There is no way to dumb it down any more.

Crushing news. :up:

I don't think so — 180 Proof

Quantum physics says something more, that the real-unreal dichotomy is old, outdated, and useless.
— Agent Smith

Not really. — Darkneos

Why? Isn't it obvious that at quantum scales real vs. unreal is unhelpful, especially since these notions are defined at human scales?

Some things just can’t be put into words or pictures and only said as math. Quantum field theory in particular. — apokrisis

Yes, that was just what I had in mind. So, how is it then possible to interpret it metaphysically (semantically)?

Thanks, a lot to think about there...I'll take a look at the paper you linked but I won't be surprised if it's above my pay grade. :smile:



:up: Makes sense to me...nothing to disagree with or add...

From the scientists who do this "real and not real" shows a misunderstanding of QM. It doesn't say nothing is real.

From the scientists who do this "real and not real" shows a misunderstanding of QM. It doesn't say nothing is real — Darkneos

:ok:

What I don't get is how someone can refer to other people as a useful fiction?

https://qr.ae/pvepjo

I could not call these points [1] through [10] metaphysics, rather, points of belief. — god must be atheist

There's not much else for us to discuss then.

What I don't get is how someone can refer to other people as a useful fiction? — Darkneos

Indeed.

It's enough to make you suppose they've misspoken.

I don't trust anyone who doesn't realize the world, as man knows it, is a phantasm. — neonspectraltoast

What an odd statement. I think it says more about you than it does about the rest of us.

I am only trying to show what I mean when I say metaphysics. — T Clark

Note how all but one of your ten principles are examples of haunted-universe doctrines.

So

[1] We live in an ordered universe that can be understood by humans. — T Clark

If we come across something that is not understood, we do not reject (1), but look further afield for the explanation.

That we can do this is a result of the all-and-some structure of (1), which might be paraphrased as "For every event there is an explanation". This structure renders it neither verifiable nor falsifiable.

However,

[2] The universe consists entirely of physical substances - matter and energy. — T Clark

does not lend itself to that analysis.

"For every event there is an explanation". — Banno

That's a cognitive imperative, isn't it? Sometimes called the law of explanation.

Perhaps.

In previous discussions I've pointed out that it seems to be equivalent to

[6] The behaviors of substances are caused. — T Clark

...a cause being an explanation. This relates back to the puzzling differentiation between ontology and epistemology. Who was it again who understood such things as methodological imperatives? Lakatos?

Th logical structure remains the same, "For every x there is some y", rendering it neither verifiable nor falsifiable, as Watkins shows, and hence metaphysical in his Popperian sense.

Have a link to the Watkins paper?

Nvm, searched it up

No the link shows he did mean it

Looking again, (9) seems not to fit that definition of metaphysical, either.

[9] Space and time are separate and absolute. — T Clark

So it appears that (2) and (9), both subsequently, if not falsified then at least re-cast, are not metaphysical in that sense.

So it appears that TClark's metaphysical notions might be recast as methodology.

(1) Keep looking for explanations
(2) Dropped
(3) Keep looking for scientific explanations
(4) Keep looking for mathematical explanations
(5) Phrase your explanations so as to have the widest applicability
(6) Keep looking for causes
(7) If something disappears, assume it has changed form and look for it somewhere else.
(8) Dropped
(9) Dropped
(10) Keep looking for explanations as to where things come from.

Have a link to the Watkins paper?

Nvm, searched it up — Srap Tasmaner

What's the title?

,

An article worth reading: Confirmable and influential metaphysics. — Banno

Does the link not work? Try

http://www.jstor.org/stable/2251532

What I don't get is how someone can refer to other people as a useful fiction? — Darkneos

Would you object if they said the self, or identity in general, is a useful fiction?

Thanks!

No not at all. It's just regarding other people as not real rubs me the wrong way.

No not at all. It's just regarding other people as not real rubs me the wrong way. — Darkneos

To say that other people is a useful fiction is not to say others or the self (since we are all in that fictive sense other people) are not real, and is no different than saying the self or any identity is a useful fiction; so what's the problem?

To say that other people is a useful fiction is not to say others or the self (since we are all in that fictive sense other people) are not real, and is no different than saying the self or any identity is a useful fiction; so what's the problem? — Janus

It is EXACTLY saying that others are not real by suggesting they are a fiction in the first place.

