Metaphysics - what is it?
In recent discussions, it has become clear to me that I have no clear idea of what metaphysics is. So I've come here, to ask the experts.... :wink: Seriously, can we have a stab here at defining and describing metaphysics? Does it have, as I suspect, many definitions that have evolved over years, and maybe within particular disciplines?
I think the everyday use of "metaphysical" is something like this:
But I think we need something better than "stuff that's a bit weird" for our use, don't we? :wink:
Accepting that "metaphysics" is used to describe quite a lot of philosophical thinking, the 'definition' that means most to me is one I thought I read in Pirsig's first novel. I've looked for it recently, and can't find it. Maybe I invented it? Anyway, I got the impression that if we start from all thought, ideas, and so forth, and we start to divide it, in order to reduce the pieces to bite-size. We might divide Everything into (say) Subject and Object. Then we would proceed to make further cuts. This process of deciding how to subdivide Everything is metaphysics.
But I'm sure you've got better ideas than this. What are they? What definition(s) of metaphysics do you find the most useful and meaningful?
I think the everyday use of "metaphysical" is something like this:
Collins English dictionary:Metaphysical
(popularly) abstract, abstruse, or unduly theoretical.
Incorporeal; supernatural.
But I think we need something better than "stuff that's a bit weird" for our use, don't we? :wink:
Accepting that "metaphysics" is used to describe quite a lot of philosophical thinking, the 'definition' that means most to me is one I thought I read in Pirsig's first novel. I've looked for it recently, and can't find it. Maybe I invented it? Anyway, I got the impression that if we start from all thought, ideas, and so forth, and we start to divide it, in order to reduce the pieces to bite-size. We might divide Everything into (say) Subject and Object. Then we would proceed to make further cuts. This process of deciding how to subdivide Everything is metaphysics.
But I'm sure you've got better ideas than this. What are they? What definition(s) of metaphysics do you find the most useful and meaningful?
Comments (323)
The etymology of “metaphysics” has a very long history. But the subject matter of Aristotle’s work bearing the name still suffices as it’s definition. The study of being qua being, or first philosophy.
If one were to reduce the basic idea of metaphysics to a fundamental condition, and because physics is the science of human a posteriori knowledge and is grounded in experience so is self-regulating, perhaps metaphysics could be described as the study of human a priori knowledge in the form of rational principles, necessarily, as a priori knowledge is influenced by imagination which has no self-regulation.
Metaphysics are presuppositionist views about the real, physical world. I agree with the logical positivists that a priori knowledge about the real, physical world cannot be justified; unlike a priori knowledge about abstract, platonic worlds, as in mathematics. We can believe particular things about the construction logic of the real, physical world, but we cannot justify these beliefs.
Logical positivist used the verificationism principle to regard metaphysical statements as meaningless, would you go along that belief ? Ironically, the principle fails to justify itself and the whole theory falls apart there.
Metaphysics is seriously just a Philosophical attempt to answer "What is?" It's like the study of what there is. There's a whole field of Philosophy devoted to something else which no one can seem to explain, but that is still ultimately just what Metaphysics is. The ancient Greeks wanted to know what there was. Were there forms and modes? Was there just atoms and the void? That, by my estimation, is what Metaphysics was, and is still, I would argue, ultimately what Metaphysics is. It's sort of absurd now for Philosophy to answer Metaphysical questions when there are scientists. If someone thinks that Metaphysics is really something else, then I don't see why they shouldn't get into it and discover whatever it is that they will or can from that. I'm not terribly interested in Metaphysics because I just think that that's what it is. It can be fun to engage in Metaphysics, and I suppose that that does have a place in Philosophy, but it is kind of absurd anymore.
Edit: Like, the term either means something like "to see the physical world from the Archimedian Point" or to "transcend the physical world". It's a whole lot of theories proceeding from there. I honestly can't quite say what Metaphysics is either, and I honestly suspect for this to have something to do with pretense in Philosophy. I do think that that just is what Metaphysics is, though.
Like, it's just how Aristotle navigated that there was Philosophy and that you were supposed to believe in the gods. In a way, it's just Philosophy, but what I think that Metaphysics ultimately does is to just simply ask, "What is?"
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.485.9188&rep=rep1&type=pdf
I side with Dirac in that what is, is never really known, we just continually advance theories about it. Weinberg thinks we are advancing towards something, I think he is right, but bowed if I can justify it.
To me it's maddening we cant even pin it down well.
Thanks
Bill
The debate wittgenstein had with turing was really interesting since both of them were at cambridge teaching foundation of mathematics. The content turing was teaching was drastically different from wittgenstein, so he attended many lectures of wittgenstein. The debate on contradiction reflects the differences of the approach towards understanding maths of Wittgenstein and Turing.Wittgenstein contended that we can allow contradictions in maths as long as we do not use it as a result but turing gave the example of a bridge that would collapse in case of contradiction. Wittgenstein would in his book ask the question on countable number and turing told him N, the cardinality of the set of natural numbers .Wittgenstein in response argued that a finitist wouldn't allow that and so one..
Well, I believe at least one definition of metaphysics is "what goes beyond physics". Now, what goes beyond physics is not necessarily the supra-natural, but it is, I think, whatever cannot be empirically demonstrated. Thus, the question whether or not life has a meaning would be a metaphysical question.
Wittgenstein, at least as I read his Tractatus, wanted to eliminate metaphysics from philosophy altogether, because he saw no advantage in discussing questions for which there cannot be a verifiable answer. In this, Wittgenstein was by no means isolated, and I believe that even today most philosophers agree with him on this question.
Traditionally, it's:
(1) "Universal 'science'," "first philosophy" or "first principles,"--all common names for more or less core logical axioms required for things to obtain, to be coherent, etc.
(2) "Natural theology" or basically philosophy of religion
and
(3) Ontology - or philosophy of existence/philosophy of "being," nominally at "higher" levels of abstraction, but depending on one's views about the extent to which those abstractions are possible/to which they make sense, there can be a lot of overlap with the sciences here, only from a philosophical perspective/philosophical methodology rather than an approach via scientific methodology. Ontology answers questions such as "What is the world (everything extant) comprised of?" "What is its nature/ what is the nature of the components that comprise things?" "Is there more than one kind of component?" "What are properties?" "What is causality?" "What is motion?" "What are relations?" "What is time (& space/spacetime)?" etc. etc.
==================================================
It's not uncommon now for folks to think of metaphysics as more or less synonymous with (3)--ontology--only, especially if one rejects religion more or less. (1) is often thought to be best suited for logic "proper."
There's a lot of confusion due to the etymology (or rather misunderstandings of the etymology) of the name, "metaphysics." It's often taken to refer to something "beyond" physics, in the sense of transcending physics, more or less in a mystical sense. The fact that part of metaphysics is traditionally natural theology doesn't help this misunderstanding. Really, the name stems from "after" physics, and it was meant literally, in the sense of an editor who was anthologizing the work of Aristotle putting the then-unnamed book (which was dubbed "metaphysics" for the collection) after the book known as "physics." In other words, it was simply "here's the book named 'physics'" and then "here's the book after the book named 'physics.'" The content of Aristotle's book (dubbed "metaphysics") was the initial starting point for the subject matter of metaphysics.
It's nuthin' to do with woo...for those kinds of feelings there's mystical writing and poetry.
This rings true - and useful - to me. But is this all that metaphysics covers, or is there more as well? I'm not sure. Anyone? :chin:
Are there any common points in our various definitions?
I see metaphysical assertions as value-apt, but not truth-apt in a representational sense. After all, to a certain extent what is at stake is the method of representation, which in turn is decided according to what it is considered to be worth representing.
:smirk:
The Greek word "physics" simply referred to Nature, Aristotle's book by that name was essentially an encyclopedia of then current knowledge about the natural (physical, material) world. But in his second volume, he discussed ideas pertaining primarily to human nature, such as our tendency to wonder about abstractions like "being, existence" and "knowledge". Such psychological (intellectual, noetic) concerns have emerged in the natural world in only one species of animals. They have nothing to do with normal physical and evolutionary interests, such as food & sex. So, Aristotle discussed them in a separate book, that later came to be numerically labeled "Metaphysics" (Volume 2 of Physics). But due to the subject matter of the text, that word eventually came to be applied to mysteries in general, with the connotation of "super-natural".
Personally, I think of Metaphysics as an integral, but emergent, aspect of Nature, So, here is an excerpt from my blog glossary definition of Meta-Physics :
a> Physics is the science of material Things & Forces. Things are Objects (nouns)
b> Metaphysics is the science of immaterial Non-Things such as Ideas, Concepts, Processes, & Universals. Non-things are Agents (subjects), Actions (verbs), or Categories (adverbs, adjectives).
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page14.html
In other words ontology is metaphysics but is one part of it.
Yes, so there is but ontology; so long metaphysics; all is physical.
In the new dictionary-thesaurus:
Bullshit: transcendence, intangible, immaterial, spirit, 'God', supernatural, beyond-physics, etc.
No, I don't. I just share the same conclusion, but for different reasons.
I think that presuppositionism about the real, physical world is ineffective, because the real-world principles are often testable, and should actually be testable. So, if something is testable, why don't they just test it? In that sense, I believe that real-world knowledge should rather be falsificationist. Karl Popper did a great job in pointing that out in "Science as falsification". Permitting real-world presuppositionism will invariably lead to non-knowledge, snake-oil scams. So, that is a big no, no.
Reasoning from first principles only makes sense in the context of abstract, Platonic worlds, simply, because we can actually know their first principles, i.e. their construction logic. For example, the axiomatic method certainly does an excellent job in mathematics; but it also does an excellent job in morality, where axiomatic derivation from basic rules is also the method of choice.
Reasoning from first principles in the context of the real, physical world looks like a serious epistemic mismatch to me. That is why I reject the practice of metaphysics.
Such speculation is not, or at least should not be, aimed at gaining knowledge, but rather at exercising the poetic imagination.
So it is just physics.
But metaphysics is reasoning toward first principles, not reasoning from first principles.
Quoting alcontali
Here is evidence of your mistake. Morality, in the sense of being moral, acting morally, may be described as a matter of behaving within the confines of some rules of ethics. But to study morality, as a field of study within philosophy, is a process by which we seek to determine those rules. The same is the case with metaphysics, many people, including physicists and other scientists, will reason from first principles in their endeavours, just like many people behave morally, but the metaphysician reasons toward determining first principles.
That is even worse.
If you reason toward first principles, you will look for the principles underlying these first principles, and again, ad nauseam. It obviously leads to infinite regress. That is why this particular direction is forbidden in axiomatic systems. It only works by picking an unjustified starting point and reason away from them, i.e. exactly in the opposite direction. The goal is then to justify conclusions from that starting point, without falling into the trap of trying to justify the starting point itself.
That is why the axiomatic starting point in mathematics, the axioms, are fundamentally arbitrary, while in morality the starting point, the categorical imperatives, are necessarily "revealed".
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
Justifying the starting-point rules is an exercise in infinite regress and futility. Can you give even one example of where an approach like that has worked?
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
The metaphysicist is wasting his time, simply because the direction of reasoning is necessarily incorrect. What the epistemologist does, however, makes much more sense.
Instead of looking at the real, physical world, he looks at the abstract, Platonic world of knowledge and tries to discern if particular patterns emerge. The scientist does that with the real, physical world, while the epistemologist does that with the abstract world of knowledge. An epistemic pattern then demarcates an epistemic domain. A good example is how Karl Popper successfully managed to demarcate the epistemic domain of scientific knowledge by requiring science to be generated by falsificationist activity.
Epistemology really works, while metaphysics is nonsense. We know that for a fact, because after 2500 years of metaphysics, it has never produced anything else but nonsense.
That's contradiction, "first" means first, the possibility of infinite regress is therefore excluded.
Quoting alcontali
Metaphysics does not operate on an axiomatic system, as I explained above, so whatever it is that is forbidden in axiomatic systems is irrelevant to metaphysics.
Quoting alcontali
Unless you can justify this claim, it's nothing more than an opinion of an uneducated person.
Quoting alcontali
I gave you the example, moral ethics.
Quoting alcontali
I see, morality is nonsense to you.
But how do you know it is truly "first"? You do not. So, you will keep trying to find the really "true" first that comes before the current first. It just keeps going on. Ad nauseam. That is why it does not work.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
Knowledge is a gigantic database with lots and lots of theories and theorems.
I do not make any attempt whatsoever at memorizing that database.
So, if you mean that I have not read 99% of the database of existing knowledge, I totally agree. I even pride myself on not having done that. I only loosely remember, if even, the few things I accidentally have run into, usually for very arbitrary reasons.
I am more than happy with that, because my ambition is not to become some kind of redundant database of knowledge who in vain tries to be a very imperfect replacement for tools like Google Search or Wikipedia.
People really need to develop a purpose in life that is different from that, because their plan is otherwise bound to fail. So, are there a lot of things that I do not know? Yes, of course, and I am very proud of that.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
The most widespread and successful approach to morality is what the three offshoots of second-temple judaism propose, i.e. religious law.
As far as I am concerned, the epistemically soundest version of the religious-law morality method can be found in usul al fiqh, "Principles of Islamic jurisprudence". It is a gigantic library of innumerable publications.
Read up on it, and then you will understand that what you are doing in the realm of morality, i.e. "metaphysics", is just un-methodical bullshit. Seriously, that is why there has been no progress whatsoever in metaphysics for over 2500 years. That was to be expected, because there is simply no logic in that madness.
Of course, that's the nature of knowledge. Proceeding from the first principle has a similar problem,. There's no infinite regress, just some degree of uncertainty within knowledge, such that knowledge is forever evolving as we move forward.
Quoting alcontali
OK, now the point is that someone must determine the rules, the law. It makes no sense, to argue as you do, that all respectable knowledge proceeds from first principles in an axiomatic way, because this neglects the fact that someone must determine the principles, in the first place, from which the axiomatic knowledge will proceed.
If you assume that all of the first principles for all divisions of knowledge have already been produced, this contradicts your original statement above, that we cannot know it's really "true", and therefore we must keep searching, in an endless way. You can't argue both sides of the contradiction. But this fact, the fact that we cannot know with absolute certainty that the accepted first principles are really true, is the reason why there is always a need for metaphysics. We cannot just accept as absolute truth, the first principles from which we proceed, in the other forms of axiomatic knowledge.
Quoting alcontali
What is bullshit is your claim that there has been no progress in metaphysics in 2500 years. Do you think that human beings developed the current knowledge of the solar system, and the rest of the universe, by following the principles which were accepted 2500 years ago?
That is only the nature of falsificationist knowledge. That is absolutely not the nature of axiomatic knowledge. The Pythagorean theorem was provable 2500 years ago. It still is provable today. The same holds true for Thales' theorem. It is as provable today as 2500 years ago. Once provable, always provable. Hence, that particular view on the nature of knowledge is epistemically completely incorrect for axiomatic knowledge.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
For mathematics, these rules are arbitrarily chosen. You can find a good explanation of how it works in the Wiki page on the Brouwer-Hilbert controversy:
Hilbert's axiomatic system – his formalism – is different. At the outset it declares its axioms. But he doesn't require the selection of these axioms to be based upon either "common sense", a priori knowledge (intuitively derived understanding or awareness, innate knowledge seen as "truth without requiring any proof from experience"), or observational experience (empirical data). Rather, the mathematician in the same manner as the theoretical physicist is free to adopt any (arbitrary, abstract) collection of axioms that they so choose. Indeed, Weyl asserts that Hilbert had "formaliz[ed] it [classical mathematics], thus transforming it in principle from a system of intuitive results into a game with formulas that proceeds according to fixed rules". So, Weyl asks, what might guide the choice of these rules? "What impels us to take as a basis precisely the particular axiom system developed by Hilbert?". Weyl offers up "consistency is indeed a necessary but not sufficient condition" but he cannot answer more completely except to note that Hilbert's "construction" is "arbitrary and bold". Finally he notes, in italics, that the philosophical result of Hilbert's "construction" will be the following: "If Hilbert's view prevails over intuitionism, as appears to be the case, then I see in this a decisive defeat of the philosophical attitude of pure phenomenology, which thus proves to be insufficient for the understanding of creative science even in the area of cognition that is most primal and most readily open to evidence – mathematics."
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
What has gradually emerged are epistemic knowledge-justification methods, whereunder axiomatic, scientific-falsificationist, and historical. Each of these epistemic methods generates an epistemic domain around it, i.e. a database of knowledge that can be justified with it. I cannot see what else you could be looking for, because there is nothing else, and there hasn't been for 2500 years.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
So, then where is that elusive progress visible? Any link?
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
Science is falsificationist. It is an epistemic domain of knowledge justified by experimental observation/testing. The initially hypothetical knowledge was very often stumbled upon, through serendipity, trial and error, and sheer luck. Systematic testing obviously always follows much later. So, yes, a better understanding of the solar system and other parts of the visible universe took a lot of observation. In fact, it first took quite a bit of haphazard progress in optics and construction of telescopes just to be able to observe these things in sufficient detail. So, yes, if they had had proper telescopes 2500 years ago, they would obviously have seen it too. It wasn't a problem of following the wrong principles at all.
When the two sides of a right angle are of equal length, the hypotenuse is irrational. Therefore the Pythagorean theorem as a first principle of geometry is deficient. Pythagoras himself grappled with this problem, and the fact that he could not resolve it bothered him. That the hypotenuse remains irrational indicates that the Pythagorean theorem remains unproven, just like the value of pi remains unproven.
Quoting alcontali
If the rules are arbitrarily chosen then why choose a rule which results in the contradiction which is an irrational ratio? The fact is that the rules are not really chosen arbitrarily, they are chosen for purpose, pragmatics. The circle is useful, and pi is the result of the rule which creates the circle. The right angle is useful for making parallel lines, and the Pythagorean theorem is the result of the rule which creates the right angle. That each of these results in an irrational ratio indicates that they are lacking in truth and reality, despite the fact of being very useful.
Quoting alcontali
I gave you the example, we now have a better understanding of the solar system. If you are unfamiliar with metaphysics behind this, you are not the only one. But that's because few people today study ancient metaphysics, they prefer modern metaphysics.
Quoting alcontali
Actually, most of the initial hypotheses are sheer metaphysics. Take a look at Einstein's special theory of relativity for example. And today there is much metaphysical speculation into the nature of the universe, and the micro world of quantum mechanics.
Quoting alcontali
Actually, telescopes came after it was theorized that the earth revolved around the sun, and not vise versa, so understanding the heliocentric nature of the solar system was not the result of telescopes. The idea was floated around 2500 years ago, but the planets were given perfect circular orbits according to the principles of Aristotelian metaphysics. The assumption of perfect circles resulted in inconsistencies which could not be reconciled until Copernicus. The point though, is that metaphysical theory preceded the fine tuning observations which were required to adjust the theory.
What about, say, ten thousand years ago?
Irrational just means that a number cannot be reached by merely applying the standard arithmetic operators (+ - x /) to integers. So, if Z are integer numbers ...,-3,-2,-1,0,1,2,3,4,5 ... then you can see that this domain is nicely closed under addition, substraction and multiplication, because all results are again members of that domain. Example, 3+5*2 = 13. So (Z, {+,-,*)} is closed.
This algebraic structure (Z, {+,-,*)} is called a "ring".
This structure is not closed under division. For example, 2/5 or 1/3, are not members of the domain. If we adjoin the inverses of these integers, ... -1/3, -1/2,1/2,1/3 ..., then it closed. We call that resulting domain in which the inverses are adjoined, the rationals Q, and the closed algebraic structure (Q, {+,-,*,/}) where division stays within the closure, a "field".
For the calculation of the hypothenuse, you can see that mere field operations ("arithmetic") are insufficient. If a and b are the sides of the right angle, then the hypothenuse c = ?(a²+b²) is not necessarily a rational, even if a and b are rationals. Only numbers produced by field operations on Q are guaranteed to be rationals. In other words, Q is closed under arithmetic but not under square root computation. So, c is not necessarily a member of Q, the rationals. In general, you will need to adjoin a radical field extension to the rationals Q in order to compute c.
So, the Pythagorean solution is "irrational" in a sense that it lies in a radical field extension of the rationals Q. Such radical field extension is then again closed under arithmetic.
Algebraic numbers are the domain that contains the rationals and all possible such radical field extensions, and is therefore closed under the n-th root operation. The algebraics are also a "field" that is irrational (meaning: completely contains the rationals Q).
Still, the algebraics are not enough when you look, for example, at the roots of polynomials with rational coefficients. You will need to keep adjoining additional field extensions if you want to close the splitting field. For example, you will at the very least need to add i=?-1. From fifth-degree polynomials on, you are not even guaranteed to stay within the algebraics. That is the gist of the Abel-Ruffini theorem, which is an important result in Galois theory. Polynomial splitting can then result in roots being non-algebraic real numbers (or complex numbers).
So, in this context, "irrational" just means that the problem cannot necessarily be solved by using basic arithmetic, but that it may requiring adjoining to the rationals Q, other numbers produced with more complicated operations.
It took until the end of the 19th century before the dust more or less started settling on these things. Before that, they did not understand these algebraic structures particularly well.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
There is indeed a massive and intractable issue with the issue of discovery of new knowledge.
Existing knowledge cannot possibly be the main ingredient in the discovery of new knowledge, because in that case humanity would never have discovered any knowledge at all, or else, discovered all possible knowledge already.
Hence, the discovery process of new knowledge cannot possibly be justifiable as knowledge. We simply do not know how to discover new knowledge, and we can certainly not justify how we managed to do it anyway. It is to an important extent the result of non-knowledge mental faculties and possibly also fundamentally unknown environmental inputs.
Gödel's first incompleteness theorem also provably dismisses the idea of running through all possible well-formed formulas as to question a knowledge machine whether the formula is provable or not. For example, in the language required to axiomatize the existence of numbers, it is possible to produce formulas that are logically true but impossibly provable by the knowledge machine. So, if you enumerate the well-formed formulas in that language (which happens to be first-order logic), from first to last, the knowledge machine will run into examples of formulas of which the provability is simply undecidable.
So, it is just not possible to run new candidate knowledge claims through a knowledge machine filled with existing knowledge to check if these new claims happen to be justifiable. Gödel proved that this is not a legitimate knowledge discovery procedure. We will undoubtedly have to keep doing it with leaps and bounds, through serendipity, trial and error, and what have you, to slowly, gradually, and painstakingly, but surely, acquire new justifiable knowledge claims.
"Irrational" refers to an incommensurable ratio. This means that the two things being related to each other cannot be measured by the same system of measurement, such as the examples I gave you, the circumference and diameter of a circle, as well as the sides of a square and it's hypotenuse. What this indicates is that there is incommensurability between one spatial dimension and another.
Quoting alcontali
And you claim that the efforts of the metaphysician are pointless due to infinite regress. It appears like in reality the efforts of the mathematician are pointless due to infinite regress.
Quoting alcontali
You mean the problem can be solved by hiding the infinite regress behind "complicated operations". A good metaphysician is trained to recognize such sophistry.
Quoting alcontali
I see we agree on something anyway.
Quoting alcontali
But we do know how to discover new knowledge. It is basically a process of trial and error. It requires an assumption, a presupposition, which is not taken as true or false (knowledge), but is taken as a principle to be tried, like an hypothesis. You explained this above, in your explanation of what science is.
The issue here, between us, is where do these principles to be tried come from. We cannot just choose them randomly because there would be an infinity of possibilities. Therefore we must proceed with some guidance in choosing the principles to be tried, this is metaphysics. The metaphysician recognizes the failures, errors of others, and narrows the pathway with this form of trial and error.
Quoting alcontali
This is exactly why we cannot choose the principles to be tried, arbitrarily, as you seem to think that we do. We need some intuition as to which of the proposable principles are credible. This comes from a thorough examination of the existing knowledge, the flaws within reveal the errors, and therefore where new proposals are required. So your "knowledge machine" requires a method of analysis of the already existing knowledge to determines errors. This is where new knowledge comes from, determining errors in the old knowledge, not from introducing new proposals and checking for consistency with the old. A new proposal which is inconsistent with the old knowledge is not necessarily wrong, it could be that the old knowledge is wrong.
Well, the link with classical, Euclidean geometry has long ago been abandoned in contemporary number theory. I suspect that it was completely gone by the end of the 19th century, at the same time as they dumped Euclid's Elements. I have never had to carry out arithmetic using a straightedge and compass, like the Greek in antiquity apparently did.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
Well, taking a square root is no longer basic arithmetic, and therefore considered "more complicated". It is not that even a simple calculator cannot do it. These operations got historically, gradually introduced in order to solve problems. Actually, Pythagoras already needed square roots.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
Yes, I did refer to non-knowledge mental faculties. Intuition is clearly one.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
I believe that there must be ingredients in the process of knowledge discovery that are fundamentally unknowable, because if we could know them, then we could even systematize the discovery of new knowledge, while this is fundamentally not possible. Therefore, every attempt at trying to harness the process is bound to fail. Hence, determining errors in the old knowledge cannot possibly be the main ingredient in the knowledge-discovery process either. For example, they did not start building the first computers because there were errors in the old mechanical calculators that preceded them.
And what do you think lead to that move? Metaphysics.
Quoting alcontali
This would only be the case if you restrict the act of knowing, in the manner that you have proposed. Let's say that there is a system or method for producing knowledge, the axiomatic system you described. The system cannot know itself, so the "ingredients" of knowledge which are unknowable, as you say are those things which comprise the system. A logician cannot know what makes the logic employed, work, without going outside of the logic. So this is why metaphysics is important, it employs a completely different method, to evaluate the axiomatic systems. If it were a specific system which metaphysicians employed, then metaphysics would run into the same problem. Metaphysicians do not use any specific system, it is more like intuition, so metaphysics appears to be random nonsense to the uninitiated.
Quoting alcontali
It is necessary to distinguish between knowledge, as an object desired or possessed, and the activities which bring knowledge into existence. When we allow for the existence of non-knowledge based mental activities, we allow for a process which could bring knowledge into existence. If, for simplicity sake, we generalize and call this intuition, then we have something named, which we can discuss, and analyze toward understanding it. We can say now, that principles, axioms, are not chosen arbitrarily, but they are chosen by intuition. Intuition would assess the applicability of various possible principles, in relation to various goals, ends. Now we have separated the means from the ends, and this produces the necessity of assessing the ends themselves. That's the endeavour which pragmatism forces onto the metaphysician. Pragmatism brings light to the fact that axioms are chosen for a purpose, now the metaphysician must identify and evaluate the purpose.
Quoting alcontali
Since a machine is designed to give the human being what one wants, the inability of a machine to give the human being what the person wants, is an error in the machine. It is not an error in the machine's processing activity, but an error in the design. You might say, that an error in design is a human error, but all errors are human errors, and if the machine's processing activity screws up, it is just an error in design.
I am heavily "epistemized" and deeply invested in the idea of the existence of various knowledge-justification methods. Without such method, it is not knowledge.
Still, I completely acknowledge that non-knowledge mental faculties are key, not just for the discovery of new knowledge, but in general. But then again, systematization means converting things into knowledge. If it is not knowledge, but rather intuition, this is guaranteed to be a failing strategy.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
There cannot be knowledge, i.e. a justified (true) belief, about intuition, because in that case it would be knowledge and not intuition.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
I have run into at least two research fields where the goal was to redo a particular axiomatic system with arbitrarily-chosen subsets of its axioms.
Hilbert calculi are like that. You cripple first-order logic by removing some of its construction logic, and then you check what's left. It is very interesting. The point is to show that it is perfectly legitimate to leave out whatever you want, and go with the remainder, and see where you get.
Second-order arithmetic (Z2) is a similar research topic. Cripple arithmetic by adding/removing rules, operators, and so on, and see where you get
In the end, this kind of research rather amounts to playing with "cool toys". But then again, it is not possible to know what people will find unless they actually try. Furthermore, this type of research nicely emphasizes the true nature of axioms as fundamentally arbitrary starting points.
What do you mean by "deeply invested"?
Quoting alcontali
Again, I think I need to stress the difference between knowledge, and mental activity. Do you agree that mental activity is not knowledge, but it uses knowledge? Furthermore, there must be mental activity which does not even use knowledge, as this would be required to account for the coming into existence of knowledge, unless you place knowledge as prior to mental activity (but this could only be intuition, which you deny as knowledge).
So we must respect the fact that if we exclude intuition as knowledge, then we necessarily have mental activity which does not use knowledge, but can itself bring knowledge into existence. The strategy by which this mental activity proceeds cannot be "guaranteed to be a failing strategy", because it is responsible for the existence of knowledge. Therefore, the mental process which proceeds without the use of knowledge ought not be denigrated as a guaranteed failure.
Quoting alcontali
I do not believe that this does show that axioms are arbitrary. This is because there is a difference between playing with toys, and working with tools. Playing with toys is random and arbitrary, but working with tools is purpose driven. Axioms are tools, they are not toys.
Suppose we create an analogy in this way. Knowledge is a tool, and the thinking mind uses knowledge in its purposes driven activities as a tool. But the mind engages in other activities as well, more like playing with toys. The "toys" here are not knowledge, but in a way they are still tools, because the playing is in some ways purpose driven and it's just the case that toys are used by the mind instead of knowledge. The toys are the arbitrary axioms which you refer to, axioms which are not adopted for the purpose of doing any particular sort of work, which would make them tools. But they are used for the purpose curiosity and wonder, for play, like an artist playing with different colours, or a composer playing with different notes. So new axioms are discovered through this activity of creative playfulness, which because it is not putting tools to work it is not an act of using knowledge in thinking, it's more like thinking for the purpose of finding interesting things, playing. .
Well, I actively seek to disagree with people who defend the idea of "subject matters", because in my opinion, "subject matters" do not matter much. What really matters, are epistemic domains. So, I am actively in opposition to subject-matterism which is the core of contemporary curriculum design, which is by the way utterly misguided.
The verbatim transmission of knowledge databases to be memorized by students is such an incredibly bad approach to what education is supposed to be. We simply do not need people to act as living, imperfect copies of Google Search or Wikipedia, or other knowledge accumulation engines. I am staunchly against all of that.
We have not properly digested the advent of computers. People need to finally come to the understanding that you either use the machine, or else you build or program the machine, because in all other cases, it is you the machine.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
Yes, agreed, rationality/knowledge is merely a tool.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
Yes, agreed, the discovery of new knowledge is mostly carried out with other, non-knowledge, tools/mental faculties.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
Ha, but if we could "know" the nitty-gritty of these other, non-knowledge mental tools, then they are actually knowledge, and that would be contradictory. Therefore, I am opposed to any strategy that consists in trying to systematize these other mental tools, because in order to do that, we would need to thoroughly "know" them, which is is not possible, because they are not knowledge.
Hence, I believe that most corporate R&D budgets are fundamentally mismanaged. The worst case of mismanagement, however, are undoubtedly government-funded budgets for scientific research. They usually seek to somehow know and systematize the unknown and even the unknowable, which is something for which you would need to know the search result already, but in that case you do not need to search for it in the first place.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
Yes, probably something like that or similar. Still, I admit that I do not really "know".
Good, but you're still not making the distinction which I asked you to make, between the thing, the tool, (knowledge in this case), and the activity which uses the thing. A tool is not the same as the activity which uses the tool. Knowledge is not the same as the mental activity which uses knowledge. If you make this distinction, then the same thing, an axiom for example, may be considered to be knowledge when it is used as a tool, put to work toward some goals, or it may be consider to be not-knowledge, not a tool, when it is considered to be arbitrary, and used as a toy in play like you described. The same thing is apprehended in a different way, depending on the activity which is using it.
Likewise, if we take one specific type of activity, using knowledge as a tool toward a goal for example, we could potentially use many different tools toward reaching the same goal. Each tool (axiom, or piece of knowledge) selected to be used would be useful, but some would be better than others, specifically the tools designed for that particular type of task. And, no matter how good the tool appears to be, we ought to respect the fact that a metaphysician might find a better tool. However, more likely than not, this would involve changing the task (the activity). An activity is a means to an end, and analysis of the end might determine that the end itself is slightly misguided, or that the activity is not the most efficient way of reaching that end, so a change to the activity would be required, also requiring a change to the tool.
Quoting alcontali
I see that, but I wasn't talking about tools (knowledge) at that point, I was talking about the mental activity which uses the tools. So let's say that some mental activity employs "strategy", that's a word you've introduced. Strategy is a tool which is often comprised to a large degree, of intuition. So we cannot say that all strategy is knowledge. Strategy is a tool which is applicable toward bringing about a desired end. It dictates the way we act, in the sense that it is used to determine the way that the mental activity uses the tools, knowledge, and how the tools are chosen. So strategy is more closely aligned to the end (the goal) than it is to the activity (the means to the end), because it is used to determine the activity.
Notice, I am not trying to "systemize" these mental tools, only to understand them. They are already systemized by the mental activity which uses them, and that's what makes them understandable, they are systemized. Therefore you've made an important error in the passage above. You have stated that it is not possible to know these tools because they are not knowledge. But there is an activity which brings knowledge into existence, so just because something is not knowledge doesn't mean that it is impossible to know it. A particular strategy for example may begin as not-knowledge (being based in intuition), but after being tried and tested it becomes knowledge. What this indicates is that there are mental activities which are not understood, because the tools employed are not knowledge, but these tools are not unknowable, our knowledge just has not progressed to the extent of knowing them.
In ancient philosophy, the only knowledge worthy of that name rested on what is truly first, the ground of being, the origin of the manifold, the un-created. In the millenia since, this has become associated with religious doctrines, and rejected on those grounds. But within the ancient ruins lie a deep truth. 'A wise person must have a true conception of unproven first principles and also know the conclusions that follow from them. “Hence Wisdom must be a combination of Intelligence [Intellect; ????] and Scientific Knowledge [????????]: it must be a consummated knowledge of the most exalted objects.” Contemplation is that activity in which the nous intuits and delights in first principles.' [sup] 1 [/sup]
You yourself have written eloquent polemics against 'scientism'. Perhaps the understanding represented by classical metaphysics is what has been lost, thereby allowing 'scientism' to fill the void that was left behind; the illusion that all could be subjected to our measure.
I agree that we ought not to idolize metaphysics, but I think the essential attribute of metaphysics is that, whereas what we conceive of as 'natural science' comprises what we think we can explain by way of natural principles, metaphysics is concerned in some sense with what explains us, and also what gives rise to those natural principles in the first place. It is, as it were, prior to any of the specific arts and sciences, and for that very reason, resists elaboration and explication, as it can only ever be intuited by the discursive intellect. That is why all of Plato's metaphysical passages were allegorical, puzzles, aporia, and suggestions; he did not pretend to have charted it.
Most modern philosophy complains about metaphysics, calls it obscure, best abandoned, not useful. Aristotle himself said somewhere (I can never find this passage again) that metaphysics is 'sublimely useless'. It serves no purpose; the best thing, and the only thing, that the human intellect can do is contemplate it; if we are able to do that, then just that is true happiness and virtue.
A sentiment long consigned to history, I'm afraid.
If there ever was a dialectical nutshell, that would certainly be a worthy contender.
Introduction to Metaphysics, 13 (H9-10).
(I think I need to read this text in full.)
Right on. Philosophy does something with us. Or to us. Makes us think.
Until the 20th century, scientists did indeed examine the real, physical world. But since the advent of Relativity and Quantum Theory, physicists have been discovering that the fundamentals of reality are more theoretical & metaphysical than empirical & physical. Quantum Fields and Virtual Particles are far from the physics of Isaac Newton. Matter is now known to be composed of Energy, but what is energy made of? Nobody knows, so the essence of energy is undefined. Massless photons are described as "waves" without a medium. Gravity is no longer an attractive force, causing "spooky action at a distance", but merely the curved "fabric" of matterless space.
So, it seems to me that Natural Philosophy evolved into Modern Science around the time of Newton. But after Einstein, the cutting edge of Science has been moving deeper into the abstract realm of theory and metaphysics. So Philosophy is becoming relevant again for understanding the real world.
Metaphysics : http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page14.html
Energy is defined as the capacity to do work. Energy is not what matter is composed of, it is a property of moving objects.
Quoting Gnomon
Yes, philosophy is relevant, as necessary to avoid misunderstanding, like above.
Scholatics (or neo-platonists) defined G (in contrast to g) by negating all traditional dogmatic predicates for G, in effect, asserting G by 'what G is not'.
Suppose we adopt a similar apophatic method or stance with respect to 'being qua being' or 'the real itself' or 'existence as such' ... actuality;
suppose, instead of speculating on 'What is', we define W by negating every contradictory-undefined predicate ascribed to W, in effect, asserting W by eliminating (epoch?) what is necessarily not-W (or necessarily false about W);
and suppose an apophatic study, or contemplation, of 'every a priori impossible way the actual world necessarily could not have been or cannot be described'* - entailing as remainder 'every possible way the actual world could have been or can be described' - that confines speculative inquiry to exploring, or making explicit, impossible worlds/objects/events/agents as eliminable fictions (i.e. inadequate predicates for W):
Can we retain - regain - a speculative absolute by beginning (again) with internal critique via 'negating impossibles'*?
Is 'policing' non-contingent facts (e.g. unconditional events, inconsistent things, incoherent objects, etc) all that's left for rational metaphysics - hygienic, therapeutic, even cathartic - reminders that
[i]There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
- Hamlet (1.5.167-8)[/i]
the Ways the World Could Have Been or Can Be Described, explicated and explored, are far far richer and stranger and more dangerous than any & all of our perennial, superstitious, self-serving, wishful woo?
[quote=Wayfarer][W]hat we conceive of as 'natural science' comprises what we think we can explain by way of natural principles, metaphysics is concerned in some sense with what explains us, and also what gives rise to those natural principles in the first place.[/quote]
[quote=Mww]Right on. Philosophy does something with us. Or to us. Makes us think.[/quote]
What we speculate about and how we go about that, I agree, says everything about us and "... leaves everything" else "as it is." (L.W.) My interest in apophatics is motivated by the prospect of (A) greater self-reflection while 'doing metaphysics' than by the usual kataphatic practices as well as (B) a maximally pluralistic - transfinite / multiversal - phase space-like [sense of] Actuality as such ... sort of a Spinoza-Nelson Goodman-Quentin Meillassoux chimera, or witches' brew (TBD).
The original intuition of scholastic metaphysics is that 'intelligible objects' (such as arithmetic proofs and geometric forms) are known in a way that particulars can't be. That is because such logical proofs and so on are seen by 'the eye of reason' so to speak, in a way that sensory vision never provides; knowledge of them is apodictic and immediate, whereas knowledge of particulars is sensible and mediate (i.e. 'mediated' by the senses. This is the basis of 'form-matter' (hylomorphic) dualism. It is very different to Cartesian dualism).
In Christian Platonism, it is axiomatic that what can be intellectually known is nearer to the origin or source of being than anything perceivable by sense, because what is perceivable is 'made' and is therefore mutable and subject to decay (hence, why this is a dualistic philosophy.) Whereas the ideas of things are like archetypes in the intellect. 'if the proper knowledge of the senses is of accidents, through forms that are individualized, the proper knowledge of intellect is of essences, through forms that are universalized. Intellectual knowledge is analogous to sense knowledge inasmuch as it demands the reception of the form of the thing which is known. But it differs from sense knowledge so far forth as it consists in the apprehension of things, not in their individuality, but in their universality.'
Whereas naturalism starts from the assumption that it is 'the particular', i.e. the existing object, that is real, and then tries to work back to its fundamental principles by reducing it to elements and so forth.
If philosophy is a school, metaphysics is the playground where children do their thing - play, only the toys are ideas. Imagination has a big role.
I think...
That's a good way to put it, if a bit vague. It makes sense if you are already familiar with various examples of metaphysics and are trying to generalize from that, but it probably won't be very helpful to someone who really doesn't know what metaphysics is, or has a distorted idea of it, for example, as something to do with the occult.
As I said, energy is defined by what it does, not by what it is (essence). Energy is indeed a quality (attribute) of matter, like the redness of an apple, which exists, not in the apple but in the mind of the observer. A Quale is a subjective experience, not an objective thing. So, Energy (potential) is metaphysical, but it can become actual & physical in the sense of E = MC2. Perhaps I should have said that Energy is what Mass is composed of. Mass is also a property of Matter. So again, what substance is Matter or Mass made of?
Qualia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualia
Metaphysics "Physics refers to the things we perceive with the eye of the body. Meta-physics refers to the things we conceive with the eye of the mind." http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page14.html
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
Since quantum physics deals with "things" that are not actual or physical (virtual particles, quantum field), it necessarily involves philosophical metaphysical reasoning about abstractions rather than empirical objects. Quantum theory is paradoxical, and subject to misunderstanding, because it necessarily uses material metaphors to discuss immaterial concepts.
Field a mathematical concept (set) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field
"Metaphysics is the branch of philosophy that examines the fundamental nature of reality, including the relationship between mind and matter, between substance and attribute, and between potentiality and actuality." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysics
Yes. Unfortunately, metaphysical Philosophy has been contaminated by association with various mind-over-matter notions (magical thinking) among aficionados of the occult arts. Those "arts" typically use the techniques of stage magic (misdirection, concealment, etc) to simulate psychokinesis or psychic mind-reading. Those mind-games are much more popular than the artless (unfeigned) discipline of philosophical metaphysics.
You can't really say 'what substance is', or 'what matter is', because if you could describe it you would be talking about its properties, not substance itself. Substance is what has properties, so you can't really describe it by referring to what properties it has.
:up: Absolutely correct. 'Metaphysics' is shorthand for 'anything vaguely spiritual'. Accordingly most criticism is criticism of 'anything I think is vaguely spiritual (and don't like).' This is further complicated by the generally anti-religion undercurrent in secular culture (which a lot of the time really has no idea what it's negating.)
I think discussion of metaphysics in philosophy ought to be oriented with respect to Aristotle - after all, the term was invented in relation to his writing. That doesn't mean slavishly worshipping Aristotle as the supreme philosopher (as the medievals tended to do) but at least developing some understanding of the lexicon and general outlook of metaphysics in the mainstream philosophical tradition. Otherwise, it invariably veers off into homespun syncretism, on the one hand, or uninformed ridicule, on the other.
Aristotle found it difficult to pin down "substance" to a single definition, so he gave two candidates : Platonic "Form" and Physical "Matter". Material substance is what our senses are attuned to. But Form (information) as a substance is detected only by our sixth sense of Reason (pattern recognition).
" Aristotle analyses substance in terms of form and matter. The form is what kind of thing the object is, and the matter is what it is made of. ... "
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/substance/
So, when I asked what substance Matter is made of, I was not referring to its physical substance, but to its formal substance : the cause of physical properties. In my personal Theory of Everything, I call that essence of both Matter and Energy "EnFormAction" : the power to enform. It's a simple concept, but so far from conventional scientific understanding, that it requires lots of explanation to dispel knee-jerk reactions. It's a secular theory that combines ancient philosophical & religious notions (First Cause, Divine Will) with cutting-edge science (Information Theory, Quantum Mechanics).
EnFormAction http://bothandblog3.enformationism.info/page23.html
If I understand you correctly, you are saying that if a thing has physical existence, there is a cause of its existence, what you call "the cause of physical properties". After all, having physical properties is the same as having physical existence. This cause is what you call EnFormAction.
Interesting. But how do you allow for intelligence? What is it that recognises concepts? And what are concepts? Is that intelligence something you think is a product of evolution?
One point of caution is that the Aristotelian term that was translated as 'substance' was Ousia which is nothing like 'substance' in the every day sense.
If ousia doesn't refer to 'a' being, it's because it refers to the 'concept of man' rather than 'this or that man'. But again, it's nothing like 'substance' in the modern sense, nor is it anything like the modern conception of matter.
Thanks for that!Excellent. :smile:
Yes. In the Enformationism thesis, the essence of EnFormAction is conditional existence : to be or not to be. In digital Information, the essence of meaningful form is 1 or 0, something or nothing. So, the First Cause of EnFormAction (creative power or energy) is BEING (the power to be; infinite potential). BEING (which I call G*D) is eternal, but non-physical. Physical beings are limited to space-time. Hence, back to digital information, 0 is non-physical potential, and 1 is physical actual. Likewise, BEING is potential (non-physical; meta-physical) and EnFormAction is the power to transform potential to actual : 0 into 1.
Now, is that clear as mud? The thesis leads up to this conclusion gradually, so it should make more sense in the end. A simple analogy is a small battery in an electrical device. It is rated at 1.5 volts. But that potential voltage has no properties until it is actualized by completing a circuit from potential to actual and back; from nothing to something and back to no-thing (no property). The energy produced by the battery has no properties itself, except for sensible changes in the material through which it flows : heat, light, communication, etc.
PS__Although I refer to BEING as G*D, to give it a common reference point, this philosophical thesis is intended to be scientific instead of religious.
Yes. As a result of the work by EnFormAction, Information (meaning) is inherent in matter. This is a form of ancient Panpsychism, except that consciousness emerges gradually in the process of evolution. Basic elements of matter have information content, but are not conscious in the sense that more highly-evolved animals are. In evolutionary terms, Intelligence is the ability to adapt to changing circumstances. Unlike most animals though, Human intelligence has learned to change its environmental circumstance for its own benefit, by creating Culture from Nature.
As the First Cause of everything in the world, BEING must have the potential for intelligence and consciousness, but may have no actual intelligence until realized in space & time.
The fundamental Concept is the difference between something and nothing, 1 or 0, as in the basic Bit of computer information. All other concepts are multiples of 1s and 0s.
Yes. I use the term "substance" (ousia) in the sense of spiritual essence rather than material stuff.
Quoting Wayfarer
In the Bible, ousia was typically used to mean "spirit" in the sense of the non-physical essence of a person. In my thesis, I try to avoid the religious baggage of "spirit" by substituting "self" or "self-concept". It's the pattern of information that defines a person : his Platonic Form.
PS__Here's an analogy to make sense of "ousia" as information. In Star Trek, the Transporter scans a human body or an object, and converts its constituent information into a stream of data (1s & 0s) that it beams to a different location, where it transforms the information back into matter as a replica of the original. That abstract data is equivalent to the "soul" (spirit or essence) of the person. Presumably, the material for the body is sourced locally. A philosophical problem with the sci-fi Transporter that has been discussed is this : "is the reformed replica the same person, or a clone?" Of course in non-fiction Nature, we assume that there is only one unique Form (soul) of a person. So, no doppelgangers.
'Information' and 'meaning' differ in significant ways. People nowadays will refer to 'information' as if it is a fundamental category in its own right, like 'mind' or 'matter'. But the problem is, the word itself is polysemic, meaning different things in different contexts. It's not like a metaphysical simple.
And 'consciousness gradually emerging in the process of evolution' is simply mainstream biology. In one sense, it's obviously true, in that cognitive capacities have clearly evolved over time. But I think the philosophical issue suggested by classical metaphysics is more like this: that the rational intelligence (nous) is capable of recognising meaning, value and purpose in the abstract. And that, I don't think, is really addressed by evolutionary theory as such. Put another way - human mental capacities have clearly evolved, but when they have evolved to the point of reason, language and abstraction, then they in some sense transcend the biological. Which is something that most modern philosophy has trouble recognising.
Lawrence Krauss became famous for a book called The Physics of Star Trek in the mid-nineties, which analysed how much physical data you would have to convert to 'beam Scotty up'. My vague memory of it was that to fully convert all of the specifications for a single individual into binary code would take a stack of hard drives larger than the known universe. (Or was it solar system?? Of course, technology has advanced since then, but still....)
But in any case, the model you're suggesting is still basically physicalist, i.e., it equates meaning and intelligence with information that can be digitally encoded. But in my view, the problem with this is that the real nature of the mind (or 'being') is not something objectively specifiable. It never appears to as as an object, but is always 'that which knows', as the subject of experience. This is not something that is made explicit in Greek philosophy, but it is spelled out in the Upanisads.
I understand 'naturalism' as epistemologically - methodologically - assuming that 'the natural world' can be intelligibly explained without recourse to, or by excluding, any non/supernatural entities, forces, agencies, etc independent of any specific ontology, or explicitly metaphysical considerations.
It appears like there is inconsistency here. You say that the first cause of EnFormAction is infinite potential. But don't you recognize that infinite potential could not contain any actuality, and therefore could not be a cause of anything? But then you say that EnFormAction is the power to transform potential to actual. Therefore it must be something actual, and also separate from infinite potential, which you call BEING.
In Aristotelian metaphysics, infinite potential is impossible, for the very reason that it would exclude any actuality, and therefore not be able to actualize anything. So "infinite potential" is really just incoherent nonsense, or a self-contradicting concept. This means that you need to change your description of BEING, because infinite potential could not be the cause of EnFormAction, and instead alter your inquiry to find a description for the cause of potential (BEING).
Quoting Gnomon
You cannot really say that the potential of the battery has no properties because you have already defined it as 1.5 volts. This is the problem which arises if one tries to make sense of "infinite potential". Any 'real' potential is already limited, or restricted by the physical actualities which provide for its existence. The physical actuality of the battery provides for its potential, so that potential is restricted by those properties. Because any 'real' potential is limited in this way, it doesn't make any sense to speak of unlimited, or infinite potential. People often do speak of infinite potential though, as you just did, but Aristotle showed how this is purely imaginary, and cannot be substantiated by anything real. And it is important to note that it is not just the case that nothing real has been found to support the concept of infinite potential, and might be found in the future, it is the case that it is impossible for anything real to support the concept. Because it is impossible that there could be substance to the concept, the concept has no metaphysical application, it has absolutely no bearing on reality, and therefore must be rejected by metaphysicians.
Quoting Wayfarer
That was before PS3 and the 'Cell' processor, therefore old information. The size of these things has really shrunk.
Quoting 180 Proof
Is there actually people who believe that the natural world could be explained without metaphysical considerations? I haven't seen anyone even attempt at such an explanation, though I respect the fact that some people might claim that it could be done, without actually trying. But do they really believe this? Even Stephen Hawking turns to metaphysics. Do you know anyone who's actually tried to explain the natural world without recourse to metaphysics?
Yes. Those words, like most language, can be ambiguous. But as a "metaphysical simple" I'd use the term "information" in the sense of the basic bit of understanding or meaning : 1 or 0; is or ain't; existing or non-existing; being or non-being. Every other bit or byte of knowledge is built upon that fundamental categorical distinction. It's the "difference that makes a difference".
Claude Shannon separated the traditional definition of "information" from meaning-in-a-mind (knowledge) because -- as an engineer, not a philosopher -- he was focused on the carrier-of-information, instead of the content : meaning.
Quoting Wayfarer
In my concept of evolution -- not Intelligent Design, but Intelligent Evolution -- the advent of human mind signaled a transition from Nature to Culture. Human culture advances at a much more rapid pace than biological evolution. But I refer to it as just another "Phase Change" instead of a special miracle.
Mainstream philosophers still seem to have physics envy. But quite a few philosophers and scientists are returning to the roots of Natural Philosophy, by investigating some ancient notions rejected by materialist science : Panpsychism, Idealism, Elan Vital, etc. I have reviewed several of those in my blog. The problem is that acknowledging the growing power of the collective mind can be twisted into a justification for ancient notions of mind-over-matter magic. By emphasizing mundane Information rather than exotic concepts of Consciousness (souls; ghosts), I try to avoid such unwarranted implications.
The Star Trek analogy was indeed a "physicalist" model of the mind and the soul. That's where all sci-fi stories of uploading minds into computers go wrong. They assume the information is recorded in the brain like data on a hard drive. Yet data is just meaningless abstractions until interpreted by a mind.
But my concept of Information is Idealist. It's true that mental information can be encoded as symbols into a computer, but the meaning of those symbols is not transmitted. Instead, the recipient is assumed to already know their meaning. Any new knowledge they receive is by inference in the mind of the recipient. Unlike, physical things, metaphysical Information is something I can give away, and still have it. The medium is not the message.
You are missing the power of potential. If a potential is not capable of causing anything, it's not potential, it's impotent. By definition, the cause of our world possessed the creative power to cause a world to exist. Whether the First Cause was a god or an infinite regression of universes, it necessarily possessed the power to actualize something new that didn't exist before. In my thesis, infinite BEING is omnipotential, but the existence of our universe was conditional. A choice was required. An intention was enforced. I know nothing about infinity, except what Logic mandates.
In the battery example. Voltage (potential) doesn't do any work. It's Amperage that causes change. But without the voltage, there would be no amperage. Without BEING, there would be no beings.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
Voltage is not a property, it's a prediction.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
The Potential I'm talking about is not Real, it's Ideal. Nothing in reality is infinite. Infinity and Eternity are unlimited, by definition. BEING is not real. G*D is not real. Metaphysics is not real. FORMS are not real. They are all Ideal. Hence, not restricted by the laws of physics.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
I rest my case. :smile:
Agree. There was a very interesting poster here previously, seems to have stopped posting, apokrisis. He's an expert in biosemiotics, and sometimes mentioned Claude Shannon.
But one point about Shannon's work, is that it was concerned with a very specific problem, namely, the transmission of bits across electronic media - that's why his work is fundamental to data compression and networking. But the extent to which the kind of information processing that Shannon is talking about, relates to 'meaning' in the more abstract sense, is still an open question in my view. There was also a famous comment by Norbert Wiener, who founded cybernetics, along the lines that 'information is information, it is not matter or energy'. All of which is true but it's still unclear what information means in a general sense. To me it seems that information is only structured to any significant degree in living beings and in minds, and I find that significant. I'm generally sympathetic to your approach, but to me, the underlying problem of modern philosophy is that it narrows its scope to what can be objectified (i.e. treated as an object and quantified). That's why it has such enormous technological power, on the one hand, but on the other hand, it also tends to treat human beings as objects, which is intrinsically de-humanising.
Quoting Gnomon
I distinguish what is real from what (merely) exists. The phenomenal domain comprises existing things, but 'existence' itself is always a combination of the real and the unreal. Whereas forms, numbers etc are real but not existent - they don't have to exist, things do the hard work of existing.
Back later.
Yes. BEING (G*D) is infinite potential, and is not real. But EnFormAction is the power of G*D in the world, and is real in the same sense that Energy is real. As a historical analogy, EFA is similar to the Holy Spirit in the Bible. Jehovah doesn't have to come down to Earth to enforce his Will. Instead, he sends his Spirit to do the job. It's just a metaphor. Don't take it too literally.
I think the ancients were smart people trying to understand how and why the world works as it does. In the pre-scientific ages, supernatural gods were plausible concepts to explain the mysterious causes of natural events. Today, we call those causes by the name of Energy and Forces. They obviously have effects in the real world, but we know them only by their works, not as ding an sich.
I'm still grasping for the hows & whys, but I don't have a divine revelation to set me straight. So, I use the tools of fallible human philosophy and science. :cool:
Quoting Gnomon
No. The ancients meant something different to what we mean by 'cause' - they meant in a broader 'the reason why things exist'. Modern thinking only understands it terms of material and efficient causes but has no sense of reason in the sense of 'telos'. So 'the first cause' is not 'first in a temporal series' but 'what must first be, in order than anything else is'. Modern science will never reach that, because it deals only in the domain of appearances and natural regularities.
I think you are twisting the distinction between actual and potential. Do you accept this division? If so, do you see that it is necessary for a cause to be actual? How can you say that a potential can cause something if you uphold the distinction between potential and actual and see that an act is required as a cause?
Quoting Gnomon
Sure, but do you see that possessing the power to cause a world to exist is different from actually causing the world to exist? I possess the power to do all sorts of different things, but I don't necessarily do them. That's the point of contingent existence, 'potential' always refers to a multitude of possibilities, but the fact that one thing is actualized rather than some other possibility is only explained by causation. And, the cause must be something actual. So, we cannot account for the existence of our world, simply by saying that there was something which had that creative capacity, we need to also account for how that particular creative capacity was actualized.
Quoting Gnomon
No, voltage is a description, not a prediction. According to Wikipedia it is the difference in electric potential between two points.
I've neither claimed nor implied that I or anyone else explains anything "without metaphysical considerations"; only that I understand naturalism consisting of the working assumption that no specific ontology, or explicitly metaphysical considerations are required to explain the natural world.
My understanding may be erroneous or naturalists (e.g. scientists) may misunderstand what they are doing. Or maybe you, MU, (A) missed the context of my statement as a reply to Wayfarer (quoted in my post) & (B) discounted the proximity of non/supernatural entities, forces, agencies to specific ontology & explicitly metaphysical considerations in the sentence, the latter alluding to the former; and thereby misread my meaning.
Do you consider, for instance, that merely assuming 'the natural world is explainable' is a "recourse to metaphysics"?
I agree that 'methodological naturalism' is a perfectly sound working hypothesis, but where its limitations show up, is when it ventures into metaphysics, like it does in the many controversies over multiverses and parallel worlds in physics. Likewise there are many problematical questions arising from evolutionary biology in respect of providing an account of the faculty of reason and other human attributes, where neo-darwinism often amounts to a kind of crude reductionism; which is not at all to disparage evolutionary biology in its field of application, viz, the evolution of species.
All around us, in fact, scientific hypotheses are frequently imbued with a metaphysical significance they don't have; hence the oft-quoted (but rarely observed) maxim from Wittgenstein, 'that of which we cannot speak....' .
Won't the answer be a metaphysical statement? If you're asking what kind of reflection is required to understand the world, then I think it would be.
If you're just asking how one uses the word "metaphysics" then it's a linguistic question.
One of the coolest answers is Heidegger's: look around you now and in your mind, place a backdrop of nothingness behind it all.
The outcome (for me) is a sense of direct contact with Being, not as an abstraction or a property of objects, but it's like the volume is turned up on the here and now. I would advise against doing this in a situation where you're miserable. Go somewhere awesome and do it.
Generic Information is multi-faceted and hard to pin down to one thing. In Macro Physics, energy and information are not usually equated. But in Quantum Physics the relationship is a necessary conclusion. En-Form-Action is potential for a change in form. Energy is also the potential for change. But EFA is a metaphysical concept, while Energy is a physical concept. A Quantum Field (potential or virtual particles) is a metaphysical concept that exists only in a mathematical sense. But when a real particle appears from empty space, a unit of (vacuum) energy is assumed to have been expended. Quantum language is so metaphorical and vacuous that it seems paradoxical.
Information = Energy : https://physicsworld.com/a/information-converted-to-energy/
Quoting Wayfarer
There are two meanings for the word "structure". For most folks it's the physical posts & beams that a building is made of. But, for an engineer, the structure is a diagram of forces and reactions (vectors). Information is both concrete structure (things) and abstract structure (relationships between things).
Generic Information : http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page11.html
Quoting Wayfarer
In my list of examples -- "BEING is not real. G*D is not real. Metaphysics is not real. FORMS are not real. They are all Ideal" -- the distinction between Real & Ideal is Concrete vs Abstract and Actual vs Potential. So G*D is not a real being (thing), but the ideal state of BEING. Ideal objects "exist" only in minds, not in matter.
"God as creator is then a kind of transcendent non-being above the being of creation.
He says "God is" (exists in some sense), but is also "non-being". That's why I use the neologism of BEING to refer to that which exists in a transcendent sense as the potential for creation of something from nothing, real from ideal.
Quoting Wayfarer
Yes, Laymen and philosophers mean something different by "cause". Most people think in terms of proximate causes (energy), while others look for ultimate causes (EnFormAction).
It's a fine philosophical distinction. Of course, in the real world Potential & Actual occur in pairs : Voltage & Amperage. But, the voltage in a battery can exist unrealized for years, until a circuit is completed by the user (plug it into a device and close the on-off switch). So, in Eternity & Infinity, transcendent Potential could theoretically exist independently, until triggered by a choice, an intention, which completes a circuit from Ideal to Real and back to Ideal again. In this analogy, G*D is both battery and user, both potential and actualizer. The device is our universe.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
Yes. See the reply above. If G*D is only potential, nothing would ever happen. That's why I assume that G*D must also have Intention, Will, Telos. Of course I don't know how these things would work outside of space-time-matter-energy. It's a mystery. :smile:
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
Voltage is a description of what will happen in the future when a path between those two points is completed. Voltage is also Information in the sense of a "difference that makes a difference" : it causes change.
I refer to that, because your statement is very much an expression of what Buddhism calls 'sunyata'. Heidegger's convergences with Buddhism are the subject some literature, although he himself hardly commented on it.
Quoting Gnomon
Well, yes, but I think the platonist view of 'form' is a little more elaborate. The form of something is the idea - not simply 'my idea' or some vague image in the individual mind, but the real meaning towards which any particular strives. The best example is number and numerically-expressed laws. A formula, like Newton's laws of motion, describe the motion of every particular (within a certain range i.e. not at relativistic velocities). So, it is in a sense the 'relations between things' but I feel as though you're not really cutting through to the profound sense in which such relations and laws represent an underlying logos which guides and directs all things: not as a 'god' through acts of will but because they constitute the 'fabric of the cosmos.
[quote=C. S. Peirce] The only end of science, as such, is to learn the lesson that the universe has to teach it. In Induction it simply surrenders itself to the force of facts. But it finds . . . that this is not enough. It is driven in desperation to call upon its inward sympathy with nature, its instinct for aid, just as we find Galileo at the dawn of modern science making his appeal to il lume naturale. . . . The value of Facts to it, lies only in this, that they belong to Nature; and nature is something great, and beautiful, and sacred, and eternal, and real, —the object of its worship and its aspiration. The soul's deeper parts can only be reached through its surface. In this way the eternal forms, that mathematics and philosophy and the other sciences make us acquainted with will by slow percolation gradually reach the very core of one's being, and will come to influence our lives; and this they will do, not because they involve truths of merely vital importance, but because they [are] ideal and eternal verities.[/quote]
Reasoning and the Logic of Things, edited by Kenneth Laine Ketner, with introduction and commentary by Ketner and Hilary Putnam (Harvard University Press, 1992), p. 112 (quoted in Thomas Nagel, Evolutionary Naturalism and the Fear of Religion, from The Last Word.)
Do you see the "choice", as an actuality which is distinct from both the voltage and amperage? If the voltage is potential, it could sit there forever without an actuality (choice in this case) to actualize it. This is the problem with infinite potential. If the potential is infinite, it cannot be limited by any actuality, and this includes the actuality of the being who would make the choice, or any other actuality which might actualize the potential. So if there ever was infinite potential, there would always be infinite potential, which is not what we observe.
Quoting 180 Proof
Why do you class scientists as naturalists? Scientists might seek to understand the aspects of the natural world which are proper to their field of study, without reference to metaphysics, but they do not, in general, seek to understand the entirety of the natural wold. So they do not attempt, through their various fields of study, to explain the natural world, only to explain specific aspects of it. Many aspects of the natural world might be understood without employing metaphysics, but understanding an aspect of the natural world does not render the natural world as explainable. And this is where metaphysics is called for.
Quoting 180 Proof
Yes I do, because the statement of "the natural world" implies that the entirety of nature is one entity, a unity, and this is a metaphysical assumption. Furthermore, I think that to assume that something which has not yet been explained, is explainable, is a metaphysical assumption.
You mentioned Popper. He considered metaphysics to be important, but just not a science. He considered it be, although not itself a science, indispensable to science. This is because creative imaginative thought is indispensable to science just as much as it is to the arts.
I am certainly a fan of Popper's epistemic result, and I have completely adopted his seminal publication, "Science as falsification". That does not mean, however, that I would adopt everything that he has ever written.
The same holds true for Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, and Kant. Not everything that they have proposed, has turned out to be equally successful.
I consider the core axis of knowledge to be mathematics, science, and history. However, the reason for this, is neither mathematical, nor scientific, nor historical.
Mathematics deals with patterns that arise in carefully and explicitly constructed abstract, Platonic worlds. Science deals with patterns that arise in the real, physical world. History corroborates witness depositions.
Epistemology is meta-knowledge. It deals with patterns that arise in the abstract world of knowledge as this world of knowledge gradually arises and emerges, while focusing on its essential characteristics, which is, how the knowledge is justified.
Metaphysics, however, has nothing to do with figuring out knowledge justification. It does not revolve around justified ([s]true[/s]) beliefs (J[s]t[/s]B). It rather tries to rationally question the starting points of knowledge.
I consider that to be nonsensical in, for example, mathematics, because the starting points in mathematics are not the job of anybody else than mathematicians. Seriously, if you have no clue as to what the effect of changes in the starting points will be on the body of theorems that rest on it, then you are clearly doing it wrong.
The problem is clearly of a very similar nature in science and history.
Furthermore, if these starting points had a rational justification, then they would not be starting points. Therefore, the questioning of starting points is mostly in vain, even by people who are aware of the consequences of modifying the starting points. Therefore, I also consider metaphysics to be a futile and often ignorant exercise in infinite regress.
A good example of how all of that goes wrong is Collingwood's "An essay on metaphysics".
An example that Collingwood gives of this concerns the frameworks (he calls them “constellations”) provided by the Newtonian, the Kantian and the Einsteinian modes of scientific enquiry. Each of these assumes a peculiar notion of causation, and within any one of them, this notion cannot be questioned. It is not thought of as true; it is simply taken for granted. It is an absolute presupposition."
So first Collingwood writes that there are three kinds of physics, Newtonian, Kantian, and Einsteinian. That is bullshit. Collingwood's metaphysical views on physics are totally ignorant of how physics operates. His views were already considered absurd by the cognoscenti even back in the 1930ies when he wrote them. There is simply no such thing as "Kantian physics".
His already wrong views on physics then automatically degenerate into an exercise in infinite regress:
"any question involving the presupposition that an absolute presupposition is a proposition such as the questions ‘Is it true?’ ‘What evidence is there for it?’ ‘How can it be demonstrated?’ ‘What right have we to presuppose it if it can’t?’
So, that is typically metaphysics: ignorant and degenerative, infinite regress.
To further compliment this: Truth is an epistemic criterion that is meaningless when devoid of the concept of reality. Reality is studied by ontology. And ontology is a leading branch of metaphysics. Hence, there can be no comprehension of truths in the absence of metaphysics. Reworded, regardless of how naive or formal, else tacit or conscious, one's understanding of the latter is, there must be some understanding of it if one is to have any understanding of truths.
Quoting alcontali
He doesn’t say that, well at least not in the quote you provided. He said ‘knowledge frameworks’ and I think it’s a perfectly valid point. The Bohr-Einstein debates were basically metaphysical in nature, and Bohr’s ‘Copenhagen interpretation’ is arguably Kantian in many respects.
A little known fact about Kant that I find pertinent:
Quoting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nebular_hypothesis
Kant never tested anything experimentally. Therefore, his views cannot be classified as physics in its modern understanding, which already prevailed in the 1930ies, when Collingwood mentioned the term "Kantian physics".
Concerning the Bohr-Einstein controversy, if you receive a sequence of numbers that look random, even though they may have been generated by a pseudo-random number generator, which uses a seed to construct the sequence, and the knowledge of which would allow you to flawlessly predict the next pseudo-random number, then in absence of knowledge of such seed, I recommend to treat these numbers as random. Therefore, I side with Bohr. Furthermore, I do not consider this question to be metaphysical at all.
So you're saying that the issue of reality is not a metaphysical issue? I can point to a plethora of references that say it is. Wikipedia being my staple on grounds that it is peer-reviewed.
On what merits to you deny that the study of reality is a metaphysical issue?
Kant lectured in a wide range of subjects, and indeed his nebular hypothesis still stands, but is known as a philosopher. And I am of the view that philosophy requires no apparatus. In other words, I don't see how any discoveries in physics can really effect Kant's main theses in CPR, which are after all primarily concerned with the nature of reason, not with the composition of physical objects.
Quoting alcontali
Nothing you have said there corresponds with anything I have read about the nature of the controversy. In a nutshell, Einstein was a scientific realist, who believed that the job of physics was to disclose facts about independently-existing objects. His disagreement was with the notion of 'observer dependence' which physics suggested. He was never reconciled to that.
A current popular 'interpretation' of quantum physics is Everett's, in which worlds multiply indefinitely whenever measurements are made. Apparently there are an infinite number of such worlds, which differ in every possible number of degrees, from zero to infinite, that exist in parallel. That too is a metaphysical theory, however one that is untethered. from anything in classical metaphysics.
There is no knowledge possible without an epistemic knowledge-justification method; two of which, in the context of the real, physical world, are science and history. So, there we have two epistemically sound knowledge domains.
Epistemology, which does not study the real, physical world, but the abstract, Platonic world of knowledge is also sound, because it faces an already committed world of knowledge as it has emerged already. Hence, the detection of patterns in these existing commitments is not merely spurious.
What principle would force a bit of sanity in metaphysics?
In my opinion, there are no constraining structures that enforce soundness in the activity of merely investigating presuppositions; not even the effect on theorems that already make use of these presuppositions.
It is possible to investigate presuppositions in mathematics, because they are freely chosen or even arbitrary, and they do not claim to be the construction logic of the real, physical world anyway. A good example is the analysis on why the axiom of determinacy is incompatible with the axiom of choice in set theory.
The construction logic of the real, physical world, i.e. the theory of everything (ToE) is unknown. Therefore, a similar exercise is impossible in that context. Still, that is what metaphysics tries to do in vain.
I agree for epistemology, even though it still needs access to the body of existing knowledge in order to detect patterns in it; which Immanuel Kant more than successfully did. Karl Popper also did that magisterially.
Pointing out an existing meta-knowledge pattern in knowledge is important, because it allows the downstream knowledge practitioners to take note of these findings in their quest for the discovery of new knowledge.
That is the difference between epistemology and metaphysics. Unlike epistemology, there are no downstream practitioners who need any output from metaphysics. It just gets ignored, and that has been the case for almost 2500 years now.
They are not reading journals of metaphysics, but they have trickle down metaphysics.
Quoting alcontali
The same overall principle that forces sanity in mathematics: accord to our experiences of what is. No?
Theoretical (pure?) mathematics can get a little disjointed from reality at times, last I heard. And unlike the sciences of biology, neurology, cognitive sciences, etc., physics is quite heavily reliant upon mathematical ideas - M-theory and Everett's many worlds as just two physicist hypotheses that have no falsification ability to them. Yet are nevertheless widely enough endorsed.
As to metaphysics, as an abstract principle to be ideally pursued, make its affirmations falsifiable via reasoning and/or experience.
Mathematics has nothing to do with real-world experience. It is completely divorced from it. It is about consistency in abstract language-only expressions. Seriously, if a claim is about the real, physical world, then it is not mathematics.
Quoting javra
There is no other mathematics left than pure mathematics. If it is about reality, then it is a downstream discipline, such as physics or another subdivision in science, or engineering, or some other downstream activity.
Mathematics does not compete with physics or with science in general. That is epistemically impossible.
Quoting javra
In that case, it tries to compete with disciplines that do that already; and it miserably fails.
Note the reflexive equivocation of 'real' and 'physical'. You write from a perspective which assumes the reality of the sensory domain - as us denizens of a sensate culture are inclined to do! But what if the source, and the goal, of metaphysics is not within that domain at all?
It's worth recalling that in the Analogy of the Divided Line, which is the central to Platonic metaphysics and epistemology, that whilst knowledge of maths and geometry (dianoia) is higher than mere opinion or belief (pistis or doxa), it's still not quite so high as knowledge of the ideas (noesis). I am inclined to think that what this refers to has actually been altogether forgotten by modern culture - so, to us, it appears a nothing, a non-entity, nonsense. But that's because we're configured to think in certain ways. This is why critical philosophy really is critical - it calls into question most of what sober and sensible people take for granted.
Quoting alcontali
You keep repeating this, as a dogma, and oppose anyone who challenge it as 'constructivist heretics'. But the weakness of this claim is that we're utterly surrounded by devices and technologies which would not exist, were mathematics not applied to the physical world. There's not two domains, an imaginary Platonic realm which exists only in the imagination, and a physical world devoid of mathematical realities. In fact these domains are inextricable, which is a fascinating philosophical issue.
Quoting alcontali
I'd say bring it down to Earth a bit. We learn as toddlers about mathematics how? By noticing quantity in reality and the relations between quantities - and by giving these quantities and relations names such as "one" and "plus". 1 + 1 = 2 is not pure mathematics. It is a fact that is thoroughly entwined with the reality in which we live. (And I'm not denying Platonic-like ideals in saying this - after all, logos is logos.)
Quoting alcontali
I've a former friend (but sticking to the point ...) who got himself a doctorate in maths. According to his learning, one can easily construct a coherent theoretical mathematics that blatantly contradicts everyday aspects of reality such as that of gravity. Axioms are what you want them to be and you simply construct from them. In examples such as this, mathematics does (or at least can) compete with empirical physics and with empirical science in general.
Well, we can discuss Matrix-like philosophies, but they are not knowledge, because they are about the real, physical world but not justified from anything else therein.
I am a fan of the Matrix idea. I like it quite a bit, but I also know the limitations of that kind of thought exercises, and I do not classify them as knowledge or meta-knowledge. These things are hypothetical conjectures. Si non vere, bene trovato.
Quoting Wayfarer
Well, in a sense, I am just continuing the Brouwer-Hilbert controversy, but in the end, there is rather a consensus that Hilbert won that debate. So, yes, I believe that Hilbert was right and that Brouwer was satanically wrong.
Quoting Wayfarer
Yes, but it always goes through a downstream discipline which makes the necessary perspective shift.
For example, mathematics is distinct from computer science (CS), because CS has to contend with equipment that does not compute instantaneously fast nor has infinite memory. Mathematics does not have to do that. Engineering also has to deal with real-world trade-offs and cost considerations. There you have again other elements that kick in. It is the purity itself of mathematics that creates the need for downstream disciplines that are not completely pure.
These are empirical patterns in which people detect some form of consistency. Mathematics is only about that consistency, and nothing else. It is not empirical. The language expression "1+1=2" is handled by math, because it is language. What you see in the real, physical world, is not handled by math.
Quoting javra
Of course. Language can create abstract, Platonic worlds that have nothing to see with the real, physical world. That is not even specific to mathematics. Science fiction movies do that too. The difference is that mathematics has an extremely elaborate notion of consistency. Mathematics will still not allow you to contradict yourself inside that world without gravity. Otherwise, anything flies, because that is the name of the game.
use of that word says something!
You might be using language in a very specific sense. In which case, yes, relations between quantities is not a human language used to convey meaning. All the same, in a broader sense of language, how is mathematics - which is codified quantity and relations between quantity (right?) - not an abstracted form of language employed by humans for various purposes? In physics, such as for the purpose of understanding the world and for predictions.
Quoting alcontali
OK. So I take it that we agree that what you previously stated is "epistemically impossible" is actually possible.
"Satanists" are the Abrahamic way of describing those whom you dislike.
The analogy with random numbers is exactly that: observer dependence. The randomness of numbers depends on the observer. They are not (necessarily) intrinsically random (which is something we do not even know). That is where Kant's epistemic consideration kicks in:
Prolegomena, § 32. And we indeed, rightly considering objects of sense as mere appearances, confess thereby that they are based upon a thing in itself, though we know not this thing as it is in itself, but only know its appearances, viz., the way in which our senses are affected by this unknown something.
Therefore, if something consistently appears to you in a particular way, then you can proceed with the idea that they are in that particular way. What else are you going to do anyway? So, I side with Bohr.
No, I disagree because most of mathematics is not about codified quantity or relations between quantity. Only number theory to some extent is. Furthermore, the dominant axiomatization is currently set theory, and that has been the case for almost a century.
The ontology of mathematics is not a settled matter. Everybody still disagrees with everybody else. Still, the idea that it would be about quantity is considered very, very restrictive. For example, is a combinator or a function related to quantity? In another example, I don't think that, for example, category theory even ever mentions quantities. It is rather about structures, mappings between these structures, and possible preservation of structure. I don't think you'd ever see a quantity in that context.
Quoting javra
It is language and permissible manipulation of the symbols in the language. However, that does not settle the matter of the ontology. Far from.
The ontology of mathematics is an outstanding problem.
There's much more to it than that. We can infer and predict outcomes, based on mathematical analysis of observations - this is near to Kant's synthetic a priori. Whence this predictive relationship between mathematical reasoning and material facts? I find Eugene Wigner's essay on it very interesting.
No, I'd say those are complex relations regarding quantity. In other words, they would be pointlessly meaningless - correct me if I'm wrong here - in the complete absence of expressions of quantity such as that of "1".
Quoting alcontali
I'll be explicitly transparent. Yes, I took calculus in high-school, but I'm no mathematician. Not my thing.
Still, I have an exorbitant degree of confidence that none of the above means anything sans representations of unity, aka quantity. A geometric point, for all its marvels of being volumeless, is yet a quantity, for instance.
If the semantics of "quantity" needs better clarification, let me know. Alternatively, if you find I'm mistaken - but understand that "1" represents an idealized perfect integrity, or unity, of existent stuff - please offer some references to maths devoid of notions of quantity (such as the concept of "1", and its derivatives).
As soon as you say "observations", i.e. things that you see in the real, physical world, then it is no longer mathematics. In that case, you are doing physics or something similarly real-world.
Quoting Wayfarer
The short story? We don't know.
My own speculation is that the real, physical world is consistent by assumption while mathematics is consistent by construction. So, that may allow for particular isomorphisms between both.
Quoting Wayfarer
I think I can agree in globo with what Eugene Wigner writes. For example:
It is, as Schrodinger has remarked, a miracle that in spite of the baffling complexity of the world, certain regularities in the events could be discovered. The preceding discussion is intended to remind us, first, that it is not at all natural that "laws of nature" exist, much less that man is able to discover them. The reason that such a situation is conceivable is that, fundamentally, we do not know why our theories work so well. Hence, their accuracy may not prove their truth and consistency. The reason that such a situation is conceivable is that, fundamentally, we do not know why our theories work so well.
Agreed. Science does not describe the unknown construction logic of the real, physical world, i.e "the true laws of nature". Science rather describes observable patterns that are incredibly resilient to experimental testing. These two things are obviously not the same. We are talking about science as a really useful and clever hack. Science will indeed probably never manage to become the theory of everything (ToE).
Every empirical law has the disquieting quality that one does not know its limitations.
Agreed. A method that observes the real, physical world is itself part of an abstract, Platonic world, and can therefore never observe itself. This is indeed the main weakness of empiricism.
Mathematics, or, rather, applied mathematics, is not so much the master of the situation in this function: it is merely serving as a tool. It is true, of course, that physics chooses certain mathematical concepts for the formulation of the laws of nature, and surely only a fraction of all mathematical concepts is used in physics. However, it is important to point out that the mathematical formulation of the physicist's often crude experience leads in an uncanny number of cases to an amazingly accurate description of a large class of phenomena. This shows that the mathematical language has more to commend it than being the only language which we can speak; it shows that it is, in a very real sense, the correct language.
Agreed. If the real, physical world is consistent -- on falsificationist grounds it is perfectly sound to assume this -- then the consistency-maintaining bureaucracy supplied by mathematics must indeed be the correct language.
I do object to Brouwer's direct, constructivist connection between mathematics and the real, physical world. Unlike physics, mathematics does not deal with the semantics of the real, physical world, but only with the consistency of abstract, language expressions. Furthermore, if you can test it, you should test it. So, mere symbol manipulation is not the main instrument for the analysis of the real, physical world.
The reader may be interested, in this connection, in Hilbert's rather testy remarks about intuitionism which "seeks to break up and to disfigure mathematics,"
Disagree. Hilbert does not disfigure mathematics. He rather seeks to maintain its purity. The real, physical world or any connection to it, is not a legitimate subject in mathematics. People who are interested in the real, physical world should rather seek answers in physics or other scientific disciplines, because mathematics is not about that.
I propose to refer to the observation which these examples illustrate as the empirical law of epistemology. Together with the laws of invariance of physical theories, it is an indispensable foundation of these theories. Without the laws of invariance the physical theories could have been given no foundation of fact; if the empirical law of epistemology were not correct, we would lack the encouragement and reassurance which are emotional necessities, without which the "laws of nature" could not have been successfully explored. It is therefore surprising how readily the wonderful gift contained in the empirical law of epistemology was taken for granted.
Agreed. Science is a knowledge-justification method. Hence, epistemology really matters to science. It is obviously unavoidable.
Still, epistemology is only "empirical" about the abstract, Platonic world of knowledge, and not about the real, physical world. So, the use of the term "empirical" is a bit ambiguous in this context. Unfortunately, there does not seem to be a proper term for what epistemology does. The term that comes closest, is indeed "empirical", but it requires making a perspective shift from "real world" to "world of knowledge".
My main philosophical interest is in the argument that numbers (etc) are real but incorporeal; the same for all who can count, but only perceptible to the rational intellect. Which is pretty much the traditionalist view, it’s Platonism 101.
We naturally assume nowadays that mathematics can be grounded in physical nature by describing in neuro-linguistic terms - something the brain evolved to do; what Quine dubbed ‘naturalised epistemology’. The rationale being that the alternative seems too close to ‘natural theology’; Platonism falling victim to Darwinism. (See The Indispensability Argument.)
Quoting alcontali
Right - and that world, is not, as you note, what is described as ‘the real, physical world’. That perspectival shift is key.
//ps// oh, and glad you like the Wigner essay, it was one of the first things I learned about when I started posting on forums.
The expression "1" does not appear in set theory or in the lambda calculus (axiomatization of anonymous functions). You can optionally produce the concept of "1" as a necessary result of set theory or of the lambda calculus, but you can happily work in both mathematical theories and derive theorems, without ever mentioning the concept of "1".
Quoting javra
I currently do mathematics as a hobby. For example, if a paper happens to be about Galois theory, I will more often than not read it. Still, I do not need Galois theory for my job. It is just a personal interest. At university, I had to sit, year after year, exams on operational research (linear programming and so on), which is some kind of subdiscipline in mathematics ("optimization"), but I absolutely never used it professionally. I did not dislike it, but I rather treated it like a game of chess. I no longer read anything about optimization because I consider it to be less interesting than other sub-disciplines.
My latest foray in mathematics has been modern Galois theory. It uses a pyramidal hierarchy of terminology.
The Banach-Tarski paradox (BTP) -- possibly a new subject for me -- does that too. To my great frustration, there seems to be very, very little overlap. So, BTP looks like a complete new mountain to overcome. That is why I hesitate so much! ;-)
By the way, it is not because you know one or more mathematical theorems that you understand anything about any other one. It is incredible ...
Mathematics is compelling in computer science, which in turn is compelling in software engineering. So, quite indirectly I deal with mathematics in a professional capacity. With the increasing importance of system security and also cryptocurrencies there has also been a spectacular invasion of mathematical thinking through the theories in cryptography.
Quoting javra
A lot of modern mathematics is only visible as language, just as a symbol stream about other symbol streams.
For example, I do not see how to create a visual representation for the lambda calculus or the SKI combinator logic. There is nothing, but absolutely nothing visual to it. Seriously, what graphical representation could possibly apply to it?
These mathematical theories are close to computer science, where mathematics tends to be language about language. Of course, there are other sub-disciplines in mathematics that do have a visual representation, but that is not the mathematics that I have dealt with recently.
Quoting javra
The dominant axiomatization in mathematics, ZF set theory (along with AC), does not even mention "1". If you look at its nine axioms, the expression "1" is literally nowhere to be found.
Seriously, run through the symbolic first-order logic sentences for the axioms from first to last and try to find "1" or any other numeral. It is just not there.
What do you think of this objection? A miracle is a violation of regularity and is therefore only visible against a background of regularity. So to me there's something strange in Schrodinger's remark. Still it is strange in some strange sense that there is a world here in the first place. But what makes this experience of the strangeness of the world possible? I'd guess it's our ability to imagine there not being a world. It also seems related to our ability to question the cause of God or whatever is supposed to save us from infinite regress in our explanations.
Quoting alcontali
Interesting that Schrodinger uses accuracy to argue for mathematics being the correct language. His metric for correctness is itself mathematical.
Quoting alcontali
I take this as a very 'pure math' position. What do you make of the fact that most math is not pure? I don't just mean science. I mean everyday life. What kind of tip should I leave? How many eggs are left in the fridge? How many more miles can I get with that needle close to E?
I'm not at all against pure-math, just to be clear. But consider the history of calculus. Applications came before rigorous axiomatic theory. Consider also how important intuition is learning math. Even pure mathematicians don't write out complete, formal proofs. They appeal to one another's intuition, and I think most of them aren't formalists at heart.
There is nothing wrong with downstream applications, even the most simple ones, but none of that is part of the knowledge discipline of mathematics, which is something different.
Quoting joshua
If you exclusively deal with mathematics that has a straightforward visual representation, you may indeed develop a more constructivist mentality and even ontology of mathematics. Classical (Greek) geometry tends to be like that. and possibly even number theory. I just pointed out that there are areas in mathematics that are absolutely not like that; especially the disciplines that emerged only over the last century. In my opinion, (real-world) constructivism is even the wrong intuition. Symbol manipulation goes much more to the core of what it is about.
It used to be that people questioned pure mathematics as a merely theoretical exercise with no practical application.
With the spread of mobile phones that is much less the case than before. Almost everybody must have seen source code by now, and realized that it is about annotated abstract symbol streams. It is surprisingly close to the practice of symbol manipulation in first-order logic of mathematics.
Even the old question, Why do I need to spend so much time learning to read and write? is no longer asked by even toddlers who can see all the letters showing up on their tablet and who must wonder what they mean. It has become much more natural for them to learn this. I have never heard my own children ask why they should learn how to read and write.
I think that digital natives do not have an intuition problem with the technology that surrounds them.
The concept of 1 - of oneness - is however found. Expressions of quantity are obtained, at the very least, via mathematical object(s) in set theory and via variable(s) in lambda calculus (had to look the latter up to verify). That there can be one or more objects is an expression of quantity. Same holds true with variables.
What matters with quantity - at least I'll so argue - is that we idealize givens (be they concrete or abstract) to be integral wholes - i.e., units that by definition are undivided - that, then, can stand in relations to each other. "1" is simply one way to formally represent a singular integral whole. This concept is entailed in there being an object and not more, or a variable at play and not more.
To be explicit, my main argument being that conceptualization of quantity precedes conceptualization of all maths - in that it is prerequisite to mathematical thought. The aforementioned as just one example.
BTW, to my knowledge, no one has provided a logical or mathematical reason for why 1 + 1 must entail an equality to 2. One does not need to formally account for or even express this concept in order to faithfully apply it - this in ordinary life just as in theoretical maths. The same, I imagine, applies to the axiomatization of "1".
Quoting alcontali
I've browsed the link to the nine axioms. Thank you for the link. Here again variables are made use of. And, again, with these variables is entailed notions of quantity. And the axioms addressing variables come before those addressing functions (or relations between variables). For instance, X and Y are understood to be two variables, rather than one.
The "profound sense" of logical structure and causal power in the world, is what I call EnFormAction.EFA is also equivalent to Greek Logos. But both EFA and Logos are messengers (so to speak) not the source of creative power. The Telos is in the "mind of G*D".
At first, I was reluctant to attribute conscious teleological choices to the Source (G*D) of the power and intent that creates Cosmos from Chaos (unformed potential). But after exploring how and why the cosmos works as it does, I was forced to view the creation (via evolution) as an intentional act of will*. I don't know how Choice and Will might work in an immaterial infinite & eternal setting. But it seems to be analogous to human design or programming, using the basic mathematical language of 1s & 0s (something or nothing, on or off, being or non-being).
Therefore, Information (power to enform or create) is indeed the "fabric of the cosmos". By that I mean, mathematical relationships (ratios) are the threads that bind the material of the universe together. Here's an image showing nodes (nouns, stuff) and links (verbs, actions) in a dynamic system : https://previews.123rf.com/images/ramcreative/ramcreative1505/ramcreative150500006/40368993-global-network-sphere-abstract-geometric-spherical-shape-with-triangular-faces-globe-design-.jpg
* "There is purpose, then, in what is, and in what happens, in Nature" ---Aristotle, Metaphysics
Might get back to this later. Short on time for now. If we are to entertain ancient concepts, 0 is a representation of a circle. As per Pythagorean philosophy - a relatively well known example - the perfect circle represents being as a whole, also, arguably a perfect wholesomeness. It used to not represent non-being - as it most often is used to represent today. A circle with a point at its center, represented light - in spiritual terms more often than not: nous, understanding. Also the sun, in more physical representations. Symbolically, the centered point could well be interpreted as the universal telos - Heraclitus's "zeus", for instance - that is ever-present to being, the latter represented by the circle.
Where a distinction is made between being (ousia) and existence (that which stands out to being), 1 then could represent a perfect unity of existence, not so much of being. This, at least, in ancient times by at least some ancients that made use of logos as concept.
I'll be hard-pressed to prove the aforementioned, but wanted to mention it as a possible perspective.
Divine Choice or Will is an actuality in the sense of a "live option". As I said before, years ago, I began as an Agnostic, and was trying to avoid attributing Purpose, Will, Choice, to the First Cause. That original position would now be something like a Multiverse, blindly and randomly changing the bits & pieces of reality without any plan or purpose. But I have been forced by the evidence to admit that the creation of our world in a Big Bang was intentional. Yet I doubt that the Grand Goal is to create a race of sycophantic worshipers. So I don't know for sure what the ultimate Telos of evolution might be. All I know is that the universe is moving toward some Omega Point.
So, yes, Infinite Potential would be impotent without the power to Choose the final form of Temporal Actuality (Reality). But, since evolution seems to be inherently random, it requires Natural Selection (circumstantial choice by context) to guide it to some non-random outcome. That allows for some freedom within destiny, as exemplified by the emergence of Cultural Selection to nudge evolution toward human ends.
Yes, his theory of an Akashic Field is similar to my notion of the universal Quantum Field as a web or fabric of Information interrelationships. Since his theory was inspired by Hindu philosophy, I might mention that my notion of G*D is similar to the philosophical concept of Brahman (ultimate reality or Ideality). But I try to avoid mixing-in some of the spicy religious flavor of Hindu Religion, in which Brahman is just another humanoid god. Deepak Chopra also seems to include some outdated Hindu science (e.g. Prana) in his writings on related subjects.
I normally use the word "Zero" in the modern sense of nothingness. But, the Greeks, possibly including Pythagoras, found the notion of non-being abhorrent**. For them, the circle was more like a Venn diagram, presumed to contain all possible things, hence Wholeness
Nevertheless, Zero could also represent Transcendence (infinity, eternity) in the sense of absence of physical objects (no real things; nothingness). That's why I sometimes think of the cosmic compass (or the mathematical number line) beginning at Zero and ending as Infinity, hence encompassing all possible things. In which case Zero and Infinity are the same point in the circle of being .
** Zero : The Biography of a Dangerous Idea, Charles Seife
Hypothesize with me for a moment that the supposed omega point of existence is that of a universal Moksha, or Nirvana - a non-hyperbolic complete liberation from, or doing away with, samsara on a universal scale. In this hypothetical that borrows from Eastern concepts, causal information - a term I've been using so far that is very similar to that of EnFormAction - would no longer be when this here hypothesized omega point is actualized.
Since it is information that ratios things, that limits and binds things, that gives being(s) form(s) - and since it is a new way of addressing pre-Socratic logos when conjoined with action and/or causation - in the complete absence of information (causal or otherwise) - i.e., in the complete absence of logos - it would be logically true that what would remain would be devoid of form, of limits. It would hence be a state devoid of thing-ness.
But here is what I take to be one pivotal ontological issue: Do you understand this hypothesized omega point of Moksha/Nirvana to be non-being? (this in regard to your use of "nothingness")
Certainly, Buddhists and Hindus do not. The only pivotal gripe between these two worldviews in this respect is whether or not this omega point can be considered "a self" or not. Either way, it is what awareness is hypothesized to someday become - this contingent on the choices of agents. The awareness just specified still holds being. It is not non-being from these interpretations - but, instead, hypothesized to be perfected state of being. It is - supposedly - a perfect, boundless (hence limitless and, hence, both infinite and eternal), quantity-devoid wholesome-ness of awareness that is furthermore devoid of ego (here meaning: any and all separation/distinction between self and other). It is pure being devoid of the information that divides it - and, hence, non-hyperbolically selfless. Alternatively stated, it is pure being devoid of the samsara that is existence (existence in the sense of that which stands out to being - one of the senses of samsara is "ever-changing world"). You seem to agree with this implication in your latter posts - but I'd like to verify whether or not you do.
Secondly, again here entertaining the thought experiment just offered, do you take this omega point of Moksha/Nirvana to be unreal? (this in regard to your use of "no real things") [Tentatively upholding this view of the omega point, it is obviously not yet actualized, so it dwells only as potential; yet, if this omega point if ontically real, this potential is nevertheless all-pervasive - and, as such, is actual in its typically tacit influences upon, at the very least, all agents.]
I ask this second question because to those who uphold these or similar enough concepts, Moksha and/or Nirvana are considered to be the Real - with everything else being at best a contingent subsidiary (very much including our physical reality).
If you logically find that the hypothesized omega point is (hence, than non-being does not define it) and is thereby real (as opposed to unreal), then, in the system you're working on, 0 cannot be representative of nonbeing. Rather, I'll offer that, within this context, 0 would symbolize a universally actualized Moksha/Nirvana, or some like - a state in which samsara gets turned off, this in favor of limitless awareness, one devoid of "deaths and rebirths" as the Easterners say. Whereas 1 would symbolize not being per se but, rather, an completely integral existent that holds being (something I've yet to discover any evidence for either in contexts of philosophy or in those of the empirical sciences).
BTW, awareness never "stands out" to anybody, not even to the individual whose awareness is addressed. What stand out is various forms of information - such as information regarding my body and its motions that correlate quite well to that which I as awareness sense myself to will (I do not see my awareness when looking into a mirror, but the information that is my body). Hence, in the "stand out" sense of "existence", awareness does not exist. Instead, it strictly holds being. (Terms are of course context dependent, but since we're addressing the ontology which you've elaborated on ...)
All this, btw, mostly concerns not your latest post to me, but previous posts you've made in this thread.
I don't disagree with this and I agree with Popper when he says that metaphysics is not science insofar as its speculations or theories are not falsifiable. I also agree with Popper when he says that science does not begin with observation, but with new problems that may proceed from either metaphysical speculation, or from solving previous problems. Metaphysics is also inherently involved in science not merely ongoingly but in the related sense that science historically begins with the metaphysical speculations of the Presocratics.
So since metaphysical speculation involves one important way the creative imagination has been, and still is, involved in science, it is indispensable to advancing science. Science is not merely an empirical task but also, and in a very significant sense, a speculative one. Same goes for both mathematics and history.
In fact, I agree to an important extent with that.
The foundations of mathematics are to some extent considered to be impredicative (circular). However, it is the language of first-order logic that is considered to be the real culprit.
The extending move from propositional to first-order logic is achieved by the introduction of universal quantifiers, such as [math]\forall[/math] (the "for each" construct).
What the [math]\forall[/math] implies, is the ability to move from element to element in a collection. That looks a lot like assuming a starting point (zero) and a successor function to move away from that starting point; even though all of that actually depends on the unmentioned implementation details of the [math]\forall[/math] symbol. Maybe it is possible to practically implement the traversal of a collection without using zero nor the principle of succession? Not sure, and possibly not.
Still, the existence of zero and a successor function are the core axioms in number theory (Dedekind-Peano); which could then already be implicitly pre-assumed in the language of first-order logic. So, number theory could in fact be expressed in a language that implicitly already assumes the existence of number theory, with the problem being hidden away inside the actual implementation of the [math]\forall[/math] universal quantifier.
The foundational crisis in (classical) mathematics started raging at the end of the 19th century and was never really solved. The final blows came in 1931 with Gödel's incompleteness theorems and in 1936 with Turing and Church's negative answers to the Hilbert's Entscheidungsproblem.
So, yes, I guess that the foundations of mathematics are likely circular in some way.
Well, good. I think about it in much the same way. I'm very aware of the fact that thinking this way puts one in the 'orbit of theism', so to speak, however, my theism is generally pretty non-theistic, although of course this is something almost impossible to articulate and usually pointless to explain.
Quoting javra
What I would observe, is that these are states of being, not putative entities, although they are frequently reified as such. Hence the commonly-encountered expression in those milieu, 'awakening to the Real'. This conveys the requirement for a change of heart or mind to understand or see the reality of being. In the Greek tradition it is 'metanoia', there is a Sanskrit equivalent 'paravritti' (actually, etymologically the resemblance is clear, as 'para' and 'meta' are both common indo-european roots, and 'vritti' may be translated as 'mind'.) [sup] 1 [/sup] It is something akin to a religious conversion, but of a more noetic (or dare we say gnostic) quality (although there are many porous boundaries.)
The Indian traditions are more concerned solely with liberation from the circle of birth-and-death, whereas the mathematical and rational forms of mysticism were associated with the Pythagorean tradition and its descendants. Arguably this is one of the reasons that modern scientific culture took root in the West rather than India or China [sup] 2 [/sup]. But the overall 'noetic' aim of the Greek tradition ought not to be forgotten (which it has been. We've kept the parts relevant to engineering, and jettisoned everything relevant to 'metanoia'.)
Quoting Gnomon
That's on my 'to read' list. As I understand it, Indian mathematicians (and specifically Buddhists) devised the symbol for zero (although Seife says Babylonians, but I think they were also Indo-Europeans) - something which Buddhists were comfortable with because of its conceptual compatibility with the Buddhist principle of emptiness (??nyat? - hence, 'the Buddhists invented nothing' :-) . The reason this notion was anathema in the West was because of the maxim that 'nature abhors a vacuum', that zero was non-being and therefore a deficiency.
—————
1. D T Suzuki, commentary on Lankavatara Sutra.
2. Russell HWP, chapter on Pythagoras.
Since my theory of Enformationism is intended to be a scientific theory, I don't normally think in terms of religious concepts. I do use them as analogies and metaphors, such as Brahman = G*D. However, I can see that you might interpret the "heat death" of the universe as a sort of NIrvana (extinguishment, flame going out). Whether it is Moksha or Samsara (emancipation, enlightenment, liberation, and release), I have no idea. It certainly wouldn't apply to me personally, but perhaps to the hypothetical sentient universe (Omega Point) of deChardin.
Besides, the current end-of-the-world-as-we-know-it theory of heat death is actually hyperbolic, in the sense that it approaches infinity (singularity), but never reaches it. So, mathematically, all the energy (information) that the universe began with would fade away, but never disappear completely. Nevertheless, I sometimes imagine that all of the information in this world would complete its cycle by returning to its origin in the eternal-infinite Mind of G*D. But, again, I have no idea of what that would have to do with me personally.
Generic EnFormAction can become anything. But the Information that defines me is unique. Of course, G*D could reincarnate my Self-information, but I don't know why that would happen. Does G*D love me personally? I don't know, but I doubt it.
Quoting javra
If you are referring to deChardin's Omega Point, no. It would still be a part of this creation, this evolving space-time universe. And it would take a miracle to turn it into an eternal deity. So it would be a "being" (a something) instead of "BEING" (no-thing). Perhaps, a very intelligent and powerful being, but not a world-creating deity.
In my thesis, "nothingness" refers only to the absence of real material things. By contrast, "G*D" refers to all possible (potential but un-actualized) entities. For me, that is basically a mathematical concept instead of a religious notion. I don't expect salvation or liberation from cycles of death and rebirth. As far as I know, this life is a one-shot deal.
Quoting javra
I do assume that the Omega Point would be Real (hence, being). And Zero represents no real things (hence, non-being). To avoid confusion, I would refer to "G*D" (BEING) as infinity, and to "Zero" as the state of the Big Bang Singularity prior to the bang (still only potential).
Quoting javra
Awareness and Consciousness are metaphysical, and do not exist in any physical sense. But they do exist as functions (not things) within the created universe, not as disembodied souls or ghosts in some parallel universe.
Reification : This is how a lot of metaphorical and metaphysical concepts get converted into religious ghosts, spirits, demons, and gods, complete with physical descriptions. For example, ghosts are imagined with transparent ectoplasmic bodies, and angels as men with wings.
Care to explain what you mean by "live option"?
Quoting Gnomon
No, I wasn't referring to deChardin.
Quoting Gnomon
Nor as unicorns, bears, or mountains. I take it that by expressing the sentiment I've boldfaced you presume it stands in some measure of contrast to my own views. It does not. We were talking about the awareness of lifeforms, right? Meanwhile, since the statement, "they exist as purposes (not things)," makes no sense to me, do you mean something along the line of awareness being a mathematical function? If so, yes, this is one of the premises I disagree with.
To sum things up though, you seem to believe that being can arise out of non-being. This, however, is not something I find any value in entertaining.
William James defined a "live choice" by contrast to a "dead choice". Obviously, these are metaphors, and probably used to avoid having to say "a real choice", which might imply an ideal/real distinction. A "live choice" is not forced by some outside power, or even logically necessary, but a spontaneous and preferred option -- a freewill choice.
Apparently you missed the point. I did not mean to imply that Potential was an isolated power with no connection to Actuality. My analogy of a battery was intended to show how potential can be delayed indefinitely until a choice is made to actualize. To elucidate, G*D is presumed to be omnipotent, but that doesn't mean that all possibilities must be actualized all the time.
A battery is charged with potential (voltage), and it is possible to actualize that latent power in the form of actual current (amperage). But in practice, there is usually an on/off switch between the positive and negative poles, to allow the user to decide when and where the actualization takes place.That's a real world example, but the logic should apply to the ideal world of an omnipotent deity who exercises freewill in choosing when & where (self-control) to apply her otherwise unlimited power. :smile:
Quoting javra
The distinction was intended as a clarification of application, not as a personal put-down.
Quoting javra
I didn't say "purposes", but "functions". The brain is a thing (noun), and consciousness is a function (verb) of that thing, not a separate entity, like a soul or ghost. In folk philosophy, functions are often reified as-if they are invisible agents.
"Transportation" is what an automobile does, its function, not an invisible force pushing things around. "Consciousness" is what a brain does, not a disembodied spirit that operates the body & brain like a homunculus in the head. A lot of people would disagree with that assertion, because they believe in an immortal soul, imprisoned in a mortal body..
Quoting javra
No. I believe that individual beings can arise from universal BEING (the power to create). G*D is non-being only in the sense that she is not a creature, but the creator. The relationship is similar to Plato's ideal FORMS as contrasted with real material instances (copies) of the unreal immaterial concept or design.
BEING : http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page10.html
G*D : http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page13.html
Is there a critical basis behind your seeming favouritism towards old Platonic metaphysics? Maybe it has been forgotten for a reason. Maybe it has long since been superseded.
It hasn't been forgotten, because the books are plentiful and many read them. Some people though, do not, and therefore do not learn platonic metaphysics. It hasn't been superseded because the issues raised have not been resolved
Perhaps that's an inevitable consequence of trying to depict such ideas in imaginative form. Many current Hollywood films are overflowing with such imagery.
Quoting Gnomon
But unless you're physicalist, then you will question whether what exists 'in a physical sense' is really the benchmark of 'what is real' - contra the general understanding. After all, physics itself has been unable to locate a truly indivisible particle - well, at least one that can be shown to exist outside the elaborate mathematical model of the 'particle zoo'.
Quoting Gnomon
I think the better model of the rational mind is as 'that which perceives meaning'. There is no way to derive 'meaning' from neurobiology, without already assuming that ability; it's not something one can approach 'from the outside', so to speak, because every attempt to understand the relationship between brain and thinking must be an act of interpretation.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
:up: Quite right.
You lose me a bit with your terminology. All the same, from a previous post:
Quoting Gnomon
In your system of representations, is "Zero" (non-being) the same as "G*D" (infinite BEING as transcendent potential)? If yes, they why all the comments on how they are different? If no, then how do you not start off with zero/non-being so as to arrive at being?
To be honest, though, the more I reread your posts, the more confused I get about what you're trying to say. Maybe its because I'm rather tired; still, I have a hard time discussing and/or debating something which I cannot make heads or tails out of.
But evidently it's not treated quite the same now as it was back in its heyday, which was kind of the point. I wasn't implying that no one reads the books or that we have all of the answers. It has very largely been superseded, because it has lost prominence and a different methodology which has more to do with his pupil, Aristotle, and some who came before him such as Democritus, has largely taken over. And it has taken over for good reason. Just look at all of the progress we've made which we would not have otherwise made if we had remained stuck on the ancient philosophy of Plato.
Metaphors that contradict the literal meanings used are very confusing. A battery is charged with energy (Joules). The power stored is measured in Watts. When the battery is connected to an electrical circuit, the terminal voltage - or potential difference - 'pushes' the electric current through the circuit.
Voltage is not a form of potential energy, any more than current is a form of actual energy.
Sorry to appear nit-picking, and for the potential derail, but this isn't a minor misunderstanding, it's a hotch-potch of confusion. :wink:
I think the presocratics with their water, fire, etc. are just as confused as modern physicalist scientists.
The primary substance is confusion.
Earth, water, air and fire = solid, liquid, gas and energy. Not so far from modern science? :wink:
Quoting Coben
You may be on to something here. :smile:
Where would you put metal on that scale?
Metal like oil isn't distinctly solid, but amorphous.
It wasn't prominent though. Socrates, and Plato, were two people who expressed dissatisfaction with the sophistry which was prominent at the time. Aristotle attempted to resolve some of the problems raised by Plato, so he has been often quoted. Now Aristotle has dropped from the forefront of metaphysics. And similar sophistry has made a resurgence and is abundant today, so there is a real need for Platonic dialectics.
Purpose of the question was about dealing with amorphous solids, as metaphysics is amorphous physics. Understanding metal then would be of vast significance, I think.
Well obviously nothing is prominent until it becomes so, and clearly it became so. Plato founded an academy which lasted hundreds of years. He is considered by many to be the most influential of philosophers. And I only brought up Aristotle because he has more in common with the prevalent methodology of critical examination than Plato, which gives reason to question why anyone would show favouritism towards Platonic metaphysics when it's outdated and has fallen out of fashion, so to speak. And also left unaddressed was my point about the impressive results which have been brought about through modern methods which ancient Platonic philosophy would have no hope of coming anywhere close to matching. Clearly Aristotle had more of the right idea in the way that he approached learning about the world, and perhaps doubly so for Democritus, who was way ahead of his time. What good is some allegory about a cave? That's probably done more harm than good. And being better than the sophists isn't all that impressive in the bigger picture.
I feel your pain. :worry:
Since Enformationism is a new way of thinking about the world, I was forced to coin a lot of neologisms to avoid the historical baggage of older terms. A.N. Whitehead (Process and Reality) also coined a lot of new terms and used some old words with new meanings. But he didn't provide a list of those novel ideas for reference. So, although his ideas seemed to make sense in general, I found that following his argument was very difficult due to the ambiguity of terminology. That's why I have created a glossary of Enformationism terminology on a separate website. But if you were really interested in understanding the scientific & philosophical concept that "Information is the essence of reality" in more detail, it would be best to begin at the beginning by reading the whole thesis.
Enformationism Glossary : http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/
Enformationism Thesis : http://enformationism.info/enformationism.info/
Quoting javra
I wouldn't worry about such hypotheticals. I don't know any more about G*D than you do. I just have a different way of thinking about G*D.
That's why I prefer to use "physical" or "metaphysical" instead of "real" or "ideal". Plato asserted that his ideal Forms were the true reality, but that does not compute for most people who equate "physical" with "real". In my thesis, Information is both real and ideal; both physical and metaphysical. So I think of it as the intermediary between reality and ideality.
Quoting Wayfarer
True.
The battery metaphor is an analogy between things that are physically different, but functionally similar.
. It was not intended to be taken literally. Since no-one knows what Energy is*, we must define it in terms of what it does. In this case Voltage and Current are proxies for Energy. Does that clarify your confusion?
* Energy is a form of Information. But that's a whole 'nother can of metaphysical worms.
Ha! That's getting deep into metaphysics. And off-topic.
But from the perspective of Enformationism, I think of Greek Chaos as a field of randomness (entropy), like a TV screen with no signal (ordering energy). And Cosmos is the result of applying organizing information (signal) to disorderly static. So in that sense, confusion was indeed the original state of the world, and the "substance" (raw material) from which the Enformer created our little on-going program, like a TV screen with a meaningful image. Is that clear as chaos?
:up:
Energy = Voltage x Current x time
:chin:
Metaphysics is "weird" only in the sense that Religion and Science are weird : they are based on invisible intangible spooky forces or agents (like Energy & Gravity & Magnetism).
“Metaphysics is an evaluation of the more encompassing abstract paradigms. Metaphysics is essentially on a par with religion because of its low possibility of provability. Besides for religion’s diminutive degree of empiricism and logic, the only major difference between the two is that religion entails behavior modification. Whether one leans towards theories extending from use of empiricism and logic or one leans towards “gut feeling” and pure “faith”, there is an inherent need for humans to conceptually grasp the big picture and this is where metaphysics’ finds its true value.”
Dave Davidson
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-significance-of-the-existence-of-Metaphysics
Nuh.
Yes, we have logical possibility and real potential. You could say real potential is actual in the sense that it is, in at least some sense, active; it can activate, bring about, change, future actualities. But what is possible - potentiality - is not yet actual; we don't want to lose that distinction.
"Provability" only in the narrow sense of being able to be validated with respect to empirical observation; in other words, shown in the third person. But science itself now has major conflicts over cosmological questions like string theory and the related multiverse conjecture, and at issue is exactly the same question - whether these can ever be validated or falsified empirically. (Most critics say 'no', most advocates are saying 'it doesn't matter, mathematical elegance is sufficient justification'.)
What is needed in all this is an appreciation of the meaning of metaphysics in the context of the philosophical tradition. That is why, I suspect, classics scholars (which I am conspicuously not) will have insights into the meaning of the texts that us hoi polloi cannot and do not. But at least we should have the good grace to acknowledge that there really might be something there we genuinely don't understand, instead of saying 'well, it's like religion'.
As I have pointed out, late in life Heisenberg revived the Aristotelian 'res potentia' to describe the nature of sub-atomic phenomena. He said they were right on the borderline between existence and possibility. And that is hard to accomodate if we expect 'existence' to have a univocal meaning, i.e. something either exists or it doesn't exist. What he was arguing is that these 'entities' actually seem to exhibit 'degrees of existence'. And personally I find the concept of 'degrees of existence' philosophically significant.
I think you linked this article:
https://www.sciencenews.org/blog/context/quantum-mysteries-dissolve-if-possibilities-are-realities
In that article an alternative "dualism" is presented, against the traditional dualism of res extensa and res cogitans, comprising res extensa and res potentia, being the "macro" and quantum "realms" respectively.
That seems more in accordance with what science tells us.
No. I am both Realist and Idealist (both Physics and Metaphysics). The extension of my Enformationism thesis is the BothAnd Blog.
Blog : http://enformationism.info/phpBB3/
It also says:
which was very much the point at issue in the above conversation about reality of potentials.
So, yes, these "potential realities" do not "exist in spacetime" rather they give rise to the actuality that is spacetime. This is also in line with what @apokrisis used to go on about; the idea of the "apeiron" and all that. For another take on this idea see also Incomplete Nature by Terence Deacon.
A neat argument that much of modern theoretical physics is actually bad metaphysics.
In one of his episodes he answers comments (on YouTube you can comment on videos) deriding string theory and condemning it as "not science."
He said that if string theory (or rather M theory) turns out to be considered wrong, the time invested in it will still have been worthwhile. He said that wrong turns in science are often valuable stepping stones.
Plus it's possible that a super symmetric particle was recently detected, so...
These are completely different ideas, often confused. The first has to do with 'collapse of wave function' and is subject of Everett's 'relative state formulation', later called 'many worlds'. The second is that the known universe is only one amongst an unaccountably vast number of universes which are all the theoretical outcomes of string theory. They're both regarded as 'fascinating cutting-edge physics' or 'symptoms of a deep crisis in physics', depending on who you talk to.
Popper is mentioned a few times in that article. The idea that metaphysics has no place in science, or that metaphysical speculations are literally meaningless is sometimes attributed to Popper, but this idea really belongs to the Logical Positivists.
The idea that metaphysical speculations are distinct from scientific theories is not the same as the idea that metaphysics has no place in science. Popper disagreed with the latter, as these passages from The Myth of the Framework attest:
It should be obvious that the objectivity and the rationality of progress in science are not due to the personal objectivity and rationality of the scientist. Great science and great scientists, like great poets, are often inspired by non-rational intuitions. So are great mathematicians. As Poincaré and Hadamard have pointed out, a mathematical proof may be discovered by unconscious trials, guided by an inspiration of a decidedly aesthetic character, rather than by rational thought. This is true, and important. But obviously, it does not make the result, the mathematical proof, irrational.
Finally I have not only stressed the meaningfulness of metaphysical assertions and the fact that I am myself a metaphysical realist, but I have also analysed the important historical role played by metaphysics in the formation of scientific theories.
[i]Thus the theory of Boscovitch and the two theories of Kant may be described as the two most important attempts to carry further Leibniz’s programme for a dynamic theory that explains Cartesian extended matter. They may be described as the joint ancestors of all modern theories of the structure of matter; the theories of Faraday and Maxwell, of Einstein, de Broglie and Schrödinger, and also of the ‘dualism of matter and field’. (This dualism, if seen in this light, is perhaps not so deep as it may appear to those who, in thinking of matter, cannot get away from a crude Cartesian and non-dynamical model.) It may be mentioned that another important influence deriving from the Cartesian tradition – and from the Kantian tradition via Helmholtz – was the idea of explaining atoms as vortices of the ether – an idea that led to Lord Kelvin’s and to J.J. Thomson’s models of the atom. Its experimental refutation by Rutherford marks the beginning of what may be described as modern atomic theory.
One of the most interesting aspects of the development that I have sketched is its purely speculative character, together with the fact that these metaphysical speculations proved susceptible to criticism: that they could be critically discussed. This discussion was inspired by the wish to understand the world, and by the hope, the conviction, that the human intellect could at least make the attempt to understand it, and could perhaps get somewhere. And an experimental refutation of a speculative solution to one of its problems led to its turning into nuclear science.[/i]
I have seen no impressive modern metaphysics, when compared to the ancients. Can you provide an example? We are talking about metaphysics, are we not?
:grin:
And the time spent arguing over monads and atoms will still have been worthwhile. Wrong turns in Metaphysics are often valuable stepping stones.
Feel like I'm being singled out here. Darn it. :yikes: Well, my limited comprehension on the matter is that there are actual potentials and potential actualities ... such that the first entails the second. A non-actual potential to me reads as "fictional potential", as in something devoid of reality, hence truth-value as expression, that someone makes up. Are not "possible potentials" liable to the same dichotomy?: that of actual possible potentials and that of non-actual possible potentials. Or maybe I misinterpret something in your post?
Besides, I could argue on and on about how nobody can know how being first started. All such stories to me are creation myths, useful in some regards, but none of which can be knowledge regarding why being is.
No, I agree with what you say here. There was a part-typo, part poor expression that in what you quoted, that I have now corrected.
Ah, got it. Thanks.
This is an unexpected gem. :smile: But it still promotes a misapprehension, I think. For issues where empirical evidence is available, scientific analysis is possible. But when the issue falls short of this, usually due to insufficient empirical evidence, or none at all, we assume that no serious consideration is possible.
This, I think, is an error of binary thinking: no scientific analysis is possible, therefore no form of analysis is possible. Not so. Although formal analysis is not possible for some issues, serious consideration remains a possibility. We need not automatically retreat to <<<“gut feeling” and pure “faith”>>>. Even where the tightly-focused requirements of scientific analysis are impractical, the broader approach of philosophy still has much to offer.
There's another error of binary thinking hidden here: no scientific analysis is possible, therefore no form of serious analysis is possible. The mistake here is to believe that there is only one analysis tool (science). This is a fallacy. Philosophy can often address issues that science cannot.
Many of the issues that metaphysics deals with are of the type where scientific analysis is unhelpful. Considering such matters is much more difficult than simple science. But this is no excuse to abandon reason or reasoning. A quick search for "critical thinking" or "structured thinking" gives all kinds of help. Here's a quote from just one example:
The source of the above text is here.
Also, when scientific analysis is available, that analysis is sitting on implicit and/or explicit metaphysics. That's what models are, that's what assumptions about laws and order in nature, and likely mathematics underlying various phenomena and so on are. Everyone is a metaphysicist.
So what would you say the difference was between "gut feeling and faith" and the subject matter of what you're calling "serious" analysis? If we're not analysing empirical facts, then we must be analysing feelings and beliefs, surely? I can't see a third category of stuff that is neither empirical fact, nor the product of our minds (feelings and beliefs).
Let's say there is though, we'd then be stuck on this idea of "seriously" analysing it. As opposed to what other form of analysis?
But...most problematic of all, you use the term 'we'. That 'we' can do this analysis suggests a collaborative exercise, and yet if we're not working with empirical data (that which we agree is the case) then how can we even begin to construct an analytical language with which to have this discussion?
Absolutely. But that fact in itself does not mean we can meaningfully "analyse" those implicit metaphysical assumptions. We can point out their presence. We can curate them. We can show how they have changed over time. We can express and talk about our own preferences. We can even speculate on which are most useful to achieve certain goals.
But what we cannot do is actually determine which are true, right, best, or any other measure.
I am Spartacus! :rofl: :up:
Of course the usefulness of an assumtion or model can have a lot to do with factors that have nothing at all to do with truth or accuracy or even inherent usefulness. But I think some conscious work with that area could be helpful in general, and I mean even in science.
Exactly! There are significant issues where there is no certainty to be found. But the issues exist nonetheless. So, do we simply abandon all thought of serious consideration, just because a scientific analysis is impossible? You might, as you choose; I don't.
I'm talking about a critical method of examining the world, irrespective of whether or not you would class it as metaphysics, and I'm contrasting it with Platonic metaphysics, and I was questioning the worth that Wayfarer spoke of in regard to Platonic metaphysics in light of this. That's when you decided to chip in. In political terminology, I would say that Wayfarer is a reactionary: decrying modernity and showing favouritism towards an ancient metaphysics.
Perhaps this is simply a lack of imagination? :chin: Consider - only as an example (there are many others) - whether I might be a brain in a vat. :chin: There is no empirical evidence at all. But I can still make useful observations. Here's one example (there are many others): whatever the actual nature of reality, I have access to only one, the one my senses and perception shows me, so I might as well live with that, and deal with it as best I can.
This latter is not the result of a rigid analytic process, but my observation is not based on feelings and beliefs, but on structured, critical, thinking.
Quoting Isaac
As opposed to a formal, logical, scientific analysis, which is impossible in these cases.
Quoting Isaac
Common sense, coupled with structured, critical, thinking. Isn't this what philosophy is? :chin
Yes, I totally agree. A lot of my philosophy derives from the British Pragmatists, so I'd go even further perhaps to say that truth itself is only a meaningful notion with regards utility. What annoys me about discussions of metaphysics is that the utility, the elegance, or even the aesthetic of a theor are rarely talked about. What seems prevelant is talk about "understanding", "coherence" as if there was some body of knowledge to correctly understand, so objective measure of coherence to meet.
It may well be a great first step towards those things.
It also seems to me that it is not a discrete step, that we move in and out of interaction with the world and each other and fussing with our metaphysics, consciously or unconsciously.
If that's based on critical thinking, then what is it critical of.... What is the alternative metaphysical assumption that you have used your critical analysis to reject and on what grounds?
Quoting Pattern-chaser
Sorry, I wasn't clear enough. I meant as opposed to what other type of non-scientific analysis. You added "serious" to the description of the alternative type of analysis. I wondered if there was a non-serious version of this non-scientific analysis you're describing, and if so, what would distinguish it as such.
Quoting Pattern-chaser
No, not in my meta-philosophical position. Hence my interest in how you support this conclusion.
Actually it has too matter if it is useful. A fact that has no predictive value is meaningless. At a bare minimum the idea that the earth is not flat will explain prior and future experiences. It will fit observations. It will be by itself or with other facts, lead to better practical decisions: flight paths, say. I suppose if one is an epistemological hedonist, then having a fact one thinks is true would be useful, since it would lead to pleasure. But otherwise truths are only true (for us) in that they connect up with uses. What they do, not what they are. Unless one is a Platonist, I suppose.
Yes, out of context, it does matter. But by taking what I said out of context, you're no longer addressing my point, which was that it doesn't matter in terms of whether or not it's true.
Too literal. :wink: Here's a quote:
The Wikipedia entry also refers to the use of facts, which may not be available in the examples I'm considering. But I might as easily have said "structured thinking", and I think I did. My intention was to be vague and general. I was deliberately avoiding precision. :gasp:
Quoting Isaac
I have no such assumption to offer. Lacking the means to conduct a more formal analysis, I was trying to work, generally, with what we have. I wasn't trying to emulate scientific analysis, having already concluded that scientific analysis is not possible, and therefore not useful. You're treating this whole thing too rigidly; too rigorously. We've already entered an area where precision and rigour are unavailable.
Quoting Isaac
I suppose the non-serious version would be a round table discussion in a pub, or on Facebook. Entirely without rigour. And therefore of limited use? Probably. :wink:
Quoting Isaac
Then what, pray tell, is philosophy? [ I have a nasty feeling you're going to say that acceptable philosophy is ... science. :sad: But I've been wrong before...]
There's what it is, and what it should be. What it is, is largely a parody of itself.
OK, but metaphysics is a necessary support for any epistemology, and even the claim that it is not necessary is itself metaphysics. So any "critical method of examining the world" must be supported by metaphysics. If Platonic metaphysics provides a better support than modern metaphysics then Wayfarer is correct to value Platonic metaphysics in that way.
It's not about how useful the resultant fact would be if it corresponded with reality. It's about how useful the theory about reality actually is. The theory that the earth is flat would not be useful for navigation because distances would not take account of the curvature of the earth. In my view, neither the earth, nor flat, nor sphere, nor shape are real, they're all distinctions we draw because of their utility. I could claim the earth was flat in non-eucildean space. It might even turn out to be coherent to talk about flat objects within curved space if someday we have a different understanding of space-time.
I really do understand your concern about wishy-washy ideas making into common parlance on relativist grounds, but I don't see it being a problem if we're strict about our evidence requirements for utility.
It's supported by the vast results it has produced, which Platonic metaphysics hasn't come anywhere near to producing.
None of what you just said has anything to do with truth, so it is missing the point. I was criticising the proposition which you previously mentioned, that "truth itself is only a meaningful notion with regards utility". No, it isn't. It is meaningful without that, as I demonstrated with my example. You've got the statement, and you've got the truth-maker. That's what makes truth meaningful. That's the bare minimum. Whether it is useful matters in a different context, but it isn't necessary for there to be truths.
A method is a way of proceeding in activities. It may be supported by a system of guidelines, rules or something like that. That a specified activity has produced favourable results may be cited as justification for the method, only after the fact. Since this cited success is necessarily posterior to proceeding into the activities employing the method, it is impossible that this is what supports the method. To account for what supports the method is to account for the foundation of its existence. What supports the method is what inspires one to proceed into the activity employing the method, and this is necessarily prior to the success of the method, as a cause of its success.
Oh dear. You're doing that thing again where you speak all funny and come up with ad hoc justifications.
The scientific method has been widely applied and has produced vast and seriously impressive results. That's what supports it. I do not care that you can come up with some sophist logic in order to say that, no, actually that doesn't support it, and therefore, hurrah, Platonic metaphysics is fandabbydosey.
:chin:
[quote=frank] If you're asking what kind of reflection is required to understand the world ...[/quote]
I'm not. I'm only proposing a 'working assumption'.
[quote=Coben]Yes, I think that would be a metaphysical assumption. Especially, but not only, if it means [ ... ][/quote]
It's only an assumption not a conclusion or categorical statement; why not just methodological instead ... in order to get 'research programs' off the ground, so to speak, and keep them flying? Absent this, why bother trying to 'explain' that which is not assumed (or, even moreso, assumed not) to be explicable ?
[quote=Coben]So then naturalism is not tied to physicalism.[/quote]
I think the latter is a function of the former in the following sense:
N proposes methodological criteria (e.g. hypothetical-deductive reasoning) for forming explanatory hypotheses of [regularities of-transformations in] the universe.
P proposes formal criteria (e.g. abductive reasoning) for building & testing quantified models of explanatory hypotheses of [regularities of-transformations in] the universe.
[quote=Metaphysician Undercover]Why do you class scientists as naturalists?[/quote]
I didn't generalized/stereotype scientists; I simply offered them as an example of naturalists. Besides, it's true of many - most? - of them in a methodological more than a philosophical sense.
[quote=Metaphysician Undercover] I think that to assume that something which has not yet been explained, is explainable, is a metaphysical assumption.[/quote]
So are you suggesting that there aren't any non-metaphysical - methodological - grounds for attempting to explain unexplained states-of-affairs?
The very matter which took me from social psychology to philosophy was the way metaphysical assumptions affected mental health. Way off topic here, but a very interesting field of study for me.
I've bolded the relevant part, for me. By what measure could you possibly know you are wrong about a metaphysical position such as to be self-corrective?
I'm presuming in this that you're arguing the "truth-maker" here is correspondence with reality? That's fine when the subject matter is empirical, as with science, but here we're talking about metaphysical propositions. One of which would be that "truth" is correspondence with reality, which would be a required foundation for the principle above.
Yes, that's what truth is. Truth doesn't require utility. Were you talking about something else?
I think you are interpreting 'utility' to mean something beyond this. Like it has to be a valuable tool or something. The fact must effectively tunction in predicting something. That is its truth.
You're mixing up truth with epistemological methods. What is it that you want to talk about? I naturally thought that it was the former, given that the original proposition that I was replying to was worded explicitly about truth itself, not any epistemological method. And those last few sentences are confused. You're just calling some usefulness or predictive power related to a fact, "truth", but that's not truth, that's just usefulness or predictive power. Just call it what it is, not what it's not. Truth is simply: Is that so? Yes.
Typical philosophy enthusiast. Trying to be novel and overcomplicating things. Truth is fine the way it is. It makes sense. It works. It can be understood. Don't try to reinvent the wheel.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth-correspondence/
or maybe the identity theory of truth....
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth-identity/
And if that's the case, I could be wrong, those are just peachy ways of looking at truth. I think more pragmatic ways of looking at it are better and actually match what I and in the end other people do when facts are involved. I don't think it is the correspondence, I think it is what the assertion does. I am wary of putting truth 'in' things. I think facts are processes that do things, not things that are true.
It's a bit like the 'do words contain meanings' discussion elsewhere, though with differences.
Now you made up a description of the earth as a hexagon, one for which you have no pragmatic uses, I assume, as if this showed that pragmatic truth is a poor theory. We know that Newtonian notions of absolute space, for example, and absolute motion, are not correct, in some correspondance theory of truth. Einstein took that away. However Newton's truths are incredibly effective. I think it useful to consider them true. and who knows, maybe someone will override Einstein.
You think your ideas about truth eliiminate having false truths?
Your epistemology is infallible?
Of course there's reason to use that term here, otherwise I wouldn't have used it here. Look, I'm not going to sugarcoat my language for your sake. An example of speaking dumb would be to call left "right" and falsehoods "truths". If I think you're speaking dumb, I'll say so.
Quoting Coben
No, it was hypothetical, a thought experiment, where you're supposed to assume that the hexagonal Earth theory is of pragmatic use. Obviously I wasn't giving a real world example, obviously.
Obviously.
Quoting Coben
We're not talking about epistemology, we're talking about metaphysics. My epistemology is fallible. But how can something not be true if it corresponds with reality, thereby making it so?
Truth as correspondence with reality has its problems though, which pragmatism tries to solve. We don't have direct access to reality and the physical laws (if there are any) which govern it. What we have are the reports of our senses and the models we use to predict cause and effect among matter. So when A says "it is raining" all I have to check that with is my model of the world. But my model of the world already contains the sensory report that person A just said its raining, and probably the interpretation that person A is disposed to act as if it were raining (put on a coat, carry an umbrella etc.).
So we cannot simply compare the statement and the model to see if the two are the same. They're obviously not. One is a statement, the other a model, for a start. So we are instead seeing if the belief the statement is taken to express fits in our model of the world, not whether it matches it.
This is what is meant by utility (or dis-utility), like trying to fit a cog into a machine where it will (or just won't) go.
Now, you might say that I can't just presume it's the cog that's wrong and not the machine I'm trying to fit it to, but if you're trying to make that claim on the basis of correspondence with reality, then we're back at the beginning again. We don't have direct access to reality to check that. We could use the incredibly good predictive power of a good model as a reason to accept it over others, but what's that if not utility? There's nothing whatsoever to say that the 'world as it really is' is consistently predictable, so predictive power can't be taken to be an indicator of correspondence with reality. It can be taken as an indication of greater utility.
OK, I'm done. "Self-corrective" may not fit into this particular use of the word. But I can't be bothered with having to explain everything that you find less than 100% precise and analytical. Some thing really are - in the Real World - vague. That's life.
Take care.
Good point! This potential vs real argument is another example of how "binary thinking" (either/or, black/white, real/ideal dichotomies) can be confusing when philosophical discussions get way down close to apeiron (infinity). That's why I prefer to speak in terms of a physics/metaphysics continuum. In the Enformationism theory, there is no hard line between Physics (matter) and Meta-Physics (mind). It's all shape-shifting Information, all the way down.
Terrance Deacon, in his attempt to describe how living organisms evolved from non-living things, introduced the paradoxical concept of "the power of absence". This would make no sense to those who are limited to rigid categories. But in Deacon's worldview, Potential is an absence that has the power to create a presence, as-if it was a black hole sucking things into its orbit via gravity, and popping them out on the other side as a new Actuality. A similar concept is the physics of Strange Attractors that seem to exert a pulling "force" toward an empty place in space. Such "absences" seem to be part of our scientific reality, even though they have no material existence. They can only be understood in terms of logical/mathematical Information relationships.
Power of Absence : http://bothandblog3.enformationism.info/page33.html
Right. But that has nothing to do with my point. You picked a poor example, one where you don't even take the time to see if you can come up with a use. IOW you picked an example that you think has no use, and yet it was an example, somehow, that I or some other pragmatists would be defending because it has some use.
And seem to think this is evidence of something. And you did this instead of using the example I provided. So you make up a poor example that no pragmatist and in case I haven't used, rather than using one provided. This is pretty much by definition a lack of integrity. Quoting SNow you are defending your theory of truth which it seems is correspondence. I even specifically said that if that was your theory you are a believer of good theory of truth. But that's not the issue.
You treated a theory based on intrumentality as if it was wrong and stupid. Perhaps what we have are two different but workable theories of truth. I am not mounting an argument against yours. I am just saying that pragmatic theories of truth makes sense and, well, can be quite useful. I can deal with a diverse set of models and methodologies. So my saying that his makes sense is not saying yours is bad or dumb. And heck, perhaps a third is even better, or perhaps both our models are not the best ones. But I do note the pattern that if someone asserts something you would not, it means they think you must be wrong, and, given your habits of communication, they must, therefore, think you are stupid. That must be painful.
The amazing thing is, it might be, well, useful to have different views about the nature of truth out there, since it seems like each one has potential weaknesses. We don't have to decide which one is the Pope.
It's sad that I have to tell you this, but this is false. Success only supports the trials of trial and error. And the scientific method is a bit more advanced than trial and error. Don't you think? The scientific method, as a way of acting, is supported by principles, not by successes. I think what you are really trying to say, is that scientism as a metaphysics, is supported by the successes of the scientific method.
Quoting 180 Proof
Right, the desire to explain what is unexplained is a subject of metaphysics.
You lost me, MU. Good luck with that.
Yes. I was impressed with his non-reductionist approach to the question of how Life might have emerged from non-life. Although, as a scientist, he was careful to avoid crossing the line into metaphysics, "the power of absence" is essentially a metaphysical concept, in the sense that it is not an observation but an inference.
A related book is, Neither Ghost Nor Machine, The Emergence and Nature of Selves, by Jeremy Sherman, a member of Deacon's team. Ironically, from the perspective of my Enformationism worldview, I would say that the human Self (Soul) is both Ghost (metaphysical) and Machine (physical) : both Immaterial and Material; both Subjective and Objective..
The Ghost in The Organism : http://bothandblog3.enformationism.info/page20.html
Yes, I read that. It's why many people find justification for their traditional religious beliefs in Quantum Theory and other cutting-edge notions that stray from the "hard" physics of Isaac Newton. But my semi-religious worldview is basically an update of ancient notions of "Soul" and "Spirit" in terms of the current understanding of how the world works. e.g. No mercurial gods on thrones, but a nerdy cosmic Programmer running an evolutionary program. :smile:
"many of the theories embraced by theoretical physicists today look like what Smolin calls 'metaphysical fantasies'."
A lot of what contributes to the difficulty of answering the question is historically contingent: the branching off of much of science from philosophy. What remains in the province of metaphysics is controversial, and much of that controversy is the product of differing views about what physics is, what it does, how it does it, and how that all differs from the methods and goals of metaphysics.
What are some of these differences? Probably the most striking difference is one of language, which in the case of physics is mathematics. If there is a clear line that can be drawn between modern physics and metaphysics, that line is drawn with mathematics. And something very interesting happens when, for purposes of general debate or popularization, scientists translate the "meaning" of the mathematics of physics into a natural language: the line dividing physics and metaphysics immediately begins to blur. The translation from mathematical equation to natural-language description will always delineate a pathway from physics to metaphysics.
This should tell us something about the two disciplines. For one, it suggests that Whitehead was right in thinking that mathematics does not constitute a model that is generalizable. The kind of necessity proper to mathematical demonstrations cannot be transferred to philosophy. For another, it suggests that there is an activity that is distinctively proper to metaphysics, and the tool for that activity is natural (as opposed to formal) language.
I agree that "the power of absence" is a metaphysical concept, so did he really avoid crossing the line into metaphysics?
Anyway thanks for the link and the reference to the Sherman book; I'll check 'em out... :grin:
That sounds right. And we can also question just how formal mathematical demonstrations are. Of course they are relatively formal, but I venture that they also speak to and depend upon spatial and numerical intuition -- a compact language that is easy to parse with the eyes but not radically different from English, for instance. This isn't to deny that some math is extremely formal, but then our reasoning about this extremely formal math will depend on intuition. Sans application and/or aesthetics, it's hard to understand why a human being would bother.
I find pragmatism fascinating. I am attracted to its attempt to get the truck out of the mud. For my $, too much philosophy is just verbal disputes. But I find the flight from truth a little too metaphysical and problematical.
To me, in your quote above, you are suggesting that ...you think it is true that...facts are processes that do things, not things that are true. If you don't believe that facts exist in that particular way, then why embrace pragmatism? Is it useful to believe that it is useful to believe whatever is useful to believe? It all strikes me as a bit circular. I'd prefer to say something like: it seems to true to me that we'd do better to argue about stuff that matters and look at whether this or that issue is really just a matter of terminological preference.
Sometimes I think pragmatism can't resist wading back in to the mud as a kind of liberator. For me the 'mud' is something like a game that you can only win by abandoning the sunk cost. On the bright side, a wallow in the mud is a kind of inoculation against a talking that doesn't pay off. Or maybe it's a fun game like chess but we should be advancing our career, etc., but can't let go of the fantasy that a certain kind of talk is Serious.
Same here.
Quoting Coben
I find that plausible. And what I know of Willy James suggests that he was solid, a good face on the movement. I think you are touching on personality types and which philosophies they tend to embrace. I do agree that the correspondence model is something like the default position. So it's going to be tempting for closed minds. Still, despite its problems, I'd still vote it the least worst choice. Those problems, after all, are usually only problems in the 'mud' and not in everyday life.
Quoting Coben
I think you are generally right. I have, however, seen a few pragmatists who are wrapped up in pragmatist jargon. And they can be arrogant. Clearly that has nothing to do with you. I'm just saying that some folks into anti-realism come off surprisingly evangelical. Personally I think it's hard to do philosophy and avoid implying that some kind of truth exists. How interested are we in the mere opinion of strangers? Admittedly there are some ridiculous or untrustworthy opinions that might be worth hearing for entertainment value, but you know what I mean. We want to learn about reality to act and speak more effectively/successfully. (I trust you'll agree.)
Fair point. I agree. Or at least once the 'big' issues are settled (usually stuff about virtue and vice), the little issues are toys. Of course the big issues can stop being settled. Point being that philosophy for me is 'really' about who I should be, who I should trust, things like that.
I'll let you be the judge of that. But I suspect that Deacon is not familiar with my personal definition of Meta-Physics. He would probable equate Metaphysics with Religion and Supernatural.
Meta-Physics : http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page14.html
I assume that Deacon believes that his "absence" theories will someday be testable. At the moment they are supported primarily by circumstantial evidence. That "absence" has real world effects is based on inferring causation from observed effects. But the mechanics of how future potential can cause now effects is a mystery.
METAPHYSICAL EVOLUTION
In my EnFormAction hypothesis, the force "pulling" events toward a future state is not Mechanical or Magical, but Mathematical (hence Metaphysical)-- in the sense that the Creator's intention (ultimate goal) is being implemented physically step-by-step, but the whole system (evolution) is programmed to answer a general question. I know that's hard to grasp, but a software programmer does the same thing by devising a mathematical path from specific initial conditions to final (optimal) values that are not specified, hence unknown. This is how Evolutionary Programming works. Ironically, the Programmer (in both artificial and natural evolution) will be surprised by the answer. Does that mean the Creator is not omniscient? Yes, in a narrow sense, but I prefer to call it open-minded, and creative. :smile:
Evolutionary Programming : http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page13.html
Evolutionary Computation : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_computation
EnFormAction Hypothesis : http://bothandblog3.enformationism.info/page23.html
Deacon's notion of "the power of absence" may never be testable via empirical methods, but it can be theoretically useful, just as many spooky effects in physics can predict some strange behaviors (quantum entanglement, black holes, dark matter, chaos theory, etc). And we can visualize an Attractor mathematically with computer graphics. In Chaos theory, some system values tend to evolve toward a point in empty space as-if they were being pulled by an unknown force. Unfortunately for the scientists, "as-if" is a metaphysical question, where "as-is" is an empirical physical fact.
Attractors : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attractor
One mathematical term for a living organism is "dissipative structure". Regarding the "motivation of attractors", the link above says : "Dynamical systems in the physical world tend to arise from dissipative systems: if it were not for some driving force, the motion would cease." Deacon thinks that the statistical inter-relationships of dissipative structures are the key to the emergence of Life from non-living matter.
Dissipative Structures : https://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/scientists/deacon/
Note : see Glossary at bottom of article
Quoting Janus
Due to my experience with fundamentalist Christian religion, I also became leery of all hear-say stories of invisible gods with human-like behaviors. But when I began developing my Enformationism worldview, I found that some kind of First Cause or "Enformer" was a necessary axiom in order to make sense of how the world works via enforming forces.
If it makes you feel any better, my notion of G*D is definitely not anthropomorphic, but essentially Mathematical or Logical. But lacking any relatable Physical imagery, the notion of a Metaphysical deity is much more difficult for non-philosophers to imagine. That's why even Monotheists have needed some physical idols (such as images of a man on a cross) to help them relate to a deity who exists both inside and outside the material (space-time) world.
G*D : http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page13.html
MU, S seems to be confident that empirical science has the answer to all relevant questions. But that depends on what you consider relevant. For philosophers, Metaphysics is relevant.
Meta-Physics : http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page14.html
The September issue of Scientific American magazine is titled : Truth, Lies, & Uncertainty, Searching for reality in unreal times. All of the articles cast doubt on the infallibility of reductive science. But one in particular might be instructive for Mr. S. George Musser's article is entitled : Virtual Reality, How close can physics bring us to a truly fundamental understanding of the world? Another term for "virtual reality" is Meta-Physics. He says, "The deeper physicists dive into reality, the more reality seems to evaporate. . . . Physical explanation replaces nouns with verbs." In other words, Quantum Physics is now struggling with Metaphysical questions.
I really don't mind anyone's conception of God. I don't believe in a God, but if I were going to I would believe in a personal God. I don't think deistic or mathematical Gods are worth having, whereas a personal God could change your life (and hopefully for the better).
As to the need for a "first cause" I think that is just an artifact of linear human thinking.
That's another way of saying "an artifact of human reasoning". Which was my intent, as opposed to nonlinear intuition or faith. This impersonal god-model could change your life, by changing your worldview, from sycophantic supplication or passive resgnation, to Stoic character and philosophical wisdom. :smile:
PS__I don't believe in G*D. It's just an axiom for interpreting the vicissitudes of life.
Not all reasoning must be based on the kind of linear thinking that demands a first cause, though.
The impersonal god model seems to be the same, for all intents and purposes, as the no-god model, so a god is not needed at all for "stoic character and freedom".
All I was saying was that for those who need a god, an impersonal god will not cut the mustard whereas a personal god will be a difference that makes a difference, and may make a profound, transformative difference. Some people want to follow; I think that is a fact of life. :wink:
Having said that the "gods" of Hinduism and Buddhism, even though impersonal, do seem to make a difference, but I think that is because the position there is that our true natures are one with God. We all are Buddhas, and Atman is Brahman. These Gods, are not impersonal, mathematical gods, but the fount of all wisdom for the faithful.
True. But I tried the other kind of "reasoning", which results in the babel of world religions.
Quoting Janus
True. But as I said, it's a scientific axiom for philosophical reasoning about the world, not a faith for making "a profound transformative difference." If you want a "transformative difference" get a baby . . . or a dog. :smile:
Not all scientific thinking, or even much of it all seems to rely on the notion of "first cause" though.
Quoting Gnomon
I never looked after a baby, but I have kept dogs, and when the last one died, I decided to profoundly transform my life by refraining from keeping any more. There I was reasoning from the premise, not of first cause, but of last cause. :joke:
Seriously, though I think we can reason philosophically ad infinitum without ever entertaining the idea of a first cause.
The modern trend is for a metaphysics of becoming (process) to supplant or uproot the traditional metaphysics of being. There are numerous reasons for this shift, Hegel/Marx, Einstein/Whitehead, for example.
True. But most scientific thinking is looking through a microscope for prior proximate causes, such as the billiard ball that impacted the one you are focused on. Philosophical thinking though looks beyond the local effects and asks about the ultimate cause : in billiards, it's the intention of the pool shooter to cause the 5 ball to go into the corner pocket.
Cosmologists are philosopher/scientists who consider the universe as a whole rather than as a collection of unrelated parts. They have tracked causation (energy exchanges) all the way back to the "beginning of time". That's as far back as the physical evidence goes. So most accept the Big Bang as the original "cause" of everything that occurs in space-time. But some are not satisfied with the pool cue answer, and ask what then caused the stick (Big Bang) to strike?
Since we have no physical evidence to go by, we must use logical inference to fill-in the blanks. Reductionist scientists simply fill-in the "a priori" ellipsis with the assumption of "more of the same" (physics) all the way back to infinity. But holistic thinkers tend to look for a metaphysical answer, such as the intention of some ultimate "buck stops here" First Cause. That's the difference between pragmatic Science, and theoretical Philosophy. Metaphysical theories have no "cash value" for those who are only interested in short-term return on their investment of research and cogitation.
Certainly. But the human brain, with experience only of the physical world, has no intuitive grasp of unbounded concepts such as "Infinity" or "Eternity". So most people who think beyond the here & now, tend to reason in terms of turtles-all-the-way-down. :smile:
Fortunately, the human mind has evolved to go beyond the space-time limitations of physics into the imaginative realm of metaphysics. But imagination needs to be grounded in physics in order to avoid veering off into the realm of fantasy. Which is why the philosopher-pioneers begin their theoretical explorations of Terra Incognita from the established harbor of pragmatic Science. Meanwhile, the contented settlers can live their whole lives without ever entertaining a thought of ultimate causes.
Turtles-all-the-way-down : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtles_all_the_way_down
In a phrase, Metaphysics is : Theories about theories.
The next question could be, are any of those 'theories' probabilities(?).
As you were.... .
I am well aware that the majority of people will not be interested in an abstract "philosopher's god". Some will prefer a Father god, who brings rain for crops and defends them from evil. Others will prefer a Mother god, who gives unconditional love and succors the afflicted. A few capitalists will hold out for a Prosperity god who brings them luck in their financial affairs. And probably most will want some kind of Santa Claus god, who fulfills their wishes for all kinds of goodies.
That's OK with me. To each his own. My G*D does not require faith or evangelism. My G*D is personal for me, in that it fills a god-shaped hole in my heart, with information (Enformation) to make sense of the ins & outs & ups & downs of the world.
Yes. Most world religions view the world as beginning in a high point as a Garden of Eden or a Golden Age, from which we are now degenerating into corruption. For them, the only answer is divine intervention, or a kingdom of heaven, or the escape hatch of nirvana.
Yet, counter-intuitively, I see evidence that the world began as a seed, and is evolving into a great oak. We are now in the process of becoming something more and better -- I can't say what exactly, But perfection (Omega Point??) is still a long way off. So, my mid-term metaphysics is to read the script of emerging nature, and to play my minor role in what we are becoming.
Whatever might be thought to have given rise to the Big Bang, and be giving rise to the world of phenomena, for example the apeiron, the "quantum foam" or "quantum vacuum", could be thought to be "first cause", but I see no need to anthropomorphize it as any kind of intentional entity.
Quoting Gnomon
For me beyond the "here and now" is simply the inconceivable. We can project whatever ideas we have gleaned from the "here and now" onto it; but I think we do so inappropriately. So for me the idea of a creator is an anthropomorphization; a projection of ourselves as creators writ large. The creator might be thought to be impersonal, but if it is thought as in any sense intentional, then it is an anthropomorphic projection. If I was going to adhere to any inappropriate anthropomorphic projection at all I would make it worthwhile, make it satisfy my emotional needs, go all the way, and imagine God as a personal, loving being.
Quoting Gnomon
Sure, different projections suit different people I guess. Whatever floats your boat will do just fine.
I began my philosophical journey as an Agnostic. But I couldn't avoid the intuition of intention behind evolution. Unless the Big Bang was an astronomically unlikely random accident as many scientists prefer to believe, there must have been some kind of Intention (tendency) to create direction out of randomness (order out of disorder).
Epicurus and Lucretius called that necessary directional impetus "the Swerve", but ironically assumed that it was a fortuitous accident caused by the random jostling of atoms (now known as "quantum fluctuations"). I was also forced by simple logic to assume that some outside force caused the Big Bang to become a progressive evolving organism, instead of a dissipative explosion in space. There is no pattern in pure randomness. Without an imposed signal, your TV screen will randomly jitter & jostle & fluctuate forever. You may occasionally see a brief fluctuation that looks like something; but no ongoing organization like evolution.
Evolution is characterized by both Randomness and Selection -- the disorder (freedom) provides a variety of options, and the tendency toward order (intention) makes a choice (selection) between alternative possibilities, converting them into actualities. This is how computers work, and the selection criteria are provided by the Programmer. So Intention (purpose) is an assumed property of my axiomatic First Cause. As you implied before, an abstract do-nothing deity with no purpose would not be worthy of the name "G*D".
My use of the word "intention" is a metaphor, from our experience as goal-seeking humans, for something beyond our comprehension. As a projection of human mental teleology, it is inherently anthropomorphic; but it refers to an abstract concept, not a person.
The Swerve : "The second reason for thinking that atoms swerve is that a random atomic motion is needed to preserve human freedom and 'break the bonds of fate,'." https://www.iep.utm.edu/epicur/
Quoting Janus
Speaking of "beyond comprehension", projecting our knowledge of here & now into the unknown realms of possibility is something people do all the time. For example, the concepts of "zero" and "infinity" are literally inconceivable, except for the human talent for analogy. Similarly, imagining invisible agencies (gods, spirits) is a common tactic for explaining mysteries that are otherwise inconceivable. As I said before, my "G*D" concept is a metaphor (and an axiom) that allows me to make sense of the role of Information in the real world that is otherwise "beyond comprehension". That's what philosophers do when faced with mysteries. Even pragmatic scientists are forced to resort to imaginative metaphors in their quest to understand the fringes of reality (e.g. quantum fields are not real). G*D is not real.
The teleology of evolution: a big question. I tend to reject the idea. Ervin Lazlo suggests that all the knowledge of the Universe is somehow held in what he calls the "Akashic Field" and equates with the quantum vacuum or the apeiron. There is no "intentional knower", or "original purpose" in that field and the knowledge is accumulated from the evolution of the manifest realm; "nothing remians and yet nothing is lost". (Sphongle)
I seem to remember that he posits this comes about by quantum entanglement, This would also explain why people sometimes have 'past life memories' and if the eternalist idea of the Universe is accepted, it could explain why it is possible that people can have clairvoyant experiences.
But then you say this:Quoting Gnomon
which I can kind of agree with, but then I see no need to speak of intention at all, and I can't see how the metaphor, the notion of intention, makes sense in a context of thinking of pure mathematics or abstraction. Are you suggesting something like a Hegelian dialectical logic or logos that drives the evolution of the Universe, " the Rational is the Real" or something like that?
Then you would be in step with the majority of materialist scientists, who see evolution as a "random walk". But I see evolution as a "hockey stick" path of upward emergence. I won't go into the technical details, but which pattern you "see" will determine your position on Teleology.
Random Walk : http://gnomon.enformationism.info/Images/random%20walk.png
Hockey Stick Path : http://gnomon.enformationism.info/Images/hockey%20stick%20graph.jpg
Quoting Janus
Akashic and Quantum "Fields" are mathematical abstractions. And nobody knows how Quantum Entanglement works. So you could attribute any sort of powers to them, and rest assured that you wouldn't be proven wrong. Only the First Cause is logically necessary to explain everything in the evolving universe, born in an act of cosmic creation. That Creative Cause was either an accident or intentional. Which kind of cause you "see" will determine your position on Intention.
Quoting Janus
Yes. Something like that. But I call it EnFormAction because of the universal role of Information in evolution.
Quoting Janus
If evolution was completely random, with no directional patterns at all, then there would be no need to speak of intention. But, if evolution appears to display tendencies (directional change), then the cause of that consistent non-random behavior would be an intention (goal-directed purpose). In the real world, perfect randomness is never seen, because there is an inherent countervailing tendency toward order. Indeed, the predictability of that emergent order is the foundation of Science. So, the question remains, what caused the "swerve" from random Chaos to orderly Cosmos; from Entropy to Enformy?
Random : lack of pattern or predictability in events; does not follow an intelligible pattern
Tend : regularly or frequently behave in a particular way or have a certain characteristic.; go or move in a particular direction.
Mostly I'm tempted to use it for that because there seems to be no other umbrella word for the rest of philosophy that's not related to morality and justice. Back in school they had a "core philosophy" subtrack of the major and something like a "morality and justice" subtrack (I forget the exact name), and even then it bugged me that there was no better name for the not-moral stuff as a whole.
Quoting Janus
A First Cause of the evolving world is indeed speculative, but it is also logically necessary (if the world has not existed eternally). Quantum Fields are not empirical observations, but logical constructs to explain a variety of paradoxical observations. Like G*D, Fields are not defined in terms of material properties, but in terms of immaterial functions. So my hypothesis of G*D is scientific in that sense. It is intended to explain how Information (an Ideal concept) is so ubiquitous in the universe : i.e. the world is an idea in the mind of G*D (Idealism).
The modern usage of the 20th century mystical notion of an "Akashic Field" -- a pseudo-Hindu word for "aether" or "vacuum" -- is commonly defined in terms of a "Quantum Vacuum", which as I said above is a hypothetical logical construct that does not exist as a real thing. This emptiness is supposed to "record" events in its "memory". But the mystics can't explain how nothingness could record anything, except for an implicit magical deus ex machina, similar to Maxwell's metaphorical "daemon" organizing atoms of a gas. It was a thought experiment to illustrate a statistical concept, and not intended to be taken literally. But mystics tend to take a lot of metaphors and analogies literally.
If the Akashic Field was presented as the First Cause of the Big Bang, it would be equivalent to G*D or Brahman. Does anyone claim that an eternal Akashic Field created the real world from its infinite metaphysical memory?
Maxwell's Daemon : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell%27s_demon
In my Enformationism thesis, I use the term "Meta-Physics" in a similar manner to your suggestion.
"[i]Physics is the science of material Things & Forces. Things are Objects (nouns).
Forces are causal relationships between things.
Metaphysics is the science of immaterial Non-Things such as Ideas, Concepts, Processes, & Universals. Non-things are Agents (subjects), Actions (verbs), or Categories (adverbs, adjectives).[/i]"
Meta-Physics : http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page14.html
The quantum vacuum is, if it is real, not merely a hypothetical logical construct. It is understood to be, not actually, but virtually or potentially, real. You could say it is the unmanifest origin of the manifest realm.
Lazlo speculates that actual events are "recorded" in the akashic filed, and that the akashic field in-forms actuality. This is not any form of idealism, though; the akashic field is not a conscious entity. Quantum theory does not posit that actual events are recorded in the quantum filed, as far as I know, but the quantum field, as the unmanifest, is understood to in-form the actual. If you want to know more about the akashic field hypothesis then you should read Lazlo. Bohm's thesis of the "implicate order' might be worth a look for you too.
I don't know; I wouldn't say "expected". It is tedious reading through most threads, as much of the content is not very interesting, so I usually don't do that myself. Consequently, I have sometimes made comments which repeat what others have already said.
I was just pointing out that my comment agreed (more or less) with yours, not making a point that I had said it first or that you should not have repeated the same point. Saying "early in the thread" was more just a pointer in case you wanted to read the other comments nearby to gain context. :smile:
I've read books by Laszlo and Bohm, Their ideas and speculations are similar to mine, but they focus more on the spooky fringes of Quantum Physics, while I try to stay closer to more mundane Information Theory, which is the basis of my thesis.
That's because I have moved beyond the Big Bang, into the realm of Eternity and Infinity. If you're going to postulate god-like functions, you need to include creation of reality as we know it. :smile:
I would use the terms a little differently than you do. To my mind "thing" and "object" are synonyms, and objects are a major part of metaphysics (in either the sense I'm advocating or the conventional one), namely ontology, about being, where a being is likewise synonymous with a thing or an object. I would instead characterize the physical sciences (those reducible to physics) as being about contingent, a posteriori descriptions of reality, while metaphysics as I would like to construe it is about the necessary, a priori philosophical framework needed to go about doing such description: the semantics of what it means to make a descriptive assertion, the criteria by which we judge such assertions correct or incorrect, the nature of the minds doing that judgement, the methods by which such judgement is rightly conducted, and the social organization of the proceeds of such judgements.
In my Codex Quaerendae (I guess we're allowed to link our personal projects here?) I like to think of the last four as being about the "objects of reality" (or ontology, covering most of the traditional metaphysical topics like substances and attributes, causes and effects, space and time, etc), the "subjects of reality" (or philosophy of mind), the "methods of knowledge" (or epistemology), and the "institutes of knowledge" (or philosophy of academics); or less verbosely as about being, mind, belief, and education.
(And in parallel, I would characterize the ethical sciences I advocate for as being about contingent, a posteriori prescriptions of morality, while metaethics as I would like to construe it is about the necessary, a priori philosophical framework needed to go about doing such prescription: the semantics of what it means to make a prescriptive assertion, the criteria by which we judge such assertions correct or incorrect, the nature of the wills doing that judgement, the methods by which such judgement is rightly conducted, and the social organization of the proceeds of such judgements. I like to think of the last four as being about the "objects of morality" (or teleology in the sense synonymous with consequentialism), the "subjects of morality" (or philosophy of will), the "methods of justice" (or deontology), and the "institutes of justice" (or political philosophy); or less verbosely as about purpose, will, intention, and governance.)
A technical question aside here: how does one quote a previous post in this forum software?
If you feel that my notion of an intentional G*D is spooky, that's probably because you're thinking of the gods of Religion, instead of the god of Philosophy. The intention of G*D is encoded into the logical mathematical program we call Nature. There's no magic or mysticism in nature; it's all in the minds of people who are fearful or credulous.
I don't think Laszlo and Bohm were intentionally into spooky stuff, but some of their hypothetical postulates have been equated by New Agers with Eastern esotericism. And speaking of supernatural spookiness, Madame Blavatsky (Theosophy) borrowed the pre-scientific Hindu hypothesis of an Etheric Plane for her theory of the Akashic Field, as a pseudo-scientific explanation for various traditional spiritual notions.
That non-Christian account of impersonal good versus evil forces may have inspired the fictional religion of The Force in Star Wars. Except that The Force was supposedly generated by an energy field within all living beings. For those with a high Midichlorian count, magical and mystical powers were available. For example, Darth Vader could choke people without touching them. So I find the New Age notion of the powerful, but non-conscious & non-intentional, Akashic Field -- as a substitute for traditional intervening & meddling supernatural gods -- to be associated with some weird magical & mystical & unnatural & spooky stuff. :gasp:
"In theosophy and anthroposophy, the Akashic records are a compendium of all human events, thoughts, words, emotions, and intent ever to have occurred in the past, present, or future. They are believed by theosophists to be encoded in a non-physical plane of existence known as the etheric plane. There are anecdotal accounts but there is no scientific evidence for the existence of the Akashic records." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akashic_records
Yes. Until astronomers calculated that the universe suddenly emerged into space-time from nowhere and nowhen, the philosophical concepts of a supernatural God were inherently apophatic (definition by negation). But now we have positive evidence that the temporal physical universe is necessarily non-eternal. Which logically implies that some kind of cause must necessarily exist beyond space-time in the imaginary realm we call Eternity.
Plus, modern developments in mathematics have forced philosophers to take Infinity seriously, as a "substantive" concept, in the sense of "essential". Infinity and Zero are not assumed to be physical entities, but metaphysical concepts that have a strong relationship to reality. They are not reified though, but merely accepted as logically necessary axioms for reasoning beyond the normal limitations of our experience. For example, before the Calculus was invented, prejudices against infinities prevented mathematicians from being able to calculate non-Euclidian geometry.
Likewise, the sciences of Quantum Physics would be impossible, if practitioners were unable to accept paradoxical results as "logically necessary". :cool:
That's OK. My terminology is derived mostly from Information Theory. Your "comprehensive system of philosophy" is similar to my Enformationism Worldview, except that my terminology tries to stick closer to modern science than to ancient philosophy. In any case, our worldviews are inherently colored by our personal experiences and preferences.
Quoting Pfhorrest
Drag the mouse to highlight a section of text, and a black box will appear with the word "Quote". After you click the box, the text will appear in the comment box at the bottom of the page, along with the name of the person quoted, and a notification will be added to that person's "You" profile.
Thanks so much, works like a charm!
Now I'm not sure whether you think Eternity is real or imaginary.
Quoting Gnomon
They are certainly concepts that have an important function in mathematics. I'm not sure what you mean by " a strong relationship to reality". Are you suggesting that infinity and zero are real in the sense of being more than mere concepts? If so, what could that "more" consist in? Whatever we want to say it consists in, as opposed to apophatically stating what they could not consist in; would that not be to begin to deploy "spooky" ideas?
If we speak of the transcendent, as opposed to the merely transcendental (what is beyond our experience and understanding), then we are departing from our justified mode of apophasis and moving into the unjustified mode of kataphasis, that leads straight to reification, superstitious beliefs, dogma and fundamentalism.
Sorry to interrupt, but.....
Paranthesizing “what is beyond our experience and understanding” and placing it after “transcendental” doesn’t allow the “if we speak...” to conform to the “then we are departing....”.
Surely you don’t think the transcendental can be beyond our understanding, at least in any way synonymous with the transcendent being so.
Or tell me to scram and let the Big Kids have the sandbox. (Grin)
As I said, "the imaginary realm we call Eternity". Reality is typically defined as that which is objective (you and I can both experience it). Ideality is that which is subjective (only I can directly experience it). But humans can share their experiences in the form of words. And words may be misinterpreted, depending on the varieties of personal experience. Have you ever experienced Eternity or Infinity? No, but you can imagine a timeless non-spatial state by analogy with your experience with space-time. Our metaphors are useful for conveying qualities that may not be apparent to others. But they can also be misleading when taken literally. That's why I say Eternity is not real . . . it's ideal.
Quoting Janus
There is no Zero (non-existence) in reality (physical existence). But we find that unreal notion useful as a negation of reality. Again, we can imagine non-existence as a way to describe something that could possibly exist, but is missing in actuality. In mathematics, numbers are names for things that can be counted physically, but zero is the name for something that cannot be counted. Although "zero" is literally non-existent, it still has a function in math. It has a functional relationship to reality. Similarly, I can say that your Mind is not real (I can't see it), but it obviously has a function that is related to the real brain that I could see if I opened your head. Functions are not real, but they are relevant. So, we sometimes give names to functions, as-if they were real. Ideality is as-if.
Quoting Janus
No. They are not real, but they are useful concepts. "Functions" are links between Cause & Effect, but they are not physically real things. As Hume noted, Causation is something we infer, not something we actually experience. Likewise, Infinity and Zero are functions (ideas) that we infer from our experience with space-time. Zero is a function of (1 thing minus 1 thing).
Quoting Janus
"Transcendent" is another word for that which is not real -- it is assumed to "exist" beyond the bounds of reality. Reality is space-time, so something Transcendent is assumed to be non-local and non-temporal. But we often imagine such non-things metaphorically as-if they are real things (i.e. reification). Christians subjectively experience "evil" and imagine that adjective as-if it were an objective living being, and give it a name : Satan. In that case, they may be deceiving themselves with scary stories of "your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour".
On the other hand, mathematicians find reification useful, when they give a name to non-existence (Zero). Likewise, I gave the name "G*D" to a necessary function (creation) to serve as a place-holder for something transcendent and unreal, but definitely relevant to our desire to understand the origin of our world. G*D is not real, but ideal . . . and useful. It's when you make-up elaborate as-if myths about those unknowable abstractions that reification becomes superstition.
BTW, my Enformationism theory is all about the role of information in the Real world. The transcendent G*D concept is merely an unprovable Axiom, used as-in mathematics as a starting point for developing a provable theory. Scientists are currently proving the practical role of information in Physics, Biology, and Psychology. I merely look at the system of enformation as a whole.
Axiom : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom
You are right to pick me up for that sloppy use of language. What I meant is that the transcendental is what is beyond our experience and the understanding of it; beyond an a posteriori understanding, in other words. The way I think about it is that it consists in the conditions for the emergence of the empirical field of experience, and that that is about as much as we can positively say about it.
Anything we say about it will be couched in terms that have been derived from the empirical field, so mostly we can say what it is not, else we will commit the reifications that give us the positive ideas of the transcendent.
The idea of the transcendent consists in positive thought, it consists in kataphatic theology, in other words, in illegitimate reifications derived from ideas proper to the empirical field.
The problem often lies with terminology. For me the real is what is, not (necessarily) what we experience. So I would say that what we think of as the eternal is either real or ideal, and that we don't know which. There are inherent problems, in any case, with pushing the bounds of language and then imagining that there is some "objective reality" which could be somehow isomorphic with our reifications.
Nothing wrong with exercising our imaginations, provided we don't take those exercises too seriously.
Quoting Gnomon
Here's another example of language I would not use. I would say the transcendental is real, but we cannot say what it is. Space-time is not all of reality, but is just the empirical part. It makes no sense to me to say that something could "exist" beyond the bounds of reality. So, the quantum vacuum, or the akashic field, or the apeiron, or god or nature or substance or whatever you want to call it is real, but virtually, not empirically so.
Quoting Gnomon
I would rather say "the transcendental G*d concept", in light of what I explained in my previous post. I'm not convinced that unprovable axioms can be used to develop provable theories. In mathematics they may be used to develop provable theorems, but theorems are not theories and that there are no provable theories has been convincingly demonstrated by Popper.
[quote=Janus]For me the real is what is, not (necessarily) what we experience.[/quote]
[quote=Janus]Space-time is not all of reality, but is just the empirical part. It makes no sense to me to say that something could "exist" beyond the bounds of reality.[/quote]
[quote=Janus]I'm not convinced that unprovable axioms can be used to develop provable theories. In mathematics they may be used to develop provable theorems, but theorems are not theories and that there are no provable theories has been convincingly demonstrated by Popper.[/quote]
I really really want to find fault with any or all of these insights ... Maybe Gnomon, Metaphysician Undercover, et al are up to that challenge. But damn, J, well done. :clap:
Quite right. That is why up until Aquinas, any statements about G*d were understood as strictly analogical. To say that G*d ‘exists’ is an error - ordinary objects exist, but they only exist because they are sustained in being by what is beyond existence. Accordingly, the foundation of existence is not something that exists - not non-existent, but beyond existence.
Quoting Gnomon
Here's an interesting tidbit. Georges LeMaître as we know was the originator of what has since become known as 'big bang theory'.
[quote=Wikipedia entry on Georges LeMaitre]By 1951, Pope Pius XII declared that Lemaître's theory provided a scientific validation for Catholicism.[36] However, Lemaître resented the Pope's proclamation, stating that the theory was neutral and there was neither a connection nor a contradiction between his religion and his theory.[37][38][17] Lemaître and Daniel O'Connell, the Pope's scientific advisor, persuaded the Pope not to mention Creationism publicly, and to stop making proclamations about cosmology.[39] While a devout Catholic, he opposed mixing science with religion,[40] although he held that the two fields were not in conflict.[41][/quote]
Great scientist, that guy. And incidentally an illustration of why Catholicism generally disdains ‘intelligent design’ or anything of that ilk.
- Appearance and Reality, preface (1893).
WHEW!!!! When someone who is historically concise, intelligible, insightful, makes what seems like a mistake, makes me wonder if I made the mistake in thinking there was one.
But being a card-carrying, dyed-in-the-wool Kantian, you know I just had to have clarification on that “transcendental” stuff, so.......thanks for that.
I now return you to your normally scheduled sandbox. Have fun!!!
It's very easy to find fault with Janus' principles. But Janus doesn't listen, so I've given up on that. Here's some examples:
Quoting Janus
There is no such thing as "what is". "Is" refers to what is "now", present tense, and time passes so fast, that by the time the future is present, it is past. One cannot say "what is", because by the time this is done, it is past. "The present" is an illusion, as is "what is", because all is future and past. So Janus' claim, that "the real is what is", is nothing other than a claim that what is an illusion "the present", is what is real.
Quoting Janus
Reality, according to what it has been claim to be, above, is already an illusion, as nothing "is". Therefore everything must be beyond the bounds of reality, as defined. So it is not only the case that something "could" exist beyond the bounds of reality, it is necessary that if anything exists at all, it is beyond the bounds of reality, when reality is defined in that way.
But Janus only pretends to listen to reason, until it gets too difficult to maintain the principles which Janus holds in the face of reason which demonstrates the deficiencies of these, then Janus let's go and slips back into the unreasonable principles, and refuses to listen.
If you have a problem with my Enformationism terminology, you are welcome to consult the Glossary.
Quoting Janus
How, then, do you know "what is" apart from experience? Do you have extra-sensory perception? We make guesses about what "could" be, by extrapolating from sensory experience to what seems statistically possible.
Quoting Janus
Please clarify your terminology. In what sense would you say that "the eternal" is Real? Is it a parallel reality, existing beyond the scope of our time-bound senses? Or is it like the position & velocity of an electron, existing in super-position, so that we cannot measure those properties? Are your categories of "real" and "ideal" so indeterminate that humans can't decide which is which?
Quoting Janus
Yes. That's how people imagine "evil" as a human-like entity, and give it a personal name. Can you discriminate whether Satan is Real or Ideal? Is he a maybe?
Quoting Janus
Why not? "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent." ___Wittgenstein :smile:
Quoting Janus
Yes. That's why I try to make a clear distinction between Actual (space-time; empirical; Real) and Potential (imaginary; theoretical; Ideal).
The term "exist" normally refers to physical, empirical stuff. But in what sense do Ideas exist? If they are not real, why do we speak of ideas as-if they have some meaning, some relevance? Hamlet spoke of "to be, or not to be", as-if it was a viable option. In order to discuss philosophy, we must come to terms with ideas and ideality, or else we can only do pragmatic Science. Is Science a real thing? Does Science exist?
Quoting Janus
Is the Akashic Field real in the same sense that a Quantum Field is real? The latter is pure mathematical imagination with no empirical substance. Yet, we find the concept useful for mathematical calculations. Physicists created the concept of a Virtual Particle out of pure imagination, as a place-holder for something indeterminate (superposition) because it exists only as statistical potential, but is useful for calculations. What is the Akashic field good for, other than for story-telling? Is Virtual Reality really real, or is it an idea in the mind of the beholder (hence Ideal)?
Quoting Janus
I used the term "provable" in the sense of "testable", not in the sense of "certainty". Science has come to terms with uncertainty, but they still test their hypotheses in order to weed out those that have no pragmatic usefulness. Darwin's hypothesis of the evolutionary process won't be absolutely proven for a million years. But, meanwhile it serves as a framework for understanding biology. The G*D hypothesis, as I said, is unprovable, but useful for making sense of the role of ideal immaterial information in the real material world.
"Nothing in biology makes sense, except in the light of evolution." ___Theodosius Dobzhansky
"Nothing in reality makes sense, except in the light of EnFormAction." ____Gnomon
Thanks 180, I really want to find fault with them myself, and be able to come to something better. I think there is a common currency of terms like 'reality' and 'existence' and that what is said should make sense in terms of that common currency. I'm confident the common understanding is there, but it seems it's not always easy to tease out...
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
I think that's an unfair statement MU; I'm prepared to listen, but if someone distorts what I have said, then their criticisms are not relevant. Or if I can't make sense of what someone says, then I'll say so and ask for clarification.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
That would be a fair point if I was speaking in terms of temporality, but I was speaking generally about what I think the common meaning of the term 'real' is. What is real is what is...what was real is what was...what will be real is what will be. The point is that I think we have a common understanding that what is real, as such, does not depend on us, or on our experience. That doesn't stop anyone from claiming that there is nothing real beyond our experience, obviously, but what possible grounds could someone have for claiming that beyond attempting to redefine the common understanding of the term 'real' to fit their position?
“For philosophical problems arise when language goes on holiday.” as Wittgenstein says (or said if you insist that I be temporally correct).
Quoting Wayfarer
I understand where you are coming from, there have been some attempts to distinguish between the idea of reality and the idea of existence or between different ideas of existence and being. Heidegger's 'Existential' and 'Existentiell' come to mind. But I think the common understanding of 'being' and 'existence' are that they are synonymous. Likewise I think the common understanding of the terms 'reality' and 'existence' are synonymous. So if something is real, then it exists, tout court.
So, I would rephrase what you say here: "ordinary objects exist, but they only exist because they are sustained in being by what is beyond existence" to something like "ordinary objects exist but their existence depends on something that is beyond our experience (of them or their existence)'.
I want philosophy to be deflationary in a way, but I agree with Popper that metaphysical speculation is in important, not just for the arts, poetry etc. but also that it is central to the development of science.
So I mostly agree with this:
Quoting Gnomon
although I wouldn't say that they are "axioms" as Gnomon does, but that they are conjectures as Popper says or speculations. The G*d hypothesis has been an axiomatic presumption in the development of science, to be sure, but we don't have to follow the ancient and/or medieval thinkers in treating such hypotheses as axioms, we can treat them as provisional ideas to be entertained to see where they might lead our thought.
Quoting Gnomon
I'm not saying we do or can. I'm just trying to clarify what we commonly mean by saying that something is real is all.
Quoting Gnomon
I'm not saying the eternal is real, or at least I'm not claiming to be able to say or even guess, how it is real. Even if we could say that logically it must be real; what would that establish beyond the domain of human logic? All I wanted to point out is that the possibilities we can imagine is that it is real or it is merely imaginary or conceptual. Language is tricky.
Quoting Gnomon
I don't know if the Akashic Field is real. Lazlo speculates that all information is "held" somehow in the Akashic Field and in-forms or "en-forms" the phenomenal world. The idea of the Quantum Field is something similar, as far as I understand it (not much since I am no physicist) although there is no specific idea of information being "held" there as far as I know. Spinoza's idea of substance is the idea of an eternal being from which all phenomena emerge, as is Anaximander's apeiron. These are various attempts to think about the transcendental, about what gives rise to phenomena. It is all speculation.
Thanks Mww, I hope I don't "soil" it. :joke:
See this is evidence of what I said, you don't listen. Instead of addressing my point (that "is" necessarily implies temporality present, now) directly, you simply side step the issue.
If "what is real" , is what "is", and the existence of the present depends on us, as it appears in modern scientific theory that the present (now) is a subjective perspective (the observer's point of view), then how can there be a "what is real" independent of an observer's perspective? And an observer's perspective requires an "observer". All we have here is a glorified form of the relativism presented by the sophist Protagoras. You claim that "what is" gives you a perspective independent reality, but "is" requires a perspective.
I'll tell you, that this position of yours (concerning what "is") is denied by many modern metaphysicians who attempt to maintain consistency with relativity theory. In physics we describe reality in terms of motions, assuming that all is moving, and this is conducive to a philosophy of process, everything is changing, there is no rest, or what "is". in any absolute sense. This means that any description of "what is" is just that, a description, artificial, produced by the observer, and that which is supposed to be independent, being described, is incompatible, and therefore completely different and unlike any description, of "what is". Furthermore, this metaphysical position is strongly supported by Hegelian dialectics, which also supports dialectical materialism, and dialetheism. These positions accept violation of the contradiction law, such that reality must accept what is and what is not. That's because "becoming", change, motion and activity, which is what reality consists of for these metaphysicians, cannot be adequately described in terms of is and is not.
You may understand this incompatibility from the discrepancies between the ancient philosophies of Parmenides and Heraclitus. Parmenides described reality in terms of being, what is and is not, and this position supported the idealism of the Pythagoreans and others. Heraclitus described reality in terms of becoming, motion and change. Plato considered both of these perspectives, and found them to be incompatible.
From the Platonic/Aristotelian tradition, dualism is the solution to this problem. Reality must be described with reference to two distinct and incompatible aspects, the passive (what is), and the active (what is changing). The monist simplification which you propose, "the real is what is", only reintroduces this problem of incompatibility. So it is very easily demonstrated as unacceptable, inadequate, as a return to presocratic confusion.
My notion of G*D is indeed a speculation or conjecture, because I have no real-world experience with anything outside of space-time. But it is also an Axiom in the sense that G*D is "a premise or starting point for reasoning." Enformationism is intended to be a 21st century update of ancient Materialism and Spiritualism. Since mundane Information consists of immaterial ideas as the content of material "carriers", it is necessarily an Ideal "object", not a real thing.
So, in order to establish a rational foundation for a real world in which Information is ubiquitous -- I.e. reality functions like a computer program -- I must assume the "existence" of an Enformer or Programmer. And since there is a common conventional name for that Creator function, I decided not to use some abstruse philosophical term, but to merely make a spelling change to indicate that this is not your Priest's or Pastor's ancient obsolete notion of a heavenly king, but a novel concept in keeping with our modern understanding of the Cosmos.
Quoting Janus
Precisely.
Quoting Janus
That's why I try to make a clear distinction between Real and Ideal, Experiential and Imaginary. Imaginary things are usually abstractions from reality. And as such, may be plausible and generally acceptable, or dubious and subject to skeptical analysis. That's why I accept the notion of "Eternity" as a rational inference from the spatial & temporal limitations of Reality, logically requiring a First Cause of space & time to explain how reality came to be.
Quoting Janus
I don't have a problem with the mathematical concept of "fields" to describe something that is logically necessary, but actually abstract (not real). It's an aid to visualization of abstractions. The Akashic Field is an ancient philosophical attempt to make sense of the abstract-Mind vs concrete-Body mystery. But, over the years, the general concept has collected a lot of mystical baggage that is no longer necessary, since we now have more mundane explanations for strange observations.
For example, some explanations for Out of Body Experiences (OBEs) assume that those experiences can only be understood as taking place in real-but-parallel planes of existence. Yet modern science has given us more insight into how the brain converts sensory experiences into mental images. So, a more practical assumption for OBEs is that they are similar to dreams. In fact, I had OBEs and NDEs when I was young. But having no mystical assumptions, I merely interpreted them as strange dreams.
I now have an Information-based explanation for both Akashic and Quantum Fields.
"In theosophy and anthroposophy, the Akashic records are a compendium of all human events, thoughts, words, emotions, and intent ever to have occurred in the past, present, or future. They are believed by theosophists to be encoded in a non-physical plane of existence known as the etheric plane. There are anecdotal accounts but there is no scientific evidence for the existence of the Akashic records." ___https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akashic_records
This is noted, as nothing particular can last for more than an instant. With no absolute, we no longer have to figure how a permanent unchanging thing can change. So, then there are no things, just events, some of them very long, such as a rock or a proton.
Now the point I was making to Janus is that if we divide events up, or put events together, which is what we have to do to say "this is a rock", or "that is a proton", this is just a human construct. So it makes no sense to talk about "what is", independent of human experience, because "what is" is a human construct, and there is no such thing as what is, without the human consciousness which constructs it.
Whether or not there can be anything real apart from any observer's perspective is not a question I am attempting to answer. My concern was with what is commonly meant by "real", and what is commonly meant just is something indepedent of any observer's perspective. So, who is not listening, eh?
I'm not sure that Quantum theorists would agree with you that the quantum field has nothing more than an abstract reality.
As to the Akashic Field, I am quite familair with the history of the idea; and it's revival by Theosophists. I was concerned only with Lazlo's take on it. So, when I say I don't know if the Akashic Field is real, you should take that to mean, I am not convinced either way as to whether the quantum vacuum holds information in the way Lazlo theorizes. I just think it's an interesting idea.
Some would and some wouldn't. I was referring to the mathematical definition of a Field :
"In mathematics, a field is a set on which addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division are defined, and behave as the corresponding operations on rational and real numbers do. A field is thus a fundamental algebraic structure, which is widely used in algebra, number theory and many other areas of mathematics." ___https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_(mathematics)
Is a "Set" or "Algebraic Structure" concrete or abstract, real or ideal? That depends on how you look at it.
The various fields are defined in terms of hypothetical dimensionless mathematical points. Yet, it's not the substanceless points that are important, but the relationships (ratios) between them, as in geometry and trigonometry. That is also how Information works in the real world. A "bit" of Information is a relationship between two or more objects (basically 1 or 0). Multiple bits add-up to physical fields, and fields add-up to matter (fluctuations in the field are what we detect as particles). When human beings observe those physical objects, the mind detects those ratios (physical information), and interprets them as meaning (mental information).
<
Electromagnetic Fields and Quantum Fields are just special cases of the universal Information Field. I could also say that the Information Field is an update of the ancient notion of the Akashic Field.
Physicist Victor Toth answered the question, "What is a quantum field?" in this manner :
"But no, quantum fields do not interact with matter. Quantum fields are matter." ___ https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2017/12/20/what-is-a-quantum-field-and-how-does-it-interact-with-matter/#6c0495928c4a
That would also be my answer to "What is an Information Field?" : the information field does not interact with matter, it is matter.
These ideas are far outside the understanding of the "man on the street". And even for philosophers and physicists are so unconventional as to sound absurd. The Enformationism Thesis attempts to begin at the beginning, and to build-up a worldview based on Information rather than Matter or Spirit.
Enformationism : http://enformationism.info/enformationism.info/
This is what you said:
Quoting Janus
You were clearly associating "what is" with something independent of any observer's perspective
What I pointed out is that it doesn't make sense to speak of the real as "what is", and try to separate "what is" from what we experience, because for something to be, (and this is what "what is" refers to), requires an experiential perspective. Furthermore, there is a large body of evidence, and philosophical arguments, which demonstrate that if anything did, or could, exist separate from any experiential perspective, it would be completely different from, and incompatible with, what we refer to with "what is".
All of that supports the conclusion that it is unacceptable metaphysically, to speak of "the real" as "something independent of any observer's perspective", whether or not this is common parlance. Common parlance is often inconsistent with what is acceptable within a field of study. Logic shows that there couldn't be anything without an observer's perspective, so it really doesn't make sense to define "the real" as that which is independent of any observer's perspective, because this would just be like saying that there is nothing real, no such thing as reality. That's why I said your claims are just an attempt to make the illusion (that there could be something independent of an observer's perspective) into reality.
Quoting Gnomon
The problem though, is that matter itself is just an idea, a concept. It was introduced by Aristotle as an attempt to substantiate logic, being faced with the scourge of sophism. In more modern times, physics has replaced matter with energy, which substantiates its logic. Perhaps it now turns to "fields". Aristotle however, laid down strict conditions, metaphysical principles, concerning the use of "matter" (as an idea). These were derived from a logical treatise on the nature of "change", his Physics. Those conditions have long ago been ignored, and have been superseded by metaphysical principles which do not adhere to such strict principles.
The issue being that "matter" was introduced into physics as necessary to account for the unintelligible aspects of change. These unintelligible aspects allowed sophists to argue the reality of absurdities But "matter" is defined metaphysically (because it is of the unintelligible). Under the direction of Aristotle, it is a concept formulated with specific logical rules, intended to keep physics "real", grounded. If we move away from these rules, without introducing new rules which are at least as rigorous as the old, there is nothing to keep physics real, or grounded.
Real. Hence the fundamental truth of mathematical Platonism: that intelligible objects are real, but they're not material in nature (in other words, they're incorporeal but real). They're real because 'the same for all observers', but ideal in that they can only be seen by 'the mind's eye'. Very few will see that or agree with it.
Quoting Janus
How is 'the common understanding' relevant for metaphysics? Just because it's something 'everyone knows' or think they know, doesn't make it so. Numbers and geometric concepts are a case in point.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
Interestingly, 'matter' (hyle) is derived from the same root as 'mother', with the connotation of it being the passive component. The 'active' component is, on the one hand, the 'active intellect', when individuated, or intellect in general.
We may have discussed this briefly before. Plato makes this reference to the female aspect, in Timaeus, referring to ancient myths. He might be criticized for being sexist when he describes matter or "the receptacle", in this way, but he is really just referring to this ancient wisdom, citing myths, to support what he is putting forward as the relationship between universal forms, and particular material objects.
In their discussion in the Timaeus they find it necessary to posit "matter" as a principle of individuality. However, the matter is necessarily passive, as being merely a receptacle for the active form which will in-form the matter, determining what type of thing will be generated. It's really just an analogy using the ancient understanding of sexual reproduction, but it's not a very good analogy because it portrays the mother as completely passive in determining the traits of the off-spring, and even the ancient Greeks, though they gave priority to a good sire, knew by this time that this was not true.
The common understanding and use of words determines their meaning or meanings. I'm not saying you can't invent new meanings, or rather new nuances of meaning, but there has to be some justification for doing so.
It's not a matter of what people " think they know" but of the common understanding that meanings of terms are based upon.
As to number: I imagine most people would say it is real. It is as real as difference. Likewise with geometry: it is as real as form and measure, and I doubt you would find many who deny the reality of those.
It is exactly a matter of what they think they know. The problem is that we take some things for granted, because they are assumed to be "the common understanding", locked up into the way that we use the words. But the common understanding is often misunderstanding. it's almost like a fashion, we accept something as true because others do. This is evident in phrases like "the sun rises", and "the sun sets". These are phrases which used to represent the common understanding, things which people took for granted thousands of years ago, which we now know as misunderstanding, because we recognize that the earth rotates.
This is the important point of Plato's cave allegory, the philosopher sees beyond the common understanding (which is really misunderstanding) to the true reality.
The point is that human knowledge is grounded in things which we take for granted. But in reality these "things", (Wittgenstein's bedrock or hinge propositions) are the extreme limits of human knowledge, and they actual mark off, or even represent the unknown. When there appears to be a limit to what can be known about something (beyond this point appears to be beyond our intellectual capacity), we establish a principle which marks that limit, and allows us to work around that unknown element.
So we find these principles in examples like Aristotle's "matter", and Newton's first law of motion. Notice that we do not at all understand what matter is, or what inertia is, but these principles allow us to work around this area of the unknown, that aspect of reality which appears to be beyond our intellectual capacity. These principles are very useful, and lend themselves to "the common understanding". However, we know from quantum mechanics that Newton's law of inertia does not properly represent the temporal continuity of physical existence. So this principle, Newton's first law, is something we take for granted, and it has become the common understanding, but it really is a misunderstanding, because it creates the illusion that we think we know what we do not really know, as the unknown lurks behind this principle.
Yes. According to Idealism, ultimately, everything in reality is an idea in the mind of G*D. Enformationism is essentially an update of ancient Idealism, using our modern understanding of Information to clarify such enigmas as how Minds can emerge from Matter. Answer : It's all mind.
That doesn't mean that you and I are ghosts, though. For us physical beings, what we perceive as real is as real as it gets. Since we are inside the Cave or the Matrix, so to speak, we can only imagine the "true" reality, unless someone like Plato comes along to unshackle our bodies, or like Morpheus to offer us the Red Pill.
So, for all practical purposes, Matter is what the world is made of. And divine Mind is merely an idea.
If that statement sounds like a reversal of the conclusion in the first paragraph, that's because Enformationism is a BothAnd worldview : our world consists of metaphysical Information in the Mind of G*D, but we perceive that Information as physical stuff. So, which is "true" depends on whether you are looking at the world from the Inside (subjective) or from Outside (objective). But we can "see" objectively only in imagination -- and then, only "in a glass darkly".
Yes. That's why I prefer to avoid the Real/Unreal dichotomy, and refer to Mathematical "structures" as Metaphysical, and material structures as Physical.
Quoting Janus
Philosophers have argued about what's real for millennia, and the beat goes on. So, I simply say : "it's both/and".
The BothAnd philosophy : http://bothandblog5.enformationism.info/page6.html
Sure, something can be thought to be real in different senses, if there are different senses of the word. So, we can say that something could be empirically real but not real in any other sense. And we are able to conceive that something could be real despite not being empirically real, in the sense that it might be there but not available to the senses, even if augmented by instruments. But none of this tells us anything about what might be actually real beyond an empirical context. What is real can be conjectured or stipulated but its nature or character cannot always (if ever) be definitively determined.
Given the understanding that humans have apparently only been around for about 200.000 years and the understanding of biological evolution and cosmology that says that life has been around for about 2,000,000,000 years and the Universe for about 14,000,000,000 years, we are firmly committed to saying that something was real prior to the advent of the empirical context.
The usual idealist objection that this is being said from within the empirical context seems irrelevant to me, as long as naive realism is carefully avoided. We can say something was real prior to humans without saying anything about what it was "in itself". We know something was real prior to human life if we can trust our carbon dating methods and astronomical observations, because it has left traces that we can now observe.
In the case of the earlier-than-human history of the Earth the best we can do is to imagine what we would have seen if we had been there. In talking about the reality of what is beyond human experience, we are talking about conjectured conditions whose nature cannot be known beyond what we know (or think we know) they have given rise to. From that it obviously doesn't follow that they just are what they have given rise to, as naive realism assumes. It pays to remember that trying to talk about these things pushes against the limits of language.
I'm also interested to know how you interpret the idea of an intentional creator. Did the creator plan for some final outcome? If not are all outcomes precisely planned or was the creator like a computer programmer, producing an algorithm that is left to run and produce unpredictable outcomes? Is the creator sentient and sapient? Loving? Omnipotent? Infallible? Did the creator produce the laws of nature or must it work within them. Is the creator consciously aware of all events in its creation, or only some of them, or none of them?
Yes. That's why I prefer to make a different distinction from the usual Real/Ideal, Empirical/Theoretical Materialism/Spiritualism dichotomies. Materialism typically treats anything Ideal as non-existent. But then the Materialism hypothesis is itself an idea, so what is the status of its reality? Since we tend to accept our own ideas, memories, attitudes, feelings, and such as part of our personal reality, we need a name for that kind of non-physical realness. I suspect that the perceived need -- for a name with which to refer to mental intangibles (e.g. numbers, principles) collectively -- caused some ancient thinkers to adopt the informal title of Aristotle's second volume of his lectures on Nature (Physics) to cover everything immaterial. The Physics books discussed things we know via our senses (things-that-change in space & time, matter, hyle). But the Metaphysics books were mostly about human ideas, opinions, and theories regarding the external furnishings of Nature. You might call them the furniture of the mind.
Meta-Physics : http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page14.html
Quoting Janus
The existence of the universe prior to the emergence of human consciousness is not empirically justified, because it is just a theory based on projection of current events into the past. We assume that physical reality was trucking along just fine with no minds to perceive it. Yet Bishop Berkeley argued that the world was being perceived, not just by humans, but also by God. So, when he asserted that “esse est percipi” (to be is to be perceived) he was not referring just to human observers. That may also be relevant to the interpretation expressed by quantum theorists, that the Quantum Observer Effect means that a particle doesn't really exist until it is measured. “To Measure” is from the root “mens-” meaning “mind”. So you could say that reality is what has been “touched” by a mind. In other words, what we take to be real is a subjective opinion, that must be carefully compared to opinions of other perceivers in order to assign it the imprimatur of Objective reality.
Divine Observer : https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/261761-there-was-a-young-man-who-said-god-must-find
Quoting Janus
That is exactly what astronomers were doing, in the 1920s, when they calculated the trajectory of all observable matter back to the point of coincidence. Many of us now accept their, then controversial, interpretation that the real world did not exist 15 billion years ago, but suddenly emerged in the so-called Big Bang. Yet again, that is an expert opinion, based on their translation from abstract mathematical calculations into an imaginary scenario that the rest of us can visualize. So, you could reasonably say that “reality is a theory”.
Reality is a Theory : http://bothandblog5.enformationism.info/page15.html
Reality is Ideality : http://bothandblog5.enformationism.info/page17.html
Quoting Janus
The Enformationism worldview is based, in part, on my interpretation of the process of Evolution (En-form-ation) , not as a random chaotic mess, but as an orderly progression in the direction of Time's Arrow, toward some ultimate denouement, a resolution to this ongoing narrative. Of course, I have no idea what form that final summing-up will take, but it seems as certain as the Big Bang. The current scientific opinion is that reality will just fade away into the sunset. But other interpreters of evolution, such as Teillard deChardin, refer to the final chapter as the Omega Point, and describe it as the universe becoming something like a god. I'm not bold enough to go that far, but one allegorical scenario would be that our emerging world is like a fetus developing into the offspring of G*D. I wouldn't take that metaphor, or any other imaginary analogies too literally, but it gives us a way to imagine where we stand in the otherwise mysterious process of natural and cultural evolution. If that scenario is anywhere close to true, then we would have to attribute the human-like property of goal-oriented Intention to the First Cause and Prime Mover. Here's a chart I drew up to illustrate my concept of evolution from beginning to end.
Cosmic Progression Chart : http://bothandblog3.enformationism.info/page28.html
Quoting Janus
I don't claim to know anything about the Creator of our world beyond the properties that are logically necessary for such a Creation to exist. But my guess is that what I call "G*D" is more like a computer Programmer than the Great Magician portrayed in Genesis. This blog post may answer your other questions.
The EnFormAction Hypothesis : http://bothandblog3.enformationism.info/page23.html
Actually, your definition of Metaphysics is not that different from mine. The primary distinction is that your terminology seems to derive from your education in Philosophy. But, since I have no formal training in Philosophy or Science, beyond first year 101-level classes, my labels may be more idiosyncratic. And they are primarily derived from years of autodidact reading in general scientific & philosophical publications. For those schooled in traditional terminology, my quirky terms may be puzzling. So, that's why I have compiled a glossary for those interested in decoding the unconventional Enformationism worldview.
Meta-Physics : http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page14.html
My somewhat unconventional use of "Meta-Physics" is also about that which is "necessary" and "a priori", which in my worldview is the Mind of G*D, and its subsidiary human minds. In other words, about Ideas and Ideals rather than the things and objects of Physics.
Quoting Pfhorrest
I have begun reading your Book of Questions, but it will take time to review its manifold topics. As an amateur website builder, I find the graphics very well done. I'm afraid mine are rather crude & garish by comparison.
Quoting Pfhorrest
My thesis is more about Ontology & Epistemology than Ethics & Morality, but it covers some of the same topics as yours : "purpose, will, intention, and governance" --- the last being more about natural laws than civil.
It's the first principles of reality which makes a structure.
You have a metaphysical structure, like foundationalism, coherentism, infinitism, monism, nihilism etc.
Then you have a means to traverse through that structure, or an ontological relationship narrative. In that you have emanationism, emergentism, successionism, Aristotle's logic etc.
Then you have ontological dimensions which is the narrative of what objects fundamentally are in number (so do you import light and darkness/wave vs particle light with dualism or just photons with monism). In that you have monism, dualism, trialism, quadrilism, etc, pluralism, nihilism etc.
From this structure one can derive their ontological framework and epistemological framework, their philosophy of history, sex, politics, writing, technology and anything else from their metaphysical structure.
Metaphysics can be the base of our Scientific and Philosophical hypotheses.Conspiracy theories can never be that.
There is good an bad Metaphysics. For bad metaphysics...just look at Theology, Supernaturalism and most Philosophical worldviews (Philosophical Naturalism and idealism included)>
For good Metaphysics just look how science constructs testable hypotheses and how Natural Philosophers use the latest epistemology to inform their metaphysical speculations.
I think that metaphysics is the most important issue in philosophy. The problem is that, since it is closely connected with ontology, it can be interpreted and reconsidered in so many ways that it can become just a point of confusion.
The word means literally "beyond physics". This expression can be considered from two essential perspectives.
One is that adopted by, for example, some artists, where "beyond physics" means beyond the world of material things; so, these artists try to represent pure emotions, feelings, abstract ideas. This is not the perspective we are interested in here.
The other perspective is that stemming from Aristotle, since his books describing the nature of things were called "metaphysics" because they were physically beyond, which means after, his books about physics. This important coincidence is the origin of the philosophical meaning of metaphysics. The basic meaning of "metaphysics" in philosophy thus depends on how we interpret the meaning and the importance of Aristotle's research. Since different philosophers have interpreted differently the other philosophies, as a result we have not a final, exact meaning of "metaphysics". However, I think that, at this point, we can ask what the best, the most productive, the most fruitful, the most useful, definition of metaphysics is. I think that this way we can obtain good results.
I think we can say that ontology is about being, while metaphysics is about how things are. This implies a specific interpretation of Aristotle's research. In this perspective, we interpret Aristotle's research as an effort to compensate the unreliability of knowledge acquired through physics. Knowledge acquired through physics is unrealiable because it relies on our senses: sight, hearing, smelling, touching and so on. Everyone can see that our senses can be easily deceived: we see an animal and after approaching it we realize that actually it was just a stone, or a plant. We interpret that Aristotle found a solution to this problem in the use of reason: reasoning, applied to the data given by our senses, is able to compensate and solve the problem of unreliability of senses. So, he elaborated all the stuff we know about form, substance, nature, essence and so on. What is important is that this way his highly systematic work gave a very strong and reassuring impression of order, domain over reality, reliable knowledge. Many philosophers after, or even before Aristotle, can be interpreted this way: they tried to find some strong interpretation able to explain how things are.
Now we can realize some points that are very useful to clarify what metaphysics is or implies. Metaphysics means:
- having been able to finally reach truth, true knowledge, absolute and objective certainty;
- that reality exists out there, it is not a dream, an illusion produced by our mind.
All of these strong points are based on the irresistible strength of logic, reasoning, whose roots are in Parmenides' principle of non contradiction. As a consequence, those who disagree must necessary be people who either don't understand, don't know, or are mad. Logic and reasoning are the roots of truth and, as such, the roots of what is good. From here, a lot of theology can be built, based on metaphysics.
Now we can better realize the difference between metaphysics and ontology: metaphysics is about the truth of being, the absolute certainty of reality; since ontology is just about being, if, for some reason, we say that "being" means actually doubt, or involvement in human time (Heidegger), or subjectivity, in that case what we say is ontology, because it is about being, but is not metaphysics, because it disagrees with the concept of objective truth, objective reality.
It is good to realize that, even when we say that the world is just a dream produced by our mind, although apparently this can be considered something non metaphysical, since it is against the idea of objective reality, actually it can still be accused of being metaphysics, because its conclusion sounds like "the real, objective, absolute truth, is that the world is a dream". Similarly, when we say that "everything is relative", this can be accused as well of being just another metaphysics, because it tries again to reach a final conclusion about "how things really are".
At this point the question is: is it possible to make a truly non-metaphisical philosophy, since, whatever we say is exposed to the criticism of being just another attempt of finally establishing how things objectively are?
One way to try to exit this cage is trying to be aware of the constraint coming from language: language is made grammatically in a way that forces us to talk by assertions, statements, that again and again make us fall into the mechanism of saying how things are. So, we can try some workarounds by specifying that what we say is not meant to be a final, objective, metaphysical statement.
Another way is to make clear that what we say is meant to be a subjective opinion, an hypothesis, an attempt. In this context, the opposite of metaphysics is the subjective perspective. Another philosophical perspective that is one of the greatest efforts to be non-metaphysic is postmodernism. There is also the "weak-thought" of the philosopher Gianni Vattimo.
The latter connects "ideological / existential" dots arbitrarily (i.e. inductively) in a paranoiac manner whereas the former tends to fill in "transcendent(al)" gaps deductively from arbitrary axioms in a dogmatic manner. Sometimes they converge e.g. Gnosticism.
:lol: God is a conspiracy theory, oui? There's an invisible, bearded ol' fogey who's pulling all the strings - we're mere puppets and YHWH is the puppetmaster! Predistination and all that!
I did come across that view before; it was Socrates/Plato/Aristotle who said that the body is a prison for the soul, trapping us in the imitation, flawed world of the physical.
Then I met this other guy, forgot his name, who makes the exact opposite claim: bodies are trapped by souls. The point? The physical is more sublime than the mental.
:chin:
I was simply trying to point out that metaphysics is, by definition, speculative and so there's a clear risk that some of us might go overboard with it. God is, in my humble opinion, the quintessential conspiracy theory of cosmic proportions. Tertium quid. Have you watched The Invisible Man?
I think this point is only one conception of "God" and even then it's not "conspiratorial" but occult instead. Most of reality experienced by human beings is unseen, not "conspiratorial". Besides, in the Abrahamic tradition for instance, who (or what) is conspiring with "God" to carry out this "quintessential conspiracy theory of cosmic proportions" if there is "only one God"? And what is being transgressed – "law" is being broken – to constitute a "cosmic conspiracy"?
I was thinking more along the lines of...
and
[quote=William Cowper]God moves in a mysterious way.[/quote]
and
[quote=Master Oogway]There are no accidents.[/quote]
Chance as a manifestation of God. God intervenes by manipulating chance. The objective? Probably not to cause confusion and keep us guessing as much as to play by the rules. God doesn't break the laws of nature, He only, for instance, "suggests" you carry a Bible in your breast pocket, not just any breast pocket, the left one, that same Bible that blocks the bullet aimed at your :heart:. :grin:
You could read it that way.
Another way is that the body of a human is trained to talk about itself like there's a ghost inside it that's responsible for what that body does. The way we like to do things lately is just use one ghost.
What's so different about a terrified woman trying to prove to disbelieving cops that there's an invisible man who's framing her and a priest claiming that there's an invsibe god who too intervenes/interferes in/with our lives?
Really? What seems to be the issue with my position?