A monad is a possible world. — Jackson

That would be surprising. Where's that from?

That would be surprising. Where's that from? — Banno

Leibniz. Monadology. Each possible world has a rule or logic.

Each possible world has a rule or logic. — Jackson

...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

That doesn't sound like "Monads are possible worlds"... — Banno

Yes, Leibniz says each monad is a universe unto itself.

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"... — Banno

I see. Possible worlds preexist God's decision.

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. — Jackson

Sure. But they are actual, not possible.

Sure. But they are actual, not possible. — Banno

Possible refers to the logic. Not all possible worlds are realized.

If you like. Monads are not each a possible world.

If you like. Monads are not each a possible world. — Banno

Yes, they are. A monad has a complete logic unto itself Like no other monad. It is a universe unto itself.

That is not my understanding. Nor does it follow from (9). It seems you have been led astray somewhere.

That is not my understanding. Nor does it follow from (9). It seems you have been led astray somewhere. — Banno

No, direct reading of Leibniz. Maybe you don't understand.

No, direct reading of Leibniz. Maybe you don't understand. — Jackson

(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.

A monad is a possible world. — Jackson

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

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." — ZzzoneiroCosm

That said nothing. Remember, Leibniz invented the calculus. He is talking about symbolic relations.

Hm.

A possible world is a logic of relations. A monad is a logic of relations. If you understand Leibniz, you know this is true. — Jackson

A dog is an animal. A cat is an animal. Hence a dog is a cat.

A dog is an animal. A cat is an animal. Hence a dog is a cat. — Banno

Silly.

Indeed.

The SEP defines monads as mind-like substances (not as 'a logic of relations') and describes a hierarchy of mind-like substances, a hierarchy of monads.

Take it or leave it.

:smile:

The wedding of two monads: m+m=m

The wedding of two monads: m+m=m — jgill

Monads do not affect others like efficient cause.

Leibniz described the universe as possible worlds. A monad is a possible world. — Jackson

:cry: :lol:

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. — Monadology

(Emphases are mine.)

I guess the matter is settled then! :up:

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.

You are the least informed person on this forum. Always. — Jackson

Interesting conclusion to draw from a direct quite from the work in question.

Accurate.

Far from accurate.

Goodbye.

You are the least informed person on this forum. Always. — Jackson

A badge of honor coming from you, D-K! :rofl: