>>Monads have no extension in physical space or physical time.
>>
>>They are not physical objects made of physical matter in physical space or time.
>>
>>We could imagine them existing in some type of space and time, just not the physical space and time we know and love.
>
>Distance functions can be defined over all sorts of "sets". The definition of the distance is not always related with the common distance definition for Euclidian space.
>
>To give yet another example, when sending data over the Internet, data is sent over several links. It is the task of a routing protocol to find the best route from one place to another. A "distance function" or "cost function" is used here; it might consider the number of hops (through how many routers must the information pass), or a high cost (distance) may be assigned to a low-speed connection. The equipment exists in physical space, and a "physical distance" exists, but it is quite irrelevant for the routing protocol.
>
>>Sure, you could. If the monads had windows. But they don't.
>
>What do you mean with "have windows"?


That is the question I asked and attempted to answer with this post.

Leibniz said monads are window-less. They have no windows. What is the significance of that?

Fortunately for us, it can be explained effortlessly with OOP programming.

When I say "monad1.x" I am looking at its property. It must be a public property.

We can imagine that public property being a window into the monad, to see what the qualities it has.

Now imagine x isn't public. It's private. We've closed the window.



>>Consider their properties PRIVATE.
>>
>>You cannot determine their x (y or z).
>>
>>Now how far apart are they?
>
>That would depend on how you choose to define "distance".

I'm all ears.

Keep in mind I did define distance in my original post, as once properly defined, the solution reveals itself.