Leibniz

[@johndonwood4305]

Leibniz is a true genius. Understanding his work brought me into learning aspects of physics, biology, chemistry, geography, mathematics, theology, and so on.

[@DavidVonR]

Leibniz - one of the greatest geniuses of all time, and a man worth emulating.

[@NadaII]

There is a severe lack of mainstream Leibniz acknowledgment.

[@davyroger3773]

But that's all for the good! Leibniz lack of modern recognition "is", so it couldn't have not happened, therefore it's the best possible outcome

[@prof.dalmar6989]

one of the Greatest Mathematician of all time indeed i respect him indeed

[@TylerDonald-b2x]

Really? I know him as a philosophy student. He is amazing.

[@syedadeelhussain2691]

Leibniz and Newton were unknowingly developing mathematical calculus at the same time. Remarkable how two minds were doing the same thing without communicating much with each other, If I am not mistaken?

[@DawsonSWilliams]

Godel’s praise of Leibniz is worth regarding, while Russell’s pedantry is worth forgetting...

[@bris1tol]

Here Russell is venting his atheistic spleen on Leibniz, who as a Platonist believed in the One, which Christians call God.

[@hyperduality2838]

Certainty (mind) is dual to uncertainty (matter, doubt) -- the Heisenberg certainty/uncertainty principle. Randomness (chance, change) is dual to order (predictability, syntropy). Thesis is dual to anti-thesis -- the time independent Hegelian dialectic.

[@MessianicJewJitsu]

The reader reminds me slightly of Mr. Peabody. Listening to William Lane Craig has led me to learning more about Leibniz.

[@hyperduality2838]

Integration is dual to differentiation. Integration, convergence, association = syntropy. Differentiation, divergence, reductionism = entropy. Syntropy (prediction) is dual to increasing entropy -- the 4th law of thermodynamics!

[@tedgrant2]

How would you prove that the North Pole exists ? I suppose the first step is to define what we mean by North Pole. Then having defined it, set out on an expedition to reach it. Hopefully, the photographs of the Pole would be convincing.

[@jerrymoffatt9127]

I really relish , in addition to his mathematical genius , his legal mind!

[@POLISHAMERICANLEGIONS]

This is for smart people not for Generation 0.

[@paulheinrichdietrich9518]

What is generation 0?

[@midshipman8654]

this is not a particularly smart comment.

[@SeanAnthony-j7f]

This is for all generations who will find this video interesting

[@Akira-yk9ls]

Hello friends.

[@rgaleny]

Man is born free, but, in a deterministic setting.

[@ocholamwanafalsafa8627]

As an atheist I would love to get deep into studying Leibniz,as in at times I wonder how such a great intellect would conceive of a god.But his strong belief in logic rendered this a possibility. Was he sincere?I would love to know this.

[@TimV-t8x]

Schopenhauer had conjectured that Leibniz’ pre-established harmony was an attempt to assert a connection between the ideal & the real, God being his realization of the difficulty of such a problem.

[@TylerDonald-b2x]

You would be truly befuddled to know most of history’s great intellects have believed in god. If you want to talk logic, no one has debunked the logical proofs of the existence of god. Atheism is a prejudice.

[@megenberg8]

yes, it can well be said: this IS the 'best of all worlds' because of our hope in Christ. indeed, considering the nature/condition of sin, it is truly nothing short of the MOST spectacular miracle that life here on earth is not merely possible, but can be the source of great joy! truth.

[@kouchreal]

Leibniz philosophies

[@tedgrant2]

I'm still puzzled as to why we need several proofs of the existence of the god. It is obvious that if one proof is valid and convincingly so, then we don't need the rest. Perhaps the inventors of these many proofs were not sure which one would be convincing. As far as I know there are no proofs that the sun exists and we certainly have no need of several.

[@MatthewsPersonal]

There are proofs that the sun exists. You can look up during they day and prove it yourself. There are in fact, many proofs that the sun exists in the way it does. Multiple proofs are characteristic of real things. Of you are unable to find multiple proofs for something, instead of that thing being more likely to be real, that thing becomes more likely to be a fluke. Multiple proofs are necessary to demonstrate reality. We just don't always erote them down explicitly because most of the time, they are obviously implied.

[@tedgrant2]

@@MatthewsPersonal There is evidence that the sun exists, but no proof.

[@MatthewsPersonal]

@@tedgrant2 you can use evidence to form proofs the sun exists

[@tedgrant2]

@@MatthewsPersonal Give me that proof !

[@MatthewsPersonal]

@@tedgrant2 sure, I'll take a stab at it. Claim: the sun exists as described. Assuming that reality exists. Proof 1: proof by overwhelming odds. If the sun exists. Then you should expect to see it daily. If you observe the sun daily, then, using bayesian statistical analysis, you can be more and more certain that the sun does indeed exist as you observe it for more and more days in a row. The odds for a bright object to minic the expected behavior for the sun everyday goes down exponentially until it is extremely unlikely for the object to be anything but the sun. Proof 2: proof by contradiction. If we are to assume the sun does not exist and follow that assumption to it's logical conclusion, we find that, for the planets to exist in their current orbits. There must be something of 1 solar mass in the center of the solar system that isn't the sun. When we look in that region of space and fail to find something that isn't the sun there, we arrive at a contradiction. Thus the hypothesis that the sun exists holds more weight. I hope you can see that neither of these proofs are totally conclusive. Even if they are extremely convincing. It's like proving that the earth is round, trivial, but definitely possible. Just because a proof is trivial, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

[@doublenegation7870]

Russell is such a terrible interpreter of every philosophy that isn't his own.

[@davyroger3773]

Idk about that but check out will Durant his investigations are pretty good

[@kpllc4209]

He seems like the type of guy that would say whatever you paid him to say.

[@AminVassefi]

INTP.

[@Lukas-cm2b]

regular human to leibniz is like daschund to leibniz lol

[@tedgrant2]

I'm quite happy to believe that there was a first cause. But to conclude that the first cause was GOD, where GOD is a proper name, is a mistake. I could, if I wished, call my dog, GOD, but I have no reason to suppose he was the first cause. If there was a first cause, then the proper procedure is to obtain data, not sit around guessing.