This comes up in Leibniz. He is familiar with and in alignment with Plato. He distinguishes between the laws that are contingent, willed/created into existence/temporality… and the laws that describe that which is eternal/necessary. He acknowledges the freedom and creativity of the eternal/necessary being. The synthesis towards/back to which all the Platonic dialectics point.
I don’t have him right in front of me right now, and am still not taking the bait.
This takes me back to 2011 and 2014 but both are “unfinished”…
…because … even though I had be/do/end(1) (requiring each distinctly, without letting one stand in for the other), I still conflated doing/existantiating the good (the moral law) with value (essence, meaning) in general… because I didn’t fully have the Venn of Import (will eventually articulate, I’m sure, that is, Lord-willing). And we have seen that Leibniz also grasped its relevance to the character of Nature (position/conception, action/perception, force/judgment).
… but mostly because if this is ever “finished” at all… it will take (or, takes) an act of God (hopefully not a human-caused/-preventable natural, globally warming disaster).
Footnote:
(1) I gleaned be/do/end from “The Moral of the story” by Nina Rosenstand, who brought the golden rule up in comparison to all major theories in ethics, and highlighted character/virtue (part 2, ch 6, part 3), conduct (part 2, ch 6, 7, part 3, ch 12), and consequences/teleology (part 2, chs 4, 5, 7 & part 3).
It seems like you have been studying Leibniz for over 10 years already.
What about Bertrand Russell’s Teapot argument? One might say that the idea of a teapot circling the Moon exists, but does that mean that a teapot is circling the Moon?
The idea of existence is possible only through an inherently opinionated context, a conscious self, and that implies that the idea of existence cannot be separated and be placed in a position of either being true or not.
It doesn’t matter whether one might be able to conceive of a “First Cause” or other causality based context (i.e. ‘the world existing independent of mind’). From a philosophical perspective, all that matters is the ability for justification.
Are you interested in the nothingness itself (Einstein), or why nothingness was glorified? Or is it the process of mocking the nothingness that amuses you?
Digest and understand the basics. Power elevates fools and scoundrels to distract from when it humbles and kills geniuses.
Forget time travel. If you truly wanna dominate the universe, you don’t have to travel to another time. You’re already in every time and you never leave the current one, so you maintain dominion over it. There’s only ever gonna be one being that is always ever doing this. You have to be that being in order to do it in the “first” place. If it ever feels like you’re experiencing more than one moment, you yourself did not initiate that—unless you are that being—and you initiated it for someone else—because you didn’t need to initiate it for yourself.
Is that being like Russell’s teapot, or is that being as the future and the past is to us? And that is an example of why the verification principle is crap. Plus, you can argue for the existence of the past and the future by looking at artifacts and fulfilled prophecies… and certain arguments of reason and logic. And when you’re arguing them, you are arguing for the existence (or being) (or essence) of that being.
I haven’t been studying Leibniz for ten years—I had not actually read him until just recently. Before that, I was exposed to him via Dr. William Lane Craig. Whenever any of us arrives at or seeks out anything that is true, it is not merely ourselves we are studying, it is that in whose image we are made we are studying, and that is my official position on who we have been studying for much longer than 10 years.
Einstein believed in a cognitively biased +=- and -=+ half logic starting philosophy for science which is why he got things so wrong.You can’t explain the psychological with Einstein’s nonsense theories.It’s impossible.
From a philosophical stance I would disagree. I’ve been a critic of “the Absolute” and the correlated Givenness of the world, and as such I am also a critic of ideas such as an ‘infinite series’ as developed by Bertrand Russell, because it is invalid in my opinion to exclude the observer (the mathematician or philosophical speculator) from consideration in any theory of reality.
When it concerns Being and the attempt to use reason to establish its realness, this is similar to attempts to argue for the realness of the Absolute or an infinite series.
The notion that Being ‘exists’ fundamentally depends on the observer and it would be invalid in my opinion to exclude that foundation from consideration. As such, all that can be established in a given moment in time is that you are ‘arguing for it’. And no matter how meaningful your argument or notion might be perceived from a given perspective in time, it cannot prove the actual premise that a certain Being ‘exists’.
This explains my notion:
The idea of existence is possible only through an inherently opinionated context, a conscious self, and that implies that the idea of existence cannot be separated and be placed in a position of either being true or not.
My conclusion has been that the world is fundamentally questionable and that philosophy is rather the root of the world and what is perceived as ‘existence’.
This would be vital for morality. In my theory, a moral world is only possible when one becomes aware that the world is fundamentally and inherently questionable.
Albert Einstein did seem to recognize this. He once said:
I am a determinist. As such, I do not believe in free will. The Jews believe in free will. They believe that man shapes his own life. I reject that doctrine philosophically. In that respect I am not a Jew…
I believe with philosopher Schopenhauer: We can do what we wish, but we can only wish what we must. Practically, I am, nevertheless, compelled to act is if freedom of the will existed. If I wish to live in a civilized community, I must act as if man is a responsible being.
Einstein recognized the vitality of ‘free will’ for morality, despite that he sought to establish the world as deterministic and Absolute from his perspective. Examining Einstein’s argument in detail may lead to philosophical insights on this topic.
You concluded the following in your article about Leibniz:
Did you read Russell’s book “A Critical Exposition of The Philosophy of Leibniz”? It was his first philosophy book in which Russell seeks to make a case that Leibniz’s God concept is contradictory to his core philosophy, in line with the dozens of philosophers I cited in this topic.
I just published it as part of an investigation of Russell’s responsibility for introducing the Ultimate Monad (= God) concept in Western philosophy.
Again: I am neutral in this, and as such I find your article and case for the authenticity of Leibniz case for God interesting.
On topic:
Albert Einstein noted the following on Leibniz’s philosophical theories:
“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’s philosophical ideas laid important groundwork for Einstein’s theory of relativity.
Never heard of Bergson before but here’s my 2 cents…
I went to a website talking about the Bergson-Einstein debate, read a wall of text, and then asked AI about Bergson… So far I have found nothing of substance, it seems to me its a debate about subjective time vs. objective time… it seems like a pointless debate in my opinion. The idea the debate would make “philosophy obsolete” is an absurdity…
I read one of Einstein’s books, I didn’t read the whole thing cause he talks strangely and doesn’t sound American… but Einstein clearly had a grasp of subjective time, I don’t know what year Einstein wrote the book, but Einstein clearly explains that subjective time varies depending on consciousness states.
Einstein states that painful consciousness states time moves slower and in pleasurable states time moves faster.
Secondly, my own personal opinion is that stupidity causes time to move faster, intelligence causes time to move slower. If an ASI can solve problems in 1 millisecond, then time moves very slowly for it. Therefore we need to bring in ethics when building ASI and such. Also, what this implies is that computational operations cause consciousness to move slower through time, each computation that becomes conscious means consciousness experienced it in time…. If there were 0 conscious computations occurring then consciousness would “jump” to the next point in time, such as with dreamless sleep.
I am a determinist. As such, I do not believe in free will. The Jews believe in free will. They believe that man shapes his own life. I reject that doctrine philosophically. In that respect I am not a Jew…
I believe with philosopher Schopenhauer: We can do what we wish, but we can only wish what we must. Practically, I am, nevertheless, compelled to act is if freedom of the will existed. If I wish to live in a civilized community, I must act as if man is a responsible being.
This quote by itself is interesting. It seems to reveal that Einstein did have a primary interest in philosophy.
I also read somewhere that Einstein was inspired to excel in science after reading Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason and by being capable of fully understanding it at a young age. From this it would seem that Einstein was inspired by Kant.
Then why do the Jewish participants of ILP so strongly renounce Free-Will??? My experience with Jews is that they’re very strong advocates of Secular Determinism, “Cosmic Will”, God’s Will minus God…
As attractive and repulsive electromagnetic force absolutes do not cancel out in the cosmos,they are vibratory balanced out between all spinning particles thus mass is balanced out and all matter levitates in space then Einsteins formula E=mc2 is proven to be incorrect.
What is hilarious is that atheistic scientists can’t explain how attractive and repulsive electromagnetic forces cancel out in the cosmos.
This is a scientific fact.
All they do is make the statement that a North and South Pole of a magnet is the same force because it’s part of the same electromagnetic field which in no way is an explanation.That’s it……that’s all they have….they have no explanation whatsoever of how NN,NS,SN,SS electromagnetic force interactions cancel out between all the spinning particles which make up all matter in the overall cosmological SYSTEM and yet they claim that they do.
These force interactions do not cancel out so mainstream atheistic science is clearly hoping that they do in its ignorance.
You only need attractive and repulsive electromagnetic force absolutes to explain reality science perfectly.
As attractive and repulsive electromagnetic forces balance all mass finally proving that Einstein was wrong then the only possible way that energy is produced in the cosmos is by the spin of particles which increases or decreases the frequency of the vibratory interactions between particles and thus the amount of electromagnetic energy waves (heat) emitted from a matter type.
Thinking is a form of sound. Sound is vibration. People consider gaming controllers to have vibration, which is considered haptics. However, gaming controllers haptics are not very satisfying as a replacement for reality, because they are not full dive immersion haptics.
Teapot argument? One might say that the idea of a teapot circling the Moon exists, but does that mean that a teapot is circling the Moon?
