— tom

Let's break it down to the simplest possible system. Consider a particle of mass m moving with a velocity v in the positive x direction.

By the way, velocity is a vector, and so direction of motion is part of what a velocity specifies. Speed is the scalar magnitude of velocity, but some people confuse velocity with speed.

Now your job is to devise a test for the Principle of Conservation of Energy on that system. If you use any subsidiary theory, you have lost the argument, whether you realise it or not.

Maybe a single particle in motion isn't the most feasible system for successive measurements of the energy of an effectively-isolated system. :D

There are ample effectively-isolated systems whose energy can be measured at successive times.

We are probably getting a bit ahead of ourselves

You think? :D

What you've said in the post that I'm replying to, and in your previous ones, indicate thorough cluelessness about physics.

Why do some people here feel a psychological need to expound on physics?

Maybe it would be better for you to leave physics to physicists.

Didn't Wittgenstein say something about remaining silent on things that you're clueless about?

Michael Ossipoff

Because this life (or this finite sequence of finite lives) is finite and temporary, and because sleep at the end of lives is final and timeless, constituting the end of the life-period, I suggest that that final timeless sleep at the end of lives is the natural state of affairs, and that waking eventful life is the anomaly, the exception. ..a blip in eternity.

I usually avoid using the word "endless" for the sleep at the end of lives, because, as I said, in that sleep a person has no wish for an end, or knowledge of such a thing as waking life.

So I prefer the word "timeless".

One definition of "Natural" is "usual or ordinary" Therefore I suggest that the timeless sleep is the natural state of affairs.

Then should we call this temporary, finite time in life, in the "physical' world of events "the Supernatural"?

I suggest that, because we're so used to this life, we have it backwards, regarding what's natural and usual.

Michael Ossipoff

"And you make it sound scary, negative. What's scary about peaceful sleep?" — Michael Ossipoff
— Michael Ossipoff


Strictly speaking, of course it won't be anything like sleeping, because one presumably will never dream
— Bitter Crank

1. There's dreamless sleep.

2. Shakespeare had a good point when he said, "To sleep, perchance to dream."

Of course that needn't refer strictly to the dreams in ordinary everyday sleep He probably was referring to any eventful experience when someone isn't in waking consciousness.

For example, I've suggested an eventful experience occurring during the time without waking consciousness, at the end of a life, but you don't believe in it. But even that eventually won't occur, and then death will for sure be dreamless sleep. What's wrong with that?

or wake up.

You won't know that, or care, because, at the deep stage of death, near complete shutdown, just before awareness stops (by your survivor's timescale), you won't know that your body is going to shut down, and that youu aren't going to wake up, because you won't know that there ever was or could be a body, or wakeful life.

At the end of life, it's just going to sleep, not unlike ordinary nightly sleep.

You're making it into something that it's not.

Sleep is a euphemism for death, which has no ending.

As I said, during that process, you soon won't know that, or expect or want an ending, or know that there is or was or could be anything other than that sleep.

Life just stops

Of course. At the end of life. But, at the end of life, you won't miss it or know that there was ever such a thing.

I realize that you don't believe in reincarnation. I believe that there probably is reincarnation because it's implied by my metaphysics. I just want to clarify that when I say "the end of life", I'm referring to the end of lives, which, if there isn't reincarnation, just refers to the end of this life.

When I want to refer specifically to the end of this life, or the end of a particular life, I'll say, "the end of this life, or "the end of a life."

, and that's it. Nothing more.

No, there's sleep. You seem to be saying that a person arrives at a time when s/he has no experience. How could that be? Do you think that you could experience such a time? As I said, there's no such thing as oblivion.

he prospect of death is a tremendous incentive to enjoy life while it lasts. Carpe diem.

Of course.

Michael Ossipoff

The notion of "Creation" is over-anthropomorphiic.

Yes, there are awful things that happen to people in this world. Because much of it has societal origin, I often refer to this world as "The Land Of The Lost".

If Materialism is true, we're screwed

Well, but even then, the ordeal is only temporary.

But life should never be regarded as something to get through, to get overwith, That's a formula for continued dis-satisfaction and unhappiness. Obviously, being here, and knowing that it's tempporary, and therefore not that big a deal, we might as well make the best of it,

Also, It's been pointed out that, as animals, purposefully-responsive devices, we're here for our built-in purposes, but we're not here for things to happen to.
.
Michael Ossipoff

It will be back to the vacuum and cold dust of the universe all too soon. — Bitter Crank

Strictly speaking, of course it won't be "of the universe', because, as one is entering the timeless sleep at the end of life, s/he doesn't remember that there was ever such a thing as a universe, worldly-life, identity, time, or events.

(It goes without saying that you'll never experience a time when you don't experience. There's no "oblivion".)

And you make it sound scary, negative. What's scary about peaceful sleep?

Michael Ossipoff

The problems that you state are indeed problems, under Materialism. They go with the metaphysical belief called Materialism.

But they, and Materialism, are unnecessary

There are inevitable abstract if-then facts. For example, there are syllogisms such as:

If all Slithytoves are brillig, and all Jaberwockeys are Slithytoves, then all Jaberwockeys are brillig.

And there are inevitable abstract if-then facts about physical quantities and physical laws.

A set of hypothetical physical-quantity values, and a hypothetical relation among them (called a "physical law") constitute the "if " premise of an inevitable abstract if-then fact.

...except that one of those physical quantity-values can be taken as the "then" conclusion of that if-then fact.

A mathematical theorem is an if-then fact whose "if " premise includes, but needn't be limited to, a set of mathematical axioms (algebraic or geometric).

And there are complex systems of interlocking inevitable abstract if-then facts, such as those mentioned above.

Those systems, too, are inevitable.

That means it isn't necessary to ask why they are.

Your life-experience possibility-story is one of those infinitely-many inevitable complex systems of inter-referring abstract if-then facts about hypotheticals.


I can't prove that the fundamentally, objectively existent world that Materialists believe in doesn't superfluously exist alongside the hypothetical world that is the setting for the complex logical system that is your life-experience possibility-story.

...but, any claim that it does, is an unverifiable, unfalsifiable proposition about a brute-fact, an unnecessary, unsupported assumption.

Why is there you? Why are you in a life? Because there's a hypothetical life-experience possibility-story that has someone just like you (you, in fact) as its protagonist.

That's why you're here. That's why you're in a life.

Why is there something instead of nothing? Because there couldn't have not been abstract if-then facts. ...and therefore complex inter-referring systems of them. ...infinitely-many of them.

There's no reason to bring a religious debate into this subject. The subject of this thread is metaphysics, and metaphysics isn't (or shouldn't be) claimed to cover, explain or describe other than things that are describable and disussable. There' s no reason to believe or claim that metaphysics covers or describes all of Reality. ..or that physics does.

Or there could have been no universe at all.

No. See above.
\

If you think about it is sort of a cosmic accident of things coming together in the exact combination to produce such a being as yourself.

Not surprising, when you consider that there are infinitely-many life-experience possibiity-stories, as described above.

I feel like I shouldn't exist, it is just so unlikely.

It's hardly surprising, as one of infinitely-many life-experience possibility-stories, one with you as protagonist.

It's like the universe conspired to have me exist, but surely that's absurd.

Metaphysical reality has infinitely many life-experience possibility-stories.

It's also seems absurd to believe that I'm here for no reason at all.

I wouldn't say "not for any reason". The hypothetical person who is the protagonist of a hypothetical life-experience possibility-story, is someone who is in some way predisposed for life, someone with subconscious predisposition of some kind, toward life.

So it could almost be said that you were born into a life because you wanted to, needed to, or were otherwise predisposed to. ...were already the hypothetical protagonist of a hypothetical life-experience possibility-story.

If all this sounds fantastic or unlikely, then what better explanation can you find?

But yes, I agree that, even though there can be this verbal metaphysical explanation, it still is no less amazing and astonishing that we're in a life, that this life started. No matter how good a metaphysical explanation there is, it's still astonishing, and we still find ourselves asking, "Why did this life start?"

As I said, metaphysics doesn't cover, explain, or describe all of Reality.

Michael Ossipoff

I’d said:
.

Measuring for change in the energy of an isolated system tests Conservation of Energy. — Michael Ossipoff

.
You replied:
.

So, how are you going to do that, using the Conservation of Energy alone. Go ahead, give it a try!

.
Hello? You didn’t only say that Conservation can’t be directly tested using Conservation of Energy alone.
.
You said that Conservation of Energy can’t be directly tested.
.
To claim that your earlier statement was true, you’re trying to change what it was. But it’s right there in these archives. Feel free to edit it out if you want to.
.
Conservation of Energy can be directly tested by determining the energy of an effectively isolated system at two different time, to determine whether its energy can be observed to change in isolation.
.
But I’ve already said that.
.
I’d said:
.

Your two abovequoted statements, together, say that Conservation of Energy can't be tested. — Michael Ossipoff

.
You’d said:
.

None of the principles of physics can be directly tested, only their subsidiary theories can.

.
I’d said:
.

Conservation of energy can be tested by observing whether an isolated system is ever observed to experience a change in its energy. — Michael Ossipoff

.
You replied:
.

How?

.
By determining the energy of an effectively-isolated system at two different times, to determine whether its energy can be observed to change in isolation.
.
I’d said:
.

Physicists call Conservation of Energy a law. — Michael Ossipoff

You replied:
.

And I'm certain that many physicists think it can be tested, because they haven't thought about it. Once they appreciate it can't, which they will discover very quickly, they will better appreciate the distinction between the Principles and Laws of physics.

.
So if physicists don’t know what they’re talking about, then you should set them straight, because you’re better qualified in physics than they are, right?
.

Anyway, you were going to provide a method of testing CofE, weren't you.

.
See above.
.
Michael Ossipoff

How does the Principle of Conservation of Energy help you in measuring the energy of an isolated system? — tom

You said that Conservation of Energy is a principle. You said that a principle can't be directly tested or used..

Measuring for change in the energy of an isolated system tests Conservation of Energy.

Your two abovequoted statements, together, say that Conservation of Energy can't be tested.

Conservation of energy can be tested by observing whether an isolated system is ever observed to experience a change in its energy.

Your statement before, wasn't about using Conservation of Energy to measure the energy of an isolated system.

Physicists call Conservation of Energy a law.

Michael Ossipoff

No, I don't find any of what you say compelling enough to either agree or disagree with. Can't we just leave it at that? — Janus

Not compelling enough to disagree with? :D

That's a rather self-contradictory statement to leave it with. What's wrong with leaving it with the factual summary in my previous post?

Ok, here's a more objective summary:

When I asked you what you specifically which statement(s) in my metaphysical proposal you disagree with, you said you didn't understand it.

When I asked specifically which statement(s), word(s), term(s) or Phrase(s) you didn't understand, you said that I hadn't supported my statements.

When I asked you specifically which statement(s) I didn't support, and why you think so, you didn't answer.

So it's objectively fair to summarize the discussion by saying the following:

You didn't specify which statement(s) in my metaphysical proposal you disagree with.

You didn't specify which statement(s), word(s), term(s) or phrase(s) you didn't understand in my metaphysical proposal.

You didn't specify which statement(s) in my metaphysical proposal i didn't support.

But yes, you've said or implied that you don't disagree with it. Yes, I've been saying that it doesn't say anything that anyone would disagree with.

Michael Ossipoff.

but you don't seem to be saying anything that I can get hold of sufficiently to respond to. — Janus

...whatever you mean by "get hold of sufficiently".

When you said something like that before, I invited you to specify, in particular, which word, term, phrase or statement you didn't understand the meaning of.

Your answer was that I hadn't supported my statements.

So I invited you to specify which statement I didn't support.

Alright, you're unable to specify which statement I didn't support, or which statement you disagree with, or which statement, word, term or phrase you don't know the meaning of.

Michael Ossipoff

There is no direct way to use or test a principle. — tom

Then I said:

But there are ways to directly test Conservation of Energy.

Hint: Determine whether the energy of an (effectively) isolated system can be observed to change..

Hint: That's WHY conservation of energy is a Principle. — tom

???! :D

Michael829

but for me faith is more of a feeling for the indeterminate than a set of determinate fundamentalistic…

But if we can leave out the silly "fundamentalist" charge, I agree that of course Reality is indeterminate, and not described or explained by Metaphysics, which is a fairly determinate subject.

An example of where metaphysics lacks determinacy is the fact that I admit that I can't prove that the Materialist's fundamentally, objectively existent physical world doesn't superflously exist alongside of the uncontroversially existing inevitable complex system of abstract if-then facts about hypotheticals, whose events and relations it duplicates.

...as an unverifiable, unfalsifiable proposition of a brute-fact.

Michael Ossipoff

I don't think reincarnation or resurrection…

.
Resurrection is a different topic.
.

…, for that matter, are logically incompatible with materialism.

Reincarnation is incompatible with Materialism because within the beliefs of Materialists, there’s no way that it would or could happen.

.
But they are both incompatible with present human understanding of the physical

.
Incorrect. Only if you believe that “the physical” comprises all of reality. …if, in other words, you’re a Materialist.
.
For example, the metaphysics that I’ve proposed here, and the suggestion about reincarnation, aren’t incompatible with “the physical”. My metaphysics just doesn’t recognize “the physical” as the ultimate, fundamental or primary reality, or all of reality. (…but only Materialism does.)
.
You sound awfully assertive about your Materialism. Do you realize that not everyone here is a Materialist? You seem to feel that Materialism is the starting-premise. :D
.
But I don’t want to make an issue about reincarnation. I don’t claim that it can be proved.
.
What I do claim, though, is that the metaphysics that I’ve proposed is uncontroversial, saying nothing that anyone would disagree with.
.

; there is no conceivable mechanism by which they could be actualities.

.
There’s no conceivable mechanism in the metaphysics of Materialism, or anointed by the religion of Science-Worship, in which reincarnation could happen. Of course. That’s why I said that reincarnation is incompatible with Materialism.
.

So, I don't say that it is definitive that they are not actualities, or that there could not possibly be an immaterial soul or non-physical mental tendencies…

.
Of course personal “tendencies” aren’t physical things. …just as a Roomba’s program-logic, tendencies and preferences aren’t physical things. That seems to cause a big unnecessary problem for Materialists philosophers. But their imaginary “Hard Problem of Consciousness” is a separate subject.
.
In the reincarnation scenario that I described, I mentioned tendencies: Subconscious attributes, needs, wants, predispositions. None of those things are controversial. No one denies that there are those.
.

all I am saying is that I cannot see any reliable evidence that would compel me to believe in such things.

.
There’s reliable evidence that you have wants, needs, and predispositions.
.
Of course my reincarnation scenario depends on more than that. It depends on my metaphysics. Is there reliable evidence for that metaphysics, Sure. “Evidence” means “Support for the truth of a claim.” Of course there’s that. It’s part of the description that I’ve posted of my metaphysics proposal.
.
“Reliable”? I use the word “Uncontroversial”.
.
Earlier, you said that I didn’t support some statement(s) in my proposal of my metaphysics. Regrettably, you forgot to say which statements(s) you were referring to, and why you think so. :D
.
I’d said:
.

I don't believe in a soul separate from the body. But I've amply described how the person, unconscious at some stage of death-shutdown, but still retaining his/her subconscious wants, needs, predispositions and attributes, thereby remains someone who is the protagonist of a life-experience possibility-story. There is a life-experience possibility-story about that person.

.
Another thing that s/he retains is an orientation toward the future and life.

.
If that sounds fantastic, I remind you that it's also fantastic that you're in a life now. Why are you? Why did it start?

.
You replied:
.

What you are describing just sounds like somewhat wildly imaginative speculation to me. I haven't seen you provide any evidence to support it.

.
So you say. Evidence is support for a claim.
.
I asked you, specifically, which statement or conclusion in my metaphysics proposal, you disagree with. …or which statement or conclusion you think I didn’t support.
.
Oops! You forgot to say.
.
Maybe the fact that you couldn’t come up with a specific disagreement is something that you could take as evidence.
.
As I said above, “evidence” means “support for a claim” (Evidence needn’t be proof, but sometimes its conclusion is inevitable or uncontroversial.)
.

From the fact that it might be "fantastic" that I'm "in a life" now, it does not seem to follow that some other fantastic story is therefore true.

.
No, it means that other fantastic suggestions aren’t more fantastic than the fact that you’re in a life. I’ll add that my metaphysics, too, isn’t more fantastic than the various alternatives, including Materialism.
.
But, fantastic or not, my metaphysics proposal doesn’t say anything that anyone would disagree with. If there’s some statement in that proposal that you disagree with, feel free to say which statement it is.
.
But I’ve been asking you to specify that, and you haven’t come up with anything.
.

I wouldn't put it that way, in any case' I would say that life is mysterious because we don't know how it originated. It's also possible that it will remain a mystery.

.
Hardly. Life started on this planet via some physical mechanism. Period. No mystery.
.
Sure, that mechanism isn’t known in detail. So what.
.
Some biologists have said that it was vanishingly improbable. Ok, fine.
.
(Yes, there are theories that life started somewhere else, and somehow got here. Again, so what if it did?)
.

When faced with that mystery we can be drawn to religious faith or we can sustain a hopeful faith that science will one day explain it all.

.
It’s a physical question that science might very well someday explain, in physical terms.
.
But, when I said you don’t know why your life started, I wasn’t talking about why life began on the Earth.
.

I tend more towards the former;

.
I, too, don’t claim that metaphysics has all the answers, or that metaphysics describes or covers all of Reality. When I say that my metaphysics explains a “why”, I’m only referring to a metaphysical answer to a metaphysical “why”.
.

but for me faith is more of a feeling for the indeterminate than a set of determinate fundamentalistic…

.
Nonsense. “Fundamentalist” implies in belief in a religion’s scriptural statements, where the scriptures are the source of information, justification and reason, for that belief. So you’re suggesting that I suggested that there’s likely reincarnation because the Hindu and Buddhist scriptures say so.
.
As I said, reincarnation is implied, or even predicted, by the completely uncontroversial metaphysics that I propose.
.
I’ve already said that, and I haven’t referred to scriptures to support the suggestion of reincarnation.
.
So much for “fundamentalist”
.

propositions which take forms like 'we are reincarnated' or 'we are resurrected'

.
We’re likely reincarnated, but, as I’ve been saying, I don’t claim to have proof. I said that reincarnation is predicted or implied by my metaphysics. If it’s only implied, then it isn’t certain.
.

…or 'we repeat the same life over and over' (some form of "eternal recurrence" with or without variations) and so on.

.
…a suggestion that hasn’t been made here. There’s no reason to expect that subsequent lives would be the same, though they might well be a bit similar, in some regards, and be in similar worlds.
.
(I don’t agree that successive incarnations must be in the same world.)
.
I’d said:
.

You don't know? Then it isn't justified to draw convinced-conclusion about it.
.
Then is it so implausible that, if the reason why it started remains at the end of this life, then the same reason will have the same result?

.
As I've said, I don't have proof of reincarnation. I doubt that proof is possible. But it is implied or predicted from a plausible, reasonable explanation for this life, and by an uncontroversial metaphysics.
.

There doesn't have to be a "reason why it started"

.
Whether there has to be or not, there’s a good metaphysical explanation. And why is there a life-experience possibility story with someone just like you (you, actually) as its protagonist? Because uncontroversially there are infinitely many life-experience possibility-stories. …as complex systems of inter-referring abstract if-then facts about hypotheticals.
.

, that demand may just reflect a human need to project beyond its relevant ambit a requirement for the kinds of explanations we need to navigate the empirical domain.

.
Claims about the motivation of someone you disagree with is, of course, one of the most common desperate Internet argument tactics.
.
If there’s an explanation, then it can be said, with or without whatever motives you imagine.
.
I don’t claim that metaphysics has all the answers, including all the “why” answers. I don’t claim that metaphysics describes Reality—It describes only what can be described and discussed.
.

I haven't seen anything that convinces me that reincarnation is "implied or predicted from a plausible, reasonable explanation for this life"

.
Fine. Whether or not my metaphysics implies reincarnation isn’t meaningful for this discussion if you clam that my metaphysics proposal (including my comments about the metaphysical cause of our lives) wasn’t uncontroversial. So then, which statement in that proposal do you disagree with?
.

and I don't believe there is any "uncontroversial metaphysics"

.
But there’s one with which you can’t express a specific disagreement. :D
.

, because all metaphysics start from unfounded assumptions

.
Yes, Materialism does.
.
No, my metaphysics doesn’t. It’s based on abstract logical facts. No one denies that there are abstract logical facts.
.

, and the best they can hope for is to be consistent with those assumptions, and thus remain exactly as sound as those assumptions are.

.
As I’ve been saying from the start here, my metaphysics doesn’t make or need any assumptions.
.
But, if you think that my metaphysics makes or needs an assumption…Oops! You forgot to specify it.
.

In the final analysis metaphysics is a matter of taste

.
Can you prove the truth of that statement? … or is it a speculation, or a faith-based belief?
.

and any who claim that they do not start from their own (usually but perhaps not always culturally instilled) prejudices

.
As I said above, claims about the motives of someone you disagree with is one of the most common desperate Internet argument tactics.
.
But yes, I’ll admit that your Materialism is cultural. It’s the metaphysics taught in schools, and in science-books. …or, when not specifically stated, at least, strongly implied there.
.
[quote[
…in these matters is being intellectually delusional or dishonest in my view.

.
I don’t criticize you for having strong beliefs. I don’t even criticize you if your beliefs are so strong that they lead you to believe that anyone who doesn’t share them must be “delusional or dishonest”.
.
But name-calling isn’t permitted here. If you’re unable to abide by this forum’s guidelines for conduct, then it would be better if you didn’t post.
.
Michael Ossipoff

I'm happy to find this thought discussed by someone else. Yes, it's when the 'why' targets existence as a whole that it reveals itself to be a lyrical why, a 'pseudo-question.' — ff0

Not if you're only asking about metaphysical reality.

But consider: normally, asking why depends on relative juxtaposition of things. Why this? Because that, because some other thing. But there's no "other thing" against which existence as a whole can be juxtaposed.

If the topic is limited to metaphysical existence, I don't think there's a problem like that, because I don't think that the systems of inter-referrng if-then facts that metaphysics leads to need to be justified by or juxtaposed to anything outside their own context.

Nature (the way things are) is a system of postulated necessary relationships. We can answer local why-questions in terms of these relationships. But the system as a whole must remain a brute fact.

No, not metaphysically.. We've discussed why there couldn't have not been abstract facts, of which our physical worlds consist.

There's no reason to believe in a metaphysical brute-fact..

There is no object outside of the system to put the system into a necessary relation with.

A system of inter-referring abstract if-then facts about hypotheticals doesn't need a relation with something larger or global...or anything outside its own inter-referring context.

So, when you speak of that "necessary relation", you're talking about a "need" that isn't.

But I don't see how a metaphysical God object brings the why-series to an end.

Not all Theists believe that God is an element of metaphysics, or, in any sense, an "object".

Explanation doesn't go past metaphysics.

...So we don't escape brute fact.

But, if you're referring to metaphysics and metaphysical reality, the metaphysics that I've described doesn't have or need any assumptions or brute-fact.

But logically we still have existence as brute fact.

No, not in metaphysics.

Michael Ossipoff

question assumes there is a meaning for life. I do not understand why people assume something has a "meaning". — Pollywalls

Yes, life doesn't have or need meaning.

Michael Ossipoff

"The protagonist of that story is its essential, central, primary component. ...because a possibility-story is a life-experience possibility-story only because it has a protagonist. }— Michael Ossipoff

It does occur to me that we exist largely as possibility.

Yes,that's what it all really only amounts to.

And the gravitas of the regrets and dilemmas that you mentioned is removed by the insubstantial-ness and ethereal-ness of what metaphysically (describably, discussably) is.

That's why I say that this metaphysics implies an openness, looseness and lightness.

This finite life (or finite sequence of finite lives) in the world of identity, things, time and events, is only part of our overall life, which, we all agree, ends with well-deserved timeless peaceful rest and sleep.

But while we're in this temporary eventful story part, it's worth noting its insubstantiality, openness, looseness, lightness.

It doesn't have the grim limits of the world that the Materialist believes in.

Michael Ossipoff

There are many variations of materialism — Joshs

It's difficult to converse without specific, explicit definitions. So, if there are many Materialisms, then Materialism advocates need to clarify which Materialism they're advocating.

, and many variations of theism

Most definitely. ...which is why aggressive Atheists don't really know what they're loudly and aggressively denying.

Atheism is a peculiar belief, a denial whose subject isn't specified, and is unknown to that belief's adherents, who seem to equate all Theism with Biblical Literalism.

, and many variations of something that lies between the two. What these terms connote doesn't fit neatly into simple categories

...so definitions should be specific and consistent.

There is also a whole community of phenomenological and post-phenomenological thought that turns the materialist-theist binary on its head.

...by changing the definition of Materialism (that this physical world and its physical things are the only or fundamental reality, or that all of reality consists of this physical world)?

Sure, there are various wordings of Materialism's definition, but most of them seem to not contradict eachother, and seem to be about the same belief.

No doubt, by changing definitions, all sorts of "binaries" can be turned on their heads.

For example, maybe you could re-define Materialism to replace "reality" in the above definition, with metaphysical reality.

And of course there are a lot of Theists who say that their anthropomorphically-conceived God created a physical world that's largely, basically or usually the same objectively existent Materialist physical world that Materialists believe in.

I'm not saying that I object to definition-changes, or positions that don't recognize usually-accepted dichotomies. Yes, some dichotomies are artificial and unnecessary.

Michael Ossipoff

There is no direct way to use or test a principle. — tom

You said that Conservation of Energy is a principle, not a law.

But there are ways to directly test Conservation of Energy.

Hint: Determine whether the energy of an (effectively) isolated system can be observed to change..

Michael Ossipoff

"And no, the principle of demarcation isn't physical law". — Michael Ossipoff

You are not a serious person. Thanks for clearing that up. — tom

You're welcome. Let me know any time you have a funny belief that you want checked.

Alright, I'll give you more help:

You said that Conservation of Energy isn't a law.

Is that why physicists call it the Law of Conservation of Energy? :D

You'd said:

Metaphysics is defined by the Principle of Demarcation, so yes Metaphysics is defined precisely by physical law.

Metaphysics is not defined by the principles of demarcation, and the principles of demarcation aren't physical law.

...and the statement to which you were replying wasn't about the subject called metaphysics. I'd merely said that metaphysicses (obviously meaning individual particular metaphysicses) aren't defined in terms of physical laws, contrary to what you'd said.

...,making your above-quoted mis-statement irrelevant even if it had been true.

As I was telling someone in another discussion, metaphysics shares some of the requirements and theory-evaluation standards of science.

A few examples:

Definitions should be explicit and consistent.

Statements should be supported.

A proposal that isn't inevitable and self-evident on principle should at least be falsifiable but not yet falsified, in order to be taken seriously at all.

Michael Ossipoff

At SEP, i found where it said that Popper wanted "a criterion for a scientific theory or hypothesis to be scientific, rather than pseudoscientific or metaphysical."

At some point in that article, the author qualified that wish further, saying, "...falsifiable by a [physical] observation".

To be falsifiable by physical observation, a statement would have to be about physics. Metaphysicses don't usually make specifications or or stipulations about physics. So it isn't saying a whole lot, to say that you can demarcate between physics and metaphysics by falsifiability by physical observation, :D

And you can't define metaphysics that way, because, for example, the rules of word-games don't include statements that are falsifiable by physical experiment observations.

In any case, what I'd said was that metaphsysicses (implying particular ones) aren't defined in terms of physical laws.

I wasn't talking about the definition of the subject of metaphysics.

And even if the "principle of demarcation" defined the subject of metaphysics (but it doesn't), the fact remains that the principle of demarcation isn't a physical law.

So why do you make those sloppy statements?

By the way:

If several metaphysics are all consistent with the same physical world, regardless of physical observations, then a claim that one of those metaphysicses is right and the others are wrong can't be verified or falsified by physical observation either.

That's why I emphasize that I don't say that it's definitely incorrect to claim that the objectively existent physical world that Materialists believe in superfluously exists alongside the inevitable complex system of inter-referring abstract if-then facts about hypotheticals that I describe.

But such a claim would be an unverifiable, unfalsifiable proposition of an unsupported brute-fact.

Michael Ossipoff

I searched Google for Principle of Demarcation.

I didn't find it.

But I found Principles of Demarcation. (plural)

Those were stated to be some principles for demarcating science from pseudoscience. ...for evaluating the scientificness of a theory.

...not for demarcating metaphysics from physics. ...or, in any way or regard, for defining the subject of metaphysics.

At least some of those principles, like falsifiabililty, seem valid for evaluating a metaphysics, but they don't define metaphysics as a topic, as you implied they do.

Nor are they used as the basis for defining a particular metaphysics.

If they can be useful for evaluating a metaphysics, that doesn't support a claim that particular metaphysicses are defined in terms of "the principle of demarcation."

And no, the principle of demarcation isn't physical law.

Michael Ossipoff

Metaphysics is defined by the Principle of Demarcation, so yes Metaphysics is defined precisely by physical law. — tom

That's a reply to something that i didn't say..

I said that metaphyicses aren't defined in terms of physical law.

It is, or should be, obvious, that "metaphysicses" refers to individual metaphysicses.

You evidently are referring to the definition of metaphysics itself, as an area of discussion.

...another topic.

The word "Metaphysics" has a lot of definitions, and is sometimes broadly extended to include Ontology and a lot of other areas. I've seen a fairly long list of definitions for "Metaphysics".

An old unabridged Merriam-Webster said that metaphysics is the topic of origins and ultimate-reality.

A more recent Merriam-Webster:

Mataphysics:

a(1): A division of philosophy that is concerned with the fundamental nature of reality and being and includes ontology, cosmology, and often epistemology.

a(2): Ontology 2.

b: Abstract philosophical studies; a study of what is outside objective experience.

Ontology:

1. A branch of metaphysics concerned with the nature and relations of being.

2. A particular theory about the nature of being or the kinds of things that have existence.

-------------

"Real" and "Existent" aren't metaphysically defined. Neither is "Is". But it can be said that there undeniably are things whose existence or reality is denied by some who agree that there are those things in the broadest sense of "are" and "is".

So I try to avoid arguments about what's real or existent, and speak more of thing that undeniably are, even if some don't call them real or existent.

Ontology seems to emphasize being or is-ness more, but it's included in a number of definitions of metaphysics. I usually call the topic metaphysics, because of that word's broader coverage, and because the real-ness or ultimate-reality issue sometimes comes up.
------------------------

As for definitions of metaphysics, I've never seen the definition by "the principle of demarcation". But I've only looked at modern definitions. Are you referring to an obsolete, unused ancient definition?

I'll look up the principle of demarcation, but if (as it sounds like), you're talking about a definition of metaphysics based on the difference(s) that demarcate it from physics, that would be a really silly way to define metaphysics.
------------------------

But, more relevantly, my comment was obviously about how particular metaphysicses are defined, and not about the definition of the subject of metaphysics.

Michael Ossipoff

Metaphysical Physicalism differs from Materialism by explicitly allowing the existence or reality of such non-material things as forces and fields. — Michael Ossipoff


You are kidding me, right?

What has "forces and fields" got to do with the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics? — tom

I didn't say anything about whether it does or not.

In the quoted passage, I relayed what I'd read about the difference between the definitions of Materialism and metaphysical Physicalism.

And, as i said, metaphysicses aren't defined in terms of physical laws.

Michael Ossipoff

I have some recollection of explaining on this or another thread that Materialism refers to the 1st law of thermodynamics, and physicalism refers to the 1st and 2nd law. So no, it's physicalism. — tom

Physicalism has two meanings: science-of-mind Physicalism and metaphysical Physicalism..

Metaphysical Physicalism differs from Materialism by explicitly allowing the existence or reality of such non-material things as forces and fields.

Because Physicalism has two meanings, then, to avoid writing an additional word to distinguish between those two meanings, it's much easier to just say "Materialism", with the understanding that it's meant to allow the things like forces and fields allowed by metaphysical Physicalism.

So I say "Materialism", with that meaning, instead of saying "metaphysical Physicalism".

I've seen a number of definitions of Materialism and Physicalism, but I've never heard of either defined in terms of the laws of thermodynamics.

In general, metaphysicses aren't defined in terms of physical laws.

Michael Ossipoff

That everything that exists is subject to the laws of physics, does not mean they alone are required to account for everything. — tom

So everything that exists is subject to the laws of physics?

Sure, if "existent" is taken as synonymous with "physical"

Materialism, in other words.

Michael Ossiopff

"That's the conceptual way you look at it now. You're talking adult-learned concepts. But that isn't what life was when you were younger. You know that." — Michael Ossipoff


Sure it was. It was preparing for maintenance. It was enculturation, cultural preparation.
— schopenhauer1

Of course. That's what i said about my own experience. And i agreed that, for some reason, we're born into a world with some really harmful, undesirable people to share a world with. Certainly they can successfully do their worst when someone's life is just starting out.

The things that you mention above are mostly from parents and school, but also from the overall culture around you.

But, as destructive as all that can be, it isn't life. It's a life-destroying environment, but don't confuse it with life itself.

I said that I won't pretend to like the adverse company we have in this world, but, as bad and pervasive and sometimes life-destructive (in various ways) it is, you're making a big leap when you adopt a life-rejecting attitude because of it.

About mattering, of course it legitimately subjectively matters to an individual what happens to him/her.

But that's it. I don't believe that talk about there being a meaning, or about there being a need for meaning. I guess people adopt that belief by reading certain kinds of philosophers,

(Would that be Existentialists? They're the ones people seem to usually talk about when they speak of the search for meaning, or the gloom of no meaning)

Life doesn't have meaning, or a need for it. If anyone claims life has or needs meaning, then the burden is on them to support their claim.

Sure, explicit and implicit indoctrination, early in life, about what matters is arguably what does the most damage.

Michael Ossipoff

Oops! I was in a hurry when i replied earlier, and I've just realized that I misunderstood, and thought that you were quoting Plato, when you were really quoting Feser.

Evidently Feser is one of that large group, the Theists who believe in Materialism, but with human souls, and in which God created a Material world that's really the same as that of the Materialists.

So of course he doesn't like the Plato version of Realism, if, as you said, Feser doesn't believe that there's anything other than Mind and Matter.

Myself, I don't understand that belief. But when I criticize a metaphysics, I save the criticism for plain Scientificist Materialism. No time to criticize all metaphysicses that I don't agree with.

I don't think the world is fundamentally material, I don't believe that God is a being, or an element of metaphysics, "Creation" is an over-anthropomorphic notion. ...as is much of what a lot of Theists, including. Literalists of various kinds, say about God.

Michael Ossipoff

I don't see how the repetitious maintaining of whatever systems, objects, processes, needs to happen. Novelty schmoevelty..

it's all the same- MAINTENANCE. Why provide a person to put forth the energy of maintaining their survival, finding entertainment, etc. — schopenhauer1

That's the conceptual way you look at it now. You're talking adult-learned concepts. But that isn't what life was when you were younger. You know that.

You aren't accurately describing life.

It just doesn't seem like a good thing to for someone else. It's not about the outcome in this case, simply the question. I don't care if people literally don't have any more kids as much as asking the question of why having more people should take place in the first place. This is where you fundamentally miss me.

Ok, that's your main emphasis. You're talking about whether life is/was a good idea. I don't think that can be discussed in the context of Materialism. Sure, the Buddhists and Hindus have said or implied in the negative. Nisargadatta said that birth is a calamity. But that's misleading. Hindus don't really say that, because they know that each subsequent life starts because the person is already involved, has already gotten involved, and isn't done. Some things, once started, can't be stopped till they're done.

But what about the the start of lives? The start of the whole involvement with life? Maybe you have a case there, in a way, but it's a moot point now, because we're already involved. By my metaphysics, as I said, you're here because there is a hypothetical life-experience possibility-story whose protagonist is the hypothetical person that you were/are. Maybe that hypothetical person that you were was unwise to want, need, &/or be predisposed to life. But, as I said, that's moot now.

That's my answer to your question about the advisability of life. Whether it was advisable to start the sequence of involvement is moot now, because it's already a fait accompli and now you're in it, for better or worse, till you're done.

As for the unfairness of bringing new people into the world, I agree that it's undesirable to overpopulate this planet. There are already too many people,and it's highly commendable to not add to that problem. I'm in favor of antinatalism. It would be great if enough people would adopt it.

But, as regards the unfairness to your offspring,by bringing them into the world, you're looking at it from the Materialist perspective. By Materialism, it's as you say. But not by my metaphysics. Someone is born for the reason that I outlined above, not because two particular people created a life. That person was going to be born anyway.

Still, i wouldn't want to be part of the direct cause of someone being born, and so I'm inclined toward antinatalism for that reason too.

Other related topics:

I admit that, though it would be better to not live instrumentally, nearly everyone does, including all of us at this forum, at least to a large extent, much of the time. Though I talk non-instrumental living, it's to at least some extent all talk.

And actually my experiences largely support your attitude. For some reason (we'll never know exactly why) we were all born in this world full of really undesirable people to share a world with!

What did we do to deserve that? No one knows the details.

In my case, Ii wasn't resistant to it at all, and the thugs and trogs who mostly populate this world, the ones consisting of family, culture, and school peers, basically killed me just starting out.

And still now, of course, just like all of us, I still live in that world of thugs and trogs.

Of course now it includes the larger society, the political world that I ignore as much as possible. i want nothing to do with their hopeless and farsical politics.

I won't pretend to like that. But I don't have your attitude about it, because I realize that, for whatever reason, this sequence of involvement started, and, for some other reason, I drew a bad world this time. What can I do? Just make the best of it, while I'm in this one. Rejecting it won't accomplish anything, no matter what my opinion of the people I have to share this world with Just get through it, making the best of it.

That last clause, the emphasis on making the best of it, is the difference between our attitudes. The life-rejection attitude just wouldn't do any good, and would make things worse.

Michael Ossipoff

If life has no meaning (and here I refer to salvific, objective meaning, not the created, subjective meaning of the existentialist)... — Thorongil

Well obviously life's meaning is subjective. It's for the person whose life it is.

I looked up "Salvific", and it means "Having the intent or power to save or redeem." That sounds like Biblical Literalist religion, which i don't subscribe to.

...but I have no idea what the subjective meaning of the Existentialists is.

The usual definition of Existentialism that I've seen is: The belief that existence precedes essence.

Because "existence" isn't metaphysically-defined, I have no idea what that definition means.

Merriam-Webster defines Existentialism as::

"A philosophical movement embracing diverse doctrines, but centering on an analysis of individual existence in an unfathomable universe, and the plight of the individual who must assume ultimate responsibility for acts of free will without any certain knowledge of what is right or wrong, or, good or bad."

First of all, that's really silly. How can (let alone "must") someone assume responsibility for a matter on which s/he doesn't (and presumably can't?) know what's right or wrong, good or bad?

Anyway, from those two definitions, I don't know what the Existentialist's subjective meaning of life is.

...then it doesn't matter whether one has children or not or whether the human race dies out or not. — Thorongil

Probably not, by any objective measure (but I don't know what objective measure there could be).

But if the human race dies out in a manner that results in physical suffering or undesired premature death of individuals, then that's subjectively undesirable for them (us).

...so let's not avoidably worsen global-warming.

And let's have in place surveillance for, and means to deflect, an asteroid or comet that is on a collision-course with the Earth.

But If the human race dies out because everyone becomes an antinatalist, who'd complain?

I have no problem with antinatalism, because there are too many people on the Earth.

Absent such meaning, there is nothing, no God

Atheism is a separate topic. As for keeping track, I don't subscribe to the over-anthropomorphic Biblical Literalist notion of God. Atheists are always talking about the anthropormorphic God of the Biblical Literalists.

and no law of karma, keeping track, as it were, of all the suffering of human beings and other creatures.

So, without an objective meaning for life (and I have no idea what that might be), there's nothing keeping track of all the suffering of human beings and other creatures. Because I don't know what that objective meaning would be anyway, or what form of keeping-track there would otherwises be, I can't disagree or agree with that statement.

There are organizations and NGOs that do keep track of suffering and harm to human beings and other creatures. They do so even if there's no objective meaning to life. Why should they? How about because they just feel like it, and they just don't like harm to living things (a feeling that they can have without life having an objective meaning).

But you're going a bit too far when you say that there's no law of Karma, without an objective meaning for life. The burden is on you to explain why what Hinduism and Buddhism say about Karma isn't valid if there's no objective meaning for life. If you harm people, that has subjective meaning for them. People don't like being harmed, regardless whether life has objective meaning.

In fact, actually, why must there be meaning anyway? People can do things that they like. Maybe many people would prefer to do so in a way that doesn't harm others. But if someone is harming others, then maybe those others will manage to avoid harm to themselves, individually &/or collectively.

But no need for meaning.

Suffering leaves no imprint in a meaningless world.

...but it can lead to prosecution and imprisonment of the perp.

...maybe thereby providing some deterrence.

Were the antinatalist's ultimate desire met, there would be no perspective available to anyone or anything to judge that the extinction of human beings was a good thing.

It is therefore no more or less good than their continued existence.[/quote]

That issue I'll leave to you and the antinatalists. But antinatalism is an undeniably good thing, because it could reduce population, on a more and more overcrowded planet.

Michael Ossipoff





.

"What's wrong with Platonic Realism?"

Feser's objection focuses of Plato's postulation of a "third realm", transcending the physical and mental realms, in which the Forms exist. — Mitchell

So he was a Dualist?

For one thing, I don;t believe in Mind separate from body. You're your body.

For another thing, it sounds like you're saying that Plato believed that 1) metaphysics describes all of Reality; and 2) Metaphysically, there's nothing other than matter and Mind (if you believe in it as separate). Do you believe those things?

I don't believe in "realms".

If he said those things, then I'd better shut up about his position, because I must have bigtime misread those articles about it. So I retract what I said about "Platonic Realism", because it's obvious that I don't really know what he believed.

There obviously are abstract facts.

Michael Ossipoff

Instrumentality isn't necessarily about living for the future — schopenhauer1

It's about doing something for a reason other than because you like it.

But there are things that you like.

It is simply the repetitious nature of surviving

Working for survival is doing something for the future, as we always must (unless we're food-gatherers in a paradise-like environment).

Admittedly, the getting-by task can be a pain. But it isn't everything. Also, many people can find a job that they don't hate, or even one that they like.
.

and keeping our mind's entertained

You make that sound like another chore. "Oh great, now I have to have fun."

There are things that you like. In this discussion you're ignoring that basic fact.

"Repetitious"?

If your "entertainments" are repetitious, then they aren't entertainments. If they're repetitious and boring, and you don't like doing the same entertainments all the time, then vary them. There's no one forcing you to keep repeating the same entertainments that you're tired of.

between birth and death.

Negative.

Experience doesn't end at death. You never experience a time when you don't experience.

Don't expect death as a relief, an impatiently longed-for end of experience, because, as I've emphasized, there's no such thing as oblivion. You never get there.

As Rajneesh (and maybe others) pointed out, your death won't be better than your life,. if your life is bad because of a rejecting attitude toward it.

(Whatever else is said of Rajneesh, he said a some good things)

You'll say, "So here I still am." Really, what did you expect.

...reminding me of Christopher Plummer's line in Wolf: "Well here you still are."

Putting in energy to maintain survival, comfort, entertainment, this day, then the next, then the next, then the next

Though experience never ends, life does. Enjoy it while it lasts. Otherwise, you'll feel plenty silly later.

But I'm not saying that you instrumentally should enjoy it to avoid feeling silly later. A lizard will get out of the sun if he feels too hot, and out of the shade if he feels too cold. Learn from him, and don't keep to a routine that you don't like.

Purposely living a routine that you don't like, and objecting to it, rejecting it as you adhere to it, doesn't make sense.

I say that you're in life because you had, and still have, a predisposition toward it, or even a want for it.. But whether or not you agree with that, you're in it, and it's temporary, so, while here, you might as well allow yourself to like it. That's just being realistic and self-honest. And there are things that you like. Build a model ship, Read a more cheerful philosopher. There's got to be something that you like.

Michael Ossipoff

"Quite so. Though most, nearly all, Atheists are Materialists, believing that the physical world is all of reality, being an Atheist doesn't definitionally require being a Materialist. There are probably non-Materialist Atheists at these forums." — Michael Ossipoff


I must disagree here. Not everyone is so theoretical! Some people just don't go to church, don't pray, don't expect help from secret sources.
— ff0

What secret sources? Let me in on the secret.

Why am I the last to hear about it? Must be because I'm fairly new to these forums :D

Secret--Do you mean like the Kabbalah? You couldn't mean Theism, because Theists don't make a secret of their religion. (Maybe some of them did, in Roman times. Maybe some of them even do here, in a relatively Atheist environment.)

I must admit that it would be ok with me if the door-to-door denominations decided to adopt a new policy of being secretive about their beliefs.

And what did you mean by "expect help". Critical aggressive Atheists like to attribute to all Theists the attributes of some Biblical Literalists that they've heard or heard of.

Most people do not pick some "ism" to wear and defend.

If you're referring to Theism, I just like to sometimes say something when I hear aggressive Atheists attacking those who don't share their beliefs. We discuss positions here, usually philosophical positions, but sometimes religious positions. In our language, whether we like it or not, there is a suffix, "-ism", to denote a position about something. It makes for more concise discussion, and avoids having to render the meaning by phrase.

And, when answering about a topic or issue, yes sometimes I clarify my position on it.

You said you don't believe that most people are Materialists. No, everyone who believes whatever they're taught in school is a Materialist. Talk to most anyone, other than sincere Theists, and you'll hear Materialism.

Michael Ossipoff

When I googled those 3 terms, I found them occurring together, without other alternatives included. But you already knew that.

Sometimes the possibilities that are acceptable and appealing to people are ones that were introduced long ago.

What's wrong with Platonic Realism? As described in the articles I found, It's the simplest.

How can anyone say that there aren't inevitably abstract facts, or that they, or inter-referring systems of them, need anything other than eachother (in the case of an inter-referring system) and the hypotheticals that they refer to?

Michael Ossipoff

But just because your thoughts, and the program-logic and preferences of a Roomba, aren't physical doesn't mean that you and the Roomba have souls. It doesn't require a Dualism.

(Say that the Roomba was programmed in a high-level language that's far-removed from transistor-switching and machine-instructions.)

My metaphysics is an Idealism, based on inevitable abstract if-thens about hypotheticals, but I suppose that, though I'm a metaphysical Idealist, and NOT a metaphysical Physicalist, I could maybe be called a philosophy-of-mind Physicalist. ...because I claim that there's no reason to believe in a Soul, or a basis or identity for us other than the body.

(But I'm not an Eliminative science-of-mind Physicalist.)

Michael Ossipoff

thoughts and ideas cannot be identified with brain processes, as they are of a different order to the physical. — Wayfarer

Thoughts, ideas, feelings, wants, fears, aversions, can all be identified with the person's (or other animal's) physical body.

A person, or any other animal is a purposefully-responsive device.

Your thoughts and ideas are part of your purposeful responsiveness. Their evolutionary, natural-selection purpose has to do with causing you to act to fulfill your built-in purposes.

Yes, a human is more complex than other purposefully-responsive devices such as mousetraps, thermostats and referigerator-light switches. That's why your thoughts, ideas and feelings aren't always simply and directly identifiable with an immediate action.

An purposefully-responsive device's experience is it surroundings and surrounding events, in the context of the purposes of its purposeful-responsiveness.

There's no distinct Soul and body. A person's thoughts, ideas, feelings, wants, fears aversions, etc. don't require a Soul.

If you say that there must be a soul because we have thoughts, and thoughts aren't physical. A Roomba has responsiveness, and a program, and preferences for some choices and actions. Does it have a Soul too then?

Michael Ossipoff

the question is whether we should believe in the non-physical 'whatever' (soul? emptiness?) that is purported to reincarnate, and if so, how, and on the basis of what, could we make sense of it ?

--Janus

You're right, Janus, reincarnation is incompatible with Materialism. ...you know, Materialism, that disregards (when it doesn't deny) "nonphysical whatever".

Some people claim to not be able to "make sense of " anything but Materialism.

You're looking at it in terms of a thing, like a soul, or emptiness (??!) that reincarnates. A noun-subject to go with the verb.

I don't believe in a soul separate from the body. But I've amply described how the person, unconscious at some stage of death-shutdown, but still retaining his/her subconscious wants, needs, predispositions and attributes, thereby remains someone who is the protagonist of a life-experience possibility-story. There is a life-experience possibility-story about that person.

Another thing that s/he retains is an orientation toward the future and life.

If that sounds fantastic, I remind you that it's also fantastic that you're in a life now. Why are you? Why did it start?

You don't know? Then it isn't justified to draw convinced-conclusion about it.

Then is it so implausible that, if the reason why it started remains at the end of this life, then the same reason will have the same result?

As I've said, I don't have proof of reincarnation. I doubt that proof is possible. But it is implied or predicted from a plausible, reasonable explanation for this life, and by an uncontroversial metaphysics.

Michael Ossipoff

the notion of re-birth is taboo in Western culture, on the grounds that I mentioned. Generally there is a lot of hostility towards the idea. — Wayfarer

...because it conflicts with Materialism, the official metaphysics. But Materialism is unsupportable, and reincarnation is metaphysically implied, or even metaphysically predicted.

So, as I've said, though it can't be proven, I suggest that there's good reason to say there probably is reincarnation.

But what would be a metaphysics by which there could be reincarnation in which people can remember a past life?

Michael Ossipoff

Then how can there be "physical" stuff that science hasn't yet explained? How is it that the mind, and it's relationship with the world, isn't just one of those "physical" things that science hasn't yet explained? — Harry Hindu

The acceleration of the recession-rate of the more distant galaxies is a physical observation of physical things, and so it's physical, though physics hasn't explained it.

Most likely, if human (or AI?) physicists proceed far enough with physics, then, at least in principle, that acceleration of recession-rate could be consistently physically explained.

Likewise ball-lightning.

But there might be a limit to how far physics can proceed. Maybe it will be limited by the amount of energy needed by particle-colliders, etc. Or, as some have suggested, maybe physics (which has been getting more and more complicated as it advances), will get so complicated that no human can understand it. Maybe AI will be able to take over.

Story:

A robot is working in a field, building some apparatus. A human physicist walks up and asks the robot what it's building. The robot replies, "It's an experimental-apparatus to measure a physical quantity that couldn't possibly be explained to a human."

By the way, I said that physics has been getting more compicated as it advances. I meant modern physics, including general relativity, particle physics, quantum mechanics. More unintuitive, and more mathematically complicated.

But it wouldn't be true to say that classical mechanics doesn't get complicated too. Calculus is required even in lower-division classical mechanics physics courses for science and engineering, And planetary orbits are a bit of work.

And, like general relativity, the study of the stresses and strains in solid materials can involve tensors.

Wanting an easy brief derivation of conservation of angular momentum, i looked up Lagrangian dynamics, and, via it, found that easy and brief derivation of conservation of angular momentum.

Its derivation by Newtonian dynamics is a bit more lengthy, and I wanted something really brief.

Then I read read about Hamiltonian dynamics, a chapter that presumably didn't have any prerequisites other than the chapter on Lagrangian dynamics. I couldn't understand Hamiltonian dynamics.

Hamilton worked it out around 1830 or so. Picture him getting out of a horse-drawn carriage, with his papers rolled up and tied with ribbon. But in 1980, I couldn't understand it, even when I (presumably) had studied what is prerequisite to it.

Even in those days, it sometimes seems unbelievable how advanced and clever some people were.

I had no idea what he was talking about. And it was just classical mechanics.

Michael Ossipoff

"Michael Faraday answered that question in 1844. I couldn't find details of what he said, but what I found agrees with the metaphysics that I've been proposing." — Michael Ossipoff
.
As I've argued, I don't find the idea of an answer in general plausible. If there is something because of X, then X itself is either the brute fact or itself unexplained.

.
If X is inevitable, it doesn’t need explanation. Of course it would be necessary to give an argument that it’s inevitable.
.
I’d said:
.

Anyway, the metaphysics that I've been proposing answers that question, in terms of systems of inter-referring inevitable abstract facts. — Michael Ossipoff

.
You repy:
.

But (I must ask again) are the people you love inevitable abstract facts?

.
No, and they aren’t electrons or quarks either. But that doesn’t invalidate physics.
.
You’re assuming an either/or choice between metaphysics and loved-ones. Remember, this is a philosophy forum. With no disrespect toward families, friends and relationships, they aren’t all that philosophy discusses.
.

This criticism doesn't apply to your sense of a sort of benevolent God, because that's a general sense that life and the world are good.

.
I didn’t say “sort of “ benevolent. …or emphasize a possessing entity, least of all by name.
.
Maybe a disposition implies a possessor, certainly in our grammar, but I suggest that any notion about that possessor, including that application of grammar in the first place, is an effort at reification, an over-anthropomorphism, an unrealistic, overextended claim of understanding …as is the notion of existence.
.
For people to speak of whether God exists, is like mice speaking of whether humans gnaw hardwood or softwood.
.
Many Theists don’t say that God is a being.
.

I can't accept automatically that there are infinitely many worlds.

.
But in what sense did I say that there are? Only in the same sense that, there’s the fact that if all Slithytoves are brillig, and all Jaberwockeys are Slithytoves, then all Jaberwockeys are brillig.
.

On the other hand, the billions of lives I have nothing to do with are plurality enough. But your attempt to answer the why with what I'd call theology…

.
As I suggested above, it seems to me that theology assumes a lot more knowledge, understanding, and information than is possible.
.
But metaphysics isn’t theology. What metaphysics deals with is discussable and describable.
.

“All that's logically-necessary for our universe is a system of inter-referring abstract facts. Because those facts are inevitable, there's no brute-ness” — Michael Ossipoff

I can't agree. The question would be 'why are they inevitable?'

.
I addressed that matter in a recent reply to you.
.
1) A fact that there are no facts other than one fact that there are no other facts, would be a special brute-fact, calling for explanation, but not having one (How could it, if there are no other facts?)
.
2) Because a system of inter-referring abstract if-then facts about hypotheticals needn’t refer to anything outside its own local inter-referring system, then the burden of proof is on anyone who wants to claim that it it is in some way dependent from some context or permission outside itself, or subject to the some global fact that could have prohibited it.
.

I guess we could call the bruteness subjective. I don't believe that so-called fundamental explanations can get the job done --on principle, according to how I understand explanation. The totality is untouchable in this sense.

.
“Explanation” can consist of inevitable facts that imply the observations that are to be explained. What is there about that to not believe in?
.
Metaphysics doesn’t touch the totality, Reality. What it’s about is discussable and describable.
.

“So time isn't the only state of affairs. In fact, timeless sleep predominates, although of course sure, we aren't there yet, and won't be for a while. ...either at the end of this life, or (more likely) after a sequence of lives.” — Michael Ossipoff
.
But it only predominates abstractly and quantitatively. We don't experience this sleep.

.
Sure we do. We experience the arrival at, and initial stages of that sleep. What we don’t experience is a time when we don’t experience.
.\
I said:
.

The world that you were born in likely had something to do with the person that you were. — Michael Ossipoff

.
I should clarify what I meant. I meant (whether there’s reincarnation or not) the person that you already were, influenced the world that you were going to be born in
.
How could you be a person if you weren’t born yet? No problem. You were a hypothetical person, the protagonist of a hypothetical life-experience possibility-story. The hypothetical person that you were was the protagonist of that hypothetical story.
.
Because I’m speaking of hypothetical, things, I’m saying things that are difficult to disagree with.
.
But of course it’s likewise true that the conditions in the world you were born in greatly influenced you after your birth.
.
Let me say a few more words, for clarification, about the timeless sleep at the end of lives:
.
I might have said something misleading:
.
When referring to timeless sleep, I might have seemed to be implying experience of infinite duration. Of course I didn’t mean that. Not even subjectively infinite duration.
.
But I was talking about a stage of shutdown at which there’s no knowledge that there ever was or could be such a thing as time or duration.
.
And likewise, even though that time is close to complete shutdown, there’s no knowledge that there’s such a thing as an end to experience either. To summarize, I said a time of no experience is never reached, and there’s no knowledge that there is such an end, and there’s no knowledge of duration. Because the person has reached Timelessness, and never experiences no-experience, then I suggest that the fact that shutdown is approaching is entirely irrelevant, as is the shutdown when it occurs (as perceived by your survivors).
.
That’s a reason why I say that the timeless sleep at the end of lives counts for more than this finite life, or more than a finite number of finite lives.
.
…that, along with the fact that it’s the final state/situation, where the state of affairs finally arrives at.
.
But I don’t mean to make a big deal about it either. It’s like going to sleep. It is going to sleep. That already happens nightly. It’s no big deal. I emphasize that so as to not make it sound like some scary new awesome experience.
.
Well, because there’ll be no needs, wants, problems, lack, menace, etc., it has been argued that that time will be awesomely good.
.
Anyway, above are the justifications for saying that the timeless sleep at the end of lives is more for us than this finite life, or more than a finite number of finite lives.
.
There’s another justification too:
.
I’ve been emphasizing that a system of inter-referring inevitable abstract facts about hypotheticals, such as the one that is your life-experience possibility-story, doesn’t need a medium in which to be.
.
In particular, it doesn’t depend on support or hosting from the Nothing that is its background. Nothing wouldn’t be nothing if it did that. It would be a medium or agent, and it isn’t.
.
But we can still speak of the Nothing that is the background of all the inevitable abstract if-then facts about hypotheticals.
.
And what could be more metaphysically fundamentally and natural than that? Yes, there are all those inevitable if-thens about hypotheticals. But their Nothing background is the quiescent background of that something.
.
Well, that timeless sleep at the end of lives, as I becomes a deeper and deeper sleep, of course more and more becomes experience of less and less. Less is closer to Nothing.
.
So, at near-shutdown, you’re peacefully, restfully (and some say very pleasantly—the best part of your life) returning to your fundamental original home, what’s most natural.
.
I’ve been stating some reasons why the timeless sleep at the end of lives can fairly be said to be more natural than this finite life in this “physical” world of time and events.
.
Michael Ossipoff

"If you look at a green Christmas tree light, it looks green, because either it's emitting green light, or because its colored glass is absorbing all the visible wavelengths but green, or absorbing at &/or around green's complementary wavelength,(Magenta.. Green and Magenta are complementary to eachother.)" — Michael Ossipoff


It’s reflecting a color and absorbing the rest. It is the other colors, it’s separated at the area we see as color. — Brianna Whitney

Sure, with reflecting objects. Something can be green because it emits only or mostly green light, or because it absorbs, from (reflected or transmitted) white light, everything but green, or absorbs mostly around green's complement, magenta.

You said, "It is the other colors", but, because merely emitting only green light makes an emitting object green, I wouldn't say that the other colors are necessary to something being green.

Dark is absolutely the absence of light. Do we agree there, at least?

Certainly.

My point here is that what we perceive isn't necessary what is.

Sure, but you're talking about science, not philosophy. And metaphysics is in no way in competition or contradiction with science.

...you might get the possibility of space as an object, and the object lack of space.

Of course. That's how i'd regard it if I'm looking for an region of empty floor-space at which sit, a place where there isn't an object in the way.

As for rude: Disagreement, even blunt disagreement, isn't really rude, unless the disagreement is expressed in a manner that criticizes, characterizes, negatively evaluates, the person you disagree with.

I disagreed with your comments about the truth and worth of metaphysics, and said so.

My justification of metaphysics can be found in my recent replies to ff0.

Michael Ossipoff