What is Metaphysics?

fresco wrote:

No ....thats semantic squirming !

You ought to know.

fresco wrote:

Okay...explain why you don't "accept" what the Einstein group conceded, that the experimental evidence directly supports the QM notion that the act of observation determines the nature of the observed.

I never said that I rejected the findings of quantum mechanics. Although much of it is still highly theoretical, for all I know every bit of QM is true. That doesn't particularly bother me or cause me to rethink my worldview, since most proponents of QM hold that their findings only apply to the subatomic level. Since I am largely uninterested in tracking the meanderings of stray electrons, I don't see why I would need to adjust an epistemology that is valid at the supra-atomic level to accommodate the way things exist at the sub-atomic level. I have even less reason to make that adjustment based on the urgings of someone who rejects both the foundations of QM and standard logic.

0 Replies

Quote:

most proponents of QM hold that their findings only apply to the subatomic level.

That's not the case. Probabilities are higher at macro levels, (say of "all your atoms not being on the far side of the moon"), but the epistemological principle of observer - observed interaction holds at all levels. The "table" is in all conceivable states when
unobserved including "contradictory" ones. (ref "Schrodingers Cat").

To get back to metaphysics, it is absolutely clear that even if we can ignore quantum effects for "everyday life", considerations of "reality" must take them into account since they underpin the very nature of the concept of "what an atom is". And since the findings are in general concordance with a "non-dualistic" position which trancends "physicality" it follows that such a position is a significant realm for metaphysical discourse.

0 Replies

fresco wrote:

Thats not the case. Probabilities are higher at macro levels, (say of "your atoms" not being on the far side of the moon), but the epistemological principle of observer - observed interaction holds at all levels. The "table" can be in any and all conceivable states when unobserved including "contradictory" ones.

Yes, and all of your stuffed animals can be having tea parties and pillow fights while you're away at work. I don't deny even that. But then I find the likelihood of such an event so extraordinarily improbable as to make any such claims unworthy of serious consideration. If you don't, then it's up to you to explain why you take a contrary position.

fresco wrote:

To get back to metaphysics, it is absolutely clear that even if we can ignore quantum effects for "everyday life", considerations of "reality" must take them into account since they underpin the very nature of the concept of "what an atom is". And since the findings are in general concordance with a general "non-dualistic" position which trancends "physicality" it follows that such a position is a significant realm for metaphysical discourse.

Well, first of all, I don't agree that we must take QM into account when we are dealing with non-quantum events. Secondly, there is absolutely no reason to think that your modus ponens reasoning establishes your position when you reject formal logic.

0 Replies

1. There are NO "non-quantum" events, only a subset of events where quantum considerations can be statistically ignored. This is similar to the continued applicability of Newtonian mechanics to a subset of situations where we can ignore relativistic considerations.

2. The "logic" is for your benefit. I don't require it to justify the general metaphysical significance of non-duality which for me is "self evident". Empirical findings from QM are merely a bonus.

0 Replies

Fresco,

0 Replies

I DO think, however, that Joe has put up a very impressive, albeit wrong headed, resistance. His deeply ingrained dualism is evident in the ontological IMPORTANCE he gives to the distinction between macro and subatomic levels of physical reality. Fresco, on the other hand correctly insists on an ontologically unified reality which, for practical reasons, must be approached differently.

0 Replies

JLN,

Yes, he's put up a spirited fight on his computer which is bulging with quantum technology !

0 Replies

Take this loosely, but it seems that with regard to your debate, Joe is an ontologocial dualist (the levels are real) and an epistemological monist (standard logic applies to both), whereas you are an ontological monist (there is one seamless reality) and an empistemological "dualist" (given our nature we must manage each "level" with different heuristic assumptions).

0 Replies

Sounds neat !

BTW Do you know anything about Derrida ?

0 Replies

Yes, TOO neat, but fun.

I've never read Derrida, only things about him. He seems to give little to hold onto (almost like the writings of zen). I've had a love-hate relationship with post structuralism and post modernism in general. Mainly with regard to art. I love modernism in art and dislike or relate very little to contempory post modernism, especially its installations.
I very much resonate with the epistemology (although he hated the term) of Nietzsche, and he is, without doubt, one of the major precursors of philosophical postmodernism (which includes Derrida).

0 Replies

JLN,

Thanks for that comment. I may be attending a course involving Derrida and Lacan later this month which might generate a thread or two here.

0 Replies

fresco wrote:

1. There are NO "non-quantum" events, only a subset of events where quantum considerations can be statistically ignored.

You can't prove that.

fresco wrote:

2. The "logic" is for your benefit.

What a sad, pathetic rationalization.

fresco wrote:

I don't require it to justify the general metaphysical significance of non-duality which for me is "self evident".

Yes, I know. At bottom, your position is nothing more than an empty ipse dixit.

0 Replies

JLNobody wrote:

Fresco,

http://dontmesswithtaxes.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/monkey_cymbals.jpg

0 Replies

Joe, prove it.

0 Replies

JLNobody wrote:

Joe, prove it.

Prove what?

0 Replies

JLN,

Joe's just indulging in childish "last-wordism". He's a bit peeved because we drifted to a close.

Your turn Joe..............? :wink:

0 Replies

fresco wrote:

JLN,

Joe's just indulging in childish "last-wordism". He's a bit peeved because we drifted to a close.

It must be exhausting for you to have the responsibility of thinking not only for yourself, but also of telling JLN what to think as well. Why don't you give it a rest?

0 Replies

0 Replies

Fresco, yes, that was a perfect example of his "last-wordism".

0 Replies

The epistemology of Gorgias (483-375 B.C.E) contradicts fresco, joefromchicago and JLN, while affirming Colin Leslie Dean.

Quote:

If the nonexistent exists, it will both exist and not exist at the same time.

If existence exists, it is either eternal or generated. If it is eternal, it has no beginning, and is therefore without limit. If it is without limit, it is "nowhere" and hence does not exist. And if existence is generated, it must come from something, and that something is existence, which is another contradiction. Existence can neither be "one" or "many" since if it were one, it would be divisible, and therefore not one. If it were many, it would be a composite of separate entities and no longer the thing known as existence.

If the things thought are existent, all things thought exist, and in this way too in which one has thought them. But this is contrary to sense. For if someone thinks of a man flying over the sea, it does not follow at once that a man is flying over the sea.

Even if existence could be apprehended, it would be incapable of being conveyed to another. The mental representation of one person can not be the same as the mental representation of another person.

0 Replies

What is Metaphysics?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know