So you're OK with saying the self is a convenient fiction, and you don't take that to mean you are not real, but you're not OK with saying the other is a convenient fiction?

↪Janus No not at all. It's just regarding other people as not real rubs me the wrong way. — Darkneos

That’s an affected response, based on an assumption that ‘fiction’ = ‘not real’ = non-existent. To refer to someone as a ‘useful fiction’ is to put aside as irrelevant the question of a definitive reality. Who or what I am is much more complex than my observable reality, and so I would expect nothing less from others. To assume that what I know of others is definitive of who they are would be inaccurate. It is therefore a ‘useful fiction’ in relation to the complexity of who they are, allowing for the uncertainty with which I would approach them.

A ‘useful fiction’ is like an heuristic device - at this metaphysical or quantum level it doesn’t matter whether or not something is ‘real’, but whether it is useful for accurate understanding and interacting with the world. This useful fiction is merely the story we know so far: subject to misinterpretation, distorted perspective and our own ignorance, affect or intentions.

‘Energy’ is another useful fiction. It’s a word we use to describe a relational structure that isn’t ‘real’ in the definitive sense. It’s calculable with an arbitrarily assigned value, which we can then apply to our interactions with the world, so long as we understand or are agreed on its value, or its useful relational structure of quality and logic. We understand there is more to it, but no amount of words can fully describe that understanding, and ‘the math works’ refers to the interaction with our world, not to the logic alone.

A ‘useful fiction’ is like an heuristic device - at this metaphysical or quantum level it doesn’t matter whether or not something is ‘real’, but whether it is useful for accurate understanding and interacting with the world. This useful fiction is merely the story we know so far: subject to misinterpretation, distorted perspective and our own ignorance, affect or intentions. — Possibility

Until half way through your first paragraph I was revving up to engage in a dispute. But as I read on, I was really impressed. I think you have expressed my understanding of metaphysics much better than I have myself in my previous posts in this thread. I don't know if you think of what you've written as metaphysics. Whether or not you do, I think you have described the fundamental relationship between we humans and whatever constitutes reality.

As for the "useful fiction" designation, this is nothing new. 2,500 years ago they might have called it the illusion of the self. It's true it's a bit cold, but a lot of eastern religions and philosophies observe humanity from a distance.

I don't know if you think of what you've written as metaphysics. Whether or not you do, I think you have described the fundamental relationship between we humans and whatever constitutes reality. — T Clark

You will notice that I’ve referred to the level as both ‘metaphysical’ and ‘quantum’ - the difference as I see it is only in how energy, logic and quality are attributed along an arbitrary subject-object divide. Quantum physics ‘brackets out’ the qualitative aspect of experience, while most other metaphysics bracket out either energy (affect, eg. TTC) or logic (eg. spirituality). Essentially, it is the perceived embodiment of self that is bracketed out.

As for the "useful fiction" designation, this is nothing new. 2,500 years ago they might have called it the illusion of the self. It's true it's a bit cold, but a lot of eastern religions and philosophies observe humanity from a distance. — T Clark

I think it needs to be ‘cold’ in order to understand others without judgement either of ourselves or others. When we act, we do so necessarily from a position of affect, and judgement is implied. But in truth our intentions stem from a pre-judgemental understanding of humanity in a broader context, with all of its limitations and potential, and inclusive of both self and others. We’re simply presenting the most probabilistically useful of many possible responses - errors and inaccuracies are to be expected, and how one responds in turn (inclusive of timing, effort and attention) could aim to improve the accuracy of understanding overall (regardless of self), or to focus on maximising their own perceived, current and relative position. Both could be considered ‘cold’ if you’re evaluating based only on affect.

I've always thought you and I have really different ways of seeing the world. It's surprising, and gratifying, to find we are so much in sync on this.

Yes because saying other people being a convenient fiction is saying they don't exist which is what the guy in the thing was saying when I copied the link,

You're making it more complex than it needs to be. To refer to something as fiction is by definition to say it's not real. So when he's saying that the notion of other people is a useful fiction is implying that they aren't real. Read what he said.

https://qr.ae/pvepjo