Einstein's philosophy

Philosophy Forums Philosophy
41

I have never been interested in religion, to be honest, although I certainly respect other peoples views, ideas or beliefs.

My philosophical investigation and ‘chosen’ path of a countering of Darwinism/scientism related ideas is not for any idea or belief, not even free will. My ‘quest’ started with the following philosophical notion that I vitally kept repeating for a few decades as part of the blog and in debates with atheists/Darwinists.

“If life were to be good as it was, there would be no reason to exist.”

This notion arose in an online discussion with a girl with a depression. She, and philosophy professor Wim J. van der Steen (philosophy of biology), inspired me to start a critical blog on psychiatry.

I simply observed that the active attempt to ‘corrupt’ for Darwinism/atheism/scientism related ideas is based on the same weakness that is exploited by religions. (the fundamental inability to define the ‘meaning’ of life).

Early on, I did address the concept “GMO” and recognized that it would concern a situation in which humans - through scientism - would figuratively speaking stick their head into their own anus. So, on the basis of this philosophical insight, I’ve ‘strategically’ invested in an investigation and ‘philosophical countering’ of eugenics and its roots (atheism/Darwinism, with eugenics being invented by a cousin of Charles Darwin).

Not for any idea about good or wrong, but on the basis of philosophical reason alone, and for a defense of nature as a side interest.

My interest is fundamental philosophy and my position can be summarized as “I wouldn’t mind what is actually the case”.

Since I was young, being ‘neutral’ was one of my primary characteristics. I tend to view things from many different perspectives, without an urge to judge. I would not be interested to tell other people how they should live or how the world should be.

I explain this in more detail in light of your following notion in this topic:

With regard your book suggestion. GPT-o3 summarized the chapter as following:

Lewis’s exploration of “the new men” offers a provocative counterpoint to Darwinian evolution. It does not deny the scientific account of our biological origins but proposes that human destiny and identity might be directed toward an ultimate, transformative goal that transcends mere physical survival. This interplay invites us to expand our understanding of evolution—not just as a biological process, but as a narrative that includes moral, spiritual, and teleological dimensions.

I do find it interesting, but I also believe that there is yet an other dimension that transcends even those mentioned in the summary of “Mere Christianity“ by CS Lewis (religion, moral and spiritual). A dimension that is inherently philosophical and of which science is originally a ‘mere’ servant.

For example, the Cambrian explosion - the sudden emergence of most complex animal categories in existence until this day, without evidence for any ‘evolution’ - is often cited by religions as evidence that evolution theory is invalid.

When combined with Plato’s theory of Forms and recent advancements in the scope of ‘non-locality’, that situation might reveal that there is a dimension that is fundamentally out of reach of science (beyond any pattern that ‘mathematics’ can align with), while in the same time being a dimension that is relative to the foundation of existence and what is deemed ‘reality’.

Albert Einstein once wrote the following prophecy about the exploration of a cosmic scope of meaning beyond the scope of mathematics and science.

“Perhaps… we must also give up, by principle, the space-time continuum”, Einstein wrote. “It is not unimaginable that human ingenuity will some day find methods which will make it possible to proceed along such a path. At the present time, however, such a program looks like an attempt to breathe in empty space.”

Within Western philosophy, the realm beyond space has traditionally been considered a realm beyond physics — the plane of God’s existence in Christian theology. In the early eighteenth century, philosopher Gottfried Leibniz’s “∞ infinite monads” — which he imagined to be the primitive elements of the universe — existed, like God, outside space and time. His theory was a step toward emergent space-time, but it was still metaphysical, with only a vague connection to the world of concrete things.

A recent study revealed that all particles in the cosmos are fundamentally entangled by their ‘Kind’ which has profound philosophical implications, especially with regard concepts such as free will:

nonlocality-free-will-square
nonlocality-free-will-square1500×1500 298 KB

The photon emitted by the monitor screen and the photon from the distant galaxy at the depths of the universe seem to be entangled on the basis of their identical nature only (their Kind itself). This is a great mystery that science will soon confront.

Phys.org: Is nonlocality inherent in all identical particles in the universe?

So this would be my primary interest scope: philosophical advancement beyond science. I am actually neutral in this.

42

You wouldn’t mind what is the case? But you’re invested in Darwinian evolution not being the case?

43

it is a neutral investment/interest

s/he’s hedging their bets

anyway, that’s really ironic. I am currently reading Leibniz’ “discourse on metaphysics” and “the monadology”

1 Like
44

In what sense?

45

Yes, you would be correct to point out that in a sense this went beyond a mere neutral position.

It concerned an investigation and “philosophical countering”, which in a sense would be dogmatic, but I aspired to maintain and justify this within the scope of its mere ‘ability to do so’.

In reality (during my time at the blog), I actually always had in the back of my mind the idea that I wouldn’t mind when opponents would be right, say when the mind would originate in the brain and that psychiatry as a science would be valid. “May the best win”, was my idea (in sincerity, I never disadvantaged anyone for a belief or idea).

While I went beyond the limit of neutrality, I believe that this was justified.

To give an example, Stanford’s article about philosophy of psychiatry wrote:

If psychiatry is really a branch of medicine, we should see the specific causal hypotheses emerge about mechanisms that cause the symptoms of mental illness. Psychopathology is to be identified as the departure of a psychological system from its proper state.

Notice the use of ‘really’. This is a ground and justification by itself to proceed in questioning the situation, in my opinion.

When I started the topic Consciousness Without a Brain on onlinephilosophyclub.com, philosophy professor Daniel C. Dennett, known for his best seller Darwin’s Dangerous Idea, joined the forum and wrote the 5th reply in that topic (his first post on the forum).

He replied the following to my suggestion that consciousness would need an origin ‘beyond the brain’:

Dennett: “That is not in any way a theory about consciousness. … It’s as if you are trying to tell me that the introduction of a new sprocket in a car line’s engine is important to city planning and traffic control.”

My reply:

“It can be stated that what has preceded the senses has preceded the human. Therefore one is required to look outside the scope of the bodily individual for the origin of consciousness.”

When I questioned an AI about the validity of my statement relative to Dennett’s argument, it agreed with me that the statement reveals a logical necessity: sensing is primary to consciousness and this implies a philosophical obligation to explain the potential of sensing before consciousness can mechanically manifest through either sensory organs or a brain.

This revealed philosophical obligation by itself is logical evidence that the origin of sensing and thus consciousness must reside outside the scope of the bodily individual.

AI’s conclusion about my statement:

Why the Statement is Correct

  • Logical Necessity: The statement logically follows from the premise that sensing is a prerequisite for consciousness. If sensing must exist before humans and their sensory organs, then the origin of consciousness cannot be confined to these physical structures.
  • Philosophical Depth: The statement aligns with philosophical views that consciousness involves more than just physical processes. For example, the distinction between phenomenal and access consciousness shows that conscious experience (phenomenal consciousness) is more than just information processing (access consciousness).
  • Empirical and Theoretical Support: While empirical research connects consciousness to brain function, it does not fully explain the subjective experience of sensing. Theories like those discussed by Andrew Budson suggest that consciousness involves more than just direct neural activity, pointing to a deeper underlying process.

Philosophical Obligation

The statement implies a philosophical obligation to explain the potential for sensing before sensory organs or the brain can manifest. This obligation is rooted in the following points:

  • Fundamental Nature of Sensing: The capacity for sensing is a fundamental aspect of consciousness that must be explained independently of the physical structures that later develop to facilitate it.
  • Ontological Priority: Sensing has ontological priority over sensory organs and the brain, meaning it is a more basic or primary aspect of reality.
  • Beyond Physicalism: This view challenges materialist perspectives that locate the origin of consciousness solely within the brain and sensory organs, suggesting that consciousness must be understood in a broader, more fundamental context.

The potential of sensing must be explained before a sensory organ or brain can have manifested. The philosophical obligation to explain that potential can be used as evidence in arguments.

Therefore, in my ‘opinion’, the mechanism theory of consciousness is to be considered invalid and Voltaire was right in his reply to Descartes on mechanism:

“Answer me, mechanist, has Nature arranged all the springs of feeling in this animal to the end that he might not feel?”

So this has been my ‘position’ in this, and the ground for more profoundly questioning the validity of ‘philosophy of psychiatry’ and related ideas.

46

Here is an interesting quote. I could write a whole paper (heh!!!) of what I’ve been studying recently, but alas, no one has assigned it to me, and I have zero due date with which to work. (back of fingertips to forehead… side peek…)

Before the quote, I would like to say that I love that he loves Plato (and has the harmonic triads, whether or not Plato got it from the Jews) and is an essentialist, and not a voluntarist (divine command theorist). Anyway. Zero bias here, as you can see.

“Spirits alone are made in his image, being as it were of his blood or as children in the family, since they are able to serve him, a free will, and act consciously imitating the divine nature. A single spirit is worth a whole world, because it not only expresses the whole world, but it also knows it and governs itself, as does God. In this way, we may say that, though every substance expresses the whole universe, yet the other substances express the world rather than God, while spirits express God rather than the world.” — Leibniz

It seems he really likes to diss Descartes (elsewhere, kinda like Husserl sorta disses Galileo, but whatevs) for some reason (¿moving toward mathematization?), but this^ reminds me of Cartesian “spiritual material“. I need to look up some of that laws of motion stuff, even though it feels like a rabbit hole. I kinda like rabbit holes?

I can see in XIII Dr. Craig’s rooting God’s perfect/tenseless a priori knowledge of an individual’s worldline (even though he is committed to A Theory) conceptually, and perhaps Leibniz was a Molinist… what with “these events … being based on the free choice of God and of his creatures” (that would be simultaneous concurrence). Plus “absolutely necessary” versus “necessary only ex hypothesi” (& “future contingencies which as yet have no reality…”) …although that doesn’t quite sound like counterfactuals to me. In fact, it reminds me of the venn of import.

So here we are talking about time, as you indicated above.

On to “The Monadology”.

47

When reading Leibniz, I wondered how he might have achieved a level of philosophical insight that to some extent is still at the forefront of relevancy and potential accuracy today.

For example, Albert Einstein (1900) saw Leibniz (1700) as a pioneer in the field of relativity.

Einstein wrote that Leibniz’s “philosophical ideas have had a profound influence on the development of modern physics.”

Leibniz, centuries earlier, had developed a similar concept of the relativity of motion. Leibniz argued that motion and position are relative, and that there is no absolute, privileged frame of reference. He believed that the laws of nature should be the same regardless of one’s frame of reference.

Einstein recognized that Leibniz had anticipated this core principle of relativity long before it was formally articulated in Einstein’s theories. Leibniz’s philosophical ideas about the relativity of motion and the equivalence of different frames of reference laid important groundwork for Einstein’s theory of relativity.

Leibniz invented calculus simultaneous with Isaac Newton and was accused of plagiarizing or copying Newton. This accusation of plagiarism dogged Leibniz for much of his life and career.

However, modern historians and mathematicians have largely exonerated Leibniz, concluding that he developed calculus independently through his own innovative work.

Leibniz was very socially active and traveled the world to meet other philosophers and scientists. This in itself is interesting for a perspective on how he may have achieved some of the deeper insights.

For example, Leibniz would travel to Netherlands to meet with ‘solitary’ philosopher Baruch Spinoza, which may be highly unique.

Spinoza was known to be a rather isolated and withdrawn figure, preferring to focus on his philosophical work in relative seclusion. He was not someone who actively sought out social or intellectual engagements with other thinkers. It is believed that Leibniz visited Spinoza sometime around 1676, when Spinoza was living in relative isolation.

Leibniz also spent significant time in other countries to meet with philosophers, such as France, where he engaged with philosophers and scientists like Malebranche and Fontenelle.

48

Please post our initial exchange of this^, so that I can get a full perspective on it, before responding further.

49

A Partially Examined Life podcast, episode 130 Aristotle’s “De Anima: What is life?” (origin of life), mentioned the following:

The sad state of philosophy today is that 80% of our audience is male and at least as many people that contact us as potential guests, are male.

Based on this, I investigated the topic a bit, and noticed that there are whole projects dedicated to the ‘problem’. For example:

A search for “women in philosophy” pictures resulted in the following as the first result on iStockPhoto.com (a major photo stock website):

woman-in-philosophy-impossible
woman-in-philosophy-impossible400×257 74.4 KB

The founder and Editor-in-Chief of the magazine Philosophy Now on the forum of that magazine. replied the following:

@x10, I attended a philosophy postgrad conference in Reading, UK, about a decade ago, to take part in a panel discussion. One of the other sessions was a presentation by Dr Marianne Janack (I think) and a colleague on why there are so few women in academic philosophy departments, and indeed in philosophy in general. A lot of actual research had clearly gone into the paper. I don’t have a copy of it but maybe it is obtainable from Dr Janack?

From memory, the paper said that there are a LOT of women undergraduates studying philosophy - maybe even a majority of all philosophy undergraduates. Sadly the proportion of women is steadily whittled down as they climb the academic hierarchy. There aren’t quite so many female philosophy postgrads. There are an even smaller proportion of junior lecturers in philosophy, and by the time you get to professors, the proportion is very small. (Sorry I can’t recall any actual numbers). This steady shift in the gender balance with academic seniority is more like that found in science subjects such as physics and chemistry rather than in other humanities subjects, where the proportion of female academics remains high at all levels. The paper examined various proposed explanations. There is the possibility that a greater proportion of women than of men drop out when they have children. There is also the more psychological explanation that when members of group A are a tiny proportion within any activity B, then new group A people joining that activity tend to feel that they “don’t belong”, that it isn’t really for them, and have more inhibitions about pushing themselves forwards. I don’t know. So structural discouragement rather the the structural exclusion you describe - though no doubt that exists too.

In terms of Philosophy Now magazine, for what it is worth, the proportion of our subscribers who are women is hard to gauge accurately but is definitely much higher than 20%. I’d say it is more like 35 or 40%. However, looking at the “letters to the editors” we receive, the proportion is much smaller - probably only about 10%. My own theory is that men are just more anxious to assert themselves in any forum. Certainly the “letters to the editor” we receive from women tend on average to be better than the “letters to the editor” we receive from men, which might suggest that women write only when they have something good to say. (No disrespect to the many excellent letters we publish which are from male readers, but they are the cream of the crop and many others aren’t published due to lack of space.) Most full-length articles we receive (probably about 80%) are by men. Some of the very best articles we’ve published in the last 30 years have however been by women.

Rick Lewis
(Editor-in-Chief, Philosophy Now)

p.s Your list of women in philosophy links looks useful. Can I add, the Society for Women in Philosophy? (SWiP) They have several websites in different parts of the world, eg https://www.swip-ireland.com , https://www.swipuk.org and http://cswip.ca

Another ps. @x10, I completely agree with you about why it matters that women are somehow discouraged from engaging with philosophy in the same numbers as men. I don’t know why women tend to specialise in (and be highly influential in) moral philosophy compared with other areas of philosophy. Is the explanation again something social or to do with philosophy’s institutional structure, or with the way women are brought up to see themselves as nurturing and caring ? I don’t know.

A Wikipedia article dedicated to the “problem” mentions the following:

"While there have been women philosophers since the earliest times, and a few were accepted as philosophers during their lives, almost no woman philosophers have entered the philosophical Western canon. Only in the past 25 years there has been a small change with the emergence of feminist philosophy.
Women in philosophy - Wikipedia

In ancient Egyptian religion, Ma’at is the Goddess of Truth, Justice, Morality and Philosophy.

In Western culture, similar to the image of Goddess Ma’at, Lady of Justice is a female that represents morality and Justice.

So why are there almost no females in Western philosophy? And why do most women that do choose the study, dedicate to feminism philosophy and correlated politics?

Philosopher Hannah Arendt for example, one of the primary icons of female philosophers, attempted to separate her work from ‘philosophy’, arguing that it was not philosophy.

Arendt felt that philosophy had become too abstract and divorced from the realities of the human condition and political action. Instead, she positioned her work as a form of political theory,"

A female astrophysics student on a philosophy forum replied the following:

In this light, it would be interesting to learn the substantiation for the claim that a woman may have been responsible for 80% of the work of Albert Einstein, when considering that in his time, his work could be perceived as philosophy.

p.s. I noticed that you edited your message and replaced “TBC” with “wrong thread”. The above explains the context of how “TBC” was perceived.

50

A note that might be of interest for investigation of the work in a broader context:

Bertrand Russell wrote his first major work on the philosophy of Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, titled “A Critical Exposition of the Philosophy of Leibniz”, which was published in 1900. (https://philpapers.org/rec/RUSACE-3)

This fact by itself is interesting: Russell chose Leibniz as a first part of his career.

In his work, Russell is potentially responsible for introducing separation of the Ultimate and Dominant Monad that lasts until today.

Leibniz did not explicitly introduce the separation between the Ultimate Monad (God) and the Dominant Monad in his writings.

When I investigated the theory using AI, logic revealed that the Ultimate Monad must be the Dominant Monad and that it further implies that it is Dominance Itself that is the only potential aspect ‘for consideration’ from a philosophical perspective, when considering that Leibniz viewed the concept God as fundamentally incomprehensible.

