Metaphysics as an Error

[Surendra Darathy]

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?

Because you are not citing a peer-reviewed publication of Penrose's in a reference list for manuscript of your own to be submitted for peer review in an academic setting. Instead, you are citing a fucking youtube video, as part of a feeble wibble using non-contextual nonsense phrases such as "outside space and time".

Add another to your increasingly-lengthy record of Epic Failures, Little Idiot. Let us know when to expect a substantial argument of any kind from you, Mr. Physics Instructor.

[Little Idiot]

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?

Because you are not citing a peer-reviewed publication of Penrose's in a reference list for manuscript of your own to be submitted for peer review in an academic setting. Instead, you are citing a fucking youtube video, as part of a feeble wibble using non-contextual nonsense phrases such as "outside space and time".

Add another to your increasingly-lengthy record of Epic Failures, Little Idiot. Let us know when to expect a substantial argument of any kind from you, Mr. Physics Instructor.

By the criteria above, every post in the forum is an epic fail, because none of them are for peer review in academic settng.
Are you not my peers?
Is this not a pseudo academic setting?

And its not a youtube video.

Other than that, every word above is correct...

[Little Idiot]

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?

...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?

I dont say the model is correct, thats not the point. I am saying it can be applied to outside our space-time from inside our space and time to make emperically test-able predictions in our space-time about 'events* not inside our space and time. Thats what I mean by 'works' in the post above.

[Little Idiot]

So thats a 'no thanks, thats not enough to convince us'
And more, its 'epic fail' grade material.

[Surendra Darathy]

By the criteria above, every post in the forum is an epic fail, because none of them are for peer review in academic settng.
Are you not my peers?
Is this not a pseudo academic setting?

First of all, LI, I was addressing your protest that you were not making an argument from authority. Try to stay on the same page as your interlocutors, or your ill-matched combination of tardiness and hauteur is likely to suggest that "peer review" is not your objective, and tip us off that, in fact, your objective may not even include "discourse".

No, we are not in a pseudo-academic setting. It is an open forum, and an argument from authority made in an open forum is bound to be recognized as such, even if you are too late to catch it before you let it out like a fart in church.

I am saying it can be applied to outside our space-time from inside our space and time to make emperically test-able predictions in our space-time about 'events* not inside our space and time.

You haven't yet shown that you know what you're trying (and failing) to talk about. Mathematics can be used to make mathematical statements that are consistent with the rules and axioms of mathematics. How is it that you are in such straits to comprehend this aspect of doing mathematics? There is nothing you can get out of mathematics that you did not put into it. This does not mean that mathematical objects "exist" in a metaphysical realm different from the empirical. It means that mathematical analysis is a language which cannot nominate anything that is not a product of a chosen set of rules and axioms.

[GrahamH]

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?

...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?

I dont say the model is correct, thats not the point. I am saying it can be applied to outside our space-time from inside our space and time to make emperically test-able predictions in our space-time about 'events* not inside our space and time. Thats what I mean by 'works' in the post above.

Can it "be applied to outside our space-time"?
What are " 'events* not inside our space and time"?

[Kenny Login]

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.

Well, horses for courses.

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 sure that's the whole picture though. Theory predictions and falsifications are often bound up in metaphysical constructs. It may not be obvious or even relevant for geologists, but for neuroscientists, cognitive scientists, and - for that matter - most laypeople, such an idea is suspect.

Ahhh, argument from feeling. Yes, it's a pain in the head isn't it.

It wasn't an 'argument from feeling'. I hope you can understand the difference between expressing ideas and thoughts and formulating propositions. This is an internet forum, not a formal logic exam.

You may have to allow a tiny bit of what you consider 'wibble', otherwise we'll end up talking about a very limited range of subjects.

[Kenny Login]

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.

Hi SOS. Thanks for the summary so far, it's true, I didn't read the earlier pages.

Maybe the whole thing is a stupid human trick.

Personally I think supposing a dichotomy between empiricism and metaphysics is a bit of a false one. One that naturally arises because of the difference between an empiricist programme like scientific enquiry, and other types of empiricism. Because they are not necessarily the same.

Cheers.

[SpeedOfSound]

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?...

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!

First you get Fail Cookie for that bolded part above. You apparently think that the math that steps outside of space time steps out of the physical and the real at the same time. No. It just extends the idea of physical and real. It does so mathematically and the math must produce results that are compatible with a space/time subset or it's garbage physics. Our idea of space/time is not exactly reality sanyway. Things are much stranger than that I'm sure.

I said above :

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.

I was describing exactly what Penrose and the other fellas are doing. It's physics. It's science. It's falsifiable.

I could come up with 40 pages of abstract math that is good math yet has absolutely no predictive or descriptive power for physics. But even that does not cross the line into metaphysics. It's just math. It's not a new way of knowing things it's just a variation of the same old ways. This is the situation with reason and logic as well. These systems work and make sense to us apes.

Now if I were to say that the matter in the universe was the ultimate reality and it was solid at the quark level or something like that I would have some version of naive materialism. This would be metaphysics. In my opinion. Either way it's a silly idea. Silly Idea 1. Jamest all day has been claiming that data has to be about something. He could be claiming materialism as well as what I believe he is claiming.

If I were to introspect my mind and come up with an idea that all the universe was imagined by a mind like mine I would have silly Idea 2. Even sillier than #1. Ridiculous and unworthy of even considering it is. The idea that there is some homologue to my animal mind beneath the universe is just obfuscated egocentric bullshit.

But I hold neither of these ideas. That's what you fail to grasp about physicalism or middleism or relativism or whatever your label for me. I do not claim to be privy to the underlying nature of reality. I do claim to have some strong and reasoned opinions for some of the things it isn't. Like mentalism. Or X-God.

Mostly I think the idea of some underlying THING is Silly Idea #3. Metaphysics.

[SpeedOfSound]

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.

Hi SOS. Thanks for the summary so far, it's true, I didn't read the earlier pages.

Maybe the whole thing is a stupid human trick.

Personally I think supposing a dichotomy between empiricism and metaphysics is a bit of a false one. One that naturally arises because of the difference between an empiricist programme like scientific enquiry, and other types of empiricism. Because they are not necessarily the same.

Cheers.

I think you just have a more liberal definition of metaphysics than is being talked about here. Nothing wrong with that. We may as well use the word for something new anyway. It's old usage is pretty much garbage.

How about the 2011 Ford MetaPhysic? Runs on Pure Bullshit.

[Little Idiot]

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.

Hi SOS. Thanks for the summary so far, it's true, I didn't read the earlier pages.

Maybe the whole thing is a stupid human trick.

Personally I think supposing a dichotomy between empiricism and metaphysics is a bit of a false one. One that naturally arises because of the difference between an empiricist programme like scientific enquiry, and other types of empiricism. Because they are not necessarily the same.

Cheers.

I think you just have a more liberal definition of metaphysics than is being talked about here. Nothing wrong with that. We may as well use the word for something new anyway. It's old usage is pretty much garbage.

How about the 2011 Ford MetaPhysic? Runs on Pure Bullshit.

I think the only person in the thread so far to offer a definition (and links) of metaphysics is me. I said metaphysics is the study of all reality including but not limited to the physical. I pulled it straight off the internet.
I would suggest we all agree a physical question like 'how does the toaster work?' is not metaphysical, so the definition I offered is not complete, because strictly speaking it is according to the definition.
Now, if we say questions like these are metaphysics
1. what is the reality behind the physical appearance? (hard core metaphysics, surely?)
2. what is the nature of the reality outside space-time? (hard core metaphysics, surely?)
3. why did the universe first appear (or 'why creation?' type questions) (hard core metaphysics, surely?)
4. what was there before the Big Bang? (hard core metaphysics, surely?)

Then

1. If M-theory is a physics theory, and it attemps to answer these questions, then it is also metaphysics, then doesnt this show theories starting in Physics can become metaphysics. Why is M-theory not metaphysics?
2. Doesnt this put paid to any hard boundary between physics and metaphysics, therefore leaving no reason to object to the statement (such as Kenny made) that all science is based on a metaphysic of some sort?
3. If physics theories can be metap-physics, why cant maths?

[Little Idiot]

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?...

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!

First you get Fail Cookie for that bolded part above. You apparently think that the math that steps outside of space time steps out of the physical and the real at the same time. No. It just extends the idea of physical and real. It does so mathematically and the math must produce results that are compatible with a space/time subset or it's garbage physics. Our idea of space/time is not exactly reality sanyway. Things are much stranger than that I'm sure.

So you are agreeing now that the word 'real' is not limited to our space and time, which is what I said some pages ago when I tried to demonstrate the difference between the words real and existent.
Would you offer a definition of the word 'physical' as you are using it in this situation; you are saying physical is not 'only' space and time.

By suggesting real and physical include what is not in space and time you are agreeing with my point (in bold above)
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.

If either or both of these words include what ever is not in space-time, this is of course what James was describing when he showed how metaphysics can be done within such an emperical setting.

I said above :

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.

I was describing exactly what Penrose and the other fellas are doing. It's physics. It's science. It's falsifiable.

Agreed, but its also about such a subject as to make it metaphysics, just as I said above in my questions about M-theory. Being physics (at least in origin) does this exclude it from being meta-physics?

I could come up with 40 pages of abstract math that is good math yet has absolutely no predictive or descriptive power for physics. But even that does not cross the line into metaphysics. It's just math. It's not a new way of knowing things it's just a variation of the same old ways. This is the situation with reason and logic as well. These systems work and make sense to us apes.

This is the question; if metaphysics is questions about the nature of reality, and physics asks these questions, does it stop being physics and become metaphysics or is both physics and meta-physics.
I see no reason why it can be both; these are after all only artificial boundaries used for broad-brush distinction, not some intrinsic and definite hard boundaries. Of course that presents a problem for those who wish to say science is possible, but metaphysics is not...

I suspect you wish to say science is falsifiable, metaphysics is not - but this just so that you can stick to the position metaphysics is wibble. Isnt the real definition of metaphysics based on the questions asked and the method of attempting to answer them, rather than on the falsifiable nature of the answer?

[GrahamH]

I think the only person in the thread so far to offer a definition (and links) of metaphysics is me. I said metaphysics is the study of all reality including but not limited to the physical. I pulled it straight off the internet.

How, then is metaphysics to be defined? Is metaphysics (as metaphysics is now understood) simply a compendium of philosophical problems that cannot be assigned to epistemology or logic or ethics or aesthetics or to any of the parts of philosophy that have relatively clear definitions?

There is no entirely satisfying answer to this question. One answer to this question, Wolff's, was mentioned in Part 1: Metaphysics studies being; “general metaphysics” studies being as such; “special metaphysics” studies the being (mass term) of particular kinds of being (count noun). It was pointed out that this answer was objectionable (if for no other reason) because it was not evident that the problems of “special metaphysics” do, in any non-trivial sense, involve being. Present-day attempts to define metaphysics, however, are hardly more satisfactory. An examination of one recent account, perhaps the most detailed one available, must suffice for this article. The metaphysician Peter van Inwagen (1998a) has suggested that the essence of metaphysics consists in an attempt to describe (in a sufficiently general way) ultimate reality. (He of course attempts to give an account of “ultimate reality” and “sufficiently general way.”) But even if possible difficulties with the concepts “ultimate reality” and “sufficiently general way” are laid to one side, this suggestion faces serious problems. In the first place (unless the positivist view of science is correct: that the only business of science is to “save the appearances”), it is not clear why science, or at any rate the more theoretical parts of science, should not count as “metaphysics” by this definition. One might attempt to resolve this difficulty by appealing to some account or other of “philosophy,” and proceeding to define metaphysics as that part of philosophy that is an attempt to describe ultimate reality in a sufficiently general way. But even if the appeal to an unspecified prior account of philosophy is legitimate (such an appeal obviously rules out any attempt to understand the nature of philosophy by examining metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, and the other branches of philosophy to see what they have in common), it could be objected that the proposed account makes metaphysics co-extensive with philosophy—or at least that it assigns to metaphysics many philosophical problems that most philosophers would be strongly inclined to say did not belong to metaphysics. Is epistemology not an attempt to give an account of knowledge, and is not knowledge one part or aspect of reality? And is there any reason to suppose that knowledge is somehow a significantly less “general” concept than personal identity or parthood or the ability to act otherwise? (Or if knowledge is an illusion, if knowledge belongs to appearance rather than to reality, will the statement “Knowledge is an illusion” not be one component of a description of ultimate reality—and an extremely important one at that?) Similar questions can be asked with respect to many of, if not all, the traditional sub-areas of philosophy.

[Kenny Login]

I think you just have a more liberal definition of metaphysics than is being talked about here.

Yes, you're right. The OP carried kind of a different meaning to metaphysics as I was using it. I think I've caught up now.

if metaphysics is questions about the nature of reality, and physics asks these questions, does it stop being physics and become metaphysics or is both physics and meta-physics.
I see no reason why it can be both; these are after all only artificial boundaries used for broad-brush distinction, not some intrinsic and definite hard boundaries. Of course that presents a problem for those who wish to say science is possible, but metaphysics is not...

I suspect you wish to say science is falsifiable, metaphysics is not - but this just so that you can stick to the position metaphysics is wibble. Isnt the real definition of metaphysics based on the questions asked and the method of attempting to answer them, rather than on the falsifiable nature of the answer?

(bold mine)

I am in total agreement with this (N.B. Important thread announcement: This is not a joke. Repeat: NOT a joke).

I don't think you can cleave the formal study of metaphysics from the formal study of empiricism and render it obsolete. To a large extent this has been the legacy of (logical) positivism - to attempt to dispense with metaphysics just as you would god. But it's merely been swept under the rug of positivism (and similar things could be said regarding god). My own position is that the rug bulges all over the place.

In general psychological terms, one way of looking at it is whether you:

a) think that blurring the edges of knowledge, thought and language is abhorrent and obfuscatory, or b) your observations - either individually or as part of an empirical programme - lead you to suspect that things just ARE more blurry and obfuscatory than the logical positivists would like to tolerate.

[Luis Dias]

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.

How can you show that it works "outside space and time", if you have no access to it? And if you do, how is it metaphysics? It's either science or speculation. There are no metaphysics implied here.

IF THATS NOT ENOUGH WTF DO YOU WANT!

We want you to understand what is demanded from metaphysics in this thread. So far, with more than 400 posts, you haven't been able to understand it.

EDIT I am going for a few minutes, you decide if you are interested or not ...

Is this a joke? You work better in your reading comprehension skills and then come back.