental properties and are sentient yes, but a television is not a natural object. Even in the panpsychist view, the television itself would not constitute a basic monad. The copper in it, the glass and all the natural components would be basic monads.
Excellent. Thank you!
So each humam being maybe having many person but in a sense of different matter fluid , air , the thought or light so MRI and gravity can fine tune and use certain mapping to have soul travel in or out of solid or reproduce into lighter exact duplication but with half of composition or miror image in geometry to become coupke wife and husband
It's Mac from Always Sunny
isn't it just a monoid in the category of endofunctors
What do you mean, where consciousness resides? Doesn't it reside in the brain?
There isn't any evidence that consciousness is located in the brain. The most widely accepted understanding of consciousness is offered by the theory of Emergence. It's the idea that sometimes elements that lack complexity come together and then something complex emerges. Body organs like the heart, the brain, the liver are not conscious but when they constitute a human being. The human being is conscious. Consciousness isn't located anywhere specifically, but it is unseen and emergent. Other examples of Emergence are ascribed to swarms of bees that are very complex with division of labour, class stratification and management of resources while if you take a bee itself, it is not very complex. A bee's intelligence is basic, but the intelligence of a swarm of bees is developed. Kurzegast have a good video on Emergence. Personally, I think Emergence is just a way of saying we don't know.
Maybe this video helps you with that question: ruclips.net/video/oezDpw1DK5w/видео.html it's a long video, but worth it! You can skip the beginning talk by going to: 15:44 :)
Unfortunately, all physical matter is bound by monadic forces, the physical chemistry of a thing resulting from the energy density, charges, and comingling of its particles. But if you drop the assertion that nonphysical things can not make physical things, then you get something compatible with quantum physics to build from.
At 2:11 you suggest that non-materiality is the same thing as non-existence. This is not a self-evident truth and is contested by all dualists, as well as others. And I don’t think it was Leibniz’ view.
By no means is non-materiality equated to non-existence. The idea is that materiality doesn't independently exist as it is perceived to. Materiality is only a projection. Leibniz is a monist. He's not a dualist. The only thing that truly exists is the idea, as it's what Idealism is built around. For Leibniz, it's the monad. For other Idealists, it's other things. Material substances only exist as projections. That doesn't amount to non-existence especially to humans who can't access what underneath the projection. But if you look at it from a purely ontological perspective, only monads exists.
I remember taking my first chemistry class, and hearing matter can not be created or destroyed. I incorrectly assumed that matter must, therefore, not be divisible. Getting to the higher level quantum courses, this idea gets smashed.
What did leibnitz believe the devil, or evil to be? This video made me think of the verse from the New Testament, "My name is Legion, for we are many." Non monadic?
Thank you!! Real lifesaver!
I believe the universe is as infinite microscopically as it is macrocosmically, do you know if that correlates with any philosophical theories?
With respect to Leibniz, what you describe as infinity is not true infinity. In New Essays on Human Understanding, Leibniz posits that matter, and everything that is made of parts, cannot be infinite. It is infinitely divisible, but not absolutely infinite. Space, time and numbers, too, are not infinite because they are wholes made of parts. They can all get bigger by having more parts added to them, or smaller by having them broken into smaller parts. The only thing that is truly infinite is that which is not made of parts, the Supreme Monad.
But don’t quarks also sort of behave like monads in that they are not further divisible? Also it doesn’t seem to follow that because monads are immaterial that everything is. For example when computing the area under a curve we cut up the space into an infinite number of strips without volume yet their sum does have volume. And as he invented calculus surely he was aware of this objection?
That's tricky. The argument against the creation of something material out of something immaterial is reductio ad absurdum. Let us say it is possible to keep dividing something material until we reach bits that have zero mass. In this situation, you cannot rebuild the divided object by recollecting its zero-mass pieces since no number of zeros would amount to non-zero.
Quarks are not immaterial because they have mass.
@@Leevark It feels like, like Descartes, he was looking for a justification for the existence of God... maybe to fit in. Super-geniuses such as them aren't immunized against their time's beliefs.
Is the origin of this in Leibniz's reason or his intuition?
Reason is what sets apart philosophers from mysticics, and Leibniz is a philosopher. His ideas are not that radical. He subscribes to Idealism, reality is made of ideas not of objects.
-I posted this comment 4-5 days ago on a RUclips video with intuitive thinking and today I got exposed to the monads theory. Some aspects are resonating. Others completely different. But still I have started to believe on what i have written. Scarily.-
``You have only one universe which is the one around you. The rest of the people are not really here, it is just the projections of those people. Those people have their own individual universes in which you would be the projection for them. But that projection is an unconscious pre-programmed being, just like those around you. Yes you can touch, feel sense them but it still is a projection. They are molded in a certain way to be aligned with how your story is made to be progressed. I'm writing this from my own uni verse where I m the main character. I don't exis t in your universe as this councious, but only as a projection. But if we meet at one place in person then who would be the projection and who the main character(councious). That's the kicker. If you're really councious and main character in your universe then it's impossible for us to make a contact in person. All the people I see around me are projections, the real people have their own universes. They can't be in mine. There would be a projection of mine in their uni verse that is uncouncious and pre-programmed to behave in a certain way right now or maybe after this life
If you're the main character of your uni verse and not a projection then you currently ex ist on a separat e earth of a different uni verse and we won't be able to meet. (By projection I mean a programmed person who would only behave in a certain way, that person can feel,sense,think,laugh but only to the extent to which that person is programmed to be. Have you ever had a moment where you said that person is so dumb. That's you( councious) interacting with a projection.
-my theory
Excellent video!
Sounds like Leibniz breaks down the physical until he finds the nonphysical and then claims by piling up these nonphysical monads you get what only appear to us to be physical things.... _Yeeeeetttt_ these nonphysical physical appearing things can be cut and divided down to some uncuttable nonphysical thing? It gets confusing. And seemingly circular and contradictory. However, recently listening to a marvelous youtube video where Brian Magee discusses Leibniz (and Spinoza also) with another philosopher, he postulates that what Leibniz may have been struggling with is similar to the recognition we have today that _energy_ is the basis for matter -- but back then did not have either the science or terminology for such concepts -- so expressed his ideas in terms on nonphysical spiritual substance vs the material physical world. Interesting.
Is souls traveling real? Because the story or idea of Buddha is eaxctly teleporting
this is awesome thank you much
You're very welcome 🙏
Kirk Godel was convinced Monadology held secrets. He was also convinced at one point, that people were trying to poison him.
Did you mean kurt godel?? im trying to find this kirk godel guy but no info of him anywhere
Just because you're paranoid, doesn't mean they're not out to get you
I might not be grasping the idea correctly because I don’t get it, if a monad is indivisible how can humans and animals be monads?
The physical body, of a human or an animal, is only an extension of the monad. You can think of bodies as very advanced holographic extensions. Reality is not made of extensions because they're not real enough.
Leevark now I understand. Thank you for explaining it to me :)
@@dahliathereader2872 you're most welcome.
Leibniz was basically the OG string theorists way before Michio and the like.
Seems like a big leap of logic, even for an abstract concept. I don't see why anyone would believe in the four monads any more than say... seven pools of mana, a hundred chakra points, 108 stars of destiny, thirteen unlucky Shrödinger cats that may (or may not) cross your path, or just one God spirit 😵
I agree that it's a leap of logic, but the thing about logical leaps is that they're still logical. The most diligent examination of the human body still can't locate where consciousness resides. And yes consciousness is explained away through Emergence. But don't you think that Emergence, too, is a leap of logic. It's devoid of causation, and isn't really backed up.
you're right. Leibniz was known for using the principle of sufficient reason, there is no sufficient reason for anything more then 1 type of monad. The monodology this guy in the video speaks of is the published version that was made by liebniz as a way to reach the christian population. The hidden version speaks of window monads who are uncreated, all at different levels of consciousness but all the same type of monad. There is no creator "god" monad. There is a monad of monads however that all the infinite monads are contained in. This is called the singularity. So the infinite monads are contained within the singularity and the material world is created by the infinite monads together as in a shared dream "projection". A 6D hologram, all mathematically consistent and equal to 0 (Zero). its actually quite amazing what liebniz did in his life.
What I mean by logical leap is that he's begging the question. From what I know of monadology it seems to rely on the assumption that God exists, and also assumes there has to exist an indivisble substance, as opposed to a world where all substances can be divided no matter how small. I'm mainly curious about how Leibniz concluded that these premises were true, or even plausible.
Leibniz grounds his philosophy mostly on rationalist principles. The video is just limited to explaining monads rather than elaborating on his reasoning.
For example, Leibniz grounds the existence of God on classical philosophical arguments for his existence (the ontological argument, the contingency argument, etc.), so it's not like he's just taking it for granted.
And then, for example, he takes that to provide the principle of the best (that God would freely choose the best of all possible worlds), which he then uses to prove that stuff like atomism (in the non-modern sense) or absolute Newtonian space and time is incoherent and that each monad has to be unique (since it's a contradiction for God to be unable to choose between two different worlds which are essentially the same, but still different if you accept atomism or Newtonian metaphysics; God would have no reason to set "absolute space" at a 30 degree angle compared to some other absolute space, so it cannot be the case that "God has to choose").
@@Dilwhite4president
Where can I find this hidden version? I presume it's been published by now.
next semester we will study Leibniz!!
Monad is the jigsaw puzzle piece of light/data(info)/energy ..all one and the same thing. They only buried Leibniz's work because it was very powerful understanding about the power of information energy ...which can give one the ability to see the future as well as understand what we are creating as a whole (the God-head) and man is too fearful (or of the self) to know these things as its through selfish fear that man coagulates into beastly mobs and can out of fear slow progress (under subject of great importance... "Cycles") ...Cern collects monads below JWST collects monads (above) ...we are processing monads of light energy making up time and reality as we know it ..synchronicity is our reward
In this speculative scenario, let's consider Leibniz's Monad (first emanation of God), from the philosophical work "The Monadology", as an abstract representation of the zero-dimensional space that binds quarks together with the strong nuclear force:
1) Indivisibility and Unity: Monads, as indivisible entities, mirror the nature of quarks, which are deemed elementary and indivisible particles in our theoretical context. Just as monads possess unity and indivisibility, quarks are unified in their interactions through the strong nuclear force.
2) Interconnectedness: In the Monadology, monads are interconnected in a vast network. In a parallel manner, the interconnectedness of quarks through the strong force could be metaphorically represented by the interplay of monads, forming a web that holds particles together.
3) Inherent Properties: Just as monads possess inherent perceptions and appetitions, quarks could be thought of as having intrinsic properties like color charge, reflecting the inherent qualities of monads and influencing their interactions.
4) Harmony: The concept of monads contributing to universal harmony resonates with the idea that the strong nuclear force maintains harmony within atomic nuclei by counteracting the electromagnetic repulsion between protons, allowing for the stability of matter.
5) Pre-established Harmony: Monads' pre-established harmony aligns with the idea that the strong force was pre-designed to ensure stable interactions among quarks, orchestrating their behavior in a way that parallels the harmony envisaged by Leibniz.
6) Non-Mechanical Interaction: Monads interact non-mechanically, mirroring the non-mechanical interactions of quarks through gluon exchange. This connection might be seen as a metaphorical reflection of the intricacies of quark-gluon dynamics.
7) Holism: The holistic perspective of monads could symbolize how quarks, like the monads' interconnections, contribute holistically to the structure and behavior of particles through the strong force interactions.
em·a·na·tion
noun
an abstract but perceptible thing that issues or originates from a source.
Really beutiful video!
oversimplified:we are living a lie, and every theory is just us scrambling to increse physical wealth
In cuestion monad is the programing code of reality
Just subscribed, thank you
Welcome aboard!
This is great!!
what is a non-aseitous monad? surely thats a contradiction in terms and the 'set of all possible monads' could only possibly be the necessarily aseitous monad
how can you say nothing material can come from the immaterial, when while the immaterial isn't necessarily contingent on the material, the material is always implicitly contingent on the immaterial?
All monads lack aseity. God creates monads and continuously bestows existence on them. The only being that has aseity is the Supreme monad, God, because the Supreme monad is the only un-caused cause that does not depend on anything for its existence.
What is material can be affected by what is immaterial, yes. What I meant is that no amount of an immaterial substance can create something material. If we assume that monads are the building blocks of reality and that monads are immaterial, then reality cannot be material because its constituents are immaterial.
@@Leevark so the supreme monad is the only true monad, being the only aseitous monad, there is no other possible monad, as all that exists, has its existence contingent not on it's own possible aseity, but on the aseity of the distinctly supreme monad
All that is material is indistinguishable from the immaterial properties of the material, and could have only been created by the immaterial... Whatever you want to call the material, if you believe its "building blocks" are created by the supreme monad, than you have everything that we call material, along with everything else, having been created by the the eternally uncaused first cause, the supreme immaterial aseitous monad
Wait this has nothing to do with functional programing
What kind of accent is that?? I can’t tell.
thank you
Just like Newton and Einstein, Leibniz over-generalized his ideas. But still, they delivered something to consider, and notions don't have a mass.
great
Though I despise Leibniz's idea of theodicy because this obviously is NOT the best of all possible worlds which can be easily proven, I appreciate his depth of thinking on his philosophy concerning the soul the material & the invisible realm. He even gets his philosophy mixed into his mathematics where monads become a part of a mathematical concept. This also goes into modern day computing languages. Are monads immutable?
I think Leibniz's theodicy is interesting. It was unique in his time, and it has later been espoused by different philosophers. It certainly has detractors, namely Voltaire. Leibniz defends the idea that this world that God created is the best possible world and that it has sufficient reason for existing. Yes, you can argue that this world is not the best world we can live in. There are many things we could do without like genetic defects, slow-killing diseases and natural disasters, but Leibniz tries to answer all this. This is the best world that could be created, but not every event is the best event that could happen, especially from our perspectives. Those evil-seeming events have sufficient reason for existing. The perfection of the world is not judged only by disseminating happiness over all conscious beings that inhabit the world. While this is one of the things that make a world perfect, it is not the only thing. According to Leibniz, one of God's purposes in creating the world is to share his infinite divine essence with humans. But since humans are infinetely weak compared to God, they can experience only watered down doses of divine sympathy, empathy, love, justice and all of God's divine attributes. Humans, also, need different events and situations to be able to experience God's divine attributes, even in diluted fashions. Some of those events that are required to allow us to experience those feelings are evil-seeming. For example, justice can only be felt, understood and longed for in face of injustice. This is for evil that doesn't come from people.
The other evil, which comes from people, like heinous crimes is a little less complex. God created the best possible world. The best possible world has humans in it. Humans are imperfect. Hence, imperfections are bound to happen. The type of causation that Leibniz believes in is pre-established harmony. It is not physical vertical causation, nor is it Occasionalism a la Malebranche and Al-Ghazali where God directly causes every single thing that every human does. Leibniz's pre-established harmony is in between. He argues that God Decrees goodness to happen while he Permits evil to happen.
Monads do change because they are driven by perception and appetition, and this is what motivates change. But the monad cannot cause change in the body since the body is only an extension. Monads obey their laws, and physical bodies obey theirs. But they are set in pre-established harmony that they appear to affect each other.
@@Leevark hello again - just browsing through everyone’s thoughts and found your reply to Soteriology101; very interesting. Have you thought about ‘Intent’ in addition to perception and appetite? God’s intent remains the same regardless the circumstances. Evil or good - He moves all ‘things’ forward toward that end - perfect harmony in the creative power of love - this the ultimate destiny of eternity.
@@yvonnehumphery7390 Hi, the problem of the existence of evil, especially natural evil that is not caused by people, is one of the strongest attacks on Theism.
The evil caused by people is a little easier to address. It is the direct consequence of free will. If God has given humans free will, they should be able to choose whether to do good or evil. Preventing the evil that humans can do would defeat their free will.
Natural evil, however, is a little harder to account for. Tsunamis, genetic deformities, slow killing diseases could all be prevented by an omnipotent God. The best theodicy I've found is John Hick's. He argues that natural evil is also meant to test humans' free will. When you're in the middle of the road and see an accident, you're free to stop and help the injured or to keep moving and not offer any help. Natural evil tests people's free will in how they react to this evil.
It is the same reason why an omnipotent God doesn't give definitive proof for his existence. If he did, people would immediately be good because they'll be afraid of such an indescribable force. But God chooses not to directly reveal his existence to test people's free will. Despite their doubt about the existence of God, there are people who would choose to do good. If there was no doubt, there wouldn't be any choice.
@@Leevark Again, my appreciation for continuing the dialogue. As I see it, evil, as people define it, does not ‘exist’ . In my opinion, evil and good are man’s preconceived, recognized, accepted words to describe differences in outcome of cause and effect. ‘Evil’ already effidenced is not causal, it is the effect of the imbalanced presence of so motivated, up to the point of decision undeclared monads, and gives them purpose. Intent motivates outcome! If the effects of ‘evil’ intent ‘outweigh’ the effects of ’good’ intent, then this will tilt the outcome toward ‘evil’, and the other way around.
Natural ‘evil’ does not exist either. The laws governing physical, biological, energy manifestations are immutable, except by divine intervention. Tsunamis etc. are not designed to kill, they happen due to their own laws. God gives His natural laws a wide berth to do that which is assigned to theme, but He, as the designer of concept and manifestation has the ‘right’ and power to intervene. Man’s true safety lays within his heart’s intent.
As I see it, God gave definitive proof of His existence. One only need to be able to ‘see’ it with the revelatory mind and not with the limited, physical mind using only reason, hypothesis and theory. The true philosopher’s mind, in my opinion, includes spiritually revealed truth. Deep, fundamental truth resides in the mind of God and is only revealed with a purpose, ultimately to direct man’s action toward ever increasing alignment with the perfect will of God. If this awareness is present in the mind of man, intentional acts for good will be chosen rather than acts intended for harm.
I am still hoping for you to share your thoughts about my understanding of: “life takes place between the molecules.” :-)
@@yvonnehumphery7390 Your take on evil is very interesting. I don't agree with you, thought, on the definitiveness of God's existence. There are arguments for theism, but those arguments are in no way definitive. I think that God chooses not to provide such unequivocal evidence to preserve Man's free will. If God were to reveal himself in a decisive way, Man would no longer have fee will. Man would be obliged to follow the commands of God. Doubt is what preserves free will.
I searched the "life takes place between the molecules" video the first time you mentioned it, but there are many videos with similar titles. I'm not sure which one you're referring to. Could you please provide the link.
Is the chair really there?
The philosopher smugly said.
And so I gave my answer.
Picked it up and hit his head.
1:16 --- Welcome to the world of the occult, my friend!
Thanks! Impressive accent btw! :)
Thank you 👊
Plants are more concious than us.
They can’t seem to do much about it though
@@roddydykes7053 as far as we know. If we look at the goal of life is to live and reproduce. I think plants have got it figured out a lot better then us humans.
Thank you so much!
You accent is Scottish mixed with what ???
Thanks!
Super nice!
thank you king, also you sound kinfd of like the norweigan butter crisis guy.
Thank you🖤 you had me search "Norwegian Butter Crisis, and boy was it worth it, hilarious!
@@Leevark glad you enjoyed, absolute classic vid. keen to watch thru more of your stuff!
I'd say that he thought about "the world is a simulation" for the first time. Maybe that's why he creates monads since God is the one who do anything with them... Idk lol
Well explained, Thanks from India.
What exists is The Now. Time does not exist in The Now. Nor do we and our perception of reality. I say we've got Time wrong.
is that a Black face toy in the background??
Yes, it's a little statue of a saxophone player.
Leibniz was fucking crazy. Great explanation, though. Thanks.
Great
🤩💜
Mo nads. EXACTLY... if you want to create something... you need mo 'nads'. Ask me how I know.
Shalom.