I thought that physicists now thought of Newton as quaint? ( out of my area of expertise on this one, and I know Leibnizt primarily as a historical character. But I had always understood his primary contribution was differential calculus and that in terms of physics the 20th work of Einstein, Bohr, Heisenberg etc just threw the whole Newtonian world into a cocked hat )

I any case if theoretical physics or abstract mathematics is your thing, have you pitched your ideas to folks who have the chops to understand them? ( I don't mean casual conversations with old school friends, but papers to journals or showing up at symposiums ) I mean, if I start talking about design patterns or historical interpretations of English vs the French Enlightenment on the bus or at a football game and the people around me look at me strangely or don't get what I'm saying, it really isn't a test of the sophistication, uniqueness, or brilliance of my ideas <s>

Do you have the academic chops where those who know the difference will take you seriously on this?

My guess is the folks who spend their lives thinking about this stuff aren't trolling Youtube for answers. On a daily basis are you interacting with folks capable of challenging you and helping you sharpen your thinking - even if they are doing it by being pedantic and obtuse?

I remember telling somebody once that a lot of philosphers and theologians seemed drawn to computers because it gave you the chance to create weirdly abstract systems and then test them, thereby refining your thinking with iteration. In philosophy and theology you pretty much have to die to find out if you're right.

You seem to be headed in the other direction - and therefore run the risks of the soi disant genius.

Remember Paul Tillich : "Do not confuse self-affirmation with self-elevation" <s>

Or the Eagles : "Don't let the sound of your own wheels make you crazy"


>>I'm saying neither your radical thoughts "that have never been proposed. Ever." and your grandiose vision of yourself are not as unique as you seem to imagine.
>
>
>You'd be surprised what I imagine.
>
>I believe, that after contemplating QM for a week or two, I managed, with no previous knowledge, to recreate Leibniz's Monadology.
>
>He believed that a system of 1s and 0s and consciousness would create a system of physics way better than Newton's.
>
>That was the closest anyone in history has come to having my idea.
>
>Of course, that was 400 years ago.
>
>There was no such thing as a computer.
>
>Then one was invented, using Leibniz's ideas.
>
>Now I believe that Leibniz's vision for science will become true because of technology and neuroscience.
>
>Of course, I've been talking to physicists and neuroscientists for years now.
>
>They all admit that Leibniz doesn't make sense to them.
>
>Maybe we're too deep in the church of Newton. I hope not.