= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Johnicholas comments on How to think like a quantum monadologist - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (266)
We are using monad in the functional programming sense? I thought Leibniz at first glance. I've never quite apprehended Leibniz's monads, so I put off trying to grok the post fully. An introduction to them would be useful.
I don't know much, but...
Leibniz's monads were an attempt to resolve the mind-body problem. Supposedly, monads are something like atoms, and something like souls. They don't interact with each other - all causality goes from God directly to the monads, not from one monad to the other - for example, perception is only accurate by God arranging for monads' perceptions to be accurate.
It seems like really incredibly strange metaphysics / theology to me.
I agree. Bertrand Russell explained it as due to Leibniz's beliefs about causality - one substance could not affect another substance. By a monad I just mean an elementary "thing" which can have mental states.