Hallowe'en Monad Hunt!

[Donnadogsoth]

What is real? We know from the principle of A=A that existence itself must exist, that absolute nothingness is incoherent and therefore unreal.

 

From that we traipse to the realisation that absolute nothingness can't be real anywhere, including inside of things where their souls should be. In other words, existence is the sum of experience for all real things must have experiences, and these real things we call, after our esteemed and big-bewigged colleague Gottfried Leibniz, monads.

 

The canny problem arises when we think to ask where are the monads, as in, what has a monad and what doesn't? For it's clear that humans and at least the higher animals have monads. We all experience, we know that much (get stuffed, Descartes). But what about a centipede? An amoeba? My sofa?

 

Let's do some decomposing: never mind being real, to be noticed something requires three traits. One, it must participate in Form, having a distinct shape of some kind (e.g., “chair”). Two, it must participate in Number, having a quantitative element (e.g., “this chair”). Three, it must contain some degree of Beauty, to allow the observer to care enough to notice it (e.g., “this moderately beautiful chair”).

 

These three dimensions should be enough for us to triangulate the location of monads. Let's see if it works: since existence is the sum of experience, if something could not be experienced it could not be said to exist. In other words an unexperienced thing would not be part of the universe at all since the universe (Leibniz again) is the sum of all monads which reflect each other ad infinitum. So all real things must be beautiful to some degree.

 

(Even the devil! Of course the devil has made it an art and a science to make himself as awful as possible, so we can put him down as the minimum of beauty. But note that he uses beautiful things to seduce us, so even he cannot put pure ugliness to use—rather that is his reward.)

 

Ugly things are not real, then, to the degree they are ugly. Allow me a syllogism:

 

Nothing ugly is real

Brokenness is ugly

Brokenness isn't real

 

In other words, suppose we have a skeleton of a cat. A thing with number, form, and beauty—a monad! But suppose we dismantle the skeleton and throw the bones into in a random pile. What has happened? The skeleton is now broken, leaving us with this pile. Does the pile have a form? No, or rather it participates in what we might call the Form of clutter, a sort of highly extended monad. In this it has number and beauty, but a rather chaotic number and a dim beauty, more interesting than beautiful.

 

Things with nervous systems seem to be the lower limit of extending individuality to organic things. Things without nervous systems, like amoebae, should therefore properly be akin to organic clutter, or the Form of microscopic organic matter, another extended monad. And, the sofa participates in the Form of sofa, but in a more general sense in the Form of furniture, whereby it would have its extended monad.

 

Extended monads are monads whereby the existing masses of things have a unity: tools, furniture, infrastructure, clothing, vehicles, microscopic organic matter, clutter, various sorts of raw materials, stellar bodies, and principles. So the galaxies, no respecters of scale, share a single monad, that is the unity of their beauty, their number, and their form.

 

So what is real? Anything beautiful is real, and such would be accompanied by number and form. And anything wholly broken is unreal, just a conflation or confusion of manifestations of monads, perhaps forming the ultimate extended monad of the Void or minimum order, minimum of beauty—the detail where the devil is lurking.

[RichardY]

@Donnadogsoth So would you say that reality ultimately serves some purpose/s and what purpose/s would that be? Would you agree that reality is the imposition of measurement? I wonder of some of the differences between a person and a wild animal, in terms of them imposing measurement?

[Donnadogsoth]

@RichardY All exists to serve man, whether animal, mineral, or vegetable, and whether through beauty, or economic value, or heuristics.

Existence is the sum of experiences, you could call an experience a kind of measurement whether or quantity or value.

Do animals grasp the future, for example?  Do they measure out the future or do they merely wait in anticipation without understanding time?

 

[ofd]

Quote

For it's clear that humans and at least the higher animals have monads.

That's not clear at all. At least not for me.

[RichardY]

@Donnadogsoth

I am the very model of the modern Major General......

What would you define as a man?

I guess if the animal possesses some ability to count, it has some ability to perceive time. The trick would be if they were able to farm something into the future perhaps consciously, maybe beavers have that ability I don't know, remember seeing a programme a long while ago on Chimpanzees and human extinction, that if chimpanzees  had some enhanced ability to defer gratification they would develop much faster.

[Donnadogsoth]

13 minutes ago, ofd said:

That's not clear at all. At least not for me.

You deny men and at least higher animals have experiences?

[ofd]

Not at all. I have yet to see a Monad though. Seen some brains and what not that processes informations and stimuli.

[Donnadogsoth]

3 hours ago, ofd said:

Not at all. I have yet to see a Monad though. Seen some brains and what not that processes informations and stimuli.

When I refer to monads I refer to loci of experience.

[Donnadogsoth]

4 hours ago, RichardY said:

@Donnadogsoth

I am the very model of the modern Major General......

What would you define as a man?

I guess if the animal possesses some ability to count, it has some ability to perceive time. The trick would be if they were able to farm something into the future perhaps consciously, maybe beavers have that ability I don't know, remember seeing a programme a long while ago on Chimpanzees and human extinction, that if chimpanzees  had some enhanced ability to defer gratification they would develop much faster.

A man is a being capable of grasping universal gravitation.

[ofd]

Why not say nervous system then?

[Donnadogsoth]

9 hours ago, ofd said:

Why not say nervous system then?

Emphasising the metaphysical.  Nervous systems are an expression of the monad, not the monad of the nervous system.

[ofd]

Back to the beginning. Show me a monad then.

[RichardY]

20 minutes ago, ofd said:

Back to the beginning. Show me a monad then.

Show me the money!!!!!!! Oh well as it says in the bible "money answereth all things"

21 hours ago, Donnadogsoth said:

A man is a being capable of grasping universal gravitation.

Not "With many cheerful facts about the square of the hypotenuse."?

Isn't there something called "Dark Matter"(also an avid Youtube atheist) that is theorised to exist given the expansion of galaxies. Meaning that not everything is subject to gravitation? Bit like a movie I watched once "The first men in the moon" (1964) by H.G Wells. written 1901.

I guess there remains the concept of universals. Whether they can be exploded into particulars, maybe........

[Donnadogsoth]

1 hour ago, ofd said:

Back to the beginning. Show me a monad then.

Show me something that isn't an experience by a mind.

[Donnadogsoth]

1 hour ago, RichardY said:

Show me the money!!!!!!! Oh well as it says in the bible "money answereth all things"

Not "With many cheerful facts about the square of the hypotenuse."?

Isn't there something called "Dark Matter"(also an avid Youtube atheist) that is theorised to exist given the expansion of galaxies. Meaning that not everything is subject to gravitation? Bit like a movie I watched once "The first men in the moon" (1964) by H.G Wells. written 1901.

I guess there remains the concept of universals. Whether they can be exploded into particulars, maybe........

Perpendicular waves can interfere with each other.  Both can be universal and yet have different effects.

[RichardY]

47 minutes ago, Donnadogsoth said:

Perpendicular waves can interfere with each other.  Both can be universal and yet have different effects.

So would that mean the universe is effectively made of 2 substances, one subject to gravity and the other not or its own particular gravity? Kind of fuzzy(next to no idea) on wave theory/ies and theoretical physics.

Conceptually the theory, metaphysics, of "Monads"? Is some explanation of Freewill? Been thinking about the psychological effects of declaring oneself prominently an atheist. I mean if you are a-rational you are not acting subject to rationality, but neither can you be said to be irrational. In the same way that if you are a-theist you are not acting subject to God(ultimate authority), but neither does anything you do go against an ultimate authority(except perhaps an innate "passion" to make replicas of organisms containing your DNA, just for the heck of it) , whether you wish to call it "Freewill",  "God the Father" or being "The Last Boy scout". 

One thing that has been noticed is that atheists tend to be or become socialists(focusing on particular positions or issues to resolve, "progressives"). The end goal of socialism being Communism - Lenin

Another thing I have noticed is that "leftists" tend to become pan-theists(spiritualists, Consciousness) if not a-theists(physicalists, Magic Meat) which is kind of the flip side of the same coin. Freewill is something I have doubts on (consider it an illusion (or perhaps god itself), which my unconscious fudges, while being as real as night & day), whether I'm essentially rationalising expost facto, after I have unconsciously already made a decision and am justifying it consciously, perhaps to communicate that decision. So that would make "freewill" dependent on two people and would be in accordance with a Jungian collective unconscious. But with Lebnizian Monadology if true, doesn't that effectively mean you have direct connection to God? Which being in an insane world past and present, I can understand if being surrounded by tribal and fragmented people, not to say that I'm not non tribal or fragmented. Anyway sort out the knots untie the entangled. 

Reading the Tao Te Ching "3 treasure were listed" Kindness, Simplicity and Humility. (also kind of randomly heard the same from the head gardener, literally the day after I read the book, at a place I'm currently staying/hoboing around) Looking on Wikipedia they were also in a way comparable to Shia Islam jurisprudence(Ja'fari), which I came across fairly randomly. 1. Prayer (Kindredness towards God), 2. Fasting ( Simplicity) 3. Pilgrimage (Humility) Perhaps there is a Christian equivalent.

 

Perhaps a bit long. So just to be even more of a pain or not. Thought the following passage was interesting from reading Zhunagzi.

 

He too recognizes a “this,” but a “this” which is also “that,” a “that” which is also “this.” His“that” has both a right and a wrong in it; his “this” too has both a right and a wrong in it. So, in fact, does he still have a “this” and“that”? Or does he in fact no longer have a “this” and “that”? A state in which “this” and “that” no longer find their opposites is called the hinge of the Way. When the hinge is fitted into the socket, it can respond endlessly. Its right then is a single  endlessness and its wrong too is a single endlessness. So, I say, the best thing to use is clarity.

To use an attribute to show that attributes are not attributes is not as good as using a non-attribute to show that attributes are not attributes. To use a horse to show that a horse is not a horse is not as good as using a non-horse to show that a horse is not a horse,7 Heaven and earth are one attribute; the ten thousand things are one horse.

What is acceptable we call acceptable; what is unacceptable we call unacceptable. A road is made by people walking on it; things are so because they are called so. What makes them so? Making them so makes them so. What makes them not so? Making them not so makes them not so. Things all must have that which is so; things all must have that which is acceptable. There is nothing that is not so, nothing that is not acceptable.

For this reason, whether you point to a little stalk or a great pillar, a leper or the beautiful Hsi-shih, things ribald and shady or things grotesque and strange, the Way makes them all into one. Their dividedness is their completeness; their completeness is their impairment. No thing is either complete or impaired, but all are made into one again. Only the man of far reaching vision knows how to make them into one. So he has no use [for categories], but relegates all to the constant. The constant is the useful; the useful is the passable; the passable is the successful; and with success, all is accomplished. He relies upon this alone, relies upon it and does not know he is doing so. This is called the Way.

But to wear out your brain trying to make
things into one without realizing that they
are all the same - this is called “three in the
morning.” What do I mean by “three in the
morning”? When the monkey trainer was
handing out acorns, he said, “You get three
in the morning and four at night.” This
made all the monkeys furious. “Well, then,”
he said, “you get four in the morning and
three at night.” The monkeys were all
delighted. There was no change in the
reality behind the words, and yet the
monkeys responded with joy and anger. Let
them, if they want to. So the sage
harmonizes with both right and wrong and
rests in Heaven the Equalizer. This is called
walking two roads.

------

Oh, better far to live and die Under the brave black flag I fly, Than play a sanctimonious part, With a pirate head and a pirate heart. Away to the cheating world go you, Where pirates all are well-to-do; -------- As opposed to the Modern Major General. 

Uhmmm Trick or Treat??? (more randomness, yeah bit late, but not something I've done)

[ofd]

Quote

Show me something that isn't an experience by a mind.

Is that a circumspect way of saying you can't?

[Donnadogsoth]

4 hours ago, ofd said:

Is that a circumspect way of saying you can't?

It's a way of showing you that your monad is easily seen once you realise that there is nothing that can be that isn't an experience.

[ofd]

Quote

seen once you realise that there is nothing that can be that isn't an experience.

Wave functions of superpositions exist, yet by definition they can't be experienced.

[Donnadogsoth]

59 minutes ago, ofd said:

Wave functions of superpositions exist, yet by definition they can't be experienced.

You only know about them because of your senses.  Please try again.

[RichardY]

Was reading the forward today of an edition of the "I Ching" done by C.G.Jung.(Rerum novarum cupidus, people are greedy for new things, his words) Anyway he mentioned western science being based on causality and statistical significance, @ofd I seem to remember you mentioning something about Karl Popper somewhere along the line of statistics in science. 

Also mentioned was C.G.Jung concept of "synchronicity" and how the Chinese tended to base "knowing" on specific events. Looking perhaps for the exception rather than the rule. Perhaps archetypally the Chinese psyche was more fragmented to various synchronous events astrology/zodiac, hence a random number generator with 64 combinations, Happy Halloween all year I guess for the Chinese. In contrast to the Christian One God(Freewill) being "the" synchronous event. UPB being a repudiation of synchronous events, stealing and murdering at the same time. etc

Would the overlapping of the wave-function(superposition) be a kind of God? So is there some kind of "Mirror Universe" like an original episode of Star Trek? No Tantalus machines in development? 

[ofd]

Quote

that there is nothing

Wave functions exist. They can't be experienced. Try harder.

 

Quote

I seem to remember you mentioning something about Karl Popper somewhere along the line of statistics in science. 

Indeed. But even basic concepts like p-value are little understood, even among scientists. In short, you don't look for confirmation, rather you look for points that discredit your theory. If those findings are marginal enough, you may have a better theory.

[Donnadogsoth]

2 hours ago, ofd said:

Wave functions exist. They can't be experienced. Try harder.

Prove it without using your senses.

[ofd]

Still not an inch closer to knowing what a monad is, nor having seen one. Still waiting for an argument where you show how we can experience wave functions.

[Donnadogsoth]

3 hours ago, ofd said:

Still not an inch closer to knowing what a monad is, nor having seen one. Still waiting for an argument where you show how we can experience wave functions.

You can know what wave functions are without using your eyes and/or ears?  Really?  You have telepathy?

[ofd]

I know by reading books. The tension is unbearable. When will I see my first monad?

[Donnadogsoth]

1 hour ago, ofd said:

I know by reading books. The tension is unbearable. When will I see my first monad?

And how do you read books?

[ofd]

Quote

And how do you read books?

Without going into much details, I process visual data and (hopefully) reflect on it.

[Donnadogsoth]

In other words your senses are the necessary gateway to your conception of wave functions, both in terms of seeing words on a page and in terms of visualising a wave function.  Minus your senses, you have no access to "wave functions".