Metaphysics as an Error

[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.

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.

I was refering to your response:

'Data' is clearly a mental construct formulated by ourselves, reflective of something beheld by us all.

No it isn't. The data never changed. The data was always a certain bandwidth of radiation. People simply had different theories and incorporated that data differently. In recent centuries, we have learned to put the data first, and the theories later and that has worked out pretty well for us. For the last hundred years now, we've been free of metaphysics because of it.

A certain bandwidth of WHAT?
Is that 'thing' different to the data that we assign to it? Yes or no? Stop acting the goat.

Why have we suddenly turned to raping philosophy of science? Just asking..

This isn't about the raping of science. It's about identifying something upon which empirical data is based and upon which metaphysics can be grounded - something distinct to the empirical data conceived by us. And your response indicated that there IS something distinct to our empirical understanding, which you vaguely define as "a certain bandwidth of radiation".
Now, I'm not particularly interested in what you think that 'thing' is, although it would be fun for me to corner you and watch you sweat in your specific ontological corner, trying to explain what it is that our inadequate understanding is about. My concern - as it ever was - is that we have an acknowledgement from you that there is something upon which our empirical understanding is grounded -something distinct to our 'empirical data'.

This acknowledgement provides me with 'something' for my basis/grounds of metaphysical enquiry. Game on.

Do you think you can say something sensible about "A certain bandwidth of WHAT?"

Empiricism <-> Abstract model -> Metaphysics? How? Why?

[Surendra Darathy]

Metaphysics is still an error.

Here, if '2', the conclusion is that there is 'something' that exists that is distinct to the empirical realm, that gives rise to that realm. This 'thing' provides a basis/grounds/opportunity for metaphysics. It also provides sufficient basis to reject the relativist claim that "there is no way to know of anything, other than E (Es)", since the progressive logic of '2' does facilitate such knowledge. In a nutshell, it renders relativism as baseless... and therefore, as obsolete. Dead.

The word "something" does not constitute metaphysics, even to those who still attempt to maintain the academic discourse heretofore labeled as "the Philosophy Department" in uni. You have to be able to talk about your "thing", even if all it ever amounts to is its prodigious length. See my remarks about spoon-bending.

Metaphysics is grounded... is justified... is alive!

Nothing like a little public euphoria. This sort of thing can be easily controlled by imbibing just enough methanol.

[Surendra Darathy]

Metafuzzies

I have shown how Absolute truth is not part of time

Um, no, Little Idiot. You have asserted that "absolute truth" exists, and asserted that as part of your definition, "absolute truth" does not exist in time. You have not made the merest iota of a smidgen of an attempt to show how "absolute truth" or (if you prefer) "timeless truth" is possible, let alone stating any of it, notwithstanding Paul Brunton's word salads.

Therefore, if we are to talk of 'absolute truth' we need to start at the beggining.

In the field of computer technology, this is called "rebooting a frozen machine". As far as your argument is concerned, Little Idiot, your boot blocks are corrupted. So the "beginning" will involve installing a new hard disk. Something harder than the spoons you've been bending in the warm folds of the universal cunt.

Even if my logic is in error, a reasonable response would entail showing why one of the C's is wrong or one of the P's doesnt follow from them.

All your C's and P's are axioms. AKA, in metaphysics, ex recto assertions. You haven't gotten round to proving anything, yet.

Which C is an error? Which P is an error?

In a formal system, your axioms only show their value after you try to prove something with them. If you never get round to doing more than filling up a page with axioms, it is called "fucking around".

Anyway, the very first step is to show what absolute truth is not and where it can not possibly be to help distinguish possible truth from certain error, dont you think?

This is the technique of looking under every rock in the universe to see what is NOT there. Nope, no God under that rock. Next!

I tire of repeating my self for you

Your argument's boot blocks are corrupted. Maybe we should call them "boot bollocks".

P1 If there is absolute truth, it must not change, or it is not absolute.
P2 Everything in time changes
C1 Absolute truth is not in time.

This is a shorter word salad, but that is all that it is.

My opinion is as irrelevent as yours when it comes to the highest reality which is as it is regardless of our ideas.

Oh? OK. And the following is somehow distinguished from being an opinion?

Sucker punch landed on you, again; thats my point, it is no more than an opinion. Thats why we have to start at the beggining...

Little Idiot, you have tried to start at the beginning. Only jamest is supporting you in your attempt to deny that the boot bollocks are corrupted.

[jamest]

This isn't about the raping of science. It's about identifying something upon which empirical data is based and upon which metaphysics can be grounded - something distinct to the empirical data conceived by us. And your response indicated that there IS something distinct to our empirical understanding, which you vaguely define as "a certain bandwidth of radiation".
Now, I'm not particularly interested in what you think that 'thing' is, although it would be fun for me to corner you and watch you sweat in your specific ontological corner, trying to explain what it is that our inadequate understanding is about. My concern - as it ever was - is that we have an acknowledgement from you that there is something upon which our empirical understanding is grounded -something distinct to our 'empirical data'.

This acknowledgement provides me with 'something' for my basis/grounds of metaphysical enquiry. Game on.

Do you think you can say something sensible about "A certain bandwidth of WHAT?"

Empiricism <-> Abstract model -> Metaphysics? How? Why?

I'm not sure how much of the overall conversation you have read, but 'we' (the absolutists) have two tasks to perform in order to win this debate:

1) Provide reason for there being a grounds/basis upon which metaphysics can be constructed - that is, given reasons to conclude that there is 'something' beyond conceived empirical data/knowledge/understanding.
2) Show how one would approach metaphysics from/upon this grounds/'thing'.

That particular conversation with Jerome seemed to provide (from him) an acknowledgement that there was 'something' upon which our knowledge is founded. The fact that he defined it as 'radiation' is besides the point and not something which I obviously agree with, anyway.

Your question now seems to be about what that 'thing' is? Anyway, if it is, then that would be a conclusion to a metaphysical argument, not its grounds. That is, defining 'something' would be the end-point of such a metaphysic, not the start-point.

Anyway, that conversation was quickly hushed-up, because of course a relativist cannot acknowledge that there is 'something' upon which relativism is founded, that is distinct to the empirical knowledge that relativism is encaged by.

My post from last night is the one that really dealt the death knell to relativism, imo.

[Little Idiot]

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".

Actually I cant bend a physical spoon with my mind, never said I could, only an imaginary one will give way to the force of my will. This is of course to be expected, only a solipsist thinks his own mind creates the physical world. A mentalist like myself knows my own mind only creates my own experience of the world. This model fits perfectly with the observation that I can only bend a spoon of my own making, an imaginary spoon.

So the next question, were we interested in a series of questions to help us understand the mental nature of the physical, would have to be along the lines of 'what can I learn from the fact that can I bend imaginary spoons so easily, but have no effect on physical spoons, which are also only known to me as mental experience?'

I dont bend spoons in my physics demonstrations in school, I stick to the exam sylabus which is why I can be a mentalist and a physicist symultaneously; I know where to stop in class.
If I was doing demonstrations or experiements in material science (as we did in Sheffield Uni. as undergrads) I may be interested in the shear strength, if I was bending a physical spoon, probably more interested in the elastic limit and ultimate tensile strengh; were bending it not snapping it!

[jamest]

Metaphysics is still an error.

Here, if '2', the conclusion is that there is 'something' that exists that is distinct to the empirical realm, that gives rise to that realm. This 'thing' provides a basis/grounds/opportunity for metaphysics. It also provides sufficient basis to reject the relativist claim that "there is no way to know of anything, other than E (Es)", since the progressive logic of '2' does facilitate such knowledge. In a nutshell, it renders relativism as baseless... and therefore, as obsolete. Dead.

The word "something" does not constitute metaphysics, even to those who still attempt to maintain the academic discourse heretofore labeled as "the Philosophy Department" in uni. You have to be able to talk about your "thing", even if all it ever amounts to is its prodigious length. See my remarks about spoon-bending.

As I've just said to Graham:

Your question now seems to be about what that 'thing' is? Anyway, if it is, then that would be a conclusion to a metaphysical argument, not its grounds. That is, defining 'something' would be the end-point of such a metaphysic, not the start-point.

Or would you prefer that I just assume to have knowledge of the identity/nature of that which is distinct to empirical knowledge? I'm sorry, but I'm not that foolish.

Everything I am saying here is just to facilitate the start/possibility/grounds/basis of a metaphysical argument that would eventually identify/define that 'thing' which has been proven to exist, distinct to empirical data. And that's the perfect methodology for a serious metaphysician.

[Luis Dias]

That particular conversation with Jerome seemed to provide (from him) an acknowledgement that there was 'something' upon which our knowledge is founded. The fact that he defined it as 'radiation' is besides the point and not something which I obviously agree with, anyway.

This is the second time you post this inanity. Now I'm going to press you: prove this fucking point with empirical evidence (NOT navel gazing), i.e., a fucking quote, and let's hear if Jerôme actually agrees with your "interpretation" of that quote. I'm pretty sure that you got it completely wrong. Or, alternatively, you are maliciously mine quoting in order to "advance" your argument and pretend you are on a roll or something.

Any way you look at it, it doesn't look good. So unless you are to be reported as a troll, give in to my demand.

[GrahamH]

This isn't about the raping of science. It's about identifying something upon which empirical data is based and upon which metaphysics can be grounded - something distinct to the empirical data conceived by us. And your response indicated that there IS something distinct to our empirical understanding, which you vaguely define as "a certain bandwidth of radiation".
Now, I'm not particularly interested in what you think that 'thing' is, although it would be fun for me to corner you and watch you sweat in your specific ontological corner, trying to explain what it is that our inadequate understanding is about. My concern - as it ever was - is that we have an acknowledgement from you that there is something upon which our empirical understanding is grounded -something distinct to our 'empirical data'.

This acknowledgement provides me with 'something' for my basis/grounds of metaphysical enquiry. Game on.

Do you think you can say something sensible about "A certain bandwidth of WHAT?"

Empiricism <-> Abstract model -> Metaphysics? How? Why?

I'm not sure how much of the overall conversation you have read, but 'we' (the absolutists) have two tasks to perform in order to win this debate:

1) Provide reason for there being a grounds/basis upon which metaphysics can be constructed - that is, given reasons to conclude that there is 'something' beyond conceived empirical data/knowledge/understanding.
2) Show how one would approach metaphysics from/upon this grounds/'thing'.

That particular conversation with Jerome seemed to provide (from him) an acknowledgement that there was 'something' upon which our knowledge is founded. The fact that he defined it as 'radiation' is besides the point and not something which I obviously agree with, anyway.

Your question now seems to be about what that 'thing' is? Anyway, if it is, then that would be a conclusion to a metaphysical argument, not its grounds. That is, defining 'something' would be the end-point of such a metaphysic, not the start-point.

Anyway, that conversation was quickly hushed-up, because of course a relativist cannot acknowledge that there is 'something' upon which relativism is founded, that is distinct to the empirical knowledge that relativism is encaged by.

My post from last night is the one that really dealt the death knell to relativism, imo.

The problem I see there is that our knowledge is not founded on the "something", it is founded on empirical data. We know nothing of the "something" except the data. "radiation" is a model of empirical data - physics. How do you go from physics to metaphysics, other than by cutting yourself off from the empirical basis of knowledge and just inventing stories?

I wasn't asking what the "thing" is, I was asking what basis you could have to say anything about the "thing in itself", or "absolute truth of it"?

[GrahamH]

...
Actually I cant bend a physical spoon with my mind, never said I could, only an imaginary one will give way to the force of my will. This is of course to be expected, only a solipsist thinks his own mind creates the physical world. A mentalist like myself knows my own mind only creates my own experience of the world. This model fits perfectly with the observation that I can only bend a spoon of my own making, an imaginary spoon.

Don't you think that an imaginary spoon is made of exactly the same stuff as a real spoon? I can easily bend a metal spoon with a metal hammer. Why can't a mental spoon be bent with an imaginary hammer?

So the next question, were we interested in a series of questions to help us understand the mental nature of the physical, would have to be along the lines of 'what can I learn from the fact that can I bend imaginary spoons so easily, but have no effect on physical spoons, which are also only known to me as mental experience?'

Perhaps the mentacles of thought quite different to the mentacles of experience and unable to interact?

[jamest]

That particular conversation with Jerome seemed to provide (from him) an acknowledgement that there was 'something' upon which our knowledge is founded. The fact that he defined it as 'radiation' is besides the point and not something which I obviously agree with, anyway.

This is the second time you post this inanity. Now I'm going to press you: prove this fucking point with empirical evidence (NOT navel gazing), i.e., a fucking quote, and let's hear if Jerôme actually agrees with your "interpretation" of that quote. I'm pretty sure that you got it completely wrong. Or, alternatively, you are maliciously mine quoting in order to "advance" your argument and pretend you are on a roll or something.

Any way you look at it, it doesn't look good. So unless you are to be reported as a troll, give in to my demand.

That particular issue has passed. I'm not going back to it, because more significant material is at-hand. Note the qualification, above, highlighted in red. Also note that I was just trying to explain to Graham how this conversation about 'radiation' had come about, and that it wasn't a claim made by me.

Also, have a word with yourself. There's no reason for perpetual profanities.

[Surendra Darathy]

More metafuzzies

Actually, you haven't said why it is knowledge. The point is that knowledge can be defined quite clearly. The problem with mathematics is that if one accepts that as knowledge, one is basically allowing purely analytical statements. There's nothing in mathematics that we didn't put there.

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.

Way to miss the point again, Little Idiot. There is nothing in mathematics we did not put there. If you're interested in remedial math tutorials, they are widely available on teh intertubez. It is one of the few things for which teh intertubez is really useful.

DISCLAIMER 'beyond*' and 'start*' are spatial 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.

Assuming you can not disprove my earlier proof - in maths we do have proofs of course, assuming you can not dismiss my argument; then I have shown, and Penrose agrees (he's a mathematician, physicist and a lot smarter than anyone here even 'the planet' ) - I suggest tentatively along with the vast majority of the academic maths community - that maths describes an existence and a reality beyond the empirical.

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?

Yes, Little Idiot, we all read English here. Some paragraphs, like the last one above are recognisable as "word salad".

The fact that it is possible to construct mathematical models as Penrose (which may or may not be accurate – that’s not the point at this stage) does in the clip I link below 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?

Not only does it prove mathematics can exist outside space time, it proves the principle of a human inside space-time discovering knowledge about 'beyond*' space-time, and I am happy to say it is empirically testable - we can in principle test the current physical world for traces of the previous one; he uses the analogy of looking at the ripples on a pond AFTER the rain stops to figure out where each rain drop fell.

This is so awful it doesn't deserve a response.

Sorry, thats an epic fail for you.

Not so much as an epic fail, but a "refusal to attempt to parse word salad"

Note that I am commenting on Penrose and only repeating his words.

Your "commenting" is recognisable as "argument from authority".

Even if you were a maths proffessor that would be a laughable attitude, coming from you its just classic.

Coming from you, who has shown no competence whatsoever in mathematics, least of all in your capacity to note that the foundations of mathematical physics are in the empirical. Symmetry groups, one of the fulcrums of mathematical physics, were developed to represent symmetries found in nature, such as those in crystalline solids. Try to distinguish between the useful abstractions of representation and the worthless abstractions of wibbling.

Not only do they 'let me' but I am paid a top salary in one of the most presitigious schools in the country to do so. They were so keen to 'let me' they paid for my international flight and hotel to come for interview when they were looking for elite skilled teachers.

This has no place in this discussion. The more unsupported assertions you make about your career as a physics teacher, in lieu of actually demonstrating any expertise to us, the more the rest of us are going to regard your claims with skepticism, or even mockery. You have been given ample opportunity in this thread to discuss matters of physics in such a way as to support any claims you have made in response to skepticism. It has been more than possible for you to do this.

Probably one point that Comte de Saint-Germain is making is that it probably behooves anyone plumping for metaphysics to show that he knows something about physics. Jamest takes the empirical data of physics and declares there must be "something" behind it all. We haven't seen that he knows any physics, either, but at least he recognises that physics is a preliminary to beginning the task (as you like to say) of showing that metaphysics is possible.

Yeah. No one takes Penrose - or Hameroff for that matter - seriously. It's a bit like you and jamest - no one takes you seriously either.

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).

What? Enlisting dead guys for your "argument from authority"? I think this was also done by the morons who compiled the books of the Xtian Bible. Curse their hubris-besotted, mangy hides.

My argument never asserted that we needed the empirical to get knowledge, it established empiricism as a source of knowledge. Second, metaphysics isn't invalid because all knowledge depends on the physical, metaphysics is a failed project because there is no evidence or argument for its possibility.

James and I have shown several foundations for metaphysics.
Modern QM is based on ideas of Bohr, which he stated clearly were drawn from ancient metaphysical knowledge. The principle of complementary opposites is his family moto, and 'yin and yang' is central to his coat of arms.

Here, you're merely parroting the same nonsense as anyone else gullible enough to buy videos from Cheap-Hack Dope-Ra or read books by Fritjof Capra. This informs no one that you have any competence in physics.

[Little Idiot]

Metafuzzies

I have shown how Absolute truth is not part of time

Um, no, Little Idiot. You have asserted that "absolute truth" exists, and asserted that as part of your definition, "absolute truth" does not exist in time. You have not made the merest iota of a smidgen of an attempt to show how "absolute truth" or (if you prefer) "timeless truth" is possible, let alone stating any of it, notwithstanding Paul Brunton's word salads.

Not factual. If we care to look at the facts of what I said, I said here
P1. If there is absolute truth, it must not change, or it is not absolute.
Why did I put 'if' at the start? Obviously to avoid asserting what has not been establshed.
Doesnt this just kill dead your point above?

Therefore, if we are to talk of 'absolute truth' we need to start at the beggining.

In the field of computer technology, this is called "rebooting a frozen machine". As far as your argument is concerned, Little Idiot, your boot blocks are corrupted. So the "beginning" will involve installing a new hard disk. Something harder than the spoons you've been bending in the warm folds of the universal cunt.

Zero content, no response required.

Even if my logic is in error, a reasonable response would entail showing why one of the C's is wrong or one of the P's doesnt follow from them.

All your C's and P's are axioms. AKA, in metaphysics, ex recto assertions. You haven't gotten round to proving anything, yet.

Not factual.
Which of them (I numbered them for your ease) is this.
P1 says 'if' and has been defended.
P2 is an observation; what in time does not change? One single example is enough to prove me wrong. BUT YOU CANT.

And so on...
pick any one and show it to be wrong, or STFU.

Which C is an error? Which P is an error?

In a formal system, your axioms only show their value after you try to prove something with them. If you never get round to doing more than filling up a page with axioms, it is called "fucking around".

I am using informal logic, not a formal system, as I stated.

Anyway, the very first step is to show what absolute truth is not and where it can not possibly be to help distinguish possible truth from certain error, dont you think?

This is the technique of looking under every rock in the universe to see what is NOT there. Nope, no God under that rock. Next!

Error; this is the method of saying 'If god is not under a rock, dont need to look under any rocks then'

I tire of repeating my self for you

Your argument's boot blocks are corrupted. Maybe we should call them "boot bollocks".

More assertions which do nothing to actually deal with the argument I offered.
WHICH and WHERE are these 'problems' you seem to see?

P1 If there is absolute truth, it must not change, or it is not absolute.
P2 Everything in time changes
C1 Absolute truth is not in time.

This is a shorter word salad, but that is all that it is.

My opinion is as irrelevent as yours when it comes to the highest reality which is as it is regardless of our ideas.

Oh? OK. And the following is somehow distinguished from being an opinion?

Sucker punch landed on you, again; thats my point, it is no more than an opinion. Thats why we have to start at the beggining...

Little Idiot, you have tried to start at the beginning. Only jamest is supporting you in your attempt to deny that the boot bollocks are corrupted.

So your point is... what exactly?
All the J team are against my position, clearly they are not doing to support me.

[Surendra Darathy]

more and more metafuzzies

Is it just me, or is 'our side' producing post after post of logical argument set out in a clear way which makes it easy to identify any weakness in the argument, only to be met by casual dismissals which go off on a random tangent or rant or attack, but not actually pointing to any possible errors in the lodical points presented.

It's just you, Little Idiot, unjust as it may seem to you. There is no "higher you". I wouldn't hire you.

[Surendra Darathy]

metafubar

I struggled on the first read through too. But I got it nailed third time through.

Its a sound case, and simply being hard to follow does not equate to being flawed. We are intelligent people here, apparently some of your team are anyway - if I can get it, there is no excuse for your team not to be able to get it too.

Sure, LI. Why don't you demonstrate your prodigious understanding of jamest's prodigious metaphysical proof by bending a few spoons, or something. Simply being hard to follow not followed by any academic publications is usually an indication of word salad.

[Surendra Darathy]

Meatfuzzies galore

I understand that the post was dry and formal, but I'm hoping that you have more reason than that to overlook it.

The post was a word salad, James. Reason enough to overlook it. Get a second opinion if you don't like mine. Little Idiot's commendation should be all you need.