Talk:Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz/Archive 1

Might seem a nit pick to some

But I deleted the part concerning Leibniz's supposed mastering of "all knowledge then extant" for, I hope, obvious reasons.

Two views on Leibniz's Characteristica Universalis and Calculus Ratiocinator

I've made this addition to the Leibniz page because there appears to be a discrepency in the literature over the interpretation of the Calculus Ratiocinator

In Davis's Engines of Logic, he notes how there has been a tension between electronic and computer engineers and logicians. This difference in opinion seems to be apparent with respects to the calculus ratiocinator, where engineers see it as a calculus computing machine, and logicians see it as a language. Whether or not we can see it as a combination of these views is an interesting proposition.

The inclusion of this difference of interpretation is for the historical record rather than revisionary history, however it has interesting implications as noted in the text. Sholto Maud 04:40, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Bertrand Russell's Critical Exposition on Leibnitz

I would like to add that the wiki entry does not mention that Russell (who saw the universe as irrational, folloowed the Aristotelean static/mechanical tradition and saw advancements in technology as dangerous) was the philophical opposite of Liebniz (who saw order in the universe, followed the Platonic immaterial form tradition and was a lover of the advancement of technology). A quote from an excellent article I found located at http://www.schillerinstitute.org/fid_91-96/943_tao.html has this insight:

-quote

Russell’s 1900 A Critical Exposition of the Philosophy of Leibniz accuses Leibniz of publishing for no other purpose than to achieve fame and wealth! The book is fairly characterized as a series of hysterical fits in response to each reference by Leibniz to the ordered lawfulness of the physical universe, or to the fact that ideas are efficient causes of change. Russell was particularly incensed when Leibniz demonstrated that the laws of nature were good, in the sense of the positive self-development of the physical universe, rather than Russell’s preferred static (actually entropic) state of equilibrium; he, therefore (of course) repudiated Leibniz’s ontological proof of the existence of God. But Russell was nowhere capable of providing any justification for his attacks, other than his insistence on the libertarian right to be free of any moral restraint over his personal conduct or over his empiricist approach to science. Russell complained of Leibniz: “He rejected entirely the liberty of indifference—the doctrine that the will may be uncaused—and even held this to be self-contradictory. ... He held also that the indifference of equilibrium would destroy moral good and evil, for it would imply a choice without reason, and therefore without a good or bad reason.” One can see clearly the roots of the Copenhagen School’s “acausality” and moral relativism.

Although the “wave-particle” paradox was not yet known in its modern form (Max Planck’s discovery of the quantization of energy was in 1900, the same year as Russell’s book on Leibniz), Russell anticipated the problem by attacking (in a typically hysterical fashion) Leibniz’s implied solution in his theory of dynamics, and especially his rejection of Newton’s “action at a distance.” Leibniz, he says, simply refused to accept the fact that there are three and only three mutually exclusive theories of dynamics: (1) matter composed of hard, extended atoms; (2) a doctrine of the plenum, an all-pervading fluid or aether; or (3) unextended centers of force and action at a distance, as in Newton. Said Russell: “Leibniz failed to grasp these alternatives, and thus, from his love of a middle position, fell between not two but three stools.” Leibniz, he said, treated mechanical impact as atoms, space as a plenum, and the monads as unextended centers of force. “The failure to choose,” said Russell, “between these alternatives made his dynamics a mass of confusion.” In fact, said Russell, Leibniz only rejected Newton’s theory of gravitation as action at a distance to get revenge for their “personal quarrel” over the calculus! He ends his book by concluding that Leibniz was “the champion of ignorance and obscurantism.”

-unquote

-Dr. G Dr. Gary Carter 20:53, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Whoever wrote that didn't read the book properly. Russell calls the Catholic Church “the champion of ignorance and obscurantism”, not Leibnitz. --Will Beback · † · 09:11, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Optimism and Monads

The following was previously part of the main page:

The best of all possible web pages,we have WindowlessMonads as well as Monads with a view.

Yet, in the 'best of all possible web pages' Monads can well afford not to have windows: They know anyway what is going on elsewhere, or atually, they have always known it. (By means of that 'PrestabilizedHarmony' Leibniz avoids the problem to explain how mind affects matter and vice versa. "Car je ne trouvois aucun moyen d'expliquer comment le corps fait passer quelque chose dans l'ame , ou vice versa, ny comment une substance peut communiquer avec une autre substance creee." Systeme Nouveau de la Nature etc.(12). Descartes' followers had introduced the "Systeme des Causes occasionelles" to solve the problem: God creates movements according to our will to move, and thoughts according to movements of exterior things. The idea of a God permanently busy to maintain the harmony of the universe seemed much less attractive to Leibniz then the harmony established once for all.)

Can anyone make any sense out of this? There seems to be actual content in the last paragraph, but i'm not nearly competent to sort it out :-/ --Anders Törlind

This passage seems to be a "piss take" on Leibniz philosophy, it does not have any interesting content. The french paragraph has the following meaning: "Since I can't find any means for explaining, how the body may move the soul or vice versa, and how a substance may communicate with any other existing substance" Well, then the quote stops abrubptly. Just forget it!

Actually, the concept of "monads" was developed by Leibniz to explain two philosophical 'problems' (1) what is the nature of sensory reality? (ie, is the world really as my eyes, ears, nose, etc tells me or something different) and (2) What is the true nature of the composition of reality? (ie, some philiophers have used the word 'atom'). there should be some discussion of this topic for him. - Gratz

It seems to me, very misleading to state: "Curiously, Leibniz argued that matter was infinitely divisible, thus denying that atoms exist." I think that some leading particle Physicists would take a stand much more similar to Leibniz than what is suggested here, and all would disagree with the implied indivisibility of atoms. Fact: Atoms are absolutely not indivisible. Once divided they are very unstable, for sure, but that has nothing to do with their divisiblity. It seems that Leibniz may have been much more insightful than he is given credit for by this author.

Atoms are by definition NOT divisible. Of course, the things called "atoms" in the physical sciences today are divisible, but that's another matter entirely. Michael Hardy 01:34, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Spelling

Leibnitz (the correct spelling) was born in Leipzig. That´s why he can´t be a Sorb, because the area of the Sorbs does not cover this City. I say it, because I also was born in Leipzig, but my roots (on my mother´s side) are in the Lausitz (the eastern part of Saxony and the centre of the Sorbs) Angelika Lindner 21:36 Dec 31, 2002 (UTC)

Why do you think that Leibnitz is the correct spelling? Leibniz seems to be used overwhelmingly, even on German pages. AxelBoldt 21:28 Jan 4, 2003 (UTC)

And why do you think, that the spelling on theses German pages is correct? Angelika Lindner 16:48 Jan 15, 2003 (UTC)

File:Leibniz Signature.jpg

Signature of Leibniz

Angelika: First of all, because Leibniz was German? His signature only suggests a Latin-like spelling: Gotfridu Gvilhelmu Leibnitics (?) Also your argument that Leipzig was no Sorb is not very convincing... as you say: you yourself have Sorb roots and were born in Leipzig? Rinke Hoekstra 8:15 Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

Rinke: I read the britannica article about Leibni(t)z, and I could find nothing that suggests he was Sorb or had Sorb origin. Therefore, I believe he wasn't Sorb. Do you have any evidence for your position?

Concerned Cynic: I had never encountered "Sorb" until reading this article, but do recall its synonym, "Wend," from my American childhood. I also had never heard until now that Leibniz had material Slavic ancestry, although this is by no means unlikely, given where he was from. I have seen the spelling "Leibnitz" in material typeset before the 20th century, but "Leibniz" seems universally accepted in our time. We should keep in mind that careful attention to the spelling of surnames was not the case before the creation of Departments of Vital Statistics in the 19th century.

Is there any source confirming the statement? I cannot find any hint of Leibniz being Sorbian either in Britannica (2003), (international) Americana (1975) or the German Meyer Encyclopaedia (1975). To me the edit looks like a practical joke. Regards, --GottschallCh 10:43, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Please see the "Addendum" at the bottom of the page for discussion of his Polabian Serb origin.--81.132.189.96 00:54, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Feedback as a unifying concept

My source for Leibnitz's discovery of the role of feedback as a unifying concept is page 79, Automation, Friend or Foe?, R. H. Macmillan, Cambridge: At the University Press, 1956. Fred Bauder 13:54 Jan 24, 2003 (UTC)

Currently, the sentence about feedback is in the wrong place. Or does it have anything to do with theodicy? I'd move it out, but it has not enough content for a section on its own, and I don't have the book in front of me. How do people think about simply deleting it? Sebastian 00:09, 2005 Mar 19 (UTC)

Yes I also found evidence for Leibnitz's discovery of the role of feedback in Norbert Wiener's book on Cybernetics Sholto Maud 04:29, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

I should not comment on the specifics above. But it appears to have been the case that Leibniz was the first human to conceive of formal languages, binary arithmetic, AI, and other IT-related abstractions that have come to the fore over the past 100 odd years. These facts deserve mention in the entry. I have moved the sentence re feedback to a new section I've just created.202.36.179.65 17:53, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Characters

``Characters were, with Leibniz any written signs, and "real" characters were those which -- as in the Chinese ideography -- represent ideas directly, and not the words for them. Among real characters, some simply serve to represent ideas, and some serve for reasoning. Egyptian and Chinese hieroglyphics and the symbols of astronomers and chemists belong to the first category...''

Neither Chinese nor Egyptian characters are purely ideographic systems (see ideogram, Chinese character, Egyptian hieroglyph.) In particular, a large number of Chinese characters are composed of radicals used mostly for their sound and with little relation to the overall meaning of the character. --Rynelm 12:48, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I am not the author of the quote objected to above. It is conceivable that Leibniz was mistaken about the nature of written Chinese. Also, in his day Europeans had no clue about how to read Egyptian hieroglyphics; the Rosetta Stone was not unearthed until 1798. Hence while the paragraph above may do justice to Leibniz's views, but those views may have been innocent of fact.202.36.179.65 17:55, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Leipzig/Altdorf

The change is more or less self-evident; any of the standard biographies of Leibniz will confirm that the doctorate was awarded by Altdorf, not Leipzig; reference could be made also to the Encyclopædia Britannica.

Biography Section

I am completely rewriting the section "Career", because I have copies of Aiton (1985) and Jolley (2005) at my side. I think the whole "who invented the calculus" controversy deserves its own entry, simply because it is relevant to both Newton as well as Leibniz, in equal parts. Jolley speaks highly of Hall's Philosophers at War; hence I am happy agreeing with its bottom line re the calculus dispute.

Some things I've picked up about Leibniz's personality:

• He liked children and regretted not marrying;
• He was a happy extroverted man, more popular with noblewomen and their daughters than with their husbands;
• In his diplomatic endeavors, he could lie and pretend, as did all other diplomats in that era;
• He never did anything to undermine his patrons, but did not feel a strong moral obligation to do their bidding. His attitude tended to be "by having me as a courtier, you get to bask in the reflected glory of the smartest cookie in Europe. All that costs you is my salary plus some expenses. I think you have the better part of the bargain." Many would deem such reasoning self-serving.
• Leibniz often wrote as if he were a devout, even passionate Lutheran. In fact, he did not set foot in church during the last 20 years of his life, which led to his being deemed a deist by fellow Hanoverians. He also refused communion on his deathbed.
• He strikes me as a classic case of a brilliant man who loved to start projects, but who lacked the staying power, the capacity for tedium, needed to finish anything more than a letter, article, or memorandum. 202.36.179.65 23:44, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Aiton (1985) did not exist when Mates (1986) was written, so Mates included a biographical first chapter. It happens to be unusually rich in revealing details, including Leibniz's self-assessment I've not seen mentioned anywhere else.202.36.179.65 10:07, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I think that the separate controversy article is a good idea. Good luck with your edit. Even working from biographies is amazingly hard work. Cutler 23:49, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I inserted the second-hand "Career and Controvery" section because, other than the Education section, the article contained no biographical narrative. The Rouse Ball appears often in Leibniz Web searches, and it provides good coverage of the authorship controversies, especially with Newton. (It's from 1908, so I assume it's public domain.) Aside from an observation on his personality, though, there's still not much there about his personal life. Also, it's a bit non-NPOV, and I've edited out the first-person comments. If anyone can do an update, be my guest. Until then, this one should suffice well. — J M Rice 23:46, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This part is quite good, but it assumes that the reader is already familiar with a number of points of Leibniz' career, e.g. at the close of the second paragraph, it was at this time that he communicated the memoir to the Royal Society in which he was found to have been forestalled by Gabriel Mouton. What memoir? Can someone who is familiar with Leibniz' work edit this section to include notes on what the various referenced things are? Kwertii 23:02, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

I think the part on newton's/leibniz' invention of calculcus is far too lengthy and speculative. The following quote is just an example: "It is also possible that they may have been made in 1676, for ..., and it is a priori probable that they would have then shown him the manuscript of Newton on that subject,..." I'm sorrry, but there are far too many "possibles" here. In my opinion, wikipedia should present facts to the public. Instead of discussing the controversy, we should just mention, that this question has been controversial for centuries. Period!

No, more can be said now. It has been settled scholarly opinion since A.R. Hall's _Philosophers at War_ that: "It was certainly Isaac Newton who first devised a new infinitesimal calculus and elaborated it into a widely extensible algorithm, whose potentialities he fully understood; of equal certainty, the differential and integral calculus, the fount of great developments flowing continuously from 1684 to the present day, was created independently by Gottfied Wilhelm Leibniz." (Hall, p. 1) As far as I--and most other Leibniz scholars are concerned, that is where opinion today stands. —George Gale, Univ. of MO-Kansas City.

I started copyediting the "Career and Controversy" section but after a while realised this was from a previous writing... should I go keep on copyediting it? SirIbus 20:19. 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You may want to merge your edits with the once since the version you snapshotted, SirIBus. If you have few changes, you could diff your in-progress edit against the snapshot you originally used and then apply those diffs to the current version. If you have many changes, though, it may be easier to go the other direction. That is, diff the current version of with the snapshot you originally used, and apply those diffs to your in-progress edit. The Rod 23:20, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

I see your changes are in place, SirIbus. When this section settles down, I'll be happy to review and reapply any earlier edits still applicable. The Rod 23:28, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Ok sorry about that one... guess I got kinda excited (I'm a noob), I'll get back to copyediting as soon as I have the time.

French Quote

There is a long passage in French. Could someone please translate this? It's just silly and pretentious that we assume all of our readers can speak French. (I, for one, cannot). 08:39, 6 July 2005 (UTC)

French translation: "In order to respond point by point to all the published works against me, I would have to investigate in great detail the past thirty to fourty years, of which I remember little: I would have to search my old letters, of which many are lost, furthermore most often I didn't regard the moment in time: the others are buried in a great heap of papers, which I could unravel only with patience and time: but I don't have enough leisure time, since I have been entrusted at present with an occupation of a totally different kind."

Calculus Controversy

Interesting though it is, it does drag on a bit and is equally relevant to the Isaac Newton and the calculus page, should it not be discussed in a separate article? Cdyson37 12:56, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

I heartily agree.202.36.179.65 18:10, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

I also agree, besides, they seem a little biased against Leibniz! Dr. Gabriel Gojon 22:10, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I would like to see a discussion of the Leibniz-Newton punchup more recent than Rouse Ball (1908). We all need to keep in mind that we all use Leibniz's notation, and that the calculus, differential equations, and analysis flourished on the Continent, where Leibniz's notation proved immediately popular, and stagnated in the UK until they too adopted that notation in the 1820s.

Portrait

Perfectly good public domain one here

Pronunciation

Can anyone provide an accurate pronunciation for Leibniz?

In German, e before i (ei) is pronounced like a long "i" is in English (the English word "eye"), and the 'z' is pronounced like a "ts", so the first part would be like English 'Lie' in "Leib" (but with the 'b' sound of course) and "nits." In certain instances the German letter "i" when alone is pronounced like a long 'ee', and is called such as a stand alone letter, but I don't believe it is here. (Velar nasals like "n" before or after give it the de-stressed sound common in English) Nagelfar 02:12, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

The pronunciation of Leibniz is L-eye-b-nits, as you say it is pronounced like the english word 'Lie' German native Speaker SirIbus

So that last i, does it make the niz part of the name be pronounced like "neets" or like "nits"? I always thought it was "neets", but my German knowledge consists of three semesters in college.Tommstein 08:49, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

It must have been in that fourth semester that you would have learned that it should be pronounced "nits" (but with a harder ts then you would normally use in English) and definitely not "neets". Hope this helps. --Easter Monkey 13:29, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Definitely. Must have been the fourth semester. Thank you.Tommstein 23:16, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

LIPE nits. The final consonant in the first syllable sounds like a p, not like the b in boy. Michael Hardy 01:29, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

- That depends on how accurately you pronounce it ( even as a German ): if you make an effort, written "Leib-" vs. "Leip-" makes a difference in sound, esp. if the "b" is followed by a "soft" "n" as in our hero's name; in everyday use you would not here a clear difference though (from most native speakers). So do it sort of "intermediate".

For the whole name, for accurately singing hymns of praise (English-tongue-owners read):

"GOTFREED VILHELM [stress]L-I-B/P-E--NITS" (born in "LIPE-TSIG")

(perhaps one can link that to the article page? 'Might be useful for readers who do not think about searching the discussion page.)

Regards, Sophophilos147.142.186.54 15:11, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Spelling

(IchBin 06:06, 18 December 2005 (UTC)) Corrected spelling errors on article page.

Thanks. All you have to do is mention it in the edit summary though (or else no one would ever get anything done around here).Tommstein 07:44, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Incredible Claims

An anonymous poster added the following incredible claims to the introductory paragraph: He invented (discovered?) modern logic, anticipated the modern conceptual framework for quantum mechanics (in his monadology) and developed a philosophy of history that is not yet understood. He discovered relativity 350 years before Einstein: “I have stressed more than once that I consider space something purely relative, just as time; it is an order of coexistences, just as time is an order of successions. For space signifies, in terms of possibility, an order of things that exist at the same time, insofar as they exist together, without determining their particular way of existing.” (Correspondence with Clarke). Most of his work is still unpublished and a lot of it unread. I'm pretty sure the edit was meant as a joke, since the modern conceptual framework for quantum mechanics has nothing to do with Leibniz's monads and comparing time with space in that they order events can hardly be considered a discovery of Einstein's relativity. I'm going to revert the edit (and the corresponding one at Albert Einstein), but if they are supposed to be serious, please discuss here. The Rod 05:12, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• I've read people like A.Einstein and N.Weiner seriously claiming that his work was important in the history of quantum mechanics, field theory and relativity. His notion of substance is a network theory of extended space and from what I can tell and may be the basis of such claims. So it's not new to me. Sholto Maud 05:32, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Wow. That's quite interesting. Let's find the actual quote from Einstein or Weiner so we can better substantiate the claim. Do you remember where you read those claims or, does anyone know where we can find such a quote from either of them? The Rod 17:00, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• For Leibniz’s philosophy as “... a basis for Quantum Mechanics" see, Weiner, N., 1934. Quantum Mechanics, Haldane, and Leibniz. Philos. Sci.1(4),479. Also see Weiner's views about Lebiniz's calculus ratiocinator.
• J. Agassi identifies the ‘Leinbnizian kernel’ as the kernel of Einstein’s relativity theory of space. Agassi, J., 1969. Leibniz’s place in the history of physics. J. Hist. Ideas 30(3),333
• Einstein says that Leibniz-Huygens space was intuitively well-founded and justified, A. Einstein in Jammer, M., 1960. Concepts of Space: The History of the Theories of Space in Physics. Harper & Brothers, New York,p.xv. And that Leibniz was responsible for advancing the principle of energy conservation. Einstein, A., 1957. E = MC^2. In: Great Essays in Science. Pocket Books, New York, p.404.
• most of the above ref's are taken from this article by D.Cevolatti and myself. Sholto Maud 22:46, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Leibniz may have written things that may seem to "anticipate," in some sense, aspects of general relativity and quantum mechanics. But let us be careful not to read into the relevant passages much more than Leibniz could have possibly intended. Leibniz indeed invented (formal systems are invented, not discovered, unless one is an ardent Platonist!) Boolean algebra, monadic logic, and a bit of modal logic, all documented by Wolfgang Lenzen since 1980. But let us not make too much of this. Nearly everything Leibniz wrote on logic was in the nature of working drafts he never got around to publishing. Hence Leibniz the logician had zero impact on our civilization. It is indeed the case that most of what Leibniz wrote is unread, and much of it has yet to be published. The Leibniz Nachlass is one of the most difficult in world civilization.

(The above paragraph is from User:Concerned cynic.)

I agree, Concerned cynic. Since Weiner and Einstein gave Leibniz such high praises, the most credit this article should give him would be to quote Weiner or Einstein regarding Leibniz' models. That is, if somebody wants to find such relevant quotes. The Rod 03:19, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

• Re: Impact of Leibniz. I'm not convinced that Leibniz had no impact on civilization qua logic. The cynic seems to roll Leibniz's logic and philosophy of space into the same basket - I'm not sure this is a legitimate move. I think the most interesting aspect to Leibniz's logic is to look at his work on non-linear logic. Weiner says that Leibniz was also important for cybernetics and the conception of negative feedback. That claim seems to make Leibniz very important. Sholto Maud 08:18, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

"Since Weiner and Einstein gave Leibniz such high praises, the most credit this article should give him would be to quote Weiner or Einstein regarding Leibniz' models" Such parameter would, if applied to the whole of knowledge history, completely erase everyone as an anticipator. Historians of science never work this way, so why should we? This clearly shows an aversion to take seriously Leibniz astounding genius. If the AUTHORS THEMSELVES of the anticipated theories claim Leibniz did so, then who are we to say he did not? Let us give Leibniz back a little credit which he has been denied for hundreds of years. User: Dr. Gabriel Gojon

Bertrand Russel himself considers Leibniz Logic to be very important surely we can consider him an authority on Leibniz AND Logic... From Albert-Einstein: Philosopher-Scientist 1970 Library of Living Philosophers, MJF Books. (Pages 299-300 Hans Reichenbach "Philosophical Significance of Relativity") "Tough we now possess, in Einstein's theory, a complete statement of the relativity of space and time; we should not forget that this is the result of a long historical development. I mentioned above Occam's razor and Leibnitz' identity of indiscernibles in connection with the verifiability theory of meaning. It is a matter of fact that Leibnitz applied his principle successfully to the problem of motion and that he arrived at a relativity of motion on logical grounds. The famous correspondence between Leibniz and Clarke, --the latter a contemporary defender of Newton's absolutism, -- presents us with the same type of discussion which is familiar from the modern discussions of relativity and reads as tough Leibniz had taken his arguments from expositions of Einstein's theory. Leibniz even went so far as to recognize the relationship between causal order and time order (For an analysis of Leibniz' views see the author’s "Die Bewegungslehre bei Newton, Leibniz und Huygens," Kantstudien (vol. 29, 1942),.) This conception of relativity was carried on at a later time by Ernst Mach, who contributed to the discussion the important idea that a relativity of rotational motion requires an extension of relativism to the concept of inertial force. Einstein has always acknowledged Mach as a forerunner of his theory."

From page 306-307. "What the human mind contributes to the problem of time is not one definite time order, but a plurality of possible time orders, and the selection of one time order as the real one is left to empirical observation. Time is the order of causal chains; that is the outstanding result of Einstein’s discoveries. The only philosopher who anticipated this result was Leibniz..."

OK. I'm convinced. I originally thought that the claim that Leibnitz invented relativity before Einstein was vandalism, but the above quotes convince me. The Rod 19:10, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you!. Now we need a charitable soul to edit my bad syntax on the additions to the main article.

• When you say that you have now been persuaded wrt the "invented relativity" claim, is this just your shorthand way of saying that, yes, the article should at least mention that he "anticipated the result" etc (and that we are not going so far as to specifically discuss his "invention of relativity")? 61.10.7.77 20:42, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

More on Leibniz and contemporary tought:

http://www.bun.kyoto-u.ac.jp/~suchii/gen.GR6a.html

http://www.bun.kyoto-u.ac.jp/~suchii/Leib-Clk/indiscernible.html

http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/cgi-local/DHI/dhi.cgi?id=dv1-62 Leibniz on "simultaneity" (read between the lines)

http://members.tripod.com/ClintonGreen/universal.html Leibniz talks about the "Wikipedia" (wink wink)

Dr. Gabriel Gojon 19:13, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

// That was very interesting indeed. Thank you for all that information !

Regards, Sophophilos 147.142.186.54 15:08, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Howard Odum a Latter Day Leibniz?

Here's the basis for Sholto Maud's claims:

Maud, Sholto, and Cevolatti, Dino, 2004, "Realising the Enlightenment: Howard T. Odum's Energy Systems Language qua Leibniz's Characteristica Universalis," Ecological Modelling 178: 279-292.

Neither author states a professional affiliation. The Email addresses given are commercial ones.

From the Abstract: "Leibniz is usually regarded as one of the greatest philosophers. If our thesis is right--that the Energy Systems Language is a characteristica universalis--the late H T Odum (1924-2001) shares in this title. Moreover, the work of Odum and colleagues can be considered a progression of natural science, creatively realising what...Juergen Habermas calls the 'project of the Enlightenment.' As a consequence, Odum's work is worthy of far greater historical profundity and philosophical respect than many have previously imagined."

The first paragraph of the article states that Odum founded "systems ecology," and that his "Energy Systems Language" is limited to "15 or so" symbols. Just how much of modern thermodynamics can be recast into ESL? Between 1920 and 1960, Carnap, Reichenbach, Suppes, among others, tried to recast parts of modern physics into first and second order formal languages. Mainstream physicists have resolutely refused to pay this effort any mind. For an introduction to all this, see Carnap's 1958 intro to logic, which Dover keeps in print. Also go to Suppes web page at Stanford's philosophy dept. web site.

A bit of Googling convinces me that Howard Odum's field work in the 1950s and 60s helped found the scientific study of ecosystems. He expanded from ecosystems into thermodynamics, the economics of nature (see Geerat Vermeij), and systems theory a la von Bertalanffy. An interesting cross-disciplinary sort of guy, whose early research was ahead of the curve. But I would not dare speak his name in the same breath with Leibniz's, who was much more than a competent scientist wisely attracted to the bigger systemic picture of things.

The first paragraph of Maud and Cevolatti also describes Leibniz as a "16th century Enlightenment" philosopher. The claimed century is off by one, and Leibniz died just as the 18th century Enlightenment was about to begin. Leibniz is not grouped with Voltaire, Moses Mendelsohn, Kant, Hume, Goethe, etc., but with the 17th century rationalists, specifically Descartes and Spinoza. BTW, I am not called the Referee from Hell for nothing...

• Yes I picked up that error, Iand the error with H.T.Odum's date of death (2001, 2002), however the journal would not accept the corrections 2 days past cut off date. :( Oh well... As far as 'bigger systemic picture' goes, I'm not sure of anyone other than Odum who has attempted to included thermodynamics, ecology and economics into a world simulation before - sounds right up Leibniz's alley... Re: Carnap et al. you might also inlcude Otto Neurath and Woodger, and the Encyclopeadia for Unified science in that group. :)Sholto Maud 05:56, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

You are wholly correct that Joseph Woodger pioneered efforts to reduce aspects of biology to a formal system, nicely sketched in Carnap (1958). In light of my happy experience studying some biology in my younger days, I would predict that biologists would not find Woodger's approach congenial. Your article on Odum is the first evidence I've found of any biologist walking (perhaps unwittingly) in Woodger's footsteps.

I have in my study a copy of the following, which may be relevant:

Vermeij, Geerat J., 2004. Nature: An Economic History. Princeton Uni. Press.

Vermeij's huge bibliography cites a 1969 article by Odum, as well as his 1983 Systems Ecology. I rather doubt that Odum's thinking is all that unusual any more. I encountered it in the writings of Stewart Brand a generation ago, who repeatedly acknowledged having learned much at the feet of Gregory Bateson. Some names I find in Vermeij's bibliography, which you may find revealing, are E O and D S Wilson, and DeAngelis (1992). A fair bit of the contemporary literatures on evolution and on climate change strike me as using concepts from systems ecology.

The ESL symbolic language laid out in systems ecology is probably a graphical realization of a first order theory consisting of a dozen-odd triadic and teradic predicates. If so, Odum's distinguished predecessor is perhaps not Leibniz, but Charles Peirce and his existential graphs. 202.36.179.65 17:55, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

• Yes Peirce's iconic logic and suggestion about the necessity of diagrammatic reasoning is relevant to this topic. A prevailing question is over the formal status of Peirce's logic to mathematical physics...how is first order logic related to non-linear autocatalytic processes of chemsitry, biochemistry and geobiochemistry? Did Leibniz see that first order logic needed a diagrammatic language in order accurately depict energetic flows (like electronic schematics)? Another important matter is the link of Leibniz's characteristica universalis symbols to his environmental accounting to the latter work of the physiocrats. Sholto Maud 00:06, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

I happen to agree that first order logic, augmented by some set and model theory (not necessarily every bit of Cantor's Paradise!) and a suitably rich set of predicates, is another realisation of Leibniz's dream. But that does not mean that any particular contributor to modern logic or set theory deserves to bask in Leibniz's reflected glory!

I read above of someone's owning up to "bad syntax". To me, the single most attractive feature of Wikipedia is the ease with which anyone can correct any bad syntax (s)he chances upon. I am more indulgent towards errors of fact and omission than towards sins that trample on that most useful tool for scientific and philosophical discussion, the English language! For an elementary example of what I mean by "useful" and "discussion," see Quine's Quiddities...202.36.179.65 19:30, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Leibniz as Mentor to the American Founding?

It is very well known that concepts derived from the writings of Leibniz's contemporary, John Locke, supplied much intellectual ammunition for the Declaration of Independence and American Constitution. But the claim, made in the Intro, that Leibniz played a similar role, leaves me startled. I find no supporting evidence for this claim in the subsequent entry. Would someone please enlighten me?202.36.179.65 18:43, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

For your answer look at this article: http://east_west_dialogue.tripod.com/vattel/id7.html I just wanted to leave my signature here since I just created an account. Dr. Gabriel Gojon 21:07, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

The link quickly reveals the name of Lyndon LaRouche, from which I must distance myself. Moreover, the alleged link between Leibniz and the American founding consists of the Founding Fathers being supposedly well acquainted with the writings of Leibniz's obscure Swiss disciple Emmerich de Vattel (whose name appears but once in all of Wikipedia). At the time of the American Revolution, Leibniz was primarily known as the author of the Theodicy and the New Essays. While these were in French, which Jefferson read well and some other Founding Fathers could more or less parse (in the 18th century, an educated person HAD to read French), it is an interesting question whether a single copy of either work ever found its way to the 13 colonies.

I am open to the revisionist suggestion that Locke was less important for the American Founding than has been supposed; contemporary research has shown over and over that received wisdom in the history of ideas contains much urban myth. The history of ideas, as well as military/diplomatic history, is a tale told by the winners. (Examples. Myth: Frege is supposed to have begun the predicate calculus. Fact: Frege was first in time but nobody noticed, mainly because his notation was off-putting. Meanwhile, Peano and Schroder diffused the essence of Peirce (1885) throughout Europe. Myth: Husserl is an airy-fairy German windbag. Fact: he did his PhD in math under Weierstrass, debated Frege, and was friends with Cantor and Hilbert.) But I am more skeptical that the Fathers were aware of de Vattel.202.36.179.65 17:38, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

How about this one?

http://www.schillerinstitute.org/fid_02-06/031_happinessA.html

Also: Symposium: Leibniz and the American Revolution, “Leibniz, Halle, and the American Revolution” (Edward Spannaus), “Leibniz to Franklin on Happiness” (David Shavin), “Franklin’s ‘Lunar Society’ and the Industrial Revolution” (Marcia Merry Baker), FIDELIO back issue, ‘The Leibniz Revolution in America, 1727-1752,’ Philip Valenti, EIR back issue, The Anti-Newtonian Roots of the American Revolution,’ Philip Valenti, EIR photocopy. Not sure about the veracity of these sources...

Dr. Gabriel Gojon 03:29, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

By the way, I did not know that Leibniz was a mentor to the American Founding utill I read this page and the article. But after a little research it seems to be at least a possibility to be considered. Untill the doubters read the books discussed above my vote is on keeping it.

Dr. Gabriel Gojon 18:49, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

As an academic, I can assure you that I am very reluctant to cite papers presented at a conference as sources of much of anything. Conferences present work in progress, and a fair number of conference papers never make it into print. Things get interesting if a conference publishes a proceedings volume. Have never heard of Fidelio before. It appears that the Symposium: Leibniz and the American Revolution took place as recently as 2006. Hence this is a radically new direction in the history of ideas. The jury is still out.19:34, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Here's another historical lead to pursue When Ben Franklin stayed in Europe he stayed with the top Leibnizian of the day, Kästner. --Leibnizian —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.166.224.229 (talk) 16:23, 30 March 2007 (UTC).

Do We Really Need to Cite This?

1671. Hypothesis Physica Nova (New Physical Hypothesis). 1684. Nova methodus pro maximis et minimis (New Method for maximums and minimums). 202.36.179.65 17:26, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

additional bibliography

Regarding bibliography: the article mentions Russell's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bertrand_russell) analysis of Leibnitz but the book is not cited in the bibliography. It is not mere mention in BR's History of Western Philosophy, but an early major work, predating BR&AW's Principia: Bertrand Russell, A Critical Exposition of the Philosophy of Leibnitz (c) 1900; the copy I have is Routledge (press) 1992 paperback xxvii + 311 pp. (Incidentally, Leibnitz, and also Newton, appear as major characters in Neal Stephenson's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neal_Stephenson) current trilogy of novels, "The Baroque Cycle".) Peter H. St.John, M.S. 05:01, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Counter in article

Is there a way to know how many visits this article gets? Is it against Wiki policy to install counters?

This is the answer OwenX (and admin) gave me:

As far as I know, the current Wiki engine doesn't provide user-accessible counters. If you need an edit counter for a page, it shouldn't be hard to implement one as a Javascript (and chances are someone already did that), but I don't see how you'd be able to include that in the displayed page. Owen× ☎ 17:46, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dr._Gabriel_Gojon"

(and from help desk past archives)

Is there any way to know how many times a particular page has been visited?

Thanks

There is quite a bit of information at Wikipedia:Statistics, but I'm not aware of anything that gives the number of page hits for a given article. – Jrdioko (Talk) 01:06, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC) There used to be a hit counter at the bottom of every page, but that was turned off a *long* time ago because of the server load it created. If you look at the autoupdating links on my user page, there is a link to the "Current month's hits" - that's all the page hits we've gotten this month. Be warned - the page is *big*. →Raul654 01:35, Jun 9, 2004 (UTC) That's 404 today, but it usually has the featured articles of the day, a few top-newsworthy items (e.g. Ronald Reagan), anything we got linked from Slashdot, and of course that top-ten favourite List_of_sex_positions. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 02:02, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC) Actually, come to think of it, I think I heard that the stats have been down since they turned on 1.3. →Raul654 02:21, Jun 9, 2004 (UTC) No: [2]; [3] Andy Mabbett 09:23, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Just wanted to share it with everyone. By the way since it appears not to be against Wiki policy, maybe we could design a hit counter (number of visits) that circumvents Wiki´s engine inaccessibility? Dr. Gabriel Gojon 18:34, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

The Golden Age of Leibniz Studies Began about 1945.

In my opinion, careful study of Leibniz's work began as recently as the 1940s and 50s, for which fact I propose three explanations:

• Until relativity, field theories in physics, and formal logic / systems theory came on the scene, many passages in Leibniz read like speculative nonsense;
• Leibniz's writings are a frightful mess. Sorting out that mess is perhaps the hardest editorial job in world civilisation. His very important correspondence, amounting to circa 15000 items, is the largest I know of. Most of that correspondence dated later than 1690 is still unpublished;
• It took 250 years for secular scholars to remain dispassionate in the face of Leibniz's rationalist metaphysics and his respect for Scholastic terminology and ideas.

Hermann Hesse, in his Glass Bead Game, predicted that the 20th to the 23rd centuries would not prove very interesting in artistic and intellectual achievements, excepting fields where knowledge is clearly cumulative, such as math, science, and technology. But he did predict that historical and exegetical scholarship would flourish. And I suspect that Hesse's prophecy has already come true, and that the ongoing exploration of Leibniz's genius is a case in point.202.36.179.65 18:23, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Should not we make a subsection of the article entitled "Knowledge in Depth" and include there all this beautiful information? Dr. Gabriel Gojon 18:30, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Leibniz as a caring human being

Contrast this with Newton's nightmarish disposition: http://www.philosophy.leeds.ac.uk/GMR/homepage/sophiec.html

Glad to see you point out this contrast. Leibniz was no saint; he was to eager to suck up to the kings and lords of his day, and some of his diplomatic activities were less than idealistic and scrupulous (he was no worse than the average diplomat of his day, and may have been a good deal better). But all my reading of Leibniz suggests a shrewd, energetic, and likeable man, with unbelievably broad curiosity about nature and the human condition. The marvelous anthology Wiener (1951), sadly long out of print, contains a curious essay by Leibniz sketching an intellectual theme park, a sort of 17th century Science Alive cum IMAX theater. This essay is great fun, and reveals a Leibniz who had a shrewd commonsensical understanding of the common run of humanity. On Leibniz and ethics, see also Jolley (2005: chpt. 7)202.36.179.65 17:26, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Remember that Leibniz (this is confirmed by Russell) had 3 philosophies, one at the level of "divulgation", one that he shared with learned correspondents and the private one (too advanced and difficult for any human being of his age, maybe even of our age too!).

Although Russell's 1900 book on Leibniz says more about Russell than about Leibniz, and so is primarily of historical interest, what you write here intrigues nonetheless, as it reminds me very much of Leo Strauss's interpretation of much of western civilisation.202.36.179.65 17:26, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Very interesting did not know any of the above. What you say about saying more about Russell, etc., is really enlightening, his "History of Western Philosophy" wastes a lot of its readers time by "ideological" "refutations" of the philosophers covered (basically the typical bashing by a logical positivist). Thank you. Dr. Gabriel Gojon 19:14, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Informatics and Leibniz

I think we should expand it, for some interesting tidbits see:

http://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath335.htm

Leibniz on the practical importance of his calculating machine (remember that he wrote this hundreds of years ago!):

"And now that we may give final praise to the machine we may say that it will be desirable to all who are engaged in computations which, it is well known, are the managers of financial affairs, the administrators of others' estates, merchants, surveyors, geographers, navigators, astronomers... For it is unworthy of excellent men to lose hours like slaves in the labor of calculations which could safely be relegated to anyone else if the machine were used."

From http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/CDMTCS/chaitin/kirchberg.html) "Leibniz invented base-two binary notation for integers. Bell reports that this was a result of Leibniz's interest in Chinese culture; no doubt he got it from the I Ching. So in a sense, all of information theory derives from Leibniz, for he was the first to emphasize the creative combinatorial potential of the 0 and 1 bit, and how everything can be built up from this one elemental choice, from these two elemental possibilities. So, perhaps not entirely seriously, I should propose changing the name of the unit of information from the bit to the leibniz!"

"5. Digital philosophy is Leibnizian; Leibniz's legacy None of us who made this paradigm shift happen were students of Leibniz, but he anticipated us all. As I hinted in a letter to La Recherche, in a sense all of Wolfram's thousand-page book is the development of one sentence in Leibniz: "Dieu a choisi celuy qui est... le plus simple en hypotheses et le plus riche en phenomenes" [God has chosen that which is the most simple in hypotheses and the most rich in phenomena] This presages Wolfram's basic insight that simple programs can have very complicated-looking output. And all of my work may be regarded as the development of another sentence in Leibniz: "Mais quand une regle est fort composée, ce qui luy est conforme, passe pour irrégulier" [But when a rule is extremely complex, that which conforms to it passes for random] Here I see the germ of my definition of algorithmic randomness and irreducibility. Newtonian physics is now receding into the dark, distant intellectual past. It's not just that it has been superseded by quantum physics. No, it's much deeper than that. In our new interest in complex systems, the concepts of energy and matter take second place to the concepts of information and computation. And the continuum mathematics of Newtonian physics now takes second place to the combinatorial mathematics of complex systems.

As E. T. Bell stated so forcefully [32], Newton made one big contribution to math, involving the continuum, but Leibniz made two: his work on the continuum and his work on discrete combinatorics (which Leibniz named). Newton obliterated Leibniz and stole from him both his royal patron and the credit for the calculus. Newton was buried with full honors at Westminster Abbey, while a forgotten Leibniz was accompanied to his grave by only his secretary. But, as E. T. Bell stated a half a century ago [32], with every passing year, the shadow cast by Leibniz gets larger and larger.

How right Bell was! The digital philosophy paradigm is a direct intellectual descendent of Leibniz, it is part of the Leibnizian legacy. The human race has finally caught up with this part of Leibniz's thinking. Are there, Wolfram and I wonder, more treasures there that we have not yet been able to decipher and appreciate?

(this from G. J. Chaitin the author of algorithmic information theory!) Dr. Gabriel Gojon 19:14, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Eric Temple Bell is a fun read, but was not careful biographer and was emphatically no Leibniz expert. For that matter, during Bell's lifetime it was impossible to be a Leibniz expert: not enough archival spade work had been done. Among living philosophically oriented mathematicians and information theorists, Gregory Chaitin is about as consequential as they come. But he too is not authoritative when it comes to Leibniz. He quotes Bell on Leibniz, the I Jing, and binary numeration. Much has been written about this in recent years, revealing that earlier writings are filled with misunderstandings and superficial readings. Begin with Aiton's 1986 biography and the sources therein. Leibniz discovered the power of binary numeration before he became a Sinophile in old age and learned of the I Jing. Nor is Wolfram, whom I do not think much of an authority on anything (I have tried to read his ANKS).202.36.179.65 19:19, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Leibniz the poet

Anyone here capable enough to judge Leibniz' latin poetry? He considered himself to be quite good. Dr. Gabriel Gojon 19:14, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Leibniz the founder of game theory

• “Games combining chance and skill give the best representation of human life, particularly of military affairs and of the practice of medicine which necessarily depend partly on skill and partly on chance.” — Leibniz (1710) • “… it would be desirable to have a complete study made of games, treated mathematically.” — Leibniz (1715)

From: www.cs.utk.edu/~mclennan/ Classes/420/handouts/Lecture-17.pdf

Dr. Gabriel Gojon 02:00, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

I found related sentences in Wiener (1951). Mind you, such thoughts were in the air in the 17th century, the time when discrete probability,

modeled by games of chance began. Pascal, Fermat, and Mersenne dabbled in this as did, I think, the Bernoullis. It amazes me that no one wrote on the mathematical structure of strategy and conflict until, to my knowledge, Emile Borel did so around 1920. Keep in mind that Leibniz did not do anything here, beyond speculating that game theory cum probability would be a worthy research agenda (the 20th century proved him right)202.36.179.65 19:25, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Claim that Leibniz co-invented the steam engine

Abstract: "The early history of the invention of the steam engine shows without doubt that the British Royal Society, including Isaac Newton personally, deliberately prevented the industrial and naval applications of steam power for nearly 100 years. In fact, the Royal Society was so intent on burying Denis Papin's 1690 invention of a paddle-wheel-driven steamship, worked out in collaboration with Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, that it stole his work, and created a mythical story of how two British "Newtonian" heroes, Savery and Newcomen, invented the steam engine, for the sole purpose of raising water from coal mines- a myth that has persisted in the history books until today. As we shall demonstrate, Leibniz and Papin developed the steam engine based upon a scientific hypothesis concerning the nature of the Universe, elaborated by Leibniz in such "metaphysical" writings as his Monadology. The fact that modern technology emerged as a result of a purely philosophical conception, as opposed to Newton's logical/empirical ideology and his hatred of all hypotheses (other than his own), is what the British Royal Society, and its epigones, have sought to suppress."

From: http://members.tripod.com/~american_almanac/papin.htm

Anyone care to comment as to the veracity of this? (PLEASE READ ENTIRE ARTICLE BEFORE COMMENTING).

My own grain of salt: many of the "facts" mentioned in the article turned out to be true. This deserves a much deeper historical investigation. I hope to hear the opinion of others...

Dr. Gabriel Gojon 02:38, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

http://members.tripod.com/~american_almanac/papin.htm is an absolutely fascinating essay. (I find it especially interesting in the context of our above mentioned maud cevolatti article). The discussion of Vis Viva Versus Mechanics is interesting with respects to the concept of "useful work performed by a heat engine", which was later called exergy. Morevoer Leibniz's aim "to maximize the conversion of the kinetic energy of such actions into useful work" seems to bare relation to the history of the application of the idea of maximum power, and the concept of emergy. I will leave others to form their own opinions. Sholto Maud 01:07, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

There is now (finally) an ample secondary literature on Leibniz. But most authors of that secondary literature are academic philosophers who are not comfortable with Leibniz the scientist and engineer, and so gloss over that part of his work. Moreover, not a single extant volume of the Academy edition is devoted to Leibniz the technologist. The main publication of primary sources on this topic is a 1906 anthology by Gerland, published in German. In my experience, this volume is difficult to access. The upshot is that it is impossible to evaluate the claims made by Sholto Maud above.202.36.179.65 18:29, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

This Abstract leave me skeptical.

"The early history of the invention of the steam engine shows without doubt that the British Royal Society, including Isaac Newton personally, deliberately prevented the industrial and naval applications of steam power for nearly 100 years. In fact, the Royal Society was so intent on burying Denis Papin's 1690 invention of a paddle-wheel-driven steamship, worked out in collaboration with Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, that it stole his work, and created a mythical story of how two British "Newtonian" heroes, Savery and Newcomen, invented the steam engine, for the sole purpose of raising water from coal mines- a myth that has persisted in the history books until today."

The British Royal Society had neither the power nor the authority to obstruct the adoption of a technology by private British parties in the 18th centuries. Also keep in mind that Papin's invention is dated 1690, and the calculus priority dispute did not begin until 1699, and took some years to become truly ugly. Claims such as the above need to be carefully supported by a close study of the Royal Society archives.202.36.179.65 18:29, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

"As we shall demonstrate, Leibniz and Papin developed the steam engine based upon a scientific hypothesis concerning the nature of the Universe, elaborated by Leibniz in such "metaphysical" writings as his Monadology."

It is unlikely that metaphysical notions Leibniz elaborated near the end of his life (the Monadology was published in 1712) were crucial to his engineering and inventive work of the 1680s, a time when Leibniz was not primarily a philosopher.202.36.179.65 18:29, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

The fact that modern technology emerged as a result of a purely philosophical conception, as opposed to Newton's logical/empirical ideology and his hatred of all hypotheses (other than his own), is what the British Royal Society, and its epigones, have sought to suppress." 

Is there a biographical essay on Denis Papin? Without such, I would not dare speak to his motivations. The steam engine was but one of a number of technologies driving the Industrial Revolution. I would not dare attribute the Papin-Leibniz engine to "a purely philosophical conception" (any practical invention embodies a great deal of trial and error) nor would I attribute to Newton a "logical/empirical ideology." Newton was driven by his own metaphysical notions, which he did not always articulate well. Because of his scholastic education, Leibniz was happy to wear his metaphysics on his sleeve, but under the surface was a man of phenomenal energy and insight about matters practical. And if anyone was a budding logician, it was Leibniz.202.36.179.65 18:29, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Leibni(t)z the Designer in water management, mine engineering and control engineering

The Leibniz "bibliothek" site says the following

"Two examples from the (modern) field of automatic control engineering stand out above others. These are his drawings of a device to automatically and continuously turn the sails of a windmill into the direction of the wind, and his conception of an automatic braking mechanism to control the speed of rotation of the wind-shaft of a vertical or standard windmill."

Leibniz apparrently also designed a

"functional water management system using pump-storage reservoirs"

"In 1685 and 1686 he carried out trials at a pit of the Rosenhof lode using an endless or continuous rope attached to the bottom of the conveyor skip giving complete counterbalance."

• 1. It seems to me that these very important practical application of Leibniz's work is not emphasised in this Wiki article, and it should be.

• 2. It seems to me that the issue of the invention of the steam engine should also be included, but perhaps only if someone can scan an image of Leibniz's designs/sketches into the Wiki imgage database as a proof that Leibniz did actually make these sketches.

• The "Rosenhof lode" (above) seems to be analogous to the Atwood_machine ~ providing a link to the principle of maximum power
• There is a need to document all the other designs as proof of these engineering claims - this would also seem to link Leibniz with the field of ecological engineering.

• 3. Moreover th notnion of an "automatic braking mechanism" would seem be analogous to Watt's engine govenor - making the link between Leibniz, steam, cybernetics and engineering more persuasive . Sholto Maud 03:16, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Impressive, I think you should add some of this things to the main article.

Dr. Gabriel Gojon 06:56, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Leibniz should be the symbol for Wikipedia

Since he is featured so much as the man who dreamed up Wikipedia who else thinks he should be the symbol of Wikipedia, and what can we do to accomplish this? Dr. Gabriel Gojon 08:22, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

A worthy suggestion, in light of a multitude of biographical facts.202.36.179.65 18:31, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

This is an excellent idea. His genius truly deserves that distinction. What can we do ? 82.65.92.63 19:43, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

there is no one more deserving other than perhaps Socrates

Care to delineate? I'm not well versed enough on all of his ideas to know in what respect he dreamed up a networking wiki phenomenon. I always thought of wikipedia as more of a analogy to some empirical parallel to the Akashic records. Was his idea something along those lines? Nagelfar 09:00, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Leibniz Skull (brain size)

There are two conflicting reports on it: On a congress of German anthropologists, which was held in Dortmund in August, 1902, a Professor Waldeyer stated that an examination of the skull of the philosopher Leibnitz, who died in 1716, had shown that its contents only measured 1450 cubic centimeters, which corresponds to a brainweight of 1300 grammes. The other one states that Leibniz skull was gigantic but I can not find the reference (I read it a long time ago), can anyone help with this please? Dr. Gabriel Gojon 03:38, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

It is useless to speculate, because Leibniz's grave took a direct bomb hit during WWII (Aiton mentions this). Moreover, there is absolutely no

evidence that geniuses have larger heads or brains than the rest of us.202.36.179.65 18:35, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Quantity does not equal quality, right ? I remember some research had been done on Einstein's brain, posth.ly, and found some interesting details, but they concerned some structural points, not "mass".147.142.186.54 15:16, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

From what I understand, Einstein's brain was missing a particular part which gave more room for another part to grow ~25% larger. It was this part of the brain that allowed his creativity. I remember reading this in one of Carl Sagan's books (either Broca's Brain or Cosmos).

Interesting Links

MacDonald Ross, George, 1984. Leibniz. Oxford Uni. Press. A good free intro to Leibniz's thinking, and to Leibniz the Man for All Seasons of the 17th century.

http://www.ifs.csic.es/sorites/Issue_04/item3.htm (Leibniz against the "billiard ball universe").

http://www.dfg.de/en/news/press_releases/2004/press_release_2004_68.html (the Leibniz prize).

http://members.aol.com/abelard2/leibniz.htm (Leibniz on "Lazy Reason").

http://www.edge.org/discourse/schirrmacher_eurotech.html (Leibniz the Informatician).

http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node=Isaac%20Newton (Newton's hatred of Leibniz, Newton the alchemist. Also see in Isaac Newton discussion related themes).

Dr. Gabriel Gojon 01:41, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Disgreements with certain recently added sentences.

"Many of his ideas were too radical for his own age,"

In many respects, Leibniz's approach to philosophy was more respectful of the medieval Scholastic and ancitent Aristotelean traditions than the writings of contemporaries Descartes, Spinoza, and Locke. Leibniz was no radical in his avowed political or religious thinking, either. I do not agree that he advocated equal rights for all, or some form of democracy. He was quite happy with a hierarchical society, ruled by enlightened autocrats.202.36.179.65 01:40, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

" and were taken up only much later – sometimes not until the present century."

The main reason why it has taken centuries for Leibniz's many ideas to unfold is not so much their being far ahead of their time as the slow pace of publication of his writings. Not before 1900 did we have a reasonable (although far from complete) body of work in hand, and catalogs of his manuscripts and letters.

It has often been the case that by the time a lot of Leibniz's ideas were discovered by scholars, our overall civilisation has surpassed him. A dramatic case in point is Wolfgang Lenzen's discovery in the 1980s that Leibniz had indeed discovered Boolean algebra and sentential logic. True, but by the time this became clear, every conclusion Leibniz had reached was old hat. I believe that the philosophical logic that began with Hugh MacColl and C I Lewis has since evolved into an instrument that would satisfy most of what Leibniz desired out of a universal characteristic.202.36.179.65 01:40, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

The anonomous author appears to have a considerable knowledge of the universal characteristic, which she/he might like to contribute to the charateristica universalis page. Some criteria and descriptions have been posited on that page, however it would benefit from further review and quotations if the author knows of some that are relevant but not presented. Sholto Maud 10:35, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

"As with all great philosophers, his work no doubt contains hitherto unrecognised potential."

I rather doubt our understanding of Leibniz the philosopher, mathematician, and physicist will undergo major change in the future. What is more likely to evolve is our understanding of Leibniz the Sinophile, the philologist, the applied scientist, and most of all, our understanding of his biography and of the House of Brunswick. I predict that Aiton (1985) will be seriously obsolete by 2050. Note that two of the 8 series announced by the Academy edition have no volumes to date.202.36.179.65 01:40, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

"He was also a prolific inventor of the highest caliber."

His calculating machine was the best ever up to his time, and he did work on a few engineering problems. But I would not call Leibniz an important inventor. His real creativity was in math and theoretical physics.202.36.179.65 01:40, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I have great difficulty believing what is asserted in the following passage:

Leibniz's contributions are currently discussed seriously in many fields at the forefront of science not only as anticipations and possible discoveries not yet recognized, but as useful intellectual tools for advancing knowledge... He anticipated Einstein by arguing, against Newton, that space, time and motion were relative, not absolute. Leibniz's rule in interacting theories plays a role in supersymmetry on lattices (quantum mechanics). His principle of "sufficient reason" has been invoked in recent discussions of cosmology, and his "identity of indiscernibles" in quantum mechanics (Some key figures even credit him with having anticipated this field.)

202.36.179.65 02:13, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the last of your points, compare the very interesting discussion above "15-Incredible Claims". 147.142.186.54 15:27, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Length, bias

This article is getting out of control. It is much longer than it should be, and is so hagiographical that it comes off as completely untrustworthy. Statements like "In his later years, Leibniz became perhaps the first European intellect of the first rank to take a close interest in Chinese civilization" are inappropriate; this, for example, makes the implicit judgment that none of the Jesuit scholars who had been working in China over the previous hundred or more years were not "intellects of the first rank", whatever that means.--ragesoss 17:03, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

The article is indeed long, but then Leibniz gave us a great deal to think about, by virtue of being the polymath of polymaths. He also left us about 1 million manuscript pages, and worked for a noble family that experienced a spectacular rise in its prestige and importance during his 40 year association with it.

Hagiography. Many of the statements in the entry claiming that Leibniz is a precursor of this or that segment of contemporary scientific knowledge, or that his writings on science and technology warrant close study by present-day researchers, I did not write, do not agree with, and merely humor. You are welcome to delete those claims and to risk any resulting revert war. Some of the hagiographic material to which you object is by a contributor who believes that Leibniz is an important precursor to the work of the ecologist Howard T. Odum. That claim leaves me skeptical. Odum was a respectable scientist but as he died a few years ago, he should not be blamed for any sins committed in his name!

If the anonomous author would grant me the honour of inquiring further into their thinking, I would very much like to read further comment on what motivates the source of their skepticism, and associated claim that sins have been committed? Sholto Maud 10:29, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Turning to Leibniz and China, examples of what I meant by "European intellectuals of the first rank" include Hobbes, Grotius, Descartes, Spinoza, Boyle, Locke, Newton, Bayle, Malebranche. These men mattered a lot in their day and are still studied. But as far as I can determine, these worthies took no note of China. The Jesuit missionaries posted in China, the most distinguished being Matteo Ricci, were a shrewd and hard working lot, and to them we owe most of our understanding of China in the 16th and 17th centuries. But I trust I am not being dismissive or ungrateful if I decline to include them in the first rank. A report to his superiors in Rome or whatever, written by a Jesuit in China, is not an intellectual event of the first rank. Did Ricci or his ilk ever write a book for the wider European public, and if they did, did anybody notice? A missionary's primary mission is serving the interests of his church, not the advancement of the intellect. Leibniz's reaction to certain writings by missionaries WAS an event of the first rank, because of Leibniz's overall importance for European civilization of the day. I do not have a copy of Franklin Perkins's book handy, but I believe he made the value judgement to which you object. That judgement is also implicit in Donald Lach's article in the 1945 Journal of the History of Ideas, especially the excerpt quoted in the Preface to Wiener (1951).202.36.179.65 17:11, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Why would anything here suggest Leibniz lacked humor or imagination??

This entry may suggest that Leibniz, while brilliant, was also a bit devoid of humor and imagination.

Why?? I don't see anything in this article that could suggest this. Obviously, what Leibniz did would be impossible without imagination! Michael Hardy 01:20, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I am the author of the quote, which I intended as ironic and rhetorical. Leibniz was very much a product of scholastic philosophy and the law,k two fields rather renowned for the self-importance of the typical practitioner. Moreover, in Leibniz's day, one made one's mark in the world by verse and drama. Leibniz did not shine here. I wrote the section beginning with the quote to show how he still left us with some nice bits and pieces.202.36.179.65 18:44, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

GA on hold

First thing off, it is not clear what is the reference section as there are 4-5 sections with notes or what seems to be references. What I would like to see is 1 section called References or Notes with at least 5 references in there for now. Plus if the works mentioned are from the article's subject then they should appear in the text before the references. (GA status will be given if this is met)
As per the progression of the article after the GA :

• Working on removing the list in the Career section.
• Removing the redlinks.
• Adding the inline external citations to the reference section.

It will be on hold for GA waiting for the reference section to be fixed. Lincher 00:10, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

This is being failed, you have one reference. Highway ^{Rainbow Sneakers} 21:17, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I am the author of much of this entry. The above is written in a rapid colloquial Wikiese that makes it hard to determine just what I should do, other than eliminate the "red links". I am not sure to what the "list" in the "Career" section refers to. It may refer to the outline of his career, to whose removal I would very much object. I wrote that outline to give a quick and necessary overview of the phases of Leibniz's life. It is also needed because Leibniz's only biographer in English, Aiton, is less than crystal clear about these summary facts.

When I set out to rewrite and expand this article during my last summer holiday, I discovered a lot of dubious claims about Leibniz the engineer, and about the visionary character of the calculus universalis and ratiocinator. I also discovered that those who inserted this material watch this entry like hawks, and objected vociferously when I attempted to remove this material. And so I learned to humour this material. I am relieved to see that some of it has been finally removed. I decline to add to the reference section inline external citations to sources I see as of dubious reliability, or sources used to support points that leave me sceptical.

I want all and sundry to know that, while I am emphatically not a Leibniz scholar, I take no exception whatsoever to the academic mainstream of Leibniz studies. What that mainstream has published in recent decades is generally carefully researched and thought out. Its main problem is one of omission: the typical Leibniz scholar (and I) lack the education required to evaluate Leibniz the scientist and engineer. It is frankly easier to write about 17th century metaphysics than about the dawn of the machine age.202.36.179.65 19:05, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Intelligent Design

The section Theodicy and optimism reiterates certain ideas about intelligent design which more or less makes it out to be accepted and coherent, which it is not. Nor do I think Leibniz' thoughts on the best possible universe can be seen as relevant to the fact that our universe happens to support our form of life... I think we should lose this bit, anyone else care to chime in? Lundse 19:13, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't know about the intelligent design aspect of it, but I think it should be removed or redone as some of the ideas are so opposed in detail to Leibniz's ideas/writings. Leibniz was quite okay with the notion of other life in the universe and that our particular corner might be the cesspool thereof. Also the anthropic nature of this entry, and the 3+1 spatial dimensions and 3 as the richest number are out of place. Leibniz' worlds are dimensions, not "worlds" (gee, I wonder why Einstein, Mach, etc. all liked him) and this doesn't represent the Theodicy.

Something cogent on the Theodicy needs to be included, however, because it is too important and pivotal a work.--Emnipass 17:51, 17 July 2006 (UTC)Emnipass

Religion?

Was Leibniz a Jesuit? Sholto Maud 08:38, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

It seems not, though his anti-Jansenist polemics in Theodicy tend to support Jesuits. He seems to have been a Catholic-sympathetic Protestant. More and more, it seems to me he borrowed much from Aquinas.--Anthony Krupp 03:15, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Leibniz Prize

I was a bit surprised that the Leibniz Prize (Germany's highest scientific award) was not even mentioned among all the other stuff on Leibniz. Note that the Leibniz Prize is the world's largest yearly science award: nearly US$ 2 million as of 2006, more than a Nobel Prize. But unlike the Nobel Prize it cannot be used for personal purposes. I put it in the reputation section for now, but probably it deserves an extra subsection. Science History 13:29, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Metaphysics

I think there should be a section like this, but it has to be more carefully written. I will do my part ASAP, and invite others who know Leibniz to do so as well. The text I removed is here:

"Whereas Spinoza's system focused on a pantheistic determinism, Leibniz' required action from a God who is perfect. Following from this, he viewed perfection and the pre-established harmony as the highest ends of man. He espoused a philosophy which came to be known as deism, in which God creates the world and its contents as perfect, and as a result, it is not required as necessary that God intercede in the world at all--in fact, to ascribe such an action to God would be to make his actions seem superfluous. God's creation did it all. Thus, for monad x at time t1, that monad causes the changes present in itself at time t2, and God cannot act upon monad x at t2. Leibniz's determinism seems focused more on a causal chain of experiences in time, and not on any nature-God association or conflation, as does Spinoza's. This general principle of metaphysics, of a God who does not to intercede in a world created by him as perfect as he is perfect, is a principle which guides his theodicy."

Several problems with the preceding: (1) pre-established harmony is for Leibniz a fact, an explanation of why mental and physical states seem to affect each other. It is not an end of man, at least in nothing I've read by Leibniz. If I'm wrong, please someone bring a quote from Leibniz to show that. (2) Calling him a deist also doesn't fit his writings about Jesus Christ in the Abrege (his summary of Theodicy), nor does it fit what he writes about conception possibly being a miracle. (3) God did not create the world as perfect, but rather as optimal. Best of all possible worlds, remember? (What Leibniz text were you reading that led you to write 'perfect'?) --Anthony Krupp 03:20, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Acta Eruditorum

I've written a kind of stub about Acta Eruditorum recently, mainly based on some facts from de:wiki. Do you know something about Leibniz's role in founding this journal? 4^@

Nice stub! I just made two small changes there. That's all I have for now. Greetings,--Anthony Krupp 12:59, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Check Aiton's biography.202.36.179.65 18:02, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

May be a problem, I live in Poland. Thanks anyway. 4^@

Gottfried Leibniz's Alleged "Slavic Origin"

Leibniz's Slavic Origins:

Citations from the book “Rex Germanorum Populus Sclavorum, An Inquiry into the Origin and Early History of the Serbs/Slavs of Sarmatia, Germania & Illyria”, Dr. Ivo Vukcevich, University Center Press, Santa Barbara, California, 2001 pp 329-330:

Following earlier explanations that Slavs lived in present-day Germany since prehistoric times and that the German name for this population was Wend in German or Serb in the native tongue, the author continues in the chapter entitled: “Hanover Wendland, Venedica Gen”: “As late as the 18th century one could still hear Slav or Wend-Polab speech (die plabishcher sprache) or Wend Drevani speech (wendischer sprache Drawey) in the Duchy of Luneburg (in den luneburgischen Amtern Dannenburg, Lucho und Wustro), and in the Wendland known as Hanover Wendland or das Hannoversche Wendland (J.H. Schulze, Etwas uber den Bezirk und namen des wendischen Pagus Drawn, 1795. O. Koch, Das Hannoverschen Wenderland der de Gau Drawehn, 1898. B. Wachter, Zur politischen Organiyation der Wendlandischen Slawen vom 8. bis 12. Jahrundert, 1980). … Numerous 17th and early 18th century sources note that in some rural areas the sounds of German speech were seldom heard or understood: Die alten Lautte weil sie Wendisch, verstehen nicht Wort die deutschen Sprache, will geschweigen den Catehchismum, 1669. … Serious interests in the study of the Slavic language in Hanover Wendland and Germany’s Slavic languages generally was stimulated by Abraham Frencel’s pioneering encyclopaedic study of the Serbian language or Srbska rec, a word that affirmed its antiquity and historical-cultural merit (M. Abraham Frenceli, De Originibus linguae Sorabicae. Liber primus, 1692; Liber secundus, 1694-96). Dedicating his work with a note of welcome in Serbian to “the great Tsar and Grand Duke Peter I”, expected to visit Dresden, “who with many millions of subjects speaks in our Wendish or Sarmatian language”, Frencel did not hesitate to hail Linguae Sorabicae’s great political potential. … The next important step was taken by a native of the ancient Serb civitas of Lipsk in the historic Srbska Votchina, namely G. W. Leibnitz, the great philosopher, mathematician, and scholar who emerged as a leading patron of efforts to record and preserve the Slavic languages of Germany. According to the Slavonic Encyclopaedia: “William von Leibnitz (1646-1716) was of Slavic descent…His true name was Labienicz, derived from the river Laba/Elbe.” It is important to note that Liebnitz took a personal, active, and hands-on interest in Polabian Studies (K.Bitnner, Slavica bei G.W. von Liebniz, Die polabische Frage, Germanoslavica, I, 1931). One of the first Polabian texts (1691), for example, originated in a letter from Liebnitz to privy Councillor Christian Schrader in Celle, who, in turn, wrote to Georg Friedrich Mithoff, the magistrate in Luchow, regarding Polabian antiquities and language (G. F. Mithoff, De lingua Winidorum Luneburgesium, 1691). Thus it is not surprising that the first important collection of texts, vocabulary, and commentary on lingua Winidorum Luneburgensium appeared in 1711, namely a study by one of Liebnitz’s research assistants, Georgi Eccardi’s “Historia Studii Etymologici”. … In 1717 Liebnitz’s book “Collectanea Etymologica” was published, a collection that featured a number of Polabian texts and glossaries including an Anonymous Glossary (Designatio Vocabulorum Aliquot, Windis Luneburgensibus), considered to be the oldest text of its kind, and G. F. Mithoff’s De Lingua Winidorum Luneburgensium, 1691.” END OF QUOTE

Therefore it follows that it would be more precise to designate Leibniz as being of Polabian Serb origin (river Elba was called Lab in Wendish), Dr. Ivo Vukcevich uses an older term for Slavs/Wends which was Serb, this term was used by the nation itself.--81.132.189.96 00:57, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

______________________________________________________

COMMENTS ON THE ABOVE EXCERPT:

"The next important step was taken by a native of the ancient Serb civitas of Lipsk in the historic Srbska Votchina, namely G. W. Leibnitz [...] who emerged as a leading patron of efforts to record and preserve the Slavic languages of Germany." (Vukcevich)

COMMENT 1: This quotation says two things: That he was born in Leipzig (Lipsk) - which is of course true -, and that he undertook efforts in recording and preserving Slavic languages. I am not sufficiently familiar with all of Leibniz' works to be able to comment on the latter statement. Nevertheless, all this does not say anything about his origin, does it? == ==

REPLY TO COMMENT 1: This section of the whole quote establishes that he was a native of a region inhabited by Slavs and also speaks of his interest in the Slav language. Both indicative of his Slav origin.

COMMENT 2: The second quotation is more specific:

"William von Leibnitz (1646-1716) was of Slavic descent…His true name was Labienicz, derived from the river Laba/Elbe" (Slavonic Encyclopaedia - does this refer to Roucek's 1949 title?) I don't know how reliable this source is in general, but it is the only source so far that states this claim. It does not supply a proof or an argument for the derivation of Leibniz's name - is this a linguistic fact or a mere conjecture?

REPLY TO COMMENT 2: His name is linguistic evidence of his origin. Both his father and Gottfried were academia Doctors, their nationals knew these eminent persons and this knowledge was passed on, until it reached the researchers of the Slavonic Encyclopaedia in some form or the other and was included. We do not have reasons to suppose that Roucek is unreliable on this topic.

COMMENT 3: Next issue: What does "origin" mean? Were his parents Polish and was their name Labienicz? Or is this true of his grand-parents? Or is it true of some remote ancestors of Leibniz's?

REPLY TO COMMENT 3: They were Polabian Serbs, distinct from Poles, because this area was not a part of the Polish state. The word Pomerania - means "Pored mora" or "land by the sea", the word Polabia - means "Around the Laba/Elba river", like Podunavlye - which means around the Danube, Posavina - means around the Sava River, Pomoravlje - around the Morava River, etc. But Poljak or Pole - means "of the land or field" from the word - polye (field). Spellings of Slav words in various scripts and languages naturally changes the words, especially surnames, there exist forms of Latinization, Germanization, etc. Also linguistic modernisations within a language change the words. Just consider how philosophers as Locke and Hume spelled in their own times. The fact that the whole region from which William Gottfried originated was occupied by many Slavs points to the fact that his ancestors were Slavs also.--81.132.189.96 01:56, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

COMMENT 4: Finally: None of the great reference sources says anything that even remotely points into this direction:

"German philosopher [...] Leibniz was born into a pious Lutheran family near the end of the Thirty Years' War, which had laid Germany in ruins. As a child, he was educated in the Nicolai School but was largely self-taught in the library of his father, who had died in 1652." ("Leibniz, Gottfried Wilhelm." Encyclopædia Britannica from Encyclopædia Britannica 2007 Ultimate Reference Suite. 2006.)

REPLY TO COMMENT 4: Encyclopædia Britannica is not interested in proving that a "German philospher" was of Slavic origin. But they do qualify his as "German". Let us look at the case of Nikola Tesla, another great Serb thinker. He was of Serb origin but born in Croatia, so the Croats claimed him as a Croat. When he went to America and became a citizen there, the Americans also claimed him, quite legitimately. But if one looks at the older editions of the Catholic Encylopaedia they claim that he was a Croat simply because they prefer Catholic sources. Subsequently, the writers of other books have a choice of chosing a "reliable source". During the post-WW2 Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, the communist editorial board of "Jugoslovenska enciklopedia" chose not to designate any national origin for persons within Yugoslavia, so Nikola Tesla, for instance, was just a scientist. But the Soviet Encylopedia wrote that Tesla was an Serb-American scientist.

Wikipedia pages contain proof in the battle of establishing the truth of Nikola Tesla's Serbian and Orthodox Christian origin. Nikola Tesla --81.132.189.96 01:56, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

The fact that Leibniz was from "a pious Lutheran" family points only to the fact that the religion of the population of Germania's feuds depended on the beliefs of the ruling family. Religious toleration did not come about until some of the so called enlighened rulers began tolerating differences within their own fiefdoms. So, if the feudal lord was Lutheran, everyone was Lutheran. But Leibniz was a great believer in Christ and in reconciliation between the Christian "sects", as he called them. He believed the Christian Dogma and he quoted the Christian philosophers/theologians from before the schism and Thomas D'Aquinas; and Leibniz actively persued Christian union by peaceful means.

COMMENT 5: To me, the claim sounds much too vague and too contradictory to the well-known sources for adding it to the Wikipedia article. Please clarify on these issues and support more proof. --212.17.79.221 11:51, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

REPLY TO COMMENT 5: Using "great reference sources" and "well-known sources" is fine if you are just interested in perpetuating authority instead of truth. There is nothing vague in this claim, it can be vague if you want it to be vague. But, please point out the contradictions.--81.132.189.96 01:56, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I have to say, I agree with the five comments, and find the logic of the five replies to be lacking. If proof of Leibniz's family's slavic origins, or whatever, is provided, then great: let's insert it. But the proof isn't yet here.--Anthony Krupp 16:29, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Frankly, if information bothers people, I rather drop the tedious subject, but the "devil" is inciting me to ask my final question: "Can you prove that he was GERMAN?" Herr Pangloss1.--Pangloss1 18:07, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Born in Germany does not equal being German? I think you're wrong about information bothering people. We're asking for reliable information, not a tenuous spin on it, which is what I think you've provided. I'm completely open to the idea that Leibniz's grandfather was Slavic, or whatever. Just bring the proof, and don't whine when we ask you to. (Otherwise people won't take you seriously.) Anyway, this might be a good time for you to read WP:VER.--Anthony Krupp 22:48, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

______________________________________________________________________________________________________

// I have deleted the half-line with that strange claim from the article. If you intend your project to be taken seriously, you cannot allow such nonsense. Noone has provided a single bit of solid evidence.

What we read as "evidence" here on the discussion page would not be acceptable in a first term University student's paper (in case the institution is up to a minimum of academic standarts, and not situated in a Country with political interest in the "theory"...).

The quotes are so confused, contain mistakes and exude more than a faint smell of propaganda, that I feel too repelled to honour that stuff with detailed replies. - Just some bits:

An Encyclopaedia of 1949, with the title "Slavonic"... - come on folks, don't be so naive, that is relatively recent history: immediately post WW, licking wounds from German Racism, having expelled Germans by the millions from their homes ( Stalin's prey, shifting borders westwards, you should know that story...), and starting to dig up the soil to confirm "Slav heritage since times immemorial" etc. - and the Reference work sees "Slavonic glorious heritage" everywhere, including the most illustrious philosopher of his time - surprise, surprise...! And it is quoted unquestioningly in a book by a Serb author ( see his name / and 'remember the 1990, ethnic identity building, "balkan ways" ?) - surprise!... Even the way he writes "Serbs" everywhere is most confusing: The ethnic minority (ca. 60 000 today) in Germany are called "Sorbs" in English ("Sorben" in German lg., "Surbi" in Latin in the first written source that mentions them/FREDEGAR 631) and refer to themselves as "Serbja" or "Serby". They are next related - both geogr. and linguistically - to Poles and Czechs. The "Serbs" ( of the balkan country) speak a Southern Slavonic language and have immigrated to their settlemant area in the early Middle Ages, 7th cent., from western Ukraine, acc. to Byzant. sources. ( Information from the German aequivalent of the "Enc.Brit.", 24 vol.s, year 2001 ed. )- So much for accuracy...

"Settled there since prehistory" begs the question what "prehistory" is supposed to mean here... - The standart story is, in a nutshell: Slavs had their homelands in present-day Ukraine; the Huns arriving from the steppes of Asia and marauding in Europe kicked off the whole chain of migrations in the centuries between Antiquity and MA; Germanic tribes ( do not use "Germans" here, that is confusing ), i.e. disunited ethnic and linguistic groups, having settled earlier as far as present day Poland ( not the whole, but parts ), got moving -> S + W + SW, Slav ethnic and ling. groups later filled in the partial geogr. vacuum; in the later MA ethnic and ling. "Germans" moved eastwards ( due to population pressure, and encouraged by local rulers) and settled and multiplied in numbers, hence resulted the "overlap and mosaic" picture e.g. in the eastern parts of and east of present-day Germany.

Leipzig is and was, for centuries, NOT in the Sorbian settlement area (the "Lausitz", quite a way to the east) (see statement above from a lady born there in that city). Thousands have been born there, being Germans. The place name is of Slav origin, but a little German fortress already dates fom the 10 cent.

Also the names are not derived from the river, but from a tree species.

There exists a small town named "Leibnitz" in Austria also (see print dictionary or nowadays even online: www.leibnitz.info, with Web camera and all), near Slovenia ( a slav. settlement was first mentioned in 970, named "Lipnizza" ): same story - new ruler erects German fortress and founds a market place ( that time 12th cent.), adopting the old settlement name.

As many personal second names are derived from place names, that explains the story: some ancestor of the philosopher got known as the guy from so and so, which happened to be an old settlement with a Slav name - which doesn't say a thing about ethnicity of its bearer !

( And for the maternal side: there might have been some Swedish, Jewish and what not ancestors, one can speculate and phantasize endlessly - but why should one ? )

And his interest in a minority language spoken by parts of the population just in the region were he worked later, that is supposed to PROOVE his ancestry - 'kidding ?! - He also wrote a historcal treatise on the rulers' family of somewhere - so undeniably that proves he was secretly related to them ( illegal son became his great-grandfather...), if he devotes a whole book to them... ( and his interest in Chinese culture - caused by his genome...)

- Now I have enough. The comments above, by an earlier writer (September the 3rd, 2006), should have been sufficient. That is what I so strongly dislike about your WP project: every fool can write all sort of nonsense, if they feel like, and it remains there to be read until some careful reader takes the time and trouble to remove the dirt.

AN ENCYCLOPAEDIA IS A SERIOUS AND ACADEMIC ENTERPRISE !

Disgusted,Sophophilos.

(I am of course part of a most sinister conspiration desiring to forever keep the Slav people/s down...)

[ - I had to leave in a hurry yesterday and did not sign these above comments of mine (which is not a required custom in other WP branches) - ] 147.142.186.54 14:45, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Infinitesimals and rigor in calculus and mathematics

I made some changes to the discussion of infinitesimals in the calculus section. They were then rewritten again by an unregistered user who I think is well-meaning, but may not have understood all of the points I was trying to make. The situation is subtle and needs to be stated carefully so as not to mislead students of mathematics.

Contrary to certain popularizations, non-standard analysis is actually only a peripheral contribution to rigorous mathematics. It is important work, and it does vindicate Leibniz in a way, but it is not nearly as important as the approach due to Cauchy, Riemann, and Dedekind. Moreover, Leibniz's intuition was never really in doubt. What did look somewhat dubious was some of his deductive reasoning. So I rephrased it to say that nonstandard analysis is a vindication of Leibniz's reasoning. "Vindication" is a better word than "triumph" because nonstandard analysis is too arcane to be what Leibniz had in mind, even though it is an extension of his thinking.

Concerning differentials. My point here is not just that scientists and engineers use differentials as a non-rigorous but handy formalism. A few mathematicians might say so, but they are ill-informed. The point is that after the work of Weierstrass and Cartan, differentials are completely rigorous algebraic objects. They are as important in certain areas of 100% rigorous mathematics, for example in differential geometry, as they are in physics and engineering. You can't use them to replace Cauchy's limits and epsilons and deltas, but you can go the other way around: You can use Cauchy's reasoning to justify calculations with differentials. "Useful" is also a kind of understatement that suggests a lack of rigor, so I changed that word to "fundamental".

(Also, this talk page is kind-of long and should be archived.) Greg Kuperberg 23:05, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Cultural depictions of Gottfried Leibniz

I've started an approach that may apply to Wikipedia's Core Biography articles: creating a branching list page based on in popular culture information. I started that last year while I raised Joan of Arc to featured article when I created Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc, which has become a featured list. Recently I also created Cultural depictions of Alexander the Great out of material that had been deleted from the biography article. Since cultural references sometimes get deleted without discussion, I'd like to suggest this approach as a model for the editors here. Regards, Durova 16:04, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

New GA Nomination

This page was recently nominated for GA again, although you who read this wouldn't know it right away because there's no tag on this page. I'm putting that nomination on hold for the same reason this article was failed before: the references are a total mess. Just as an aside on that, although I know that Harvard style references are acceptable, if you switched to footnotes you'd be forced to integrate the references into one well organized list, rather than the long lists of references at the bottom. Any way you do it, if you somehow mark out a clearly indicated formal list of works cited for this page, and clearly seperate that from a bibliography of additional reading, this would make a good GA. Thanatosimii 19:20, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

This appears to be a misunderstanding of the purpose and functioning of references. This classified list is a more useful, and clearer, list of references than any set of footnotes can hope to be. The implicit requirement here (that if a reference ceases, for any reason, to be used in the article, it should be automatically removed) would be damaging to WP; if a reference was useful once, it may be again.

Disclaimer: I have no particular interest in this page; if I ever edited it, it was months ago, and I have forgotten it. Septentrionalis 05:11, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

As stated, that was just an aside. The problem remaining is that there is "Secondary Literature" and "other works cited", with no clear reason as to why there are two seperate groups, and neither of them is clearly "the bibliography" Thanatosimii 03:01, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes the whole referening needs sorting out. I'm not sure if Harvard or using <ref> and footnotes is the better way to do these. Other works cited really seem to be references, refered to in the text using a Harvard system. --Salix alba (talk) 21:10, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's really just those strange multiple sections that causes the problem keeping this from GA. Perhaps an "other literature" section including non-referenced material and his own works in two subcatagories is in order. Or somthing. Just someone sort that out as seems best. Thanatosimii 21:31, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

This has been given ten days so far; I'll give people til tomorrow to adress this, but after that I'll remove it from the nominees. Thanatosimii 17:29, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, no changes so it fails this time. It really could go places, though, with a little editing (not to mention, perhaps, splitting most of the information into multiple subpages). Thanatosimii 14:52, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I just noticed that the page is also already listed on the improperly referenced GA nominations page, so hopefully you'll be getting some attention from there as well. Thanatosimii 14:56, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Blind and deaf Toughts in Leibniz and Cartesianism

Leibniz used the expression "Cogitationes caecae" or "Cognitio caeca" in some of his Latin works to indicate a kind of thinking that, although it is efficient from the cognitive viewpoint, it does not allow a discerning vision of its meaning. Leibniz refers, then, to such expressions when, both in Nouveaux Essais and in Essais de Teodicée, he dwells on the limits of this kind of thinking under an ethic-physcological profile.

He writes that this French expression has the same meaning of the Latin expression "Cogitationes caecae", but he adds that "Pensées sourdes" are not able to touch the soul and modify our way of feeling and behaviour.

The expression "Pensées sourdes", already used in particular by F. Lamy, indicates, in the field of Cartesianism, a kind of "marginal" and "clandestine" thinking which develops collaterally towards the conscience at a preconscient or inconscient level.

I wrote an Essay in which I try to clarify the relationship between Leibniz’s two expressions according to the different meanings that the second one assumes, respectively, in Leibniz's works and within Cartesianism. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.223.160.245 (talk • contribs) 3 November 2006.

Is your essay published? If so we may be able to use it. We have quite strict guidelines on what material we can use, see WP:RS. --Salix alba (talk) 17:14, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Leibniz's thougths taken out of their time

The Monad section says:

The monadology was thought arbitrary, even eccentric, in Leibniz's day and since. It now seems less so, in the light of key notions in contemporary physics such as field, and the action at a distance and entanglement characterizing quantum mechanics.

Modern Physics theories cannot make a philosophy made some hundred years ago to be less arbitrary! Leibniz couldn't have a clue about any 20th century experimental result leading to Quantum Mechanics! Come on, stop the hype about this guy...

The paragraph is like some "Leibniz fan" saying "You see, He also knew that!" --euyyn 22:17, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, since nobody seems to object, I've removed the second of the said sentences. Modern Physics do not (and cannot) justify XVII century's thougths, the same way that guessing correctly doesn't justify an astrologer. --euyyn 16:01, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Symbolic thought

I think that following paragraph could be removed; it relates more to "characteristica" and "calculus" than to the person Leibnitz. Also, I am not convinced that these are undisputable facts. MrSerif 20:23, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

The importance of the characteristica and calculus goes beyond their value for understanding Leibniz's legacy, and extends to mathematics, modernity, the European Enlightenment, and, more controversially, even to postmodern theory. The characteristica and calculus are also possible ways in which Leibniz's thinking can contribute to contemporary thinking in thermodynamics, biology, climate change, and resource policy, and consequently how ethics and metaphysics can meaningfully engage with such currently topical issues. Moreover, computer software employing networks of block diagrams and pictograms to generate the mathematics and kinetics of ecological, thermodynamic, and dynamic socioeconomic systems, all appear to aim at formal systems of the sort Leibniz dreamed about.

Knowledge Engineering LOL

The 3rd paragraph in the article states:

Leibniz also [...] anticipated notions that surfaced much later in [...] knowledge engineering [...].

I had to read the damn whole article to find that, as it appeared, this isn't but nonsense.

I'm removing it, but since it's in the leading of the article and I really hope to hear from the fan who inserted it (to have some laughs), I announce it here. --euyyn 22:27, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Good stuff. The article could do with a lot of pruning. --Salix alba (talk) 00:54, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

A "lot of pruning?" Perhaps so. But, WHAT to delete? This man was unique in so many respects that to condense or abbreviate his accomplisments would pay little justice to the intellectual giant that he surely was.T.E. Goodwin 02:08, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, delete (surely not abbreviate) junk like the one above on Knowledge Engineering. Just for the article to remain factual, not shorter. --euyyn 00:03, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

van Beethoven and not von Beethoven

Just wished to point out that contrary to the suggestion made in the article, Beethoven is van Beethoven and not von Beethoven. In contrast to von, van (which, similar to von, means from and is very common in the Flemish and Dutch names --- Beethoven's paternal ancestors are Flemish) is not suggestive of nobility. Further, it seems inappropriate, if not deeply offensive, to name Voltaire and van Beethoven as examples of "ambitious" (i.e. `ardently desiring distinction' OED) individuals who would "insert, starting in midlife, "de" or "von" before their surnames" (I do not know "Beaumarchais" sufficiently deeply to judge whether he deserves the attribution "ambitious", but suspect not).

BF 06:29, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Bertrand Russell's Critical Exposition on Leibniz

I would like to add that the wiki entry does not mention that Russell (who saw the universe as irrational, followed the Aristotelean static/mechanical tradition and saw advancements in technology as dangerous) was the philophical opposite of Leibniz (who saw order in the universe, followed the Platonic immaterial form tradition and was a lover of the advancement of technology). A quote from an excellent article I found located at http://www.schillerinstitute.org/fid_91-96/943_tao.html has this insight:

-quote

Russell’s 1900 A Critical Exposition of the Philosophy of Leibniz accuses Leibniz of publishing for no other purpose than to achieve fame and wealth! The book is fairly characterized as a series of hysterical fits in response to each reference by Leibniz to the ordered lawfulness of the physical universe, or to the fact that ideas are efficient causes of change. Russell was particularly incensed when Leibniz demonstrated that the laws of nature were good, in the sense of the positive self-development of the physical universe, rather than Russell’s preferred static (actually entropic) state of equilibrium; he, therefore (of course) repudiated Leibniz’s ontological proof of the existence of God. But Russell was nowhere capable of providing any justification for his attacks, other than his insistence on the libertarian right to be free of any moral restraint over his personal conduct or over his empiricist approach to science. Russell complained of Leibniz: “He rejected entirely the liberty of indifference—the doctrine that the will may be uncaused—and even held this to be self-contradictory. ... He held also that the indifference of equilibrium would destroy moral good and evil, for it would imply a choice without reason, and therefore without a good or bad reason.” One can see clearly the roots of the Copenhagen School’s “acausality” and moral relativism.

Although the “wave-particle” paradox was not yet known in its modern form (Max Planck’s discovery of the quantization of energy was in 1900, the same year as Russell’s book on Leibniz), Russell anticipated the problem by attacking (in a typically hysterical fashion) Leibniz’s implied solution in his theory of dynamics, and especially his rejection of Newton’s “action at a distance.” Leibniz, he says, simply refused to accept the fact that there are three and only three mutually exclusive theories of dynamics: (1) matter composed of hard, extended atoms; (2) a doctrine of the plenum, an all-pervading fluid or aether; or (3) unextended centers of force and action at a distance, as in Newton. Said Russell: “Leibniz failed to grasp these alternatives, and thus, from his love of a middle position, fell between not two but three stools.” Leibniz, he said, treated mechanical impact as atoms, space as a plenum, and the monads as unextended centers of force. “The failure to choose,” said Russell, “between these alternatives made his dynamics a mass of confusion.” In fact, said Russell, Leibniz only rejected Newton’s theory of gravitation as action at a distance to get revenge for their “personal quarrel” over the calculus! He ends his book by concluding that Leibniz was “the champion of ignorance and obscurantism.”

-unquote

Too long

This article seems really long. Can we split it? Metakraid 15:17, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree. It has become uncontrollably long, especially the some paragraphs go much into peddling details about his life and his career. For example, it occupies 6 lines just to tell the readers how to spell his name. Causesobad → (Talk) 16:43, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

But what articles would be the receiving articles of the split information then? It feels kind of awkward to have an article called "Gottfried Leibniz's career". Lord Metroid 11:05, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Possible subarticles could also be Philosophy of Gottfried Leibniz and Mathematics of Gottfried Leibniz, mentioning these here only in Summary style. That would allow this article to concentrate on his biography, which could perhaps also be condensed a bit instead of attempting to include every detail in a subarticle. Kusma (討論) 11:14, 19 February 2007 (UTC)