-
T Clark
14kThere have been quite a few threads about metaphysics recently and everyone is tired of them… Oh… wait a second… I’m not. I have a specific focused topic in mind that might allow us to avoid the usual confusion.
First focus - the discussion will take place from a materialist/physicalist/realist point of view. These from Wikipedia:
- Philosophical Realism - Realism about a certain kind of thing (like numbers or morality) is the thesis that this kind of thing has mind-independent existence, i.e. that it is not just a mere appearance in the eye of the beholder.
- Physicalism - In philosophy, physicalism is the metaphysical thesis that "everything is physical", that there is "nothing over and above" the physical, or that everything supervenes on the physical.
- Materialism - Materialism is a form of philosophical monism which holds matter to be the fundamental substance in nature, and all things, including mental states and consciousness, are results of material interactions.
Second focus - For the purposes of this discussion, we live before 1905, when the universe was still classical and quantum mechanics was unthinkable. I see the ideas we come up with in this discussion as a baseline we can use in a later discussion to figure out how things change when we consider quantum mechanics.
Third focus - We’ll stick as much as possible with issues related to a scientific understanding of reality. Physics in particular.
R.G. Collingwood wrote that metaphysics is the study of absolute presuppositions. Absolute presuppositions are the unspoken, perhaps unconscious, assumptions that underpin how we understand reality. Collingwood wrote that absolute presuppositions are neither true nor false, but we won’t get into that argument here. I would like to enumerate and discuss the absolute presuppositions, the underlying assumptions, of classical physics. I’ll start off.
-
[1] We live in an ordered universe that can be understood by humans.
[2] The universe consists entirely of physical substances - matter and energy.
[3] These substances behave in accordance with scientific principles, laws.
[4] Scientific laws are mathematical in nature.
[5] The same scientific laws apply throughout the universe and at all times.
[6] The behaviors of substances are caused.
[7] Substances are indestructible, although they can change to something else.
[8] The universe is continuous. Between any two points there is at least one other point.
I think some of these overlap. I’ve also put in at least one because I think it's pretty common, even though I think it might not belong. I would like to do two things in this discussion 1) Add to this list if it makes sense and 2) Discuss the various proposed assumptions and decide if they belong on the list. -
Tom Storm
9.2kGreat OP and a good start. I am unsure about 5.
Not sure if this helps but generally the physicalists I know call themselves methodological naturalists as opposed to philosophical naturalists. From RationalWiki:
"... this assumption of naturalism need not extend beyond an assumption of methodology. This is what separates methodological naturalism from philosophical naturalism — the former is merely a tool and makes no truth claim, while the latter makes the philosophical — essentially atheistic — claim that only natural causes exist." -
Mww
4.9k
You say you’re enumerating, meaning to list or itemize, absolute presuppositions, re: RGC, by listing propositions, but according to RGC.....
“...Prop. 5: absolute presuppositions are not propositions.
This is because they are never answers to question, whereas a proposition is that which is stated, and that which is stated is always in answer to a question...”
(Essay on Metphysics, 1,4, pg 41, 1940, in https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.187414/page/n40/mode/1up)
A proposition is that which is true or false, but “....absolute presuppositions are not verifiable...”, hence not true or false, hence are not propositions.
It is true or false that “We live in an ordered universe that can be understood by humans.”, therefore “....” is not an AP.
Did you not mean to call the propositions in that list APs? -
T Clark
14kI am unsure about 5. — Tom Storm
Item 5 on my list - "The same scientific laws apply throughout the universe and at all times"
If by "unsure" you mean you're not sure it's true, of course you're not. There's no way you could be. But if it's not true, and if we can't at least act as if it were, we can't do science.
Not sure if this helps but generally the physicalists I know call themselves methodological naturalists as opposed to philosophical naturalists. — Tom Storm
From Wikipedia:
- Methodological naturalism - Naturalism that holds that science is to be done without reference to supernatural causes; also refers to a methodological assumption in the philosophy of religion that observable events are fully explainable by natural causes without reference to the supernatural.
- Metaphysical naturalism - form of naturalism that holds that the cosmos consists only of objects studied by the natural sciences, and does not include any immaterial or intentional realities
It seems like either one of these would be consistent with the absolute presuppositions I listed. Or was that your point? -
Wayfarer
22.8k[1] We live in an ordered universe that can be understood by humans.
[2] The universe consists entirely of physical substances - matter and energy. — Clarky
(1) is of greater antiquity than (2). The idea of an ordered universe was one of the motivating beliefs of the Greek philosophers and indeed of science wherever it was found. But (2) was until recently one view among others, proposed by the ancient atomists and other materialist philosophies. However, post-Descartes, which effectively depicted spirit as a ghost in a machine, scientists and engineers tended to reject the ghost and keep the machine. It was one of the characteristics of Enlightenment materialism. But the provenance of many of the other points goes back to medieval and even ancient times. But one final point I think ought to be brought out:
[7] Substances are indestructible, although they can change to something else. — Clarky
What do you think is the meaning of 'substance' in this context? I ask this, because I think there is considerable confusion about the philosophical, as distinct from everyday, sense of the word 'substance'. It is related to Cartesian dualism as mentioned above. -
T Clark
14kDid you not mean to call the propositions in that list APs? — Mww
I am proposing the items in my list as the underlying assumptions, i.e. absolute presuppositions, of materialist/physicalist/realist physics. As I noted in the OP:
Collingwood wrote that absolute presuppositions are neither true nor false, but we won’t get into that argument here. — Clarky -
T Clark
14kThe metaphysical universe is extremely consistent, albeit unproven. — Bird-Up
Are you saying that the universe is homogeneous? I think that's probably true. It is my understanding that matter is well distributed within the observable universe and the cosmic microwave background radiation is uniform in all directions. I think that is a scientific finding, not an underlying assumption. -
T Clark
14k[1] We live in an ordered universe that can be understood by humans.
[2] The universe consists entirely of physical substances - matter and energy.
— Clarky
(1) is of greater antiquity than (2). The idea of an ordered universe was one of the motivating beliefs of the Greek philosophers and indeed of science wherever it was found. But (2) was until recently one view among others, proposed by the ancient atomists and other materialist philosophies. — Wayfarer
The issue, for the purposes of this discussion, is whether or not these two presuppositions are absolute presuppositions of a materialist point of view.
[7] Substances are indestructible, although they can change to something else.
— Clarky
What do you think is the meaning of 'substance' in this context? I ask this, because I think there is considerable confusion about the philosophical, as distinct from everyday, sense of the word 'substance'. It is related to Cartesian dualism as mentioned above. — Wayfarer
When I said "substance" I meant matter and energy. If the word is ambiguous in this context, that's my mistake. -
Wayfarer
22.8kThe issue, for the purposes of this discussion, is whether or not these two presuppositions are absolute presuppositions of a materialist point of view. — Clarky
Of course the absolute presupposition of materialism is that matter - nowadays, matter/energy - are the only real substances.
When I said "substance" I meant matter and energy. — Clarky
It's not a mistake, so much as a very pervasive confusion in philosophy, in particular.
The everyday meaning of substance is 'a material with uniform properties'. Examples might be gases, plastics, metals, radioactive substances, etc. The difficulty is, 'substance' in philosophy has a different meaning, namely, 'the bearer of attributes'. That is why you read the, to us, confusing notion of Socrates being 'a substance' or 'a substantial being'. Where it originates is in the Aristotelian term 'ouisia' which is a form of the Greek verb 'to be'. So it is actually nearer in meaning, you could argue, to 'being' than to what we think of 'substance'. But that distinction dropped out of regular discourse over the centuries.
Imagine if Descartes' two categories were said to be 'thinking beings' and 'extended beings'. It's not quite accurate, but it hints at a distinction lost. -
T Clark
14kOf course the absolute presupposition of materialism is that matter - nowadays, matter/energy - are the only real substances. — Wayfarer
Agreed, but it's not the only absolute presupposition of a materialist approach to science.
It's not a mistake, so much as a very pervasive confusion in philosophy, in particular.
The everyday meaning of substance is 'a material with uniform properties'. Examples might be gases, plastics, metals, radioactive substances, etc. The difficulty is, 'substance' in philosophy has a different meaning, namely, 'the bearer of attributes'. — Wayfarer
I thought I was being clear. I hope I didn't confuse things. Thanks. -
Mww
4.9kI am proposing the items in my list as the underlying assumptions — Clarky
That’s fine. It’s your thread, you can do with it as you please. But you referenced Collingwood, so it hardly seems fair to call something an AP that conflicts with the predicates of that reference.
Anyway....carry on. -
Janus
16.5k[1] We live in an ordered universe that can be understood by humans.
[2] The universe consists entirely of physical substances - matter and energy.
[3] These substances behave in accordance with scientific principles, laws.
[4] Scientific laws are mathematical in nature.
[5] The same scientific laws apply throughout the universe and at all times.
[6] The behaviors of substances are caused.
[7] Substances are indestructible, although they can change to something else.
[8] The universe is continuous. Between any two points there is at least one other point. — Clarky
[1] I don't think this is an absolute presupposition, insofar as we have found that the universe is fairly coherently and consistently understandable to us in scientific terms.
[2] There does not seem to be any other serious candidate for basic substance, unless God or Universal Mind is posited.
[3] Laws are formulated post hoc to codify the behavior of observed invariances. We know that the substances and parts of the universe that we have observed seem to behave invariantly.
[4] I think the fact that the so-called Laws of Nature can be expressed mathematically is something we have discovered, so not an absolute presupposition.
[5] This is an assumption based on us never having observed a counterexample. Of course we cannot observe anything but the most vanishingly tiny fraction of all places and times.
[6] Again this is based on the expectation that comes with habit and/or the fact that we are constituted such that we cannot comprehend events without thinking in terms of causation.
[7] I think this is more speculative, but it is bolstered by the apparent consistency and universality (within our science and regarding what we have actually observed) of the Laws of Thermodynamics.
[8]. This certainly seems to hold in an abstract, logical kind of sense. It is hard to know what it could even mean beyond that context. -
T Clark
14kThat’s fine. It’s your thread, you can do with it as you please. But you referenced Collingwood, so it hardly seems fair to call something an AP that conflicts with the predicates of that reference. — Mww
Here are examples that Collingwood, in "An Essay on Metaphysics" identified as Kant's absolute presuppositions:
[*] ...mathematics can be applied to the world of nature; in other words that natural science is essentially an applied mathematics.
[*] Here the presupposition which makes him think about them in this way is stated by saying that he believes in the permanence or indestructibility of substance.
-
T Clark
14kFirstly, are humans substances? — karl stone
This is my interpretation - humans are made up of substances.
Are our thoughts, feelings, actions - caused? You wish to stick to physics, but have immediately invoked the question of consciousness/free will. — karl stone
As I noted in the OP, we are discussing the absolute presuppositions of a materialist approach to science. It is not the purpose of the thread to discuss whether materialism is valid.
I don't see how free will/determinism, Godels incompleteness theorem, or chaos theory are relevant to the issue raised in the OP. -
Manuel
4.2k
I agree with some of this, others not. There is very good evidence to suggest that [1] is not true: the universe cannot be understood by human beings, at least not metaphysically (which is the purpose of this thread) - the ultimate grounds of reality are sealed out for us.
[2] Is more terminological than anything else. Yes, there is a universe out there - it can be called "physical", "neutral", "material", "immaterial", it does not have consequences for our inquires- for whatever the universe is made of, whatever word is used - this is what we study.
[3] Yes, sure. We could substitute "laws" for "habits", but it is fine.
[4] Yes. Or at least, we can best describe its behavior through applied mathematics.
[5] Given the time period, perhaps this was assumed to be true. There may be exceptions, but, fine.
[6] Yes.
[7] So far as was known, correct.
[8] And assumed to be infinite too.
[9] Space and time are considered absolute and not the same thing, as is now the case.
Pretty good OP Clark. -
Tom Storm
9.2kIt seems like either one of these would be consistent with the absolute presuppositions I listed. Or was that your point? — Clarky
Kind of but that also that philosophical naturalism is too extreme and a lot of folk think all scientists presuppose this too.
Item 5 on my list - "The same scientific laws apply throughout the universe and at all times"
If by "unsure" you mean you're not sure it's true, of course you're not. There's no way you could be. But if it's not true, and if we can't at least act as if it were, we can't do science. — Clarky
Well it depends upon what you mean by all times, and what you mean by universe. I'm not a big science guy, but I guess my point would be if you mean 'in the known universe and since what we call the 'big bang'' then yes. I don't know what might be true outside of the known universe or outside of time as we know it. Sounds like this is a job for a physicist: Tom out... -
T Clark
14k
Here's a line by line response in italics. I am mostly responding how I think Collingwood would respond:
[1] I don't think this is an absolute presupposition, insofar as we have found that the universe is fairly coherently and consistently understandable to us in scientific terms. You are making an assumption based on having observed a very limited part of the universe.
[2] There does not seem to be any other serious candidate for basic substance, unless God or Universal Mind is posited. Does that mean you agree it is a good example of an absolute presupposition?
[3] Laws are formulated post hoc to codify the behavior of observed invariances. We know that the substances and parts of the universe that we have observed seem to behave invariantly. Again, we have observed a very limited amount of the universe.
[4] I think the fact that the so-called Laws of Nature can be expressed mathematically is something we have discovered, so not an absolute presupposition.There is a long debate about whether the mathematical behavior of the universe is discovered or projected by observers. I come down on the side of projection.
[5] This is an assumption based on us never having observed a counterexample. Of course we cannot observe anything but the most vanishingly tiny fraction of all places and times. Agreed.
[6] Again this is based on the expectation that comes with habit and/or the fact that we are constituted such that we cannot comprehend events without thinking in terms of causation. Agreed
[7] I think this is more speculative, but it is bolstered by the apparent consistency and universality (within our science and regarding what we have actually observed) of the Laws of Thermodynamics. Are you saying it is an absolute presupposition or is not?
[8]. This certainly seems to hold in an abstract, logical kind of sense. It is hard to know what it could even mean beyond that context. I'm not sure if I have an answer. We can ask Kant. It was one of his. -
T Clark
14k
My line by line response. My response in italics:
[1] is not true: the universe cannot be understood by human beings, at least not metaphysically (which is the purpose of this thread) - the ultimate grounds of reality are sealed out for us. I disagree. If the universe can not be understood, science is pointless.
[2] Is more terminological than anything else. Yes, there is a universe out there - it can be called "physical", "neutral", "material", "immaterial", it does not have consequences for our inquires- for whatever the universe is made of, whatever word is used - this is what we study. I don't necessarily disagree with you, but many people do. I guess the question is whether or not most physicists have this as a presupposition.
[3] Yes, sure. We could substitute "laws" for "habits", but it is fine. Ok
[4] Yes. Or at least, we can best describe its behavior through applied mathematics. Ok
[5] Given the time period, perhaps this was assumed to be true. There may be exceptions, but, fine. Again, I think most physicists probably assume this.
[6] Yes.
[7] So far as was known, correct.
[8] And assumed to be infinite too. I'm not sure about that.
[9] Space and time are considered absolute and not the same thing, as is now the case. I think that's a good one. We can add it to the list. -
Banno
25.3k[5] The same scientific laws apply throughout the universe and at all times. — Clarky
I am unsure about 5. — Tom Storm
Seems to be Einstein's Principle of Relativity.
If a proposed scientific law is found to work in one situation and not in another, then it needs modification. A generalisation that accounts for both instances would suffice.
This is a methodological principle that specifies what counts as a scientific law. It's logic makes it a piece of metaphysics in Popper's sense. -
T Clark
14kKind of but that also that philosophical naturalism is too extreme and a lot of folk think all scientists presuppose this too. — Tom Storm
How does philosophical naturalism differ substantially from materialism and physicalism?
Well it depends upon what you mean by all times, and what you mean by universe. I'm not a big science guy, but I guess my point would be if you mean 'in the known universe and since what we call the 'big bang'' then yes. I don't know what might be true outside of the known universe or outside of time as we know it. — Tom Storm
Yes, I thought of that but didn't address it. I think I'm saved by the fact I specified before 1905.
Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.
Categories
- Guest category
- The Lounge
- General Philosophy
- Metaphysics & Epistemology
- Philosophy of Mind
- Ethics
- Political Philosophy
- Philosophy of Art
- Logic & Philosophy of Mathematics
- Philosophy of Religion
- Philosophy of Science
- Philosophy of Language
- Interesting Stuff
- Politics and Current Affairs
- Humanities and Social Sciences
- Science and Technology
- Non-English Discussion
- German Discussion
- Spanish Discussion
- Learning Centre
- Resources
- Books and Papers
- Reading groups
- Questions
- Guest Speakers
- David Pearce
- Massimo Pigliucci
- Debates
- Debate Proposals
- Debate Discussion
- Feedback
- Article submissions
- About TPF
- Help
More Discussions
- Other sites we like
- Social media
- Terms of Service
- Sign In
- Created with PlushForums
- © 2024 The Philosophy Forum