-"As far as I can tell, probability is the mathematics of possibiliity"
-Correct.

-" it's basically a numerical perspective on possibility."
-its a numerical perspective of what is verified as possible.

-"In short, you've put the cart before the horse. "
-No I don't. My sole point was that not all ideas can be treated as "possible".
i.e. The idea "Can the universe sustain life" can be accepted as possible because we already have an example of this possibility and our ability to calculate the conditions and produce probabilities is an indication for that.
That is not true for the "brain in the vat" idea since we have nothing to "explore".
So the process of exploring(identifying, comparing etc) possible scenarios is not just a competition of suggesting stories.

Sure. If we are not able to calculate probabilities for a suggested possibility...then that suggestion is not verified as possible. Its just a made up suggestion.
i.e. Brain in a Vat.

I am only pointing out that "exploration of possibilities" is a clear cut endeavor. Either you already have an example of what is possible so you can proceed calculating probabilities or you don't have any examples .
i.e. There is Nothing to explore to a blind statement "Vat in a brain". We don't have example of brain in vats that can processes stimuli without a body and a sensory system.
So exploring possibilities can turn to a pseudo philosophical endeavor if we lack all instances or cases of a suggested claim.

You really don't make any sense.
You said:"The concept seems relevant but when you get down to actually computing/calculating the odds, you realize you can't! I'm happy to be proven wrong of course! "
Probability seems relevant? To what ? To Possibility?
Do you calculate possibility? How ?
I am not sure you fully understand those concepts.

-"I found philosophy going against science sometimes which is odd to me and it got me thinking as in maybe is purely subjective now."
-Well that is pseudo philosophy, but since there is NO official or rigorous monitor in the Academia your point is valid.

I used to hold the same position with you. I even agree with most of your comment. But I understand that Philosophy provides most of the tools to science. We can not do Philosophy without Science and Philosophy disconnected to Science is meaningless.
But I will agree with you. There is no real value in "Studying Philosophy". To be more clear, by studying Philosophy one studies the History or the epistemic achievements of Philosophy, not how to philosophize correctly. That would be Logic and Science.
Studying Philosophy is just Chronicling and many misinformed students tend to assume that any claim under the Philosophical umbrella is a valid one.

Do you mean history of Philosophy?

-"Isaac Newton stopped short of formulating a hypothesis."
-Because he didn't have the data to do so. He only described mathematically a phenomenon. We even have an anecdote of him rejecting any accusation for assuming an invisible "agent" by telling them that he only provides the descriptive formulations for this phenomenon.

-" Galileo and Kepler, the same thing."
-Again...they didn't have enough observations or evidence for a testable metaphysical hypothesis.

-"Einstein, on the other hand, put a theory (SR + GR) on the table. Ol' Albert took one step too many, he went too far."
-He put many theories on the table. Theories are the narrative we use to connect facts in a meaningful story. Theories make testable predictions and they are falsifiable. They work as black boxes. We can always challenge a theory with new evidence. Einstein attempted to explain the connection between Time space and gravity and that effort gave you ....your gps device. Do you still use it or you deny its existence?
So what is your problem exactly with scientific theories?

-"Yes, you'll hear scientists and ordinary folk showering praise on Albert Einstein's genius, completely forgetting the theory of relativity is just one of probably infinite theoretical frameworks that could explain the relevant observations."
- This is what theories are sir! Einstein's and any scientific theory are the best explanation we currently have based on the available facts and observations. Are you trying to attack a strawman?
Who told you that Scientific theories are something more than our tentative positions on specific observations?
Do you imagine biology without the Evolutionary Narrative, or Germ Theory, or Continental Drift or any field of science. You need to understand that Science is the most credible way to do Philosophy.

-"The concept seems relevant but when you get down to actually computing/calculating the odds, you realize you can't! I'm happy to be proven wrong of course! "
-You need to be more specific ...what concept and what odds?

-"First comes possibility, only then probability. "
-Correct. But in you seem like to promote philosophical speculations on how probable a possibility is. I am right?

but you don't address my critique.
First of all you can not remove Theory from Science. Science is Natural philosophy....so like in all Philosophical categories,theories is how we explain the facts.
Second more important point, I asked you whether you are confusing "possibilities" with "probabilities".
i.e. you mention the example brain in a vat. By claiming that the "brain in a vat" is possible, or we should investigate how possible it is, we ignore the facts on how a brain receives all its stimuli and how it constructs meaning.
SO I don't know how philosophers or mathematician can ever offer a meaningful judgment on the "brain in a vat" possibility without reviewing the available facts.
The theory that is based on those facts can only be the most relevant...so I don't know how you can ever claim that we should keep science from evaluating our hypotheses.

Science's theoretical frameworks based on Methodological Naturalism have enabled a run away success in epistemology for almost 500 years now. How by "forbidding" science to offer hypotheses and theoretical formulations will help us in any way?
How Newton and Einstein work can ever validate your statement again Science's theoretical formulations!

First of all, I think you meant to talk about probabilities not possibilities. Establishing possibility is a straight forward process. We investigate whether we already have an example of this case that can prove it possibility. Then we evaluate the rate of occurrence of those conditions and we can calculate probabilities.
i.e. Life in this Universe is possible since we already have a single example that verifies this statements as possible. Then we calculate the probabilities by identifying how often the necessary conditions emerge in the system.

-"Science is the only thing holding us back in my humble opinion and I have a proposal: Scientists should make their observations as usual - quantitatively - and then derive the mathematical formulae that describe the observations and then STOP! No hypothesizing, no theorizing, no nothing! As it is we only use/need the formulae."
-That would be a good way to go back to the dark ages of human thought. Only science can provide credible evidence on how possible something is and then provide systematic data on how often necessary conditions emerges thus allowing us to calculate probabilities. Science job IS to produce testable hypotheses and theories based on objective evidence and without any additional assumptions.

The only way to explore whether a claim is possible or not is by providing evidence or comparing the claims to our current epistemology.
Objective empirical evidence is how we verify possibility.
i.e. Alchemists thought it is possible to produce gold from lead through chemical transmutation. Science taught us that it is impossible. Chemical reactions will never allow such a transmutation.
Science MUST provide the theory on why this phenomenon is not possible.

You can read all about his awarded study(methodologies and foundings) in his book which for academic reasons( I suppose) is available in PDF format all over the internet for free.
You can also watch his lectures and talks on the subject.
http://dspace.vnbrims.org:13000/jspui/bitstream/123456789/2224/1/Daniel-Kahneman-Thinking-Fast-and-Slow-.pdf

lol...Pointing to an work that was awarded by the Nobel comity is not a generalization or heuristics. Maybe you don't understand what a generalization or heuristics are.
You need to study the actual publication or read the impact this study had and still has in our economic theory and applications or read Kahneman's book that analyzes the methods and their conclusions.
Scientific methods do not include heuristics or generalizations in their Descriptive Frameworks.
I understand that you are trying to protect an ideology that might be based solely on intuitive claims but you don't get to accuse science and its methods for using heuristics or generalizations.
Removing those practice WAS the main reason why we came up with science in the first place.

this is a text book example of a false dichotomy....unless the author doesn't care to address any alternative perspective in this thread.

Intuition is a heuristic that is used to make sense of a situation and inform our decisions or opinions. They are based on generalisations biases and previous experiences.
Intuition is more of guessing than "knowing" and a Nobel awarded scientific study showed that statistically our intuition performs really bad.

So even if intuition is an ability of our brains to make guesses without all the facts, our modern environment renders it a disability due to its high rates of failure.
It's not a credible path to knowledge and in any case we can never accept any Intuitive guess on face value without objective evaluation.

Knowledge refers to instrumentally valuable statements that are in agreement with current facts of reality.

-"I don't see how philosophy means anything or is anything but stifling without a desire for an afterlife."
-Again that is wishful thought and superstition, not philosophy. Philosophy deals with the production of wise claims based on actual knowledge. There is nothing wise on those claims and we have zero epistemology supportive of them. Again it's a subject that can help us understand the psyche of human beings and how environmental conditions affect religiosity but begging the question fallacies like assuming the existence of deities can not really provide meaningful answers to those "important questions'.

"God" is a concept we use for the virtue of hope and is more than a concept by which we measure our pain."
-I can fully agree with this statement. This is why I classified this topic as part of a psychological or anthropological discuss. Technically speaking science is philosophy so you may be right.


"There is reason and faith in most thinking and ideas of pure faith are the best".
-in providing hope? Again I will agree.

I really can't see how claims on superstition (god)and wishful thinking/death denying ideologies qualify as philosophy.
Only from a Chronicling point of view these ideas were part of philosophy.So was Phlogiston and Miasma etc part of science in the past but we no longer accept them as serious scientific questions.
I can only see those concepts to be relevant in Anthropology and Psychology not in Philosophy.

Gnosis(Γνωση)means knowledge. Knowledge by definition is objective(in agreement with current objective facts). Personal claims are subjective thus they do not qualify as knowledge.

Natural is a phenomenon(process or entity) when its causal mechanism doesn't involve a thinking agent.
Unnatural is the phenomenon when a thinking agent has altered or removed all physical mechanisms.

-"How do we know that our choices make sense?
-They make sense to us...even if they are nonsensical.

Monotheism doesn't exist. Even in the most popular monotheistic religions there are more than one god in their dogmas.Great example Christianity..we have god his son, the mother of his son, saints, angels, ghosts etc.

-"So let's suppose there is a God."
-Why is this necessary or part of a philosophical discussion?

you can take an academic course or watch a lecture on the topic. There are free on youtube.
In order to make any observation you need to crash bosons and fermions...not the most typical observation out there.

pseudo science...

to be honest I don't like how people use this distinction between noumena and phenomena.

What is reality to you?

Reality is an abstract concept that includes everything we can objectively verify interacting with our existence and its qualities.

-"Why didn't Aristotle, the father of metaphysics, not make a Kantian-like distinction between noumena and phenomena?After all it seems to be baked into metaphysics. Someone as brainy as Aristotle should've hit upon the idea and found it useful.''
-Well Aristotle's philosophy sucked. He is know for his systematization of Philosophy and Logic than his actual philosophical performance. After all his metaphysics were extension on his work "Physika".


It wasn't as if he had to work too hard for it - Plato, his teacher, had already dropped a big hint with his allegory of the cave.
-I guess he was more interested in listing all our logical fallacies, organizing logic and systematizing philosophy.

I don't get what you mean.
THe OP asks an A or B question. My objection is , why there isn't a C on that question. Is it because the question is a false dichotomy or because the author is interested only in those two alone.
i.e I reject the existence of both based on our current scientific knowledge, but my position is not included in that question.

-"That's a practical way to think of Meta-Physics : as conjectures beyond current knowledge. And those projections from past evidence into unknown territory is how we discover new information.''
-We are in total agreement.

-"But to project into unknowable realms is risky. Whatever we find may or may not be true, and we'll never know. Yet, some are willing to take that chance, and even to accept attractive-but-ify ideas on faith."
-Correct.

-"Yes. Whenever an empirical scientist proposes a hypothesis, he's doing Meta-physics. And that's the domain of Philosophy. However, it's necessary to push the bounds of knowledge, in order to make progress. But then, it's the job of Science to confirm those reasonable probability estimates."
- Correct. I will add that Science also works with theoretical models. Its not just a set of empirical methodologies. Theoretical Models with specific characteristics fall withing the philosophical work of science(Natural Philosophy).

-"Mind is indeed the function of Brain. But what is the Ontological status of Mind?
-The ontology of the mind is an property that emerges through the anatomy of the brain structure and its function . Similar ontology is shared by all biological properties i.e. digestion, mitosis, photosynthesis,homeostasis etc.

-" Empirical neuroscience has no answer for the "Hard Problem" of Consciousness :""
-Of course! because Science in general doesn't deal with "Why" teleological questions when we try to explain physical phenomena. The Hard Problem of Consciousness(Chalmers) is littered with "why "questions, I quote his 3 main qs:
Why are physical processes ever accompanied by experience?
Why does a given physical process generate the specific experience it does?
why an experience of red rather than green, for example?
The answer for all those 3 questions can be....."Because. "
Its not a problem that can be objectively answered since anyone can give his subjective opinion on why this phenomenon manifests in reality the way it does. The real question is How the brain achieves the production of mind and what are the causal mechanisms and synergies of the system.

-" Brains are subject to physical laws, but what are the limits of Minds? It seems that, in imagination, anything goes. In dreams, I can fly."
-Yes we can imagine anything. Those imaginative thoughts are the product of previous facts about reality being put together in a different way while ignoring empirical limitations and logic.
That is nothing special in my opinion. Our brain allows those mental models to arise, but those brains need to be exposed to stimuli from early age. Without empirical input a mind is unable to be shaped and produce anything.

-" But how can matter imagine anything?""
-What do you mean? Matter is the building block of the "machine". Its like saying, how matter can combust, or digest,or metabolize, or illuminate etc. Its the function and structure of the system made from matter that can produce those properties, as long as it is fueled with energy(and isn't "dying").
Give the brain time and stimuli and it has the raw material to work with, to cut and paste and rearrange everything that is stored chemically. This is what imagination is.

-"All Meta-Physics is "transcendent" in the sense of going-beyond known physics. If our hypotheses don't explore unknown territory, they are merely mundane applied knowledge. As long as our conjectures extend an unbroken logical chain, we can look for the evidence later."
-Sure, I was referring to transcendent metaphysics, where the claims ignore and are in direct conflict with established epistemology. Here is where the logical chain snaps.

-"Yes, but the Enlightenment Renaissance of Greek philosophy, left Metaphysics behind because of its association with Scholastic Theology."
-I don't know what it means for Metaphysics to be left behind. Metaphysics depends on the volume of your epistemology. When the circle of your epistemology grows the perimeter of your metaphysics grows even more. After a second thought, you can argue that theology does impose useless claims as knowledge, rendering any metaphysical attempt to be useless.

-"But today, the era of Information and Quantum and Big Bang Theories have undermined the outdated Materialistic Atomic theory, and Self-existent World assumptions."
-Materialistic??? Since when Descriptive Formulations of Science (based on Methodological Naturalism) has become "materialistic"? I Didn't get that memo! Descriptive means that those models describe what we observe. Those observations are verified in our applications and predictions. So what the pseudo philosophical worldview of materialism has to do with real Scientific Descriptions?

-"The result is that the cutting edge of science is mostly groping around in the meta-physical territory of mathematical fields and multi-dimensional strings of ????"
-Our metaphysics do not advance because Physics has FINALLY hit the point known as Observation Objectivity Collapse, something that many sciences have been dealing with for many decades (Social Sciences). Our observations are either affected by our methods or measurements or there is an absence of observations for miscelenious reasons or we don't have the technology for specific experiments.(i.e. high energy demand).
Just because we are unable to advance our epistemology, that doesn't mean that we are going to demonize our current frameworks by calling them "materialistic", lower our standards of evaluation and allow non naturalistic principles to pollute our metaphysical hypotheses.This is where we disagree and Methodological Naturalism is on my side on this.

-"Yes. That's the difference between empirical Science (physics) and theoretical Science (philosophy). 20th century Empirical scientists were often disdainful of feckless philosophy, because instead of physical evidence it relies on metaphysical reasoning."
-I must not get your point because I find it weird. First of all there is a single type of science with its theoretical models being evaluated by its empirical methodologies. Any framework that manages to be verified empirically becomes an official theory(tentatively).
Scientists (without any distinction) are still disdainful of feckless philosophy for the same reasons.

-" Yet in the 21st century, physical evidence in the quantum and cosmic realms is harder to come by.""
-So what do you suggest?

-"The distinction between Potential & Actual has become essential to science again. For example, 20th century Quantum "particles" and now labeled "wave functions" and "virtual particles". A virtual particle is not Actual, but merely Potential until some perturbation causes the metaphorical collapse of the wave function."
-Won't disagree with the Potential & Actual distinction, but I am not sure we are reading the same QM. Wave functions describe statistically specific characteristic of particles. We didn't change the label we use.We still use the same name to refer to the energetic glitch in question.
We can not pinpoint the position of a particle so we use statistical probabilities (like we do in many scientific disciplines) . These probabilities can be expressed οn a Graphical wave function. When we crash a bozon and a fermion(hardly an observation lol) we can measure the characteristics of their "debris" and get accurate numbers fon which point of the Wave function is correct and discarding the rest of it.
I am not sure about your point in this distinction you are making. Can you elaborate?

-"In my vocabulary, Voltage (Potential) is Meta-physical because it is not Actual or measurable. Voltage is merely a promise of Amperage."
-Voltage is the electric potential difference between two points...that difference is quantifiable and we can quantify the potential. I am sure my multimeter has a position on the knob that allows me to measure that difference. We are dealing with a Process that we can quantify, what is metaphysical about it?
Again I don't get your argument.....that which is not quantifiable for you is "metaphysical". And how do you use the word potential?

I am addressing the question in the OP.
"The Question is: "Do You Believe In Fate or In Free-Will?""
It appeared strange to me to see an "A or B" set of choices.
i.e. I reject Fate and I reject Free-will . A. I don't know how one can demonstrate the concept of "fate" and B. we know from science that while we all have will.....its not that free.
Chaos, a "noise'' in every physical process renders Fate questionable at best

-"Certainly. Cause and effect are measures of states over time based on interactive forces. A very simple and real world example is when you press you keys on the keyboard to type a response. The keys on the keyboard do not press themselves, you do. When we see your message on the screen, we can know the prior state of you pressing the keys caused that to be."
-Ok sure, but you defined causality , not the nature of existence.
My question was directed to your initial statement: " I have concluded that the nature of existence necessitates a "first cause"." So what is that "nature" of existence that necessitates a first cause?
i.e.The alternative energetic state(of matter) of the cosmic substrate. (If yes,I would agree with you on that)

-"If you don't believe it exists, simply explain to me how it is that you did not cause the message that you typed. Of course, you'll have to type that out to prove it, so that's pretty much out."
-No no, I think you didn't got my point. I was referring to the difference between "existing" and "real". Existence is for entities while "real" is for abstract concepts that describe emergent phenomena.
Of course my fingers will need to "work" in order to cause the typing of my message.
The concept of typing will be the cause...but "typing" doesn't exist on itself. The same is true for Existence (universe). Existence(Universe)...needs to be caused from something that already exists or is real.

In the case of the universe (everything that exists) we can agree(or not) that there is an underlying causal mechanism responsible for shifting the state of energy find in the cosmic substrate(Quantum fluctuations). I don't distinguish between Cosmos and Universe I only refer to a different state.

-" What is a phenomenon in your mind? I find its a word that needs a hard definition to be useful in a conversation."
- Well I had my own definition but I decided to use a common one so that I can make my point better.
"1.a fact or situation that is observed to exist OR happen, especially one whose cause or explanation is in question."
So this random definition also distinguishes between something existing or "happening"(real) in general.

-"So, a cause and an effect? "
-No, my point was that in an energetic cosmic substrate....causes are always available and they result to effects/phenomena.(if we are able to observe them).

We are not in disagreement , I just want to know what is your position on the nature of existence.

I reject both. Why you include only those two options?

That is the definition of Metaphysics in Philosophy. The distorted versions used by many philosophers are nothing more than an attempt to expand the "philosophical realm" so that their worldviews can be included.
The problem with this "expansion" is that it pollutes our philosophy and introduce meaningless material in the academia.
Metaphysics are nothing more than theoretical frameworks that go beyond our current knowledge and attempt to expand our understanding.
All theoretical frameworks that speculate on what lies beyond our knowledge are metaphysics but not all of them are philosophical.
Those in conflict or ignoring our current epistemology and those who introduce arbitrary auxiliary assumptions are pseudo philosophy.

Well wise can only be the statement( or the person who makes that statement) that is in agreement with our current epistemology and has the ability to expand our understanding.
Philosophy's job is exactly that....

1. Humans have an innate "intuitive" faculty.
2. We can readily rely on this faculty to obtain knowledge.

Objection to 1: The idea that we all possess intuitive faculties is a considerable assumption. How does on go about substantiating such a claim?

Objection to 2: Science often makes discoveries that are counter-intuitive. In fact, history shows us that scientific breakthroughs are made by challenging traditional assumptions and intuitions.

Thoughts? — Wheatley

You are right to object against those two assumptions.
Their foundations are nothing more than a "Texas sharpshooter fallacy" or confirmation bias.

Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky's life-work was all about counting ALL the "bullets" on the sharpshooter's Target board!
They not only find statistical issues with all our Heuristics, they demolished intuition and any assumption that matched the above two!.
The work of those two Psychologists ended up winning a Nobel Prize...listen...in Economics!
Yes, Economists immediately understood the power of this knowledge and the real life implications in our economies!

Now, we know about the bad performance of intuition in epistemology for almost 20 years now(2002 Nobel of economics) but we still have pseudo philosophers, sophists and religious people recycling the same claims in favor of intuition and selectively pointing the hits and totally ignoring the huge volume of misses.
This practice, once again, highlights the problem with "Philosophy". Most people assume that they can do meaningful philosophy without the need to be scientifically informed on the subject.

For those who are interested in finding out how many years this research lasted and what were the result they can read Daniel's book "Thinking Slow and Fast", or listen him talk about his findings in panels and lectures all over the internet.

Thanks for addressing this topic.

-"Metaphysics is considered one of the four main branches of philosophy, along with epistemology, logic, and ethics. — Wikipedia"
- Correct, it deals with what lies beyond our current knowledge

-"Metaphysics can be taken as an exploration of reality (existence, objects & properties, space & time, cause & effect) with accent on possibilities - observe reality as it presents itself to us and then try and posit as many possible ways (theories/hypotheses) such a reality could be what it is.
-Any philosophical attempt to investigate aspects of reality is labeled metaphysics

Metaphysics is, in short, two very basic questions:"
-'1. What is reality?
2. Why is reality the way it is? "
- reality is a very "big thing".....

yes seriously!

-"OK, I gather this has nothing to do with peculiarly Greek usage"
-How was your gathering performed? Did you research specific sources? Is it because your philosophy is excluded based on that definition?

No its basic knowledge on how specific terms are used in Philosophy.
I have posted Carrier's talk on Philosophy and why it is useful contrary to many scientist's opinions.(previous page). He provides the same explanation and definitions. Check it , its helpful.
I am puzzled that most people in here ignore basic definitions of philosophy or what qualifies as philosophy.

The term Physics in the word refers to Physika (Metaphysika). Physika referred to the knowledge about Nature (Science).
It is even defined in Aritstotle's philosophical method.
6 steps.
1. EPistemology
2. Science (Physika)
3. Metaphysika
4. Aesthetics
5. Ethics
6.Politics.
(feedback loo).
I understand that most philosophers just can't resist changing the meaning of the word since they allow themselves to introduce all kind of pseudo philosophy in Philosophy....by saying "its metaphysics".

The term Physics in the word refers to Physika (Metaphysika). Physika referred to the knowledge about Nature (Science).
It is even defined in Aritstotle's philosophical method.
6 steps.
1. EPistemology
2. Science (Physika)
3. Metaphysika
4. Aesthetics
5. Ethics
6.Politics.
(feedback loo).
I understand that most philosophers just can't resist changing the meaning of the word since they allow themselves to introduce all kind of pseudo philosophy in Philosophy....by saying "its metaphysics"lol.