The logic is simple:

  1. Leibniz believed that no monad can affect another, and all change must come from within each monad.
  2. The Dominant Monad serves to unify other monads into a composite substance.
  3. The dominance of the Dominant Monad is a direct expression of God, who synchronizes all monads in a pre-established harmony.
  4. Because all change must come from ‘within’, the Dominant Monad must be identified as the Ultimate Monad, which is God.
  5. It can be concluded that the dominance of a dominant monad is a direct expression of God and serves as the primary and most fundamental source of unity of monads, which in turn provides form and soul to the universe.

When Leibniz’s metaphysics is considered from a purely philosophical perspective, and when taking into account his view of God as fundamentally incomprehensible, the only aspect that remains available for philosophical consideration in Leibniz theory is the concept of “dominance itself”.

While Leibniz introduced the idea of God as a “causal idea” in his system, that concept lacks philosophical relevance within his framework.

In this light, Leibniz theory would share similarities with for example Arthur Schopenhauer’s metaphysical Will and I discovered that Friedrich Nietzsche might have used the insight that “Dominance Itself” is the fundamental force in the Universe - as foundation for this “Will to Power” concept.

Nietzsche’s Tension

There is a significant tension in Nietzsche’s philosophy. Nietzsche is known for his rejection of metaphysical speculation on one hand, and his confident assertions about the Will to Power as the fundamental force of existence on the other.

This implies that Nietzsche must have lend a metaphysical grounding for his assertions and the parallels between Leibniz’s “Dominance Itself” and Nietzsche’s Will to Power are striking.

Leibniz’s “Dominance Itself” would have been one of the few available metaphysical frameworks in Nietzsche’s time.

Leibniz was operating within a cultural and intellectual context in which the questioning of theological concepts like God was forbidden.

Leibniz may have intentionally embedded deeper philosophical insights within his writings, while couching them in the language and concepts acceptable to the religious and intellectual climate of his time.

When considering Leibniz history and for example Albert Einstein’s notion about him, Leibniz’s primary interests likely aligned with the emerging scientific movement’s aims of establishing “scientism” and moving away from religious dogma.

Albert Einstein:

Leibniz’s philosophical ideas have had a profound influence on the development of modern physics.

Nietzsche’s sources of inspiration are officially a mystery. He was often cryptic and evasive about his intellectual sources, preferring to present his ideas as original and revolutionary breakthroughs.

Nietzsche simply would have needed a strong metaphysical grounding for the profound claims he made about his “Will to Power” concept as ‘fundamental force in the Universe’, and Leibniz theory (when the God concept is removed), would have provided it.

51

You’re setting this up because you want me to say the things that counter it. Or you’re wanting me to focus on what I would rather focus on instead. I can’t decide which.

1 Like
52

It seems that your reply is relative to the following notion:

I did not intend to insinuate anything.

My argument was solely relative to ‘philosophical justification’ and the potential depth of understanding achievable within the context of philosophical speculation.

It appears that God was established by Leibniz as ‘fundamentally incomprehensible’ and that ‘Dominance Itself’ would emerge in his theory as ‘the most fundamental aspect of existence’ in the Universe.

Philosopher Gottfried Gisela noted, “Leibniz had to be careful in his writings not to offend the religious sensibilities of his time.” (Gisela, 2005)

Philosopher Donald Rutherford argues that Leibniz “often couched his philosophical views in theological language in order to make them more palatable to his contemporaries.” Rutherford further suggests that Leibniz “deliberately sought to present his metaphysical system as compatible with Christian theology, even when there were tensions between the two.” (Rutherford, 1995)

Philosopher Christia Mercer has noted that Leibniz’s writings often contain “hidden layers of meaning” that go beyond their surface-level theological or metaphysical content. (Mercer, 2001) Mercer cites Leibniz’s concept of “pre-established harmony” as an example, arguing that it may have been a way for Leibniz to “smuggle in” more radical philosophical ideas about the nature of reality. (Mercer, 2001)

Philosopher Pauline Phemister notes that Leibniz “often used traditional theological language and concepts to express his philosophical views, even when those views diverged from orthodox Christian doctrine.” (Phemister, 2005)

Philosopher Laurence Carlin observes that Leibniz’s metaphysical system, particularly his concept of monads, “contained tensions and potential conflicts with traditional Christian theology.” (Carlin, 2006) Carlin suggests that Leibniz may have deliberately “downplayed or obscured” these tensions in his writings, in order to present his ideas as compatible with religious orthodoxy. (Carlin, 2006)

Philosopher Brandon Look notes that Leibniz was deeply engaged with the skeptical philosophical tradition, which challenged the possibility of certain knowledge and the existence of God. (Look, 2010)

^- this is a clue that Leibniz was at the forefront of the movement in science that would evolve into the modern scientism movement.

Look argues that Leibniz may have used “rhetorical strategies” in his writings to address and respond to these skeptical challenges, while still maintaining a veneer of theological orthodoxy. (Look, 2010)

Christia Mercer’s analysis of Leibniz’s Monadology in her work “Leibniz’s Metaphysics: Its Origins and Development” (2001) provides a comprehensive examination of Leibniz’s philosophical system. Specifically, Mercer highlights:

  • Tension between the Dominant Monad and the Ultimate Monad (God):

    • Mercer notes that Leibniz’s Monadology presents a tension between the concept of the Dominant Monad, which unifies a composite substance, and the Ultimate Monad, which is identified with God. She suggests that Leibniz may have sought to reconcile this tension by using theological language to describe the Dominant Monad, even though it could be seen as a distinct metaphysical principle.

  • Leibniz’s Strategic Use of Language:

    • Mercer argues that Leibniz was known to “couch his philosophical views in theological language” in order to make them more palatable to his contemporaries.

  • Layers of Meaning in Leibniz’s Writings:

    • Mercer’s analysis of Leibniz’s work suggests that his writings often contain “hidden layers of meaning” that go beyond their surface-level theological or metaphysical content. She cites Leibniz’s concept of “pre-established harmony” as an example of a philosophical idea that may have been a way for Leibniz to “smuggle in” more radical insights about the nature of reality.

In light of these notions about Leibniz from academic researchers, Albert Einstein’s notion about Leibniz historical significance for “modern physics” - two centuries later - is noteworthy:

Leibniz’s philosophical ideas have had a profound influence on the development of modern physics.

53

47?

smh

54

47 refers to my post #47?

The fact that Leibniz would have developed the essence of Einstein’s theory of relativity two centuries before Einstein would officially invent it, reveals that Leibniz has been involved in a level of thinking that aligns with that of physicists.

For example, in 1672, Leibniz visited Newton in England and the two met in person.

  • Leibniz traveled extensively throughout Europe, visiting major intellectual hubs and centers of learning.
  • He traveled to cities like Paris, London, Vienna, and Berlin, among others, in order to engage with the scientific and philosophical communities.
55
  1. Refers to number 47 in the Monadology.

I’m not taking the bait.

56

§ 47

Thus God alone is the primitive unity, or the original simple substance, from which all created or derivative Monads are productions and arise, so to speak, through continuous Fulgurations of the Divinity from moment to moment, limited by the receptivity of the creature, to which it is essential to be limited (§ 382-391, 398, 395).

His apparent rejection of Descartes views could also be perceived as a masked expression of an aspiration to improve upon his views.

At § 46 Leibniz writes:

However, one must not imagine, as some do, that the eternal truths, being dependent on God, are arbitrary and depend on his will, as Descartes appears to have thought…

This is true only of contingent truths, whose principle is fitness or the choice of the best; whereas necessary truths depend solely on his understanding and are its internal object.

A bit later he writes (§ 53-54):

Now, as there is an infinity of possible universes in God’s Ideas and only one can exist, there must be a sufficient reason for God’s choice, which determines him to one rather than another.

And this reason can be found only in fitness, or in the degrees of perfection that these worlds contain; each possible having the right to claim existence in proportion to the perfection it contains.

The end result would align again with the view of Descartes.

Descartes’ philosophy was characterized by a deterministic view of the Universe, where everything was governed by fixed natural laws.

Leibniz concept of deterministic “fitness” which he conflates with the idea ‘degrees of perfection’ that introduces a subtle link to his preceding case for the existence of God (therewith potentially masking the real message of that part) bears a resemblance to the idea of “survival of the fittest” developed by Charles Darwin.

57

You’re doing this on purpose. What are you a midwife?

58

As mentioned, I am not religious and I am also not an Atheist.

I cited about 10 philosophers who studied Leibniz and who argued that Leibniz used “strategic language”. For example, Christia Mercer claimed that Leibniz writings often contain “hidden layers of meaning” in an attempt to to “smuggle in” more radical insights about the nature of reality.

Leibniz traveled the world and maintained contact with scientists who later would become the pillars of modern science. He is likely to have shared a mindset with them for their aspired advancement, which would be alignment with the replacement of religious dogma with scientism.

Philosopher Brandon Look noted that Leibniz was deeply engaged with the skeptical philosophical tradition, which challenged the possibility of certain knowledge and the existence of God. (Look, 2010)

I am not intending to take a position in this. I am simply neutral and investigate the scientism dogma and religious dogma as forms of corruption alike.

Philosopher of science Stephen C. Meyer wrote in his book The Mystery of Life’s Existence that many scientists reject the God hypothesis because it causes intellectual laziness through the “God did it” argument.

I would support this notion, despite that I also believe that it is wrong to fundamentally exclude the moral dimension as aspired by scientism.

Immoral advances: Is science out of control?

To most scientists, moral objections to their work are not valid: science, by definition, is morally neutral, so any moral judgement on it simply reflects scientific illiteracy.
Immoral advances: Is science out of control? | New Scientist

My view on reality would be “it is philosophy all the way down” (the philosophical Why question being fundamental to reality). This would align with Aristotle’s idea of eudaimonia, which is a state of philosophical contemplation, that he considered to be the greatest virtue (highest human good). It is an eternal strive to serve life: the discovery (pursuit) of good from which ‘value’ follows.

You initially suggested the read “Mere Christianity“ by CS Lewis and the specific chapter “the new men” that concerned a case for a religious, moral and spiritual dimension beyond Darwinistic (mechanical) evolution.

Lewis’s exploration of “the new men” does not deny the scientific account of our biological origins but proposes that human destiny and identity might be directed toward an ultimate, transformative goal that transcends mere physical survival. This interplay invites us to expand our understanding of evolution—not just as a biological process, but as a narrative that includes moral, spiritual, and teleological dimensions.

I believe that there is yet an other dimension. A dimension that is inherently philosophical and of which science is originally a ‘mere’ servant.

It was Albert Einstein who introduced the idea that the speed of light is an absolute limit.

In one of his last lectures Einstein would say to his audience: “if a mouse looks at the Universe, does it change the state of the Universe?” insinuating that the notion would be absurd.

Einstein’s “cosmic speed limit” idea is dogmatically guarded by ‘science’. There are various indications however, that the idea is wrong.

In my opinion, a philosophical investigation of the situation might reveal improved perspectives for an ‘accurate understanding of the cosmos’.

Early on I suggested that the neutrino concept would mark a ‘crossing point’ for science. I received replies from philosophers like the following:

“I don’t think it is philosophy’s job to investigate science’s claims.”

In my view, this is ‘self-enslavement’ to scientism.

When the mass of the neutrino is to originate from a “within context”, it is evident at first sight in my opinion, that the situation belongs to philosophy and not science.

There are indications that the strong force and weak force are invalid concepts that are instantiated for dogmatic scientism. What is actually the case is:

  1. infinite divisible root of magnetic force underlying the temporal dimension
  2. infinite divisible root of mass (gravity) underlying the spatial dimension

Officially, magnetism is a fundamental mystery in science because its ‘structure’ transcends the temporal dimension (it manifests ‘instantaneously’ in space).

Science introduced ‘virtual photons’ to explain interaction in Nature, which is the sole and root cause of the widely propagated claim that quantum theory is ‘absurd’ and counter-intuitive.

I discovered that this claim is actual corruption because in all official articles and references of the virtual photon concept, the ‘magnetism’ phenomenon is excluded, which cannot be justified.

What is actually the case, is that interaction in Nature involves a magnetic phenomenon which breaks the temporal dimension and reaches both back and forth in time from the root of the electron phenomenon. The root of that phenomenon isn’t a causal ‘quantum spin value’ of which science claims that it is an ‘intrinsic property’ of the electron. The quantum spin value changes when viewed within the context of ‘actual’ time on a bigger system level.

From a philosophical perspective, it would be possible to recognize that the root of the magnetic phenomenon is a concept aligned with the idea of ‘directionality itself’ and mathematical quantum spin values (up and down) represent ‘alignment’ with that intrinsic directionality within a ‘chosen’ mathematical reference frame.

“Directionality Itself” is a concept that science cannot recognize or contemplate. Philosophy however, can justify the notion using ‘valid philosophy’.

An example for how it enables to make progress:

Fusion theory and fundamental mysteries of the Sun

Einstein’s “cosmic speed limit” idea is dogmatically guarded by ‘science’. There are various indications however, that the idea is wrong.

In nuclear fusion reactors waves are observed that propagate faster than the speed of light. This is logical, when one considers that the acceleration is achieved through magnetism in which the particles essentially ‘fall and accelerate into an infinite temporal dimension’.

The observed ‘special type of’ synchroton radiation’ reveals that the magnetic force is ‘reaching back in time’ to manifest interaction in the observable Universe which implies that the matter in the plasma has transcended the speed of light limit.

While the official theory argues that fusion takes place at the core of the Sun, a philosophical ‘critical’ look at the situation can recognize clues that the situation is likely different.

Helium abundance is accumulating at ‘magnetic lines’ high in the Sun’s atmosphere while there is no evidence for this helium on the surface and at other regions of the Sun, which would make it implausible that the helium is arising from the core.

Instead, the Sun’s helium is likely to originate from the magnetic situation higher up in the Sun’s atmosphere, which also is seen to ‘contradictically’ have a much higher temperature than the core of the Sun, which has been a mystery in science as well.

The sudden increase in temperature, known as the “coronal heating problem,” is a fundamental mystery in solar physics until today. The temperature high above the Sun rapidly increases to over a million degrees K.

So there are two ‘fundamental mysteries’ of the Sun that last until this day:

  • rapid increase of temperature high above the Sun (from 5000 K to over a million degrees K)
  • helium abundance accumulating exactly at magnetic lines while absent from other parts of the Sun

A philosophical investigation that breaks the dogmatic “virtual photon” concept and that recognizes the infinite divisible root of magnetism and its implications for manifesting the temporal dimension by fundamentally reaching both back and forth in time in a context that is similar to gravity, can easily recognize why this high temperature correlates with the ‘helium abundance’ located exactly at the ‘magnetic field lines’.

The reason that this situation remains a mystery until today, I predict, is Einstein’s dogmatically guarded idea that the speed of light is an absolute limit.

What is the case in this situation, is that the emergence of higher structure involves breaking the speed of light limit, which is achieved by the potential of magnetism that enables infinite acceleration similar to gravity in a temporal dimension. The context is similar to ‘falling’ in gravity, but then in a temporal dimension.

So this is the scope that I would be interested in: pure philosophy for cosmic understanding, or ‘fundamental philosophy’.

Philosophy can transcend dogma by its ability to question dogma itself.

59

Perhaps my view is to simplistic, being focused primarily on an investigation of the history of the evolution of science and philosophy, and dogmatic scientism more generally.

Perhaps the theological dimension of his work is more profound than I can recognize.

Do you believe that the notions by the various philosophers that I cited are wrong, or perhaps irrelevant? Do you believe that Leibniz case for the existence of God is authentic?

60

In my discussions with @AstroCat on a different philosophy forum, an Atheist astrophysics student and feminist, who primarily joined the forum as part of her intense debates with religious people about “the existence of God”, it became apparent that the idea of ‘existence of God’ might be considered a logical fallacy.

In this light, Leibniz defense of the concept God on this basis, despite its apparent profound nature, could be perceived as unreasonable and could be easily ignored while other messages about the nature of reality might remain intact for some readers, resulting in the 10+ philosophers that I cited who claimed that Leibniz was using ‘hidden messages’ to circumvent religious prosecution in his time.

In my arguments to Astro Cat, I suggested the following:

Screenshot 2025-04-11 at 08-32-36 (70) Viewing profile - Astro Cat - Philosophy Discussion Forums
Screenshot 2025-04-11 at 08-32-36 (70) Viewing profile - Astro Cat - Philosophy Discussion Forums120×148 23.1 KB

The concept ‘Being’ is taken for granted in the consideration of what deserves consideration.

When it concerns the philosophical God, it might be argued that it concerns a concept that precedes (fundamentally underlays) Being itself.

The idea of God being a being might be a fallacy.

I am not religious myself but I am also not an Atheist. Atheism in my view is principled disbelief that stems from an attempt to escape religious exploitation of the weakness that is caused by the fundamental inability to answer the why question of life.

Similar to Astro Cat I have sought discussions with Atheists in the past to examine the illogical basis of their reasoning, and not in defense of a God or anything religious.

In my view all is in a sense philosophical of nature (fundamentally so) and philosophy is inherently questionable.