Leibniz vs Newton: A Clash of Paradigms
The following is a lecture I delivered as part of the Rising Tide Foundation (RTF) symposium ‘As Above so Below: Re-uniting the Macroverse with the Microverse”.
This presentation “Leibniz vs Newton: A Clash of Paradigms” will introduce the principled conflict of two opposing schools of thought materialist/mathematical defined by Newton vs the higher dynamic/metaphysical method embodied by Gottfried Leibniz. The lack of any appreciation for this conflict has caused many fruitless patchwork theories to become enshrined in modern science that artificially handicap the minds of scientists honestly wishing to make principled discoveries in physical-space-time today.
Cynthia Chung is the President of the Rising Tide Foundation and author of the books “The Shaping of a World Religion” & “The Empire on Which the Black Sun Never Set,” consider supporting her work by making a donation and subscribing to her substack page Through A Glass Darkly.
Also watch for free our RTF Docu-Series “Escaping Calypso’s Island: A Journey Out of Our Green Delusion” and our CP Docu-Series “The Hidden Hand Behind UFOs”.
Very interesting and thank you, though Your interpretation of the concept of “god” is limited hence incorrect.
The word god derives from the root language, “ancient Finnish” the meaning of which is simply “good”.
What is good is god, simple as that.
God is manifested in nature and in life, humans can choose to be god or good, or to be imbeciles and go against good or god. “not good”.
According to the paradise time mythology of the Bock saga, “oldest mythology on the planet” during paradise time, period which ended 50 million years ago with the coming of the last ice age, till then, everyone was god, as they all lived in harmony and respect for life and nature on the planet which they called Paradis-et “Paradise tree”
https://bocksaga.substack.com/p/enter-the-bock-saga
About the so above as below, it is actually an ancient prophesy inscribed in the ”Tabla Smeragdina ” which should see humans evolve and a becoming one with its spiritual essence and the rest of the high life forms and civilization inhabiting our universe, before its final admission to the cosmic roam of our multi universe.
https://mywisdom.substack.com/p/trismegistus
By chance, I happened to come across this symposium just a few weeks ago and watched or listened to several of the stimulating presentations, including yours. It prompted me to order a copy of the Leibniz-Clarke correspondence, in order to consider the contrast you highlight by my own lights.
It was Matt's fascinating talk that initially drew my attention. I can't help think that both of you might find it productive to examine the works of the late Dewey B. Larson for another highly original perspective on a lot of these issues - generally congruent with your thinking about man's place in the universe, and definitely denying that the latter is headed toward "heat death" - but also to expand your view of the possible alternatives in some cases. In brief, those _are_ Doppler shifts in general, but the quasars have _an additional component of motion_ (with the quantized, polarized features that you mention, which Larson analyzed in some detail) due to their ejection speeds from galactic explosions occurring in the oldest and largest galaxies. While Arp's associations are vindicated, the quasars aren't incipient new galaxies, but rather matter on its way out of our sector of the universe. By a similar process, old "cosmic matter" which was highly concentrated in "three dimensional time" enters our sector highly dispersed in three dimensional space. Eventually it forms large molecular clouds in intergalactic space, condenses into globular clusters, which then merge into increasingly larger aggregations with time. The Milky Way as we know it is the result of countless such mergers, so eventual marriage with Andromeda hardly seems nihilistic in terms of the overall cycle of the universe. No doubt parts of this gloss of mine will sound far fetched. It can't do him justice. A brief but powerful argument for the actual evolutionary pattern is made in Larson's second letter to Martin Harwit in 1961, which I've saved to my dropbox here: https://www.dropbox.com/home/Public?preview=LarsonToHarwit1961.pdf More details on his cosmology are available in his books Universe of Motion (1984) and The Neglected Facts of Science (1982) and of his metaphysics in Beyond Space and Time (1995).
I don't mean to sound so confident that Larson was right. But I do think his work should be much better known by those seeking breakthroughs toward the higher hypothesis.