Possible worlds. Leibniz.
Leibniz described the universe as possible worlds. A monad is a possible world.
David Lewis used the idea for language philosophy--testing truth in each possible world.
It makes sense to me. Sounds just like idea of the multiverse.
David Lewis used the idea for language philosophy--testing truth in each possible world.
It makes sense to me. Sounds just like idea of the multiverse.
Comments (31)
That would be surprising. Where's that from?
Leibniz. Monadology. Each possible world has a rule or logic.
...and...?
Monads are simple substances. God chose the best of all possible worlds to be the one instantiated by those monads.
That doesn't sound like "Monads are possible worlds"...
9. Indeed, each Monad must be different from every other. For in nature there are
never two beings which are perfectly alike and in which it is not possible to find
an internal difference, or at least a difference founded upon an intrinsic quality.
https://www.plato-philosophy.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/The-Monadology-1714-by-Gottfried-Wilhelm-LEIBNIZ-1646-1716.pdf
Yes, Leibniz says each monad is a universe unto itself.
I see. Possible worlds preexist God's decision.
Sure. But they are actual, not possible.
Possible refers to the logic. Not all possible worlds are realized.
Yes, they are. A monad has a complete logic unto itself Like no other monad. It is a universe unto itself.
No, direct reading of Leibniz. Maybe you don't understand.
(9) does not imply that a monad is a universe unto itself.
So, where?
A possible world is a logic of relations. A monad is a logic of relations. If you understand Leibniz, you know this is true.
The SEP begs to differ:
"Since there is a hierarchy among monads within any animal, from the soul of a person down to the infinitely small monad, the relation of domination and subordination among monads is a crucial feature of both Leibniz's idealism and his panorganicism. But the hierarchy of substances is not simply one of containment, in which one monad has an organic body which is the result of other monads, each of which has an organic body, and so on. In the case of animals (brutes and human beings), the hierarchy of monads is also related to the control of the “machine of nature” (as Leibniz had put it in a letter to De Volder considered above). What is it then that explains the relation of dominant and subordinate monads? As Leibniz tells Des Bosses, domination and subordination consists of degrees of perfection."
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/leibniz/#MonWorPhe
That said nothing. Remember, Leibniz invented the calculus. He is talking about symbolic relations.
A dog is an animal. A cat is an animal. Hence a dog is a cat.
Silly.
Take it or leave it.
:smile:
Monads do not affect others like efficient cause.
:cry: :lol:
[quote=Monadology]And just as the same town, when looked at from different sides, appears quite different and is, as it were, multiplied in perspective, so also it happens that because of the infinite number of simple substances, it is AS IF there were as many different universes, which are however but different perspective representations of a single universe from the different point of view of each monad.[/quote]
(Emphases are mine.)
However, in defense of the OP, each monad does offer a different point of view which could be considered as universes unto themselves. A sentence attributed to Sam Harris: In Dr. Craig's universe...(my memory ain't so good any more).
You are the least informed person on this forum. Always.
Interesting conclusion to draw from a direct quite from the work in question.
Accurate.
Goodbye.
A badge of honor coming from you, D-K! :rofl:
5+m=5
:cry: