top of page
  • Writer's pictureDan Thompson

Leibniz, Husserl, Godel

The following is an introduction to a future post on Gottfried Leibniz’ characteristica universalis in the context of the philosophy (and mathematics) of Godel and Husserl, each making their own contributions to the larger TOE (Theory of Everything), see also: ‘learning (intelligence) without a brain’

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

Gödel’s main aim, both in his philosophy and his mathematics was to develop metaphysics—specifically, something like Leibniz’s universal calculus, or monadology transformed into exact theory—with the help of Husserl’s phenomenology. Namely the transcendental reduction of the epoche which resulted in a ‘primal ego’ or an ‘absolute consciousness’. This primal ego resembling Leibniz’s idea of an innate entelechy in the organism supported by certain monads; ‘extentionless, but active simple substances which endure through change‘.

It is this endurance through change which seems to necessitate the existence of the noumena as a higher order topology (superset) that supports everything beneath it (the subset).

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

The above is a crude description of Penrose and Hameroff’s Orch OR theory, presented only in comparison with similar holographic and informational theories, like Bohm’s implicate order, see again:, and:

But, this is still only part of it.

0 views0 comments


bottom of page