Arising_uk wrote: Obvious Leo wrote:
Nothing is impossible and the ancestor sims are as plausible as the Flying Spaghetti Monster, god, the multiverse or any other unverifiable hypothesis. ...
How is your 'planck bit' verifiable?
It's verifiable on logical grounds which date all the way back to pre-Socratic philosophy, particularly that of Zeno of Elea, Democritus of Thrace, and Heraclitus of Ephesus. It's verifiable on mathematical grounds through the work not only of Leibniz but also of Georg Cantor into set theory as well as through the work of George Boole, Alfred North Whitehead and Bertrand Russell into the logical foundations of applied mathematics. It's verifiable on physical grounds through the work of Max Planck into black body radiation. Although a full exploration of this work is rather technical and beyond the scope of this OP it is universally regarded by the scientific community as unquestionable. Energy cannot possibly be infinitely divisible. However it was Einstein who showed through E=mcc that it is energy which is fundamental and that matter is nothing more than an emergent property of it. At the fundamental scale of reality energy is all there is and when we read Leibniz in the appropriate context of his culture and times then this is more or less exactly what he was driving at with his monads. Whilst it's true that Leibniz's monads were of transcendent origin it is no great leap of logic to instead locate them within the Spinozan framework of immanent cause. He stole quite a few of his ideas from Spinoza but for some reason not this one. One can only assume that this reason must have related to his religious beliefs because the logic of his monadology has nothing like the coherent superstructure of the rest of his philosophy. Nevertheless I still chose to acknowledge the profound significance of Gottfried's idea in my own philosophy by naming my own fundamental Planck units as monads, because his was the first true information theory which anticipated the notion of a binary logic gate.
Arising_uk wrote:
Arising_uk wrote:
Indeed. He stole some of Spinoza's ideas but not all of them, just as I have stolen some of Leibniz's ideas but not all of them. Transcendent cause is strictly for the faithful but not Necessity in a self-causal reality.
But his 'God' is a necessary self-causal 'being'? Just asking as I admire what you've been trying to do for Leibniz's ideas.
In Leibniz's world god was a necessary being but in Spinoza's it was not. Spinoza's universe was sufficient to its own existence and my philosophy demonstrates how the inversely logarithmic relationship between gravity and time at the Planck scale is the causal mechanism which drives this self-determinism via an embedded hierarchy of emergent self-organising structures such as particles, atoms, molecules etc. Evolution towards informational complexity thus becomes a self-organising principle mandated solely by the meta-law of cause and effect.
Arising_uk wrote: Obvious Leo wrote:
... and the logical fallacy of the 4D manifold of spacetime.
Does this recent 'gravity wave' detection make any difference?
None at all. Physics is an intrinsically tautologous method as pointed out by the great man himself.
"It is the THEORY which determines what the observer will observe"....Albert Einstein.
Unfortunately what the theory cannot do is explain why the observer observes what he does. For that we need philosophers.