Metaphysics as an Error

[Little Idiot]

It is you and James who think there is something that can be said about "absolute truth" which is "more than an opinion". Isn't that what metaphysics is supposed to be about, by your own definition? Your opponents say metaphysics is, and can only be, unjustified opinion, or mythology, because there is no way to ground it.

The only things that have bee said for metaphysics here so far are fanciful speculations spiralling off from empirical physics - e.g. Cosmic background, or fanciful claims that mathematics is not based on empirically defined axioms.

I think there is no need to defend maths as being able to produce knowledge , pi = 3.142 the ratio of the diameter to radius of a circle is known, and is knowledge. Given X and an equation we can find Y. This does not need defending.
You know this, as you dont actually commit to saying mathd does not give knowledge, which is a shame, we could do with a laugh.

I did get a chuckle out of that. How do we come by the knowledge of PI? By measuring circles and working out ways to better approximate the ratio we find! You have that one backwards.

Can you measure pi? or infinity, or orders of infinity, imaginary numbers and so on.
Do you suggest all maths is based on the emperical?

Of course you can measure PI, and of course, like any measurement it has imprecision. It can be measured to be 3 and a bit.

Do you think PI is a property of circles, or a "law" that makes circles possible?

I think pi can be accuratly calcutated and known to a far greater (correct) accuracy than it can be measured, showing calculation generating more knowledge than measurement.

What of the others on the list?

[Little Idiot]

Can you measure pi? or infinity, or orders of infinity, imaginary numbers and so on.
Do you suggest all maths is based on the emperical?

Yes. I would suggest that. 'based on'. They don't stay there by any means. I think you are suggesting the opposite. It's a bit confusing this chicken and the egg thing.

So its a race between you and Graham to demonstrate how to emperically measure infinity, the orders of infinity

[Little Idiot]

So because Penrose thinks x it must be the case? What's the relevance of Penrose or the 'vast majority' of the academic maths community? Mathematical platonism isn't as popular as it used to be, by the way. Neither is what I'm suggesting popular, but I find it hard to believe we are now submitting these question to the popular vote, or to the discretion of Penrose.

You do read English, dont you?
I proved it my self first with 'odds and evens' (proof which no one could dismiss),
the used my proof as foundation to link into Penrose.
I and he prove the same point,
I and my peers working with odds and evens,
he and his working with the cosmos and residue from pre-big-bang. If I prove odds and even, thats OK, its a suitable level, if I claim to prove the existence of a cosmos before space time, and suggest examination of the background radiation can emperically show this, you must agree its best I use Penrose or other proffessors to argue the point?

What did you prove with odds and evens again?

I thought it was that there were other ways of knowing besides the empirical? But then you didn't really prove that at all anyway.

I demonstrated that we can prove it mathematically, but not demonstrate it emperically. Nobody could do so.
On what grounds is my point not proven?
Because you say so, or is there a reason you can point to?

Do you read English? CDSG said there is nothing in the math that we didn't put there. Thee is some work needed in explaining that to you as well as supporting it.

Oh well if CDSG said so, its proven
I countered that mathematical processing can make explicit what was implicit in the data; i.e. can make known what was previously unknown, i.e. generate knowledge.
A pile of unprocessed data may indeed implicitly prove that the sun does not orbit the Earth, and the opposite is true, but you dont give ANY of the credit for generation of the explicit knowledge of the fact that the Earth orbits the sun to the complex processing of the data, rather than the pile of data which confirms it implicitly?
Are you sure?

But I just wanted to caution you on believing your own press about what you have proven. In every case where you claim this sort of thing what you have proven is that you have the staying power to frustrate people into dropping their efforts to show you the flaws. An old Norwegian grandpa of my friend used the phrase: "Strong like bull, smart like tractor'. I'm reminded.

But we are all done with that conversation for the time being.

Remember that I said I was in defensive mode due to the barage of insults and derision?
Thats the defensive mode.

Focus on THIS.

1. You are claiming a new way of knowing that is not empirical.

Then you say:

and suggest examination of the background radiation can emperically show this, you must agree its best I use Penrose or other proffessors to argue the point?

You just pointed out that empirical evidence is suggested by Penrose to verify his theory. ????

No, I Point out that empericism alone is not enough. I do not say it should be replaced and ignored.
In other words; good knowledge should not contradict the emperical evidence, but good knowledge seeking or aquisition should not be limited to its methods. The proper use is as a part of a synthesis. The error of excess is the opinion that it is the only way and all others are obsolete - thats what I am trying to show.

2. Penrose doesn't have a theory yet. He was suggesting an intuitive way of developing one that is I think brilliant. He doesn't have the math yet to support it is what I heard him saying.

3. If he did have such a theory it would be like my suggested 40 pages. It would be pure math that we developed that would accurately model our empirical data on this universe. Remember I suggested that space/time was a stupid human trick and that the math would be in some other geometry than that. Before you drug the old English dude in.

So. What we would get out of such math is a prediction of empirical data. That's what we wanted out of it so that's what we put into it.

With odds and evens the situation is the same. We started with cutting fish and we created math to help us cut them.

Do we get new knowledge from this? I think so if we define knowledge as predictive power. But what is predictive power?

Edit: I think the pure math physics is also giving us knowledge in the form of predicting what happened before as well as prediction. But it's still all verified empirically.

Penrose said his model does not contradict current models like inflation, but it adds points inflation cant explain. Therefore it can make predictions unique to itself, and he shows how these can be emperically tested (in principle at least).
If Penrose has not got the maths, but made predictions on the model which turned out right, should we say 'fail cookies, we dont have the maths' or do we get a team on the task and fill in the gaps?

[Little Idiot]

Before I miss the chance I want to tell you my opinion of Penrose on the mind and the triumvirate. That clip.

He is talking out of his ass about something he is not qualified to talk about. He did this before with his microtubule fart-gas. Clips of prominent scientists and out of context quotes where they was philosophical have always been a problem with these forum conversations.

That's all they are is a problem. They lend nothing else to the discussion.

Even if you dont like his ideas, the fact remains that he is one of the most qualified me in the western world in the sphere under discussion.
The clip is not a 30 second u-tube snip from a larger context, it is a complete question followed by his complete answer to the stated question.

Ahh. Here is an example. Planck is a favorite among the christians too.

Funny thing that.
Bohr creditted the ancient traditions for his ideas.
Max Planck stated clearly that consciousness was behind all existence (I quote him earlier).
John Wheeler (last of the 'fathers of QM') said "No phenomenon is a real phenomenon until it is an observed phenomenon." As he aged (and had a heart attack) said he had only time left to focus on one idead and spent his last years on the point that "human consciousness shapes not only the present but the past as well" here is a link to Discover in 2002where at age 90 (with 6 years left to live) he confirms this. There is also a bit on his 'delayed choice experiment' where a photons path can change retro-spectively by millions of light years when a human observes it.

So it is fair to say the majority of the early scientists who descovered QM took this idea of 'consciousness as a foundation for reality' seriously. Its equally true to say that there are respectable current scientists who take it seriously.

Equally it is obviously valid to say "No one takes Penrose - or Hameroff for that matter - seriously." is both a profound error, and a statement from ignorance. You said yourself that we dont submit these things to public vote.

It is far more accurate to say nobody takes YOU seriously.

These are scientists talking out of their assess after they get famous. Just move along. Nothing important to look at here. Old clueless physicists do not have a fucking thing to say about the brain. Call that an SOS principle.

We are not talking about the brain.
And who is more entitled to express opinion upon themeaning of QM than the guys who created it. Did you read the descover article from 2002 with the thoght experiment where the observer today seems to determine events that were decided in the distant past? It was originally thought of as a curiosity, but since then has been demonstrated in the lab. This shows he was qualified to make the suggestion silly as it seemed to all at the time.

[GrahamH]

It is you and James who think there is something that can be said about "absolute truth" which is "more than an opinion". Isn't that what metaphysics is supposed to be about, by your own definition? Your opponents say metaphysics is, and can only be, unjustified opinion, or mythology, because there is no way to ground it.

The only things that have bee said for metaphysics here so far are fanciful speculations spiralling off from empirical physics - e.g. Cosmic background, or fanciful claims that mathematics is not based on empirically defined axioms.

I think there is no need to defend maths as being able to produce knowledge , pi = 3.142 the ratio of the diameter to radius of a circle is known, and is knowledge. Given X and an equation we can find Y. This does not need defending.
You know this, as you dont actually commit to saying mathd does not give knowledge, which is a shame, we could do with a laugh.

I did get a chuckle out of that. How do we come by the knowledge of PI? By measuring circles and working out ways to better approximate the ratio we find! You have that one backwards.

Can you measure pi? or infinity, or orders of infinity, imaginary numbers and so on.
Do you suggest all maths is based on the emperical?

Of course you can measure PI, and of course, like any measurement it has imprecision. It can be measured to be 3 and a bit.

Do you think PI is a property of circles, or a "law" that makes circles possible?

I think pi can be accuratly calcutated and known to a far greater (correct) accuracy than it can be measured, showing calculation generating more knowledge than measurement.

What of the others on the list?

What I was pointing out is that PI arose from observation and measurement of round shapes. The maths followed from empiricism, rather than, as you suggested, maths creating knowledge of PI. The significance and origin of PI was in its application to physical objects.

I think the axioms of mathematics arose from empiricism. Integer arithmetic arose from experience of physical quantities, real numbers and fractions arose from the need to sub-divide physical quantities. The concepts of zero and Infinity arose from speculation about whether counting has a limit.
Does nothing exist?
Does infinity exist?
Does the square root of -1 exist?
Are these meaningful questions to ask?

Does PI make circles round, or is PI an observed property of circles?

[GrahamH]

...
Did you read the descover article from 2002 with the thoght experiment where the observer today seems to determine events that were decided in the distant past? It was originally thought of as a curiosity, but since then has been demonstrated in the lab. This shows he was qualified to make the suggestion silly as it seemed to all at the time.

I missed that, do you have a reference, it sounds interesting.

[Little Idiot]

That is fundamental error.
Knowledge that there was a previous universe before this one will provide an answer to metaphysical questions about the distant future and past of the universe, including the 'past* before* our time', and answer clearly the ultimate fate of the cosmos.

Yes it is a fundamental error of yours. This is physics not metaphysics. If you are arguing with the OP then he gets to use his definition else you have straw in your fist.

I am saying metephysics is possible, and to do so I do not need to use the definition of the OP, doubly so if that means the study of existence.

[Surendra Darathy]

Metaphysics is still an error.

Well, thinking in a different frame of reference to you doesnot mean I am lower on the conceptual comtinuum.

OK, then back to square-one for you. You have a concept you wish to present. The whole point of teaching is to convey concepts to other people, rather than to claim you have "inner vision". I will remark parenthetically that I find it a bit ironic to still be dealing with you on the issue of "teaching". Let's see how you do in presenting your "concept":

My real thinking doesnt even come down here very much; mentalism starts from idealism and goes on from there.

Unfortunately, dear boy, imparting concepts to other people does turn out to involve "real thinking" (you know, the kind that brains do) rather than "mentalism". That this is one of the great scandals of the woo-heads' own devising is just one more dollop of irony in performance already gravid with a whole litter of ironic moments. If you could impart the secrets of the Ground of Being to people with, say, mental telepathy, sure, we would have a case for some metaphysics. Still, the phenomenon of telepathy between two living humans needs to be demonstrated empirically. Nasty customer, that.

Were still in philosophy 101 'It seems too hard to believe but what if the world really was a mental creation?"

You know, Little Idiot, I often used to ask myself as a child, "What if the whole universe was merely a tiny atom inside a much larger MegaCosmos?" I found out that other people ask the same sorts of "what-if" questions, like "What if I stuck a pair of drumsticks up my nostrils as far as they could go?"

You see my subjective proof is not open to you unless you are prepared to consider this question and apply the experimental hypothesis it suggests to your own experimental lab.

This word salad needs (but does not really deserve) careful dissection. First of all, there is no such thing as a "subjective proof". A subjective proof has about the same ontological status as a square circle. I think you may mean "arriving at my subjective conviction by unspecified methods". As for whether your subjective conviction can suggest to me an hypothesis to test empirically, well, it is up to you to state the part of your subjective conviction that leads to an hypothesis testable in the empirical frame. So what it amounts to is some empty rhetoric with soothing-sounding phrases that adds nothing to our discourse, though I do not consider it entirely a waste of time to point it out to the rest of your audience.

So, Little Idiot, what is it exactly about the question, "What if the world was really a mental creation?" that suggests an experimental (as opposed to a wibbling) hypothesis? What design does it suggest for some new piece of laboratory apparatus? The answer, me bhoyo, is that it is a nonsense question in an experimental context. It does nothing more than speculate, "What if metaphysics was possible?" and sounds like my question about drumsticks. You are still at square zero as far as demonstrating that metaphysics is possible.

...your own life, and your own mind's potential to create change.

Yes, but what sort of change. Let's not go about specifying the targets only after we release the arrows. Even tiddly winks players do not engage in that sort of sophistry.

What is it that stops you bending the spoon?

You mean, with my "mind"? I'd pretty much say that ordinary classical mechanics explains why brain waves of the sort detected on EEGs are of too low an energy to bend spoons.

Is it the nature of spoons not to bend, or is it the nature of you not to bend the spoons?

It is in the nature of the ordinary classical mechanics that a force of so many dynes will bend a standard metal spoon handle. We know what the shear strength of stainless steel alloy actually is. We measured it. Empirically.

Have you tried to bend the spoon, or you just know; spoons dont bend, therefore no need to try and check?

I'm not going to waste my time, Little Idiot. I know the shear strength of stainless steel alloy. If you have some great woo power as a result of your "different frame of reference", let's see you demonstrate it in action. Make it like one of those demonstrations you do as a "physics teacher".

[Little Idiot]

...
Did you read the descover article from 2002 with the thoght experiment where the observer today seems to determine events that were decided in the distant past? It was originally thought of as a curiosity, but since then has been demonstrated in the lab. This shows he was qualified to make the suggestion silly as it seemed to all at the time.

I missed that, do you have a reference, it sounds interesting.

Sure mate, here you are.

[GrahamH]

Have you tried to bend the spoon, or you just know; spoons dont bend, therefore no need to try and check?

I'm not going to waste my time, Little Idiot. I know the shear strength of stainless steel alloy. If you have some great woo power as a result of your "different frame of reference", let's see you demonstrate it in action. Make it like one of those demonstrations you do as a "physics teacher".

I would like to see LI bend spoons with his mind. It must be perplexing to idealists that all this "mental" is so bloody immutable to their "minds".

[Surendra Darathy]

Metaphysics is still an error.

There's a reason why I'm talking about empirical programmes, rather than purely scientific programmes. Economics, social sciences etc are still valid sources of knowledge. As indeed are personal empirical programmes, although perhaps it's a terrible faux pas to say such things on this thread.

The only thing that is a "faux pas" is to refer to a "personal empirical programme". It is like referring to a square circle. All it does is bend semantics instead of spoons.

[Surendra Darathy]

Metaphysics is still an error.

Personally I prefer 'changeless' or better 'timeless' as an adjective to distinguish the highest form of truth, but not everybody is bais like me. I believe the highest truth must be timeless and changeless, but others may not agree.

Well, we're all curious about "highest truth". Is there some sort of altimeter for measuring it? Maybe the same sort of instrument that measures how bent the spoon is in the "higher realm" that "only the very wise can see".

I get the business about "timeless and changeless". Once that spoon gets bent, it fucking stays bent. Do you know why that is? It is because bending your spoon enough takes it past that elastic limit. Look up "elastic limit" on wikipedia. It has something to do with spoon bending. Also look up "music of the spheres" to hear the dulcet tones of higher spoons not bent beyond their elastic limits, and twanging away.

[GrahamH]

...
Did you read the descover article from 2002 with the thoght experiment where the observer today seems to determine events that were decided in the distant past? It was originally thought of as a curiosity, but since then has been demonstrated in the lab. This shows he was qualified to make the suggestion silly as it seemed to all at the time.

I missed that, do you have a reference, it sounds interesting.

Sure mate, here you are.

Ah, not so good. It seems like an example of why "metaphysics is an error". "Photons are particles", "Photons are waves", are examples of mistaking analogies for some sort of absolute truth. What is it that photons "really are"? Is that a sensible question?

By the time the astronomers decide which measurement to make— whether to pin down the photon to one definite route or to have it follow both paths simultaneously— the photon could have already journeyed for billions of years, long before life appeared on Earth. The measurements made now, says Wheeler, determine the photon's past. In one case the astronomers create a past in which a photon took both possible routes from the quasar to Earth. Alternatively, they retroactively force the photon onto one straight trail toward their detector, even though the photon began its jaunt long before any detectors existed.

It would be tempting to dismiss Wheeler's thought experiment as a curious idea, except for one thing: It has been demonstrated in a laboratory. In 1984 physicists at the University of Maryland set up a tabletop version of the delayed-choice scenario. Using a light source and an arrangement of mirrors to provide a number of possible photon routes, the physicists were able to show that the paths the photons took were not fixed until the physicists made their measurements, even though those measurements were made after the photons had already left the light source and begun their circuit through the course of mirrors.

Wheeler conjectures we are part of a universe that is a work in progress; we are tiny patches of the universe looking at itself— and building itself. It's not only the future that is still undetermined but the past as well. And by peering back into time, even all the way back to the Big Bang, our present observations select one out of many possible quantum histories for the universe.

Is there a "past event" determined by a "current observation"? Does a "photon" really travel a straight trail to a detector on one or other or both paths? Does the mathematics of QM reveal the "True Nature of Matter"? If we have a very accurate predictive model does that reveal the fundamental truth of what we are modelling?

[Surendra Darathy]

Metaphysics is still an error.

we can make a lot of progress, not wasting our time loosing in time is the first step to finding truth. It is also essential to understand that because of this we know empirical method is ineffective in the search.

In the search for higher truth, we must press into service, rather, the modalities of "ex recto assertion" and "word salad". We must also establish new semantics for the word "effective".

I think here it is intended to mean "effective in extending the wibble to ever greater lengths". The longer your spoon is, the easier it becomes to bend. Look up "torque" and "moment arm" on wikipedia. They are physics terms.

Metaphysicis is still an error.

But we should still try be as accurate as human though and language allows, IMHO.

Rather than bending language all out of recognisable shape as if it was only a drawer full of stainless steel spoons.

[jamest]

It is you and James who think there is something that can be said about "absolute truth" which is "more than an opinion". Isn't that what metaphysics is supposed to be about, by your own definition? Your opponents say metaphysics is, and can only be, unjustified opinion, or mythology, because there is no way to ground it.

The only things that have bee said for metaphysics here so far are fanciful speculations spiralling off from empirical physics - e.g. Cosmic background, or fanciful claims that mathematics is not based on empirically defined axioms.

More rhetoric. I haven't seen you address a single post of mine Graham, so spare me the unfounded judgement.

You claimed that 'radiation of a particular wavelength' (or similar wording) was grounds for metaphysics, did you not?

Not guilty. That was Jerome - Compte de someplace, now - who indicated that conceived empirical knowledge was founded upon a certain bandwidth of radiation.