Some of what is called metaphysics is integral to physics. — Banno
You and Banno are telling me Kant, no less than Einstein, was a physicist. — ucarr
From this we understand language is an integral component of physics, and thus our thoughts possess materiality no less than the mountains and rivers surrounding us. Experimental results showing inescapable entanglement of observer and observed, with macro-scale dimensions of super-atomic universe stabilizing super-position of the wave function into discreteness, confirm the interweave. This is simultaneously confirmation of Logos in the Neo-Platonic and Christian senses. Thus the miracles of Jesus, sinless practitioner of Logos, are scientifically verifiable phenomena. — ucarr
By way of summary of what I have said:
Some of what is called metaphysics is just nonsense.
Some of what is called metaphysics is integral to physics.
Some of what is called metaphysics has been clearly defined, by Popper, Watkins, etc, according to it's logical structure.
So, some of what has been called metaphysics is legitimate, some not. — Banno
↪ucarr
Is the above an example of physics masquerading as metaphysics, or is it an example of authentic metaphysics sharing fundamentals with physics?
— ucarr
This is like asking if physics masquerades as linguistic conceptualization, or if linguistic conceptualization shares fundamentals with physics. Of course, the answer is that these are not separate, potentially overlapping domains. Rather, the former is the pre -condition for the latter. There can be no physics without linguistic conceptualization, and there can be no physics without metaphysics as its condition of possibility. — Joshs
You and Banno are telling me Kant, no less than Einstein, was a physicist. — ucarr
these [metaphysics_physics] are not separate, potentially overlapping domains. — Joshs
There can be no physics without linguistic conceptualization, and there can be no physics without metaphysics as its condition of possibility. — Joshs
You and Banno are telling me Kant, no less than Einstein, was a physicist. From this we understand language is an integral component of physics, and thus our thoughts possess materiality no less than the mountains and rivers surrounding us. Experimental results showing inescapable entanglement of observer and observed, with macro-scale dimensions of super-atomic universe stabilizing super-position of the wave function into discreteness, confirm the interweave. This is simultaneously confirmation of Logos in the Neo-Platonic and Christian senses. Thus the miracles of Jesus, sinless practitioner of Logos, are scientifically verifiable phenomena. — ucarr
Nor this [Nor does the above follow logically]. — Banno
↪Metaphysician Undercover Your response seems disingenuous. On the one hand you claim that Planck units are "fictitious" and then on the other you claim that "falsity often works well". :roll: — 180 Proof
You can't cogitate the metaphysics of a material object prior to its existence because material objects cannot be cogitated - which to say, cannot be rationalized - into being — ucarr
This leads me to the following difficult conceptualization: all of existence is physical, and yet the metaphysical is integral to this physicality. I proceed forth from this puzzle by claiming metaphysics_physics are coordinate and contemporary with each other. Furthermore, metaphysics_physics are both independently and mutually non-reductive. Lastly, all of the preceding suggests to me our universe is an upwardly dimensional axis of progressively complex dimensionally unfolding matrices. — ucarr
How would anyone, yourself included, justify physicality per se without use of metaphysical concepts?
A foundational plank in the edifice of my concept of ontology says, "Material objects cannot be justified." — ucarr
"Some metaphysics is integral to physics. This is metaphysics. Therefore this is integral to physics". — Banno
"Some metaphysics is integral to physics. This is metaphysics physics. Therefore, metaphysics = physics for ". — ucarr
I assert the physicality of language
— ucarr
Type/token. — Banno
Your response seems disingenuous. On the one hand you claim that Planck units are "fictitious" and then on the other you claim that "falsity often works well". :roll: — 180 Proof
*Let's say some infantile suppositions do evolve within. I argue the source of such suppositions is still external i.e. the intra-mural particulars of the deprivation chamber communicated to the infants senses. — ucarr
...to me our universe is an upwardