Leibniz, Husserl, Godel

The following is an introduction to a future post on Leibniz’ characteristica universalis in the context of the philosophy (and mathematics) of Godel and Husserl contributing to the larger TOE (Theory of Everything) as well as ‘learning (intelligence) without a brain’ https://wordpress.com/post/thetimeoftheplace.com/298

Godel’s incompleteness theorem is well known and I trust that readers will make connections to the following ideas as they see fit.

Towards the end of his life, Kurt Godel became convinced that there was a suppression of Leibniz’s research into the characteristica universalis or the universal language of things; what in object-oriented ontology would be called a flat ontology. The connection that all objects have in a shared ground of being. Godel’s position however, along with Leibniz and Husserl’s for that matter, was not objective, but subjective.

Three-hundred years earlier, Gottfried Leibniz supported his own idea of an innate entelechy in the organism supported by certain monads; ‘extentionless, but active simple substances which endure through change’. These ideas corresponded to Edmund Husserl’s ‘primal ego’ or ‘absolute consciousness’ which was the result of the transcendental reduction of the epoche.

While Gödel’s main aim in philosophy was to develop metaphysics—specifically, something like the monadology of Leibniz transformed into exact theory—with the help of Husserl’s phenomenology.

What all these people shared was a sympathy with Platonic and Neoplatonic ideas, what we have previously called the monads; Platonic values embedded in the structure of the universe which give rise to consciousness when complexity in the system (i.e. the networks of conscious agents see: https://wordpress.com/post/thetimeoftheplace.com/197 The Holographic Principle: My Big ‘I’ Idea (after Thomas Campbell’s My Big TOE) reaches a certain, ‘objective’, threshold of intelligence where it is able to read and embody the platonic forms and support the platonic ideals that in turn support life.

The latter is a crude description of Penrose and Hameroff’s Orch OR theory, but this is only to say that at base, all of the above could properly be called information or holographic theories, much like Bohm’s implicate order, see again: https://wordpress.com/post/thetimeoftheplace.com/197

But, this is still only part of it.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s