Metaphysics as an Error

[Luis Dias]

Have you found the Truth? Do you think it's possible? Are you sure it exists? Why? Do you have any evidence for the existence of a Truth? Pyrrhonists haven't abandoned anything; they're keeping alert for evidence, but unwilling to accept metaphysical positions that claim to be the Truth but are unable to demonstrate the 'truthiness' of their assertions.

You're really barking at the wrong tree there. You couldn't be speaking to no one less impressed by metaphysics than Surendra Darathy...

[Luis Dias]

Theoretically - if a Pyrrhonist is as absolute.... .

He's not. Stop making strawmans. We've explained this to you a gazillion times. You're trolling.

[logical bob]

Or, in a nutshell, there is a strong case for saying that some scientific 'models' facilitate a specific metaphysical conclusion... for philosophers.

So science leads to scientific conclusions. Unless of course you're a philosopher, in which case you get special dispensation to draw non-scientific conclusions.

Excuse me Sir, could I see you bullshit licence?

As I said, I am not constrained to a methodology that prevents meaningful analysis of concepts such as 'entanglement'. Why should I be?

You can use whatever methodology you like. But if it isn't a scientific methodology then it gives you no grounds to say that scientific models facilitate metaphysical conclusions. It's your metaphysical methodology that does that, and your conclusions are only as sound as your methods.

[FBM]

Have you found the Truth? Do you think it's possible? Are you sure it exists? Why? Do you have any evidence for the existence of a Truth? Pyrrhonists haven't abandoned anything; they're keeping alert for evidence, but unwilling to accept metaphysical positions that claim to be the Truth but are unable to demonstrate the 'truthiness' of their assertions.

You're really barking at the wrong tree there. You couldn't be speaking to no one less impressed by metaphysics than Surendra Darathy...

Sorry, I don't know everybody's histories...

[FBM]

Pyrrhonists haven't abandoned anything; they're keeping alert for evidence, but unwilling to accept metaphysical positions that claim to be the Truth but are unable to demonstrate the 'truthiness' of their assertions.

Theoretically - if a Pyrrhonist is as absolute in his scepticism as you would have me believe - it should never be possible to provide evidence of anything, for him.

You still haven't picked up on the difference between Academic and Pyrrhonian skepticisms? Want me to explain it again?

[Surendra Darathy]

What you say is a model, I say is an understanding of what is happening between two apparently separate entities... rendering them 'as one'. Now clearly, shutting up and doing the math isn't going to facilitate any further comment about this understanding, but - having binned my calculator as a rebelious and symbolic act - nothing now prevents me from stating that, clearly, such an understanding is at odds with what we seem to be observing. That is, this understanding, gleaned from entanglement, appears to be telling us something about the reality underlying our observations, which is at-odds with those observations.

Meh. Say more about "understanding", besides its being a new word you've just introduced without definition, and I'll consider your paragraph as something besides rhetoric. Those who bin their calculators and extol intuitions in order to say something about "reality" are interested in one thing only. I would not say that it is irrelevant, but I do like to call a spade a spade. Suppose you convince another person of your "understanding" of the "true nature of reality". Then what? You can go bend your spoons together. What fun. What are you doing if not seeking respect from the science community in engaging with me? Or seeking respect from other participants in the thread by "taking on the scientist" in a contest of rhetoric.

Please try to comprehend that "entanglement" is an interpretation within a model, and the same experiment can be modeled using Quantum Field Theory. We're talking about the entanglement of what?

Or, in a nutshell, there is a strong case for saying that some scientific 'models' facilitate a specific metaphysical conclusion... for philosophers.

But given that there are equivalent formulations of the situation in an experiment, where does that leave the specific "conclusions" or "understandings" of "metaphysics"?

As I said, I am not constrained to a methodology that prevents meaningful analysis of concepts such as 'entanglement'. Why should I be?

Of course not, Sir. You clearly intend to practice metaphysics as "absence of rhetorical constraint". AKA "wibbling".

[jamest]

What is the basis for doubting metaphysics? What can it be?

Previously, I explained why saying anything definite about the empirical world implied an ontology of its own. And so the empirical world cannot be the focus of any rejection of metaphysics.
The retreat from metaphysics has to be absolute! To the point that reason is meaningless and one becomes philosophically lame. Otherwise, if not so extreme, one has to have reasons for not being so extreme and an understanding (more reason) of what would constitute an acceptable metaphysic. Which of course would imply a bias towards something yet to be proven.

I think that metaphysical scepticism is either impossible, or - when taken to its absolute extremity - mind numbing. To such an extent that nothing could ever be proven to such an individual, using reason.

This is not trolling, Luis. This is the death of metaphysical scepticism.

[FBM]

What is the basis for doubting metaphysics? What can it be?

Previously, I explained why saying anything definite about the empirical world implied an ontology of its own. And so the empirical world cannot be the focus of any rejection of metaphysics.
The retreat from metaphysics has to be absolute! To the point that reason is meaningless and one becomes philosophically lame. Otherwise, if not so extreme, one has to have reasons for not being so extreme and an understanding (more reason) of what would constitute an acceptable metaphysic. Which of course would imply a bias towards something yet to be proven.

I think that metaphysical scepticism is either impossible, or - when taken to its absolute extremity - mind numbing. To such an extent that nothing could ever be proven to such an individual, using reason.

This is not trolling, Luis. This is the death of metaphysical scepticism.

No, it's just self-absorbed drama. If you still don't understand Pyrrhonian skepticism, buy a book. I recommend the Kuzminski mentioned earlier. I don't have time to teach a class on it. You've made it clear that you're deeply entrenched in your views, anyway, so I don't see any purpose in continuing this with you. Adios.

[logical bob]

What is the basis for doubting metaphysics? What can it be?

Do I get to talk some crap and then ask you what could be the basis for doubting it? We get on fine without metaphysics every day. You say that without it we cannot use reason. The burden is on you to prove that, not us to explain how we can doubt it.

Previously, I explained why saying anything definite about the empirical world implied an ontology of its own.

Here's a definite statement about the empirical world: I dropped the glass and it broke on the kitchen floor. What ontology does that imply?

And so the empirical world cannot be the focus of any rejection of metaphysics.

The focus is that the arguments for metaphysics make no sense.

The retreat from metaphysics has to be absolute! To the point that reason is meaningless

If you succeed in operating your toaster you've shown that reason is not meaningless.

and one becomes philosophically lame.

Damn.

[Luis Dias]

What is the basis for doubting metaphysics? What can it be?

I'm done with this chap. Seriously.

Previously, I explained why saying anything definite about the empirical world implied an ontology of its own.

And us mere mortals dared to not accept your explainin' by face value. How arrogant of us for not listening to your calm and wise, immortal words.

The retreat from metaphysics has to be absolute!

And who the fuck minds if someone retreats from saying gibberish?!? Ah look, we will deprive us from saying things like, "the consciousness is a flow of a soul essence, that impregnates real objects with cause and effect". Ahh, the culling, the barbarous culling! How will we survive without the knowledge that the universe must be caused because a navel-gazer saiiid soh?

To the point that reason is meaningless and one becomes philosophically lame.

Subjective criteria, i.e., your taste, means you have poor taste. I'm not moved.

Otherwise, if not so extreme, one has to have reasons for not being so extreme and an understanding (more reason) of what would constitute an acceptable metaphysic. Which of course would imply a bias towards something yet to be proven.

No problem with that. It's called speculatin'... and it's a part of the scientific method. There is no mention of "metaphysics" innit, though. You should try it.

I think that metaphysical scepticism is either impossible, or - when taken to its absolute extremity - mind numbing. To such an extent that nothing could ever be proven to such an individual, using reason.

Talk for yourself. I find it liberating and extraordinary. Again, I am not moved by your poor taste.

This is not trolling, Luis. This is the death of metaphysical scepticism.

Apparently, it's a lame attempt of a comeback against the death of god. But god is dead, so the comeback is somewhat ... ahhh.... late?

[Matthew Shute]

What is the basis for doubting metaphysics? What can it be?

The inability of anyone to provide a sound methodology for accessing metaphysics is a start.

Previously, I explained why saying anything definite about the empirical world implied an ontology of its own.

You "explained" it, did you? I thought you'd simply asserted it a few times, to general bemusement and derision.

And so the empirical world cannot be the focus of any rejection of metaphysics.

Another straw man? You just love attacking arguments that nobody has made. The point is: nothing in science or "the empirical world" necessitates any metaphysic. You have no evidence of any metaphysic. You have not even argued for any metaphysic. Doubt is my natural response in such circumstances.

Take the rejection of theism . I don't doubt in God(s) because "the empirical world is a focus of a rejection of God(s)", whatever that might mean. I doubt because there is no evidence and also no compelling arguments for God(s).

The retreat from metaphysics has to be absolute!

More inane assertion. What does an "absolute" rejection involve? "Absolute doubt"? What's that, then?

To the point that reason is meaningless and one becomes philosophically lame. Otherwise, if not so extreme, one has to have reasons for not being so extreme and an understanding (more reason) of what would constitute an acceptable metaphysic. Which of course would imply a bias towards something yet to be proven.

What is "extreme" about being sceptical regarding a proposition for which no evidence is given?

We do not need to "prove" that metaphysics is impossible; we only have to point out your apparent inadequacy and invite you to come up with the goods.

I think that metaphysical scepticism is either impossible, or - when taken to its absolute extremity - mind numbing. To such an extent that nothing could ever be proven to such an individual, using reason.

You certainty-craving absolutists are ten a penny. If evidential support is not enough for you, join a congregation.

This is not trolling, Luis. This is the death of metaphysical scepticism.

At least you're entertaining, if lacking NE's wit.

[Surendra Darathy]

What is the basis for doubting metaphysics? What can it be?

What is the basis for compelling metaphysics? What can it be?

I explained why saying anything definite about the empirical world implied an ontology of its own.

So you mean that "saying something definite" about a "world" implies something about its "existence". In other words, what compels metaphysics is the simple magic phrase, "Because I say so."

"Saying something definite" is different from "saying something indefinite" in what way? Tell us again. Because now you've introduced the characteristic of "definition" as part of a criterion for "existence". Wow. Just wow.

In sum, just using the word "world" is taking a leap into the ontological. How did metaphysicians gain control over that territory? Tell us again. This is careful stuff, James, and hard territory. You conquer it one word at a time, rather than by sneaking in new words in every new statement. This means, effectively, that you need to waste a whole fucking statement just defining the word "definite". Hint: It has something to do with definition, which makes your attempt at metaphysics just a bit recursive from the get-go.

This is important to me, James. What is there in the act of saying something "definite" about a "world" that elevates its ontological status? Really. How is this done?

And you call this line of questioning a "retreat". Did you also manage to define "black" as "white"?

And who the fuck minds if someone retreats from saying gibberish?!? Ah look, we will deprive us from saying things like, "the consciousness is a flow of a soul essence, that impregnates real objects with cause and effect". Ahh, the culling, the barbarous culling! How will we survive without the knowledge that the universe must be caused because a navel-gazer saiiid soh?

+1

Apparently, it's a lame attempt of a comeback against the death of god. But god is dead, so the comeback is somewhat ... ahhh.... late?

If you build it, they will come. Then they will say, "been there, done that."

[Comte de Saint-Germain]

There's nothing about non-locality that implies metaphysics or the possibility of metaphysics. Non-locality is simply a method of accounting for data.

But that data infers that the essence of what we are observing is indivisible/spaceless. Clearly, this is at-odds with the notion of 'a world of things' that are separated/divisible by space, as per our observations of that realm.

Data does not reveal anything about 'essence'. We are talking about constructs, empirical concepts deployed to account for data that may or may not be accurate.

The fundamental problem of data, and the fundamental limitations thereof stand. Even when we are talking about rather elementary processes, that doesn't mean that they somehow transcend empiricism.

But if data presents itself to reason that must logically render the realm of observation as indivisible/spaceless - as it so clearly does in the case of nonlocality/entanglement - then that data DOES transcend the notion that 'every thing' is separated... by concepts such as space & time, or space-time.

No, it means that our scientific concepts of space and time, space or time, or space-time are faulty or require modification. It doesn't have metaphysical implications.

You asked for a theory in science that might point to a metaphysic/reality beyond that which is perceived/observed. The fact is that that which is perceived IS divisible/separated. Whereas, that which can be discerned, via the scientific knowledge imparted to us - ('nonlocality'), is not.

... That is, current [QM] science is at-odds with the actual existence of a divided and separated reality. That is, current science hints at a unified and indivisible reality, regardless of what seems apparent: a divisible realm full of different entities.

These are philosophical inferences for which there is no empirical basis. You are using the most rigorous and precise science in the history of man for the most ambiguous and obscurantist purposes. You should be ashamed of yourself to abuse - rape - science in this fashion.

As I've said, 'science' itself cannot say these things, because of a self-imposed limiting methodology that requires observational verification. In other words, science is metaphysically impotent.

Indeed. Science is metaphysically impotent. More eloquently put, science is the accounting of data, the structuring of concepts, and one does not require the attribution of metaphysical status to either the data, the concepts, the relations between them to exercise science.

And if anybody requires to know what scientific results mean with regards 'reality', then it is clear that such an individual would have to transcend this requirement for observational verification. That is, such an individual would have to turn his back upon science, at this juncture.

I do not mean to imply that it is impossible to include science into a metaphysical frame. It is clearly possible to say "Scientific data is real" "scientific concepts are real". The point is that there is no basis to do so, and that the term 'real' is vacuous.

As for the claim that I am misrepresenting metaphysics - by little idiot - that is preposterous. Reality is the whole of existence, or at least, reality pertains to what exists. The two are inexorably linked insofar as they are defined in the context of metaphysics. With metaphysical existence discounted within metaphysics, metaphysical reality is rendered inert. This 'error' that I have supposedly made is a red herring.

Finally, my usage of necessary in the usage of A and B, is not to suggest that there is some metaphysical connection, but more to root necessity in a scientific context. It doesn't transcend that context. It's a step-up to claim that necessity in metaphysics is the misapplication of a metaphysical term. I can be judged for that - it's project is separate from my attack on metaphysics, though related. Genealogy of metaphysics, in a way. Maybe I'll be famous like Fritz!

[SpeedOfSound]

However, I can only talk about my own experience, since I have no idea what others set out to do. Yes, I started out seeking the 'Truth' (a completely accurate metaphysical position on the way things actually are), but every time I thought I had a grip on it, I would run into a contrary position that, when I removed my bias, would be equally convincing. This went on for decades. (I'm a slow learner. ) I gave up in frustration, actually. After reading about things like Godel's Incompleteness Theorum, Hume's problem of induction, etc, and eventually Pyrrhonism, I realized that I could be happy with not having a final answer. Why? Because not only have greater minds than my own been unable to find certainty, there's a pretty good chance that certainty is impossible. I still keep my mind open to evidence for certainty, but so far I just keep running into one unfounded opinion after another. Every serious metaphysical position I've run across has an equally convincing negation. That's why we keep running around in circles in threads like this; there's no more evidence for one position over the other. Just people throwing their favorite opinions at each other.

This kind of goes to my definition of spirituality. It's sort of a 'don't give a rat's ass' position. I meet with a group that has as one of it's early recommendations a request to patch up your world-view in what ever way you want with what ever belief you want including no belief at all. It prepares you to move into a new way of living that involves a lot of giving up control, opinions, and truth seeking. I think the upshot is to just shut the fuck up and go chop wood.

There are two posters here that represent a large group that like to use a little bit of science from the press to find deeper greater truth. This deeper truth is always something well outside of anything science has uncovered. They use the quantum strangeness and 'what you sense is not what is' and all other sort of jumping off points to leap into the abyssmal woo. For being of the 'spirit' mind they seem to want a whole lot more solidity to their truths than I do. They seem oddly bent on absolutes and Truth with the capital 'T'.

Isn't it ironic?

[Little Idiot]

Bit of a tangent, I know, but;
Is there a way to hyperlink to a post in this forum?

I want to link to my post earlier where I offered a definition of what metaphysics is, in order to answer the point about using science in relation to metaphysics, and I find that I cant figure linking out. Seems silly to quote the post again, and although I can cut n paste the part want it would be good for me to know how to link to it.

Trigger Warning!!!1! :

Que pointless attack from the Jerome