What is Metaphysics?

Nothing under the bonnet, what of all that materialism?

0 Replies

epenthesis wrote:

Nothing under the bonnet, what of all that materialism?

What?

0 Replies

fresco wrote:

Quantum mechanics has deterministic materialism for breakfast.

Since you don't accept the validity of quantum mechanics, how can it disprove determinism?

0 Replies

agrote,

.....Your request for a thumbnail sketch......

Empirical evidence for "non-locality implies that traditional concepts of materiality (localised in time and space) are wrong and gives support to non-duality in which observer and observed are co-existent realms from which concepts of "materiality" arise as pragmatic tools for "prediction and control". In other words "material" does not exist in its own right.

The cited article also speculates on some of the major epistemological implications of the physical findings in such fields as "communication" in which "communicators" and "information" cannot be handled as independent entities.

(N.B. Irrespective of this physical evidence, extrapolation of Hume's problems with "causality" indicated that all was not well with "determinism". If we then combine this with the aftermath of Heisenbergs uncertainty principle or considerations of the "Schrodigers Cat" scenario we effectively render "determinism" either limited or vacuous)

0 Replies

Joe,

If the comment above was to me I don't recall using the expression "QM is invalid". I might have written "validity does not apply to QM" (meaning "formal logical validity") but this does not render QM to be inappropriate as an explanatory structure or paradigm in the sense that it is "functionally valid" in accounting for observations. New paradigms do not "disprove" old ones. They delimit their range of applicability and "explanatory power".

0 Replies

Just a general question:

Although no definite conclusion is reached in discussing any metaphysical question, does not the discussion itself increase our knowledge?

0 Replies

wandeljw

Alas, its the chicken and egg scenario.

The definition of "knowledge" is a metaphysical question.

For some of us, discussion of metaphysical questions may indeed increase our understanding of its nuances but whether this constitutes "knowledge" in the usual sense is debateable.

0 Replies

fresco wrote:

Joe,

If the comment above was to me I don't recall using the expression "QM is invalid".

I don't think you ever said that either. But you've said that there is no distinction between observer and observed, and since all of science (including quantum mechanics) is based on that distinction, it stands to reason that you reject the validity of quantum mechanics.

fresco wrote:

I might have written "validity does not apply to QM" (meaning "formal logical validity") but this does not render QM to be inappropriate as an explanatory structure or paradigm in the sense that it is "functionally valid" in accounting for observations. New paradigms do not "disprove" old ones. They delimit their range of applicability and "explanatory power".

Well, if a new paradigm limits the range of applicability of an old paradigm to a null set (as the Copernican model of the solar system did to the Ptolemaic model), then I don't see any difference between that and "disproving" the old paradigm.

0 Replies

fresco wrote:

Empirical evidence for "non-locality" implies that traditional concepts of materiality (localised in time and space) are wrong and gives support to non-duality in which observer and observed are co-existent realms from which concepts of "materiality" arise as pragmatic tools for "prediction and control". In other words "material" does not exist in its own right.

Okay, I have some idea of what you're talking about. I'm not too worried about this... when I said, "we are just lumps of matter", the point I was making was that we are not the 'special', gifted, autonomous beings we sometimes think we are... human affairs are ultimately as trivial as anything else. Whether we actually or lumps of matter, or whether that is just a pragmatic way of conceiving of ourselves, doesn't really matter. The point is that.. we're not God's children and we don't have souls, and our hopes and dreams aren't really important in an objective sense (I know you're not interested in objective reality, but if I'm right and there is one, then your preferred alternative to realism is also unimportant).

Quote:

(N.B. Irrespective of this physical evidence, extrapolation of Hume's problems with "causality" indicated that all was not well with "determinism". If we then combine this with the aftermath of Heisenbergs uncertainty principle or considerations of the "Schrodigers Cat" scenario we effectively render "determinism" either limited or vacuous)

Hume's 'problems' are only a problem if you think empiricism is the be-all and end-all. So what if we cant observe necessary connections? It doesn't mean there aren't any. Well, perhaps for you it does, but that is because of your apparent assumption that (roughly) what we see is all there is. Why make that assumption?

How do you account for constant conjunctions without causality? If throwing glasses at the floor doesn't make them smash, then why do they smash every time I do that?

0 Replies

Joe,

The distiction between "observer" and "observed" is related to the concept of "domains of observation" (second order cybernetcs).
One over-used analogy might be separate "river water" and "river bed" versus unified "river".

The case of geocentric versus heliocentric paradigms actually supports the "delimiting" concept because we still use the geocentric model for most terrestrial purposes.

It might be better perhaps to compare the periodic table of elements with the "four elements" of the ancients. Here appears to be a clear-cut "null set" situation until we investigate the fuller implications of the term "paradigm". It is not only the focal item ("element") which is involved in a paradigm but the whole network of contingent activities in which the focal item is embedded. In the case of the ancient elements such a network of "4 types" involved "elements", "humours" "seasons" etc in a mutually supportive substructure. Even though modernity has confined the air/earth/fire/ water quartet to poetic usage the "humours" and "seasons" still remain as functional vestiges of the paradigm. (See personality types for "humours"). Nor should we forget that the "periodic table" of 92 plus "elements" is itself contingent a the concept of a smaller number of subatomic particles/forces whose "exact" nature still remains elusive.

0 Replies

agrote,

My "assumption" is nothing like "what we see is all there is" !
You can't understand my handling of "materialism" if you think that.

I have dealt with "problems of causality" by suggesting the study of alternative epistemological positions. If you don't understand these either, further discussion is futile.

0 Replies

fresco wrote:

agrote,

My "assumption" is nothing like "what we see is all there is" !
You can't understand my handling of "materialism" if you think that.

Okay. Here is what I said again, minus my mistaken assumption about your assumption:

Hume's 'problems' are only a problem if you think empiricism is the be-all and end-all. So what if we cant observe necessary connections? It doesn't mean there aren't any.

What say you?

Quote:

I have dealt with "problems of causality" by suggesting the study of alternative epistemological positions.

Where?

0 Replies

fresco wrote:

Joe,

The distiction between "observer" and "observed" is related to the concept of "domains of observation" (second order cybernetcs).
One over-used analogy might be separate "river water" and "river bed" versus unified "river".

I would imagine that "domains of observation" also rely on the distinction between observer and observed, which either leads to a circular definition or a version of Russell's paradox.

fresco wrote:

The case of geocentric versus heliocentric paradigms actually supports the "delimiting" concept because we still use the geocentric model for most terrestrial purposes.

No we don't. We may use the flat earth model for most terrestrial purposes, but the flat earth was not part of Ptolemy's model.

fresco wrote:

It might be better perhaps to compare the periodic table of elements with the "four elements" of the ancients. Here appears to be a clear-cut "null set" situation until we investigate the fuller implications of the term "paradigm". It is not only the focal item ("element") which is involved in a paradigm but the whole network of contingent activities in which the focal item is embedded. In the case of the ancient elements such a network of "4 types" involved "elements", "humours" "seasons" etc in a mutually supportive substructure. Even though modernity has confined the air/earth/fire/ water quartet to poetic usage the "humours" and "seasons" still remain as functional vestiges of the paradigm. (See personality types for "humours").

That's some kind of joke, right?

fresco wrote:

Nor should we forget that the "periodic table" of 92 plus "elements" is itself contingent a the concept of a smaller number of subatomic particles/forces whose "exact" nature still remains elusive.

All scientific truths are contingent. But then all empirical truths are equally contingent. Hume figured that out over two hundred years ago. But that doesn't mean there aren't some things about which we can be pretty confident. Even Hume believed in the reality of sensible objects (in contrast to Berkeley).

0 Replies

Joe,

As usual you resist acknowledging a reasonable response. I should know better by now than give you the time of day, but in fact you did me a service this time by allowing me to prepare part of a paper.

agrote,

Have a look at Joe's "technique". This is an example of "rhetorical negativity for its own sake" which undergraduates also indulge in when they lack the background material as you often do. (In his case Kuhn and Bohr) You will find reference to "alternative epistemology" in my first post on this thread in which I suggest the term "meta-metaphysics". Such epistemology (Piagets for example) attempts to investigate the origin of the term "causality" and its relationship to the term "knowledge".

0 Replies

fresco wrote:

Joe,

As usual you resist acknowledging a reasonable response.

And as usual, you resist accepting a reasonable criticism of your reaponse.

Quote:

agrote,

Have a look at Joe's "technique". This is an example of "rhetorical negativity for its own sake" which undergraduates also indulge in when they lack the background material as you often do. (In his case Kuhn and Bohr)

First of all, I am a graduate.

Secondly, Joe was not merely being rhetorical. He made at least two reasonable responses to you, which you have not addressed:

He said that, "..."domains of observation" also rely on the distinction between observer and observed, which either leads to a circular definition or a version of Russell's paradox." He was arguing that your definition of "domains of observation" was either circular or paradoxical.

And he said that, "we may use the flat earth model for most terrestrial purposes, but the flat earth was not part of Ptolemy's model." Here he was criticising your claim that the geocentric/heliocentric debate supports the "delimiting" concept.

You have not addressed either of these points. You've accused joe of refusing to accept a reasonable response, when that is exactly what you are doing. Joe has made two reasonable points, and you've ignored them. Your criticism of his "technique" is basically an ad hominem argument agaisnt the points he's made. It's not good enough.

Thirdly, You're going to have to accept the fact that you're in a debate forum where most participants are not going to have read everything that you have read. If you don't want to talk to such people, then what are you doing here?

Quote:

You will find reference to "alternative epistemology" in my first post on this thread in which I suggest the term "meta-metaphysics". Such epistemology (Piagets for example) attempts to investigate the origin of the term "causality" and its relationship to the term "knowledge".

Okay, I've looked at your earlier post. I don't think these ideas are going to grab my attention until you can persuade me to let go of my cherished beliefs about truth, objectivity and genuine causality. If I weren't a realist, I might be interested in why we believe in causation. But as it stands, I'm more interested in the nature of causation itself, not the nature of our beliefs about it. Why shouldn't I believe in real causation, or necessary connections? I'll dig out my notes from 3rd year at some point and remind myself of the arguments.

0 Replies

agrote,

If you are a philosophy student at Nottingham, your whine "why shouldn't I believe....." merely underscores the "dumbing down" of the education system in the last 30 years, which is not necessarily your fault.

You have unwittingly stumbled on "lets get the nondualists game" played by Joe over the last few years. The fact that neither you nor he understands nondualism is par for the course. So why don't you two play your own little language game about " flat earth" etc which was mentioned by him (and erroneously ascribed to me) and taken up by yourself? I assure you I would be more than happy if you two are content to wallow in aspects each other's naive realism, because I find that level of discourse somewhat tedious.

0 Replies

fresco wrote:

Joe,

As usual you resist acknowledging a reasonable response.

Where was the reasonable response? I must have missed that.

fresco wrote:

I should know better by now than give you the time of day, but in fact you did me a service this time by allowing me to prepare part of a paper.

Always glad to be of assistance.

fresco wrote:

Have a look at Joe's "technique". This is an example of "rhetorical negativity for its own sake" which undergraduates also indulge in when they lack the background material as you often do. (In his case Kuhn and Bohr)

I've read plenty of Kuhn. He wouldn't understand your position either. As for Niels Bohr, what little I've read of his philosophical pronouncements incline me to believe that, as a philosopher, he was a very good physicist.

0 Replies

fresco wrote:

agrote,

If you are a philosophy student at Nottingham, your whine "why shouldn't I believe....." merely underscores the "dumbing down" of the education system in the last 30 years, which is not necessarily your fault.

More ad hominems.

0 Replies

fresco wrote:

If you are a philosophy student at Nottingham, your whine "why shouldn't I believe....." merely underscores the "dumbing down" of the education system in the last 30 years, which is not necessarily your fault.

Joe's right: more ad hominems. That wasn't a whine, it was a question. That's why I put a question mark at the end of it. You've avoided answering yet another of my questions.

Quote:

You have unwittingly stumbled on "lets get the nondualists game" played by Joe over the last few years. The fact that neither you nor he understands nondualism is par for the course. So why don't you two play your own little language game about " flat earth" etc which was mentioned by him (and erroneously ascribed to me) and taken up by yourself? I assure you I would be more than happy if you two are content to wallow in aspects each other's naive realism, because I find that level of discourse somewhat tedious.

I have no desire to wallow in anybody's naive realism, and I do not wish for you to do so. I'm here to debate, and to learn from the experience; not to find a false sense of security in the fact that some people agree with me. I'm here to have my naive realism challenged. You are clearly not here to debate. You don't deal with criticism head on... you either point to other sources, or other threads, or you insult the intelligence of the critic. You don't actually say, "your objection fails, and here is why...". If one of us makes an objection which betrays our lack of understanding of your position, instead of clarifying your position, you just complain or make patronising comments. So we repeat the mistake. I'm losing patience. I'm not even sure that you understand 'non-dualism' yourself... perhaps you are actually unable to clarify your position.

0 Replies

agrote,

You admit you didn't understand or are not interested in the Peat reference which gives an excellent introduction to the scientific aspects of nonduality. Are you going to read some Piaget ? (I warn you this is also likely to be intellectually challenging and Flavell is often the preferred route in).

I am not surprised that as "a graduate" interested in the "frontiers of knowledge" you think you can actually get away with a superficial acquaintance with physics or cognitive psychology. This attitude to rigour is an adjunct to the "dumbing down" process. If you want to debate with me, don't expect me to descend to that level. You say you want to learn ? ...then have the sense to know that some of these references cannot be condensed into "digestible bullet points" for consumption of the educational masses with limited attention span.

I don't intend to comment further here on these points. They are peripheral to this thread.

0 Replies

What is Metaphysics?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know