Metaphysics as an Error

Locked
User avatar
Surendra Darathy
Posts: 701
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 3:45 pm
About me: I am only human. Keep in mind, I am Russian. And is no part of speech in Russian equivalent to definite article in English. Bad enough is no present tense of verb "to be".
Location: Rugburn-on-Knees, Kent, UK
Contact:

Re: Metaphysics as an Error

Post by Surendra Darathy » Wed Mar 03, 2010 5:42 pm

Luis Dias wrote:
Surendra Darathy wrote:Engineering is a sign that intelligible conversations are taking place, where the word "objective" means "goal" and is used in the context of "design objective", and where "failure" also has a definition. Metaphysics is an archery competition in which the contestants release their arrows first, and declare what the target is only afterwards.
I like that. Metaphysicians as Texas Sharpshooters...

Conveniently drawing up the target after science has made the shots since 350 BC...
Or else they say that "metaphysics is the quest to understand rationality", in which case they simply say that the arrow is the same as the target. Very Zennoid. Zennish? Zenniferous? Zenitudinal? What is the essence of Zenness? Zennessness!

Then we have Zenicity, Zenality, and Quasi-meta-para-zeniferousnessness.

Rationality understanding itself is like water washing itself. It's the mystic mystique mistake. The dogma enigma.

No matter how much dogged determination is in your dogma, unless you're the lead dog, the scenery never changes.

Onward! Ice and high mountains! Mush! you huskies!
I'll get you, my pretty, and your little God, too!

User avatar
Luis Dias
Posts: 113
Joined: Thu Feb 25, 2010 1:17 pm
Contact:

Re: Metaphysics as an Error

Post by Luis Dias » Wed Mar 03, 2010 5:55 pm

Surendra Darathy wrote:Then we have Zenicity, Zenality, and Quasi-meta-para-zeniferousnessness.
Somehow remembered this text of mine from 2004...

Sorry for the (hilarious) bad translation of it.

http://translate.google.pt/translate?js ... l=pt&tl=en

"I am the Zeno Error Incarnate!!" :biggrin:

Kenny Login
Posts: 45
Joined: Tue Mar 02, 2010 4:15 pm
Contact:

Re: Metaphysics as an Error

Post by Kenny Login » Wed Mar 03, 2010 6:15 pm

Luis and Surendra -

Ok, I'm a bit puzzled by all this.

There seems little doubt that the kind of conversation regarding metaphysics is NOT the kind of conversation you would have about metallurgy or about chess. Then, I think, it's a matter of personal taste as to whether that conversation is worth having at all. I think it is, hence why I was drawn to this thread.

The intelligible conversations that scientists have with one another do not necessarily transgress the boundaries of their field, or indeed the scientific process as a whole. But to deny that it's worth talking about the axioms of any system of enquiry seems kind of strange. Again, my personal taste.

Those types of engineering conversations are undoubtedly fruitful but may have limited scope. Not everyone discovers much about themselves or the world by finding out how a hoover works.

So if I can start again - and I hope this is still in keeping with the spirit of the thread - I am genuinely interested to see if it's possible to conduct any sort of data gathering exercise without being bound by metaphysical operandi. I'm not that much in favour of pontificating about these operandi for hours at a time, but equally I feel not to acknowledge that they might have a powerful role to play in empirical enquiry is a mistake.

P.S. Surely people realise that comment about agreeing with everything was meant as a bit of humour? Surely?!

User avatar
Luis Dias
Posts: 113
Joined: Thu Feb 25, 2010 1:17 pm
Contact:

Re: Metaphysics as an Error

Post by Luis Dias » Wed Mar 03, 2010 6:27 pm

Kenny Login wrote:Luis and Surendra -

Ok, I'm a bit puzzled by all this.

There seems little doubt that the kind of conversation regarding metaphysics is NOT the kind of conversation you would have about metallurgy or about chess. Then, I think, it's a matter of personal taste as to whether that conversation is worth having at all. I think it is, hence why I was drawn to this thread.
You probably got the wrong thread. Read the OP. The discussion, the "actual" one (perhaps the metaphysicians like this wording better) is about whether metaphysical wibbling is even distinguishable from gibberish.
The intelligible conversations that scientists have with one another do not necessarily transgress the boundaries of their field, or indeed the scientific process as a whole. But to deny that it's worth talking about the axioms of any system of enquiry seems kind of strange. Again, my personal taste.
No one claimed this. To question axioms is what led me to this agnostic position regarding metaphysics. And it's a hard agnosticism, as in, "I don't think anyone can be anything other than agnostic on this without making shit up", but I'm open to evidence. This is why I'm interested in this thread. To see if the wibblers really come up with a good argument. So far, only commonalities and strawmens. I'm deeply disappointed.

You, sir, are not straying far from that disappointment. Apparently you don't even understand the thematic of the OP.
Those types of engineering conversations are undoubtedly fruitful but may have limited scope. Not everyone discovers much about themselves or the world by finding out how a hoover works.
Not everyone, for sure. But then again, not everyone is intelligent. An intelligent man could gather much information from such an engineering feat.
So if I can start again - and I hope this is still in keeping with the spirit of the thread - I am genuinely interested to see if it's possible to conduct any sort of data gathering exercise without being bound by metaphysical operandi.
Just read any scientific paper. They are doing it all the time. Science is positivistic, by current definition. All that matters are theory predictions and falsifications of said theories.
I'm not that much in favour of pontificating about these operandi for hours at a time, but equally I feel not to acknowledge that they might have a powerful role to play in empirical enquiry is a mistake.
Ahhh, argument from feeling. Yes, it's a pain in the head isn't it. One also watches a lot of fundies trying to get around the idea that there are people making sense of the world without any god in it. They cannot believe that god doesn't play any role in their lives. Somehow. In any subtle way. I mean, it's impossible to live without god, isn't it?
P.S. Surely people realise that comment about agreeing with everything was meant as a bit of humour? Surely?!
I'm afraid that any bad humor such as that will be taken as a Poe. Yeah, the wibblers' reasoning is that bad.
Last edited by Luis Dias on Wed Mar 03, 2010 6:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.

SpeedOfSound
Posts: 668
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 5:05 am
Contact:

Re: Metaphysics as an Error

Post by SpeedOfSound » Wed Mar 03, 2010 6:27 pm

Kenny Login wrote: P.S. Surely people realise that comment about agreeing with everything was meant as a bit of humour? Surely?!
No! You said it we are going to hold you to it. These forums are intellectually binding contracts. Anything you say can and WILL be used against you. Smiley face does not change the contract. :D :D :D
Favorite quote:
lifegazer says "Now, the only way to proceed to claim that brains create experience, is to believe that real brains exist (we certainly cannot study them). And if a scientist does this, he transcends the barriers of both science and metaphysics."

SpeedOfSound
Posts: 668
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 5:05 am
Contact:

Re: Metaphysics as an Error

Post by SpeedOfSound » Wed Mar 03, 2010 6:39 pm

Kenny Login wrote: There seems little doubt that the kind of conversation regarding metaphysics is NOT the kind of conversation you would have about metallurgy or about chess. Then, I think, it's a matter of personal taste as to whether that conversation is worth having at all. I think it is, hence why I was drawn to this thread.
I'm not too sure what metaphysics even is to tell you the truth. I am skeptical about it being anything other than a stupid human trick. I suppose it is about the true nature of things or answering questions such as is there Really matter or what is the true nature of mind.

LittleIdiot and jamest both believe in some version of 'it's all mental' or some Big Mind or Sentient God is thinking all of this thing we find ourselves in.

Now if I were to come up with 40 pages of math that described a geometry in which all of the laws of physics were derived, this would still not be META-physics. This would still be physics.

What is being asked after in the OP is a grounds to go beyond that. Do the words like exist and real have any justification outside of the empirical realm we find ourselves in.
Favorite quote:
lifegazer says "Now, the only way to proceed to claim that brains create experience, is to believe that real brains exist (we certainly cannot study them). And if a scientist does this, he transcends the barriers of both science and metaphysics."

User avatar
Surendra Darathy
Posts: 701
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 3:45 pm
About me: I am only human. Keep in mind, I am Russian. And is no part of speech in Russian equivalent to definite article in English. Bad enough is no present tense of verb "to be".
Location: Rugburn-on-Knees, Kent, UK
Contact:

Re: Metaphysics as an Error

Post by Surendra Darathy » Wed Mar 03, 2010 6:40 pm

Kenny Login wrote:Not everyone discovers much about themselves or the world by finding out how a hoover works.
I'll get you, my pretty, and your little God, too!

User avatar
Surendra Darathy
Posts: 701
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 3:45 pm
About me: I am only human. Keep in mind, I am Russian. And is no part of speech in Russian equivalent to definite article in English. Bad enough is no present tense of verb "to be".
Location: Rugburn-on-Knees, Kent, UK
Contact:

Re: Metaphysics as an Error

Post by Surendra Darathy » Wed Mar 03, 2010 6:52 pm

Kenny Login wrote:I am genuinely interested to see if it's possible to conduct any sort of data gathering exercise without being bound by metaphysical operandi.
Don't invest in any equity shares, Kenny. That's not the sort of data-gathering exercise in the conduct of which you will want to be bound by any metaphysical operandi.

Operandi? Is he any relation to James Randi?

Ba-dum-kish. Rhymes with Ding-an-sich. :razzle:
Last edited by Surendra Darathy on Wed Mar 03, 2010 6:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.
I'll get you, my pretty, and your little God, too!

User avatar
Little Idiot
Posts: 417
Joined: Thu Feb 25, 2010 7:09 am
About me: I really am a Physics teacher and tutor to undergraduate level, honestly!
Location: On a stairway to heaven
Contact:

Re: Metaphysics as an Error

Post by Little Idiot » Wed Mar 03, 2010 6:53 pm

SpeedOfSound wrote:
Kenny Login wrote: P.S. Surely people realise that comment about agreeing with everything was meant as a bit of humour? Surely?!
No! You said it we are going to hold you to it. These forums are intellectually binding contracts. Anything you say can and WILL be used against you. Smiley face does not change the contract. :D :D :D
hehe ;)

You asked earlier;
SpeedOfSound wrote:
Little Idiot wrote: Thats not what I said; I said the laws which the behaviour follow existed before the atoms which follow the rules existed - the rules can exist without any atoms to follow them, dont you think?
How do you know that?
DISCLAIMER 'beyond*' and 'start*' are spacial and temporal term applied out side the space-time domain for suggestion of meaning - this does not suggest that I am ignorant of the inappropriate use of these terms, they are used for simplicity and for the purpose of suggestive communication only.

If I were to show a mathematical model which can work 'before*' the big bang, accepted by mathematicians like penrose (who I will show presenting the concept) which could be potentialy empericaly verified or falsified in the by back-ground radiation analysis? would you shout 'woo woo!' or would you actually agree that this proves the fact that it is possible to construct mathematical models (which may or may not be accurate - thats not the point at this stage) as Penrose does in the clip I will link of 'beyond*' the 'start*' of our space-time, proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that our maths does not need our space-time to be real, and thus does not need our empirical or physical to be real. Can you dispute that, or would you agree?
An advanced intellect can consider fairly the merits of an idea when the idea is not its own.
An advanced personality considers the ego to be an ugly thing, and none more so that its own.
An advanced mind grows satiated with experience and starts to wonder 'why?'

User avatar
Surendra Darathy
Posts: 701
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 3:45 pm
About me: I am only human. Keep in mind, I am Russian. And is no part of speech in Russian equivalent to definite article in English. Bad enough is no present tense of verb "to be".
Location: Rugburn-on-Knees, Kent, UK
Contact:

Re: Metaphysics as an Error

Post by Surendra Darathy » Wed Mar 03, 2010 7:00 pm

Little Idiot wrote:accepted by mathematicians like penrose
Aside from this being the start of an argument from authority, let's see where it goes.
Little Idiot wrote:...our maths does not need our space-time to be real, and thus does not need our empirical or physical to be real. Can you dispute that, or would you agree?
You're ahead of yourself, once again. This thread is not about whether a particular metaphysics is or is not implied by the data. It's about whether metaphysics is coherent. One thing your little digression should tell us is that, since any metaphysics is not determined by the data, any metaphysics is entirely arbitrary.

More epic fail from those who brought you "obviousnessness".
the rules can exist without any atoms to follow them, dont you think?
Our models are only the rules for predicting the results of future experiments, or of recovering or summarizing data from past experiments without actually performing the experiments. Science does not purport to give you the bylaws of existence. Stop with these canards, already!

Geriatric, doddering hulks like Penrose have done great work in the past. When they get round to puffing about metaphysical things, it means that they are no longer balls-out for doing any new science or math.
Last edited by Surendra Darathy on Wed Mar 03, 2010 7:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.
I'll get you, my pretty, and your little God, too!

SpeedOfSound
Posts: 668
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 5:05 am
Contact:

Re: Metaphysics as an Error

Post by SpeedOfSound » Wed Mar 03, 2010 7:10 pm

Little Idiot wrote: You asked earlier;
SpeedOfSound wrote:
Little Idiot wrote: Thats not what I said; I said the laws which the behaviour follow existed before the atoms which follow the rules existed - the rules can exist without any atoms to follow them, dont you think?
How do you know that?
DISCLAIMER 'beyond*' and 'start*' are spacial and temporal term applied out side the space-time domain for suggestion of meaning - this does not suggest that I am ignorant of the inappropriate use of these terms, they are used for simplicity and for the purpose of suggestive communication only.

If I were to show a mathematical model which can work 'before*' the big bang, accepted by mathematicians like penrose (who I will show presenting the concept) which could be potentialy empericaly verified or falsified in the by back-ground radiation analysis? would you shout 'woo woo!' or would you actually agree that this proves the fact that it is possible to construct mathematical models (which may or may not be accurate - thats not the point at this stage) as Penrose does in the clip I will link of 'beyond*' the 'start*' of our space-time, proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that our maths does not need our space-time to be real, and thus does not need our empirical or physical to be real. Can you dispute that, or would you agree?
Isn't Penrose that guy that thought quantum microtubulating worms made consciousness? :funny:
proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that our maths does not need our space-time to be real, and thus does not need our empirical or physical to be real.
Our empirical/physical thingy is where 'real' comes from so I'm going to have to call Fail Cookie on this one.

Saying that real isn't really real or IS really real is the problem with metaphysics. It's a silly thing to do. Things are as real as it gets without this nonsense.

Unless you can justify using real outside of our real world.
Favorite quote:
lifegazer says "Now, the only way to proceed to claim that brains create experience, is to believe that real brains exist (we certainly cannot study them). And if a scientist does this, he transcends the barriers of both science and metaphysics."

User avatar
Surendra Darathy
Posts: 701
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 3:45 pm
About me: I am only human. Keep in mind, I am Russian. And is no part of speech in Russian equivalent to definite article in English. Bad enough is no present tense of verb "to be".
Location: Rugburn-on-Knees, Kent, UK
Contact:

Re: Metaphysics as an Error

Post by Surendra Darathy » Wed Mar 03, 2010 7:12 pm

SpeedOfSound wrote: Unless you can justify using real outside of our real world.
Steven Wright wrote:Just the other day, I got into a furious argument with a guy over what he considered to be an "odd" number.
I'll get you, my pretty, and your little God, too!

User avatar
Little Idiot
Posts: 417
Joined: Thu Feb 25, 2010 7:09 am
About me: I really am a Physics teacher and tutor to undergraduate level, honestly!
Location: On a stairway to heaven
Contact:

Re: Metaphysics as an Error

Post by Little Idiot » Wed Mar 03, 2010 7:13 pm

Surendra Darathy wrote:
Little Idiot wrote:accepted by mathematicians like penrose
Aside from this being the start of an argument from authority, let's see where it goes.
How unexpected! mentioning the name of a very skilled mathematician and creditting him with his own model is not cool? :doh:
Little Idiot wrote:...our maths does not need our space-time to be real, and thus does not need our empirical or physical to be real. Can you dispute that, or would you agree?
You're ahead of yourself, once again. This thread is not about whether a particular metaphysics is or is not implied by the data. It's about whether metaphysics is coherent. One thing your little digression should tell us is that, since any metaphysics is not determined by the data, any metaphysics is entirely arbitrary.

More epic fail from those who brought you "obviousnessness".
Not so, if I prove maths works 'outside*' space and time, where empericism can not possibly do so, I prove empericism can not solve all the questions which are askable. Doesnt this prove the possibility of asking and answering questions of non-physical nature, this is part of metaphysics.
Would you not accept, thats QED as far as proving metaphysics is possible and dismissing the argument 'metaphysics is an error'?
An advanced intellect can consider fairly the merits of an idea when the idea is not its own.
An advanced personality considers the ego to be an ugly thing, and none more so that its own.
An advanced mind grows satiated with experience and starts to wonder 'why?'

User avatar
Little Idiot
Posts: 417
Joined: Thu Feb 25, 2010 7:09 am
About me: I really am a Physics teacher and tutor to undergraduate level, honestly!
Location: On a stairway to heaven
Contact:

Re: Metaphysics as an Error

Post by Little Idiot » Wed Mar 03, 2010 7:17 pm

SpeedOfSound wrote:
Little Idiot wrote: You asked earlier;
SpeedOfSound wrote:
Little Idiot wrote: Thats not what I said; I said the laws which the behaviour follow existed before the atoms which follow the rules existed - the rules can exist without any atoms to follow them, dont you think?
How do you know that?
DISCLAIMER 'beyond*' and 'start*' are spacial and temporal term applied out side the space-time domain for suggestion of meaning - this does not suggest that I am ignorant of the inappropriate use of these terms, they are used for simplicity and for the purpose of suggestive communication only.

If I were to show a mathematical model which can work 'before*' the big bang, accepted by mathematicians like penrose (who I will show presenting the concept) which could be potentialy empericaly verified or falsified in the by back-ground radiation analysis? would you shout 'woo woo!' or would you actually agree that this proves the fact that it is possible to construct mathematical models (which may or may not be accurate - thats not the point at this stage) as Penrose does in the clip I will link of 'beyond*' the 'start*' of our space-time, proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that our maths does not need our space-time to be real, and thus does not need our empirical or physical to be real. Can you dispute that, or would you agree?
Isn't Penrose that guy that thought quantum microtubulating worms made consciousness? :funny:
proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that our maths does not need our space-time to be real, and thus does not need our empirical or physical to be real.
Our empirical/physical thingy is where 'real' comes from so I'm going to have to call Fail Cookie on this one.

Saying that real isn't really real or IS really real is the problem with metaphysics. It's a silly thing to do. Things are as real as it gets without this nonsense.

Unless you can justify using real outside of our real world.
Thats kind of my point, it is working outside the current space time world, proving as I said some time ago that the physical space-time world is not the limit of reality.
The model provides emperically testable predictions, and can be falsified, and works outside space and time.

IF THATS NOT ENOUGH WTF DO YOU WANT!

EDIT I am going for a few minutes, you decide if you are interested or not ...
An advanced intellect can consider fairly the merits of an idea when the idea is not its own.
An advanced personality considers the ego to be an ugly thing, and none more so that its own.
An advanced mind grows satiated with experience and starts to wonder 'why?'

User avatar
GrahamH
Posts: 921
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 12:29 pm
Location: South coast, UK
Contact:

Re: Metaphysics as an Error

Post by GrahamH » Wed Mar 03, 2010 7:34 pm

Little Idiot wrote:
Surendra Darathy wrote:
Little Idiot wrote:accepted by mathematicians like penrose
Aside from this being the start of an argument from authority, let's see where it goes.
How unexpected! mentioning the name of a very skilled mathematician and creditting him with his own model is not cool? :doh:
Little Idiot wrote:...our maths does not need our space-time to be real, and thus does not need our empirical or physical to be real. Can you dispute that, or would you agree?
You're ahead of yourself, once again. This thread is not about whether a particular metaphysics is or is not implied by the data. It's about whether metaphysics is coherent. One thing your little digression should tell us is that, since any metaphysics is not determined by the data, any metaphysics is entirely arbitrary.

More epic fail from those who brought you "obviousnessness".
Not so, if I prove maths works 'outside*' space and time, where empiricism can not possibly do so, I prove empiricism can not solve all the questions which are askable. Doesnt this prove the possibility of asking and answering questions of non-physical nature, this is part of metaphysics.
Would you not accept, thats QED as far as proving metaphysics is possible and dismissing the argument 'metaphysics is an error'?
You can't "prove maths works 'outside*' space and time". It may be possible to develop a model, using mathematics that "works inside space & time", that seems to offer a viable hypothesis for some aspect of evolution of the universe, but that doesn't prove what you claim.

Empiricism uses mathematical models.
You have no access to "outside space and time" and the only things you can meaningfully say about the concept is in relation to empirical observations (e.g. cosmic background)

What "question of a non physical nature" did you have in mind, and how would you know if you had an answer to it?

Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests