Leibniz and quantum mechanics and relativity [Archive]

Mike Helland

Jun27-04, 05:58 PM

<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>For anyone who doesn\'t recognize Leibniz he produced topology and\nco-invented calculus (it is his notation that became the standard)\namong many other historic contributions.\n\nLeibniz spoke of something he called a monad around the end of the\n17th century. It was a type of fundamental matter that underlied the\nmatter we observe. All properties of observed matter were "folded"\ninto the monad and unfolded when there was a reason to. To him the\nmonad is "pregnant" with the future and "laden" with the past.\nhttp://www.utm.edu/research/iep/l/leib-met.htm#Substance%20as%20Monad\n\nIn reading this, it sounds remarkably like 20th century quantum\nphysics. That the matter we observe only gives us its properties when\nwe observe it, that we don\'t have complete access to all of the\nproperties of matter.\n\nIt is as if the monad and the space and time it belongs to (which,\naccording to Leibniz is different than the space and time we know of)\ncould exist and evolve determinately, but since we don\'t experience\nthe monad or its space and time directly we obviouslly have an\nindeterminate view of the universe. I think that this interesting\nsuggestion for multiple "levels" of matter by Leibniz could be used to\nslightly extended interpretations of quantum mechanics that\nco-incidently resolve Einstein\'s objection to the theory, that "God\ndoesn\'t play dice." According to this, God doesn\'t make stuff up, he\njust managed to hide his calculations.\n\nI\'m interested in research papers that incorporate Leibniz\'s 17th\ncentury monad into 20th century quantum mechanics. Gregory Chaitin, I\nnote, has a little bit of information in this way, but its mostly\nabout meta-mathematics than anything like quantum mechanics:\nhttp://www.cs.umaine.edu/~chaitin/kirchberg.html\n\nDiving further into Leibniz we also see that Relativity exists very\nclearly in his ideas. According to Leibniz time and space were both\nconsequences of perceiving objects. This 17th century thought suggests\na deep relationship between space and time, that they are found\ntogether. His conclusion based on this was that there is no absolute\nlocation in space or time. One of his arguments was:\n\nMotion and position are real and detectable only in relation to other\nobjects. Motion or position cannot be detected in relation to space\nitself, since space itself represents no object. Therefore empty\nspace, a void, and so space itself is an unnecessary hypothesis.\nhttp://www.friesian.com/space.htm#clarke\n\nWe see here the basic ideas of relativity. It seems to me that\nEinstein\'s revision would have been largely unnecessary had we been\nworking from Leibniz\'s views as opposed to Newton\'s views on time and\nspace.\n\nI\'m interested in knowing if there exists any research papers the\nexplore these suspicions more thoroughly. Google searches don\'t come\nup with anything particularly detailed. Any pointers to papers?\n\nCould it be that Leibniz was simply too far ahead of his time and that\nwe needed to take the long way around to catch up to him? A light\namount of research on Leibniz\'s contributions to humanity show that\nthis wouldn\'t be the first time.\n\n--\nMike Helland\nhttp://www.techmocracy.net/science/zeno.htm\nThe above web page is an introduction to a Leibnizesque interpretation\nof quantum mechanics.\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form">  View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>For anyone who doesn't recognize Leibniz he produced topology and
co-invented calculus (it is his notation that became the standard)
among many other historic contributions.

Leibniz spoke of something he called a monad around the end of the
17th century. It was a type of fundamental matter that underlied the
matter we observe. All properties of observed matter were "folded"
into the monad and unfolded when there was a reason to. To him the
monad is "pregnant" with the future and "laden" with the past.
http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/l/leib-met.htm#Substance%20as%20Monad

In reading this, it sounds remarkably like 20th century quantum
physics. That the matter we observe only gives us its properties when
we observe it, that we don't have complete access to all of the
properties of matter.

It is as if the monad and the space and time it belongs to (which,
according to Leibniz is different than the space and time we know of)
could exist and evolve determinately, but since we don't experience
the monad or its space and time directly we obviouslly have an
indeterminate view of the universe. I think that this interesting
suggestion for multiple "levels" of matter by Leibniz could be used to
slightly extended interpretations of quantum mechanics that
co-incidently resolve Einstein's objection to the theory, that "God
doesn't play dice." According to this, God doesn't make stuff up, he
just managed to hide his calculations.

I'm interested in research papers that incorporate Leibniz's 17th
century monad into 20th century quantum mechanics. Gregory Chaitin, I
note, has a little bit of information in this way, but its mostly
about meta-mathematics than anything like quantum mechanics:
http://www.cs.umaine.edu/~chaitin/kirchberg.html

Diving further into Leibniz we also see that Relativity exists very
clearly in his ideas. According to Leibniz time and space were both
consequences of perceiving objects. This 17th century thought suggests
a deep relationship between space and time, that they are found
together. His conclusion based on this was that there is no absolute
location in space or time. One of his arguments was:

Motion and position are real and detectable only in relation to other
objects. Motion or position cannot be detected in relation to space
itself, since space itself represents no object. Therefore empty
space, a void, and so space itself is an unnecessary hypothesis.
http://www.friesian.com/space.htm#clarke

We see here the basic ideas of relativity. It seems to me that
Einstein's revision would have been largely unnecessary had we been
working from Leibniz's views as opposed to Newton's views on time and
space.

I'm interested in knowing if there exists any research papers the
explore these suspicions more thoroughly. Google searches don't come
up with anything particularly detailed. Any pointers to papers?

Could it be that Leibniz was simply too far ahead of his time and that
we needed to take the long way around to catch up to him? A light
amount of research on Leibniz's contributions to humanity show that
this wouldn't be the first time.

--
Mike Helland
http://www.techmocracy.net/science/zeno.htm
The above web page is an introduction to a Leibnizesque interpretation
of quantum mechanics.

Alex Green

Jun30-04, 05:37 PM

<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>mhelland@techmocracy.net (Mike Helland) wrote in message news:<ad157aec.0406202125.285215d9@posting.google. com>...\n> Motion and position are real and detectable only in relation to other\n> objects.\n\nOr relative to an observer\'s internal co-ordinate system which has\n\'up\' and \'down\' set by vestibular input. We can dream of a single\nfirefly moving in the dark. What is the reference point for this\nmotion?\n\nIn the last twenty years, neuroscience has shown that dreams,\nperception and imagination share many of the same areas of cortical\nactivity. Somehow a manifold of brain activity becomes an\n\'observation\' and it is this manifold that gives us the intuition of\nspace and time. The problem confronting the physicist is to explain\nhow this manifold can be self observing.\n\nOur observation is impossible in Leibnitzean or Newtonian physics,\nbound as they were by Galilean Relativity and a view of the world as a\nsuccession of energy exchanges at points of contact between material\nobjects. A manifold of events in such a system can only be\nself-observing by the bulk transfer of information from place to place\nbut then something would be needed to observe the information that had\nbeen transferred... So \'observation\' is not due to an Newtonian or\nLeibnitzean information system, information systems simply deliver\ndata. Observation itself must be a geometrical phenomenon because it\nhas the space and time of our intuition.\n\nBest Wishes\n\nAlex Green\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form">  View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>mhelland@techmocracy.net (Mike Helland) wrote in message news:<ad157aec.0406202125.285215d9@posting.google.com>...
> Motion and position are real and detectable only in relation to other
> objects.

Or relative to an observer's internal co-ordinate system which has
'up' and 'down' set by vestibular input. We can dream of a single
firefly moving in the dark. What is the reference point for this
motion?

In the last twenty years, neuroscience has shown that dreams,
perception and imagination share many of the same areas of cortical
activity. Somehow a manifold of brain activity becomes an
'observation' and it is this manifold that gives us the intuition of
space and time. The problem confronting the physicist is to explain
how this manifold can be self observing.

Our observation is impossible in Leibnitzean or Newtonian physics,
bound as they were by Galilean Relativity and a view of the world as a
succession of energy exchanges at points of contact between material
objects. A manifold of events in such a system can only be
self-observing by the bulk transfer of information from place to place
but then something would be needed to observe the information that had
been transferred... So 'observation' is not due to an Newtonian or
Leibnitzean information system, information systems simply deliver
data. Observation itself must be a geometrical phenomenon because it
has the space and time of our intuition.

Best Wishes

Alex Green

tessel@tum.bot

Jul2-04, 04:32 AM

<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>On Sun, 27 Jun 2004, Mike Helland wrote:\n\n> For anyone who doesn\'t recognize Leibniz he produced topology and\n> co-invented calculus (it is his notation that became the standard)\n> among many other historic contributions.\n\nYou are correct about calculus (although in Leibniz\'s day this would have\nbeen a highly politicized statement!), but not topology. Usually later\nmathematicians (Euler, Gauss, Riemann, Listing, Moebius, Betti, Poincare,\netc.) are credited with the gradual invention/discovery of topology.\n\n> Leibniz spoke of something he called a monad around the end of the\n> 17th century. It was a type of fundamental matter that underlied the\n> matter we observe. All properties of observed matter were "folded"\n> into the monad and unfolded when there was a reason to. To him the\n> monad is "pregnant" with the future and "laden" with the past.\n> http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/l/leib-met.htm#Substance%20as%20Monad\n>\n> In reading this, it sounds remarkably like\n\ntopology?\n\n> 20th century quantum physics.\n\nOh. Well, if you want to learn about a fun connection between monads and\n-topology-, you can read a book on "topos theory".\n\nTopos theory can be very -very- roughly characterized as a (the?) common\ngeneralization of logic, topology, and number theory. It incorporates\nsomething called a "monad", which arises in category theory (there used to\nbe available on the web an expository paper called something like "A\nCategorical Primer", which explained this; alternatively, monads are\ndiscussed in every good book on category theory). This modern notion of\n"monad" has a precise mathematical definition, which Leibniz would\ncertainly not have recognized, and which very possibly he would have\ndisowned, had someone had taught him enough background to understand the\nmodern notion. But it -is- true that the modern "monads" were given that\nname with an explicit nod at Leibniz\'s usage.\n\n> I\'m interested in research papers that incorporate Leibniz\'s 17th\n> century monad into 20th century quantum mechanics. Gregory Chaitin, I\n> note, has a little bit of information in this way, but its mostly about\n> meta-mathematics than anything like quantum mechanics:\n> http://www.cs.umaine.edu/~chaitin/kirchberg.html\n\nWell, Chaitin\'s work on "algebraic information theory" is related to logic\n(see above), in fact his most interesting achievement (IMO) was relating\nthe basic ideas (he independently reinvented them, but the famous\nmathematician Komogorov apparently was the first to make the basic\ndiscoveries) to Goedel\'s incompleteness theorem. There is a very good\naccount of this in one of the expository essays in Mathematics Today, ed.\nby Lynn Arthur Steen, Basic Books.\n\n> Diving further into Leibniz we also see that Relativity exists very\n> clearly in his ideas. According to Leibniz\n\n[snip]\n\n> there is no absolute location in space or time.\n\nWell, this is much too vague to be useful in physics, and it is not\nEinstein\'s notion of "relativity" at all. The best short description of\nwhat is sometimes called "the principle of relativity" is probably that\nthe assumption that the fundamental laws of physics are -Lorentz\ninvariant-. This assumption turns out to solve a number of problems which\nwere facing physics in 1905. The "quantum hypothesis", also due to AE,\nsolved another major problem. Since then, the development of "fundamental\ntheoretical physics" has largely been concerned with attempts to reconcile\nthese two useful (even essential) hypotheses.\n\nSome would also mention here the little matter of extensive experimental\nsupport for both hypotheses :-/ Others might caution that "non-fundamental\nphysics" is not neccessarily "unimportant".\n\n> We see here the basic ideas of relativity.\n\nYou won\'t find many physicists who agree with that! (See my comments just\nabove.)\n\n> It seems to me that Einstein\'s revision would have been largely\n> unnecessary had we been working from Leibniz\'s views as opposed to\n> Newton\'s views on time and space.\n\nNonsense. I\'d encourage you to try to learn what "Einstein\'s revision"\nwas really about--- indeed, I think you should first try learn more about\nthe older ideas which he "revised" with the introduction of str and\nquanta. Then you can read about topos theory and start poking around in\nthe ArXiV. (You can go find papers there which mention Leibniz, but you\nwon\'t understand them without first acquiring the neccessary technical\nbackground, which in the case of topos theory is unfortunately quite\nextensive.)\n\n[snip]\n\n> http://www.techmocracy.net/science/zeno.htm\n> The above web page is an introduction to a Leibnizesque interpretation\n> of quantum mechanics.\n\nIn happier days, the moderators would have routinely pointed out that "the\nmoderators do not endorse web pages". Needless to say, it remains true\nthat posts in moderated groups are not in any sense refereed research\npublications, nor are things (webpages, threads on other groups, etc.)\ncited in such posts.\n\n"T. Essel" (hiding somewhere in cyberspace)\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form">  View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>On Sun, 27 Jun 2004, Mike Helland wrote:

> For anyone who doesn't recognize Leibniz he produced topology and
> co-invented calculus (it is his notation that became the standard)
> among many other historic contributions.

You are correct about calculus (although in Leibniz's day this would have
been a highly politicized statement!), but not topology. Usually later
mathematicians (Euler, Gauss, Riemann, Listing, Moebius, Betti, Poincare,
etc.) are credited with the gradual invention/discovery of topology.

> Leibniz spoke of something he called a monad around the end of the
> 17th century. It was a type of fundamental matter that underlied the
> matter we observe. All properties of observed matter were "folded"
> into the monad and unfolded when there was a reason to. To him the
> monad is "pregnant" with the future and "laden" with the past.
> http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/l/leib-met.htm#Substance%20as%20Monad
>
> In reading this, it sounds remarkably like

topology?

> 20th century quantum physics.

Oh. Well, if you want to learn about a fun connection between monads and
-topology-, you can read a book on "topos theory".

Topos theory can be very -very- roughly characterized as a (the?) common
generalization of logic, topology, and number theory. It incorporates
something called a "monad", which arises in category theory (there used to
be available on the web an expository paper called something like "A
Categorical Primer", which explained this; alternatively, monads are
discussed in every good book on category theory). This modern notion of
"monad" has a precise mathematical definition, which Leibniz would
certainly not have recognized, and which very possibly he would have
disowned, had someone had taught him enough background to understand the
modern notion. But it -is- true that the modern "monads" were given that
name with an explicit nod at Leibniz's usage.

> I'm interested in research papers that incorporate Leibniz's 17th
> century monad into 20th century quantum mechanics. Gregory Chaitin, I
> note, has a little bit of information in this way, but its mostly about
> meta-mathematics than anything like quantum mechanics:
> http://www.cs.umaine.edu/~chaitin/kirchberg.html

Well, Chaitin's work on "algebraic information theory" is related to logic
(see above), in fact his most interesting achievement (IMO) was relating
the basic ideas (he independently reinvented them, but the famous
mathematician Komogorov apparently was the first to make the basic
discoveries) to Goedel's incompleteness theorem. There is a very good
account of this in one of the expository essays in Mathematics Today, ed.
by Lynn Arthur Steen, Basic Books.

> Diving further into Leibniz we also see that Relativity exists very
> clearly in his ideas. According to Leibniz

[snip]

> there is no absolute location in space or time.

Well, this is much too vague to be useful in physics, and it is not
Einstein's notion of "relativity" at all. The best short description of
what is sometimes called "the principle of relativity" is probably that
the assumption that the fundamental laws of physics are -Lorentz
invariant-. This assumption turns out to solve a number of problems which
were facing physics in 1905. The "quantum hypothesis", also due to AE,
solved another major problem. Since then, the development of "fundamental
theoretical physics" has largely been concerned with attempts to reconcile
these two useful (even essential) hypotheses.

Some would also mention here the little matter of extensive experimental
support for both hypotheses :-/ Others might caution that "non-fundamental
physics" is not neccessarily "unimportant".

> We see here the basic ideas of relativity.

You won't find many physicists who agree with that! (See my comments just
above.)

> It seems to me that Einstein's revision would have been largely
> unnecessary had we been working from Leibniz's views as opposed to
> Newton's views on time and space.

Nonsense. I'd encourage you to try to learn what "Einstein's revision"
was really about--- indeed, I think you should first try learn more about
the older ideas which he "revised" with the introduction of str and
quanta. Then you can read about topos theory and start poking around in
the ArXiV. (You can go find papers there which mention Leibniz, but you
won't understand them without first acquiring the neccessary technical
background, which in the case of topos theory is unfortunately quite
extensive.)

[snip]

> http://www.techmocracy.net/science/zeno.htm
> The above web page is an introduction to a Leibnizesque interpretation
> of quantum mechanics.

In happier days, the moderators would have routinely pointed out that "the
moderators do not endorse web pages". Needless to say, it remains true
that posts in moderated groups are not in any sense refereed research
publications, nor are things (webpages, threads on other groups, etc.)
cited in such posts.

"T. Essel" (hiding somewhere in cyberspace)

Mike Helland

Jul6-04, 01:47 PM

<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>\ntessel@tum.bot wrote in message news:<40e52b9d\\$1@news.sentex.net>...\n> On Sun, 27 Jun 2004, Mike Helland wrote:\n\n> > Diving further into Leibniz we also see that Relativity exists very\n> > clearly in his ideas. According to Leibniz\n>\n> [snip]\n>\n> > there is no absolute location in space or time.\n>\n> Well, this is much too vague to be useful in physics, and it is not\n> Einstein\'s notion of "relativity" at all. The best short description of\n> what is sometimes called "the principle of relativity" is probably that\n> the assumption that the fundamental laws of physics are -Lorentz\n> invariant-. This assumption turns out to solve a number of problems which\n> were facing physics in 1905. The "quantum hypothesis", also due to AE,\n> solved another major problem. Since then, the development of "fundamental\n> theoretical physics" has largely been concerned with attempts to reconcile\n> these two useful (even essential) hypotheses.\n>\n> Some would also mention here the little matter of extensive experimental\n> support for both hypotheses :-/ Others might caution that "non-fundamental\n> physics" is not neccessarily "unimportant".\n>\n> > We see here the basic ideas of relativity.\n>\n> You won\'t find many physicists who agree with that! (See my comments just\n> above.)\n>\n> > It seems to me that Einstein\'s revision would have been largely\n> > unnecessary had we been working from Leibniz\'s views as opposed to\n> > Newton\'s views on time and space.\n>\n> Nonsense. I\'d encourage you to try to learn what "Einstein\'s revision"\n> was really about--- indeed, I think you should first try learn more about\n> the older ideas which he "revised" with the introduction of str and\n> quanta.\n\nI agree that Leibniz\'s ideas do not state the principle of relativity\nand that they are not mathematical enough stand in place of relativity\nin anyway. Thats not the idea I was trying to explore.\n\nThe idea is that the key disagreements between the foundations of new\ntheories (quantum and relativity) and the old theories would have not\nhave existed to the same degree had we been using Leibniz\'s framework\nas opposed to Newton\'s.\n\nI think string theorists are showing this to be even more true today.\nThe following is by Phil Gibbs:\n\n"Just as Einstein banished the ether as a medium for electromagnetism\nwe must now complete his work by banishing space-time as a medium for\nstring theory. The result will be a model in which space-time is\nrecovered as a result of the relationship between interacting\nstrings."\nhttp://adela.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~motl/Gibbs/metaphys.htm\n\nThe view Gibbs says should be banished is Newton\'s view of space and\ntime and he\'s asking for it to be replaced by Leibniz\'s view of space\nand time.\n\nWhile it is a bold suggestion for space and time I don\'t think he goes\nfar enough, however, to suggest that our view of matter (Newton\'s)\nshould be replaced by a new view (Leibniz).\n\nIt is this idea that I would like to know more about. Whether or not\nthere is any existing papers that re-examine Leibniz\'s view of matter,\nspace, and time in-depth in light of 20th century discoveries.\n\n> Then you can read about topos theory and start poking around in\n> the ArXiV. (You can go find papers there which mention Leibniz, but you\n> won\'t understand them without first acquiring the neccessary technical\n> background, which in the case of topos theory is unfortunately quite\n> extensive.)\n\nThanks. Do you know of any papers or texts more along the lines of\nwhat I said above?\n\n--\nMike Helland\nhttp://www.techmocracy.net/science/time.htm\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form">  View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>tessel@tum.bot wrote in message news:<40e52b9d$1@news.sentex.net>...
> On Sun, 27 Jun 2004, Mike Helland wrote:

> > Diving further into Leibniz we also see that Relativity exists very
> > clearly in his ideas. According to Leibniz
>
> [snip]
>
> > there is no absolute location in space or time.
>
> Well, this is much too vague to be useful in physics, and it is not
> Einstein's notion of "relativity" at all. The best short description of
> what is sometimes called "the principle of relativity" is probably that
> the assumption that the fundamental laws of physics are -Lorentz
> invariant-. This assumption turns out to solve a number of problems which
> were facing physics in 1905. The "quantum hypothesis", also due to AE,
> solved another major problem. Since then, the development of "fundamental
> theoretical physics" has largely been concerned with attempts to reconcile
> these two useful (even essential) hypotheses.
>
> Some would also mention here the little matter of extensive experimental
> support for both hypotheses :-/ Others might caution that "non-fundamental
> physics" is not neccessarily "unimportant".
>
> > We see here the basic ideas of relativity.
>
> You won't find many physicists who agree with that! (See my comments just
> above.)
>
> > It seems to me that Einstein's revision would have been largely
> > unnecessary had we been working from Leibniz's views as opposed to
> > Newton's views on time and space.
>
> Nonsense. I'd encourage you to try to learn what "Einstein's revision"
> was really about--- indeed, I think you should first try learn more about
> the older ideas which he "revised" with the introduction of str and
> quanta.

I agree that Leibniz's ideas do not state the principle of relativity
and that they are not mathematical enough stand in place of relativity
in anyway. Thats not the idea I was trying to explore.

The idea is that the key disagreements between the foundations of new
theories (quantum and relativity) and the old theories would have not
have existed to the same degree had we been using Leibniz's framework
as opposed to Newton's.

I think string theorists are showing this to be even more true today.
The following is by Phil Gibbs:

"Just as Einstein banished the ether as a medium for electromagnetism
we must now complete his work by banishing space-time as a medium for
string theory. The result will be a model in which space-time is
recovered as a result of the relationship between interacting
strings."
http://adela.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~motl/Gibbs/metaphys.htm

The view Gibbs says should be banished is Newton's view of space and
time and he's asking for it to be replaced by Leibniz's view of space
and time.

While it is a bold suggestion for space and time I don't think he goes
far enough, however, to suggest that our view of matter (Newton's)
should be replaced by a new view (Leibniz).

It is this idea that I would like to know more about. Whether or not
there is any existing papers that re-examine Leibniz's view of matter,
space, and time in-depth in light of 20th century discoveries.

> Then you can read about topos theory and start poking around in
> the ArXiV. (You can go find papers there which mention Leibniz, but you
> won't understand them without first acquiring the neccessary technical
> background, which in the case of topos theory is unfortunately quite
> extensive.)

Thanks. Do you know of any papers or texts more along the lines of
what I said above?

--
Mike Helland
http://www.techmocracy.net/science/time.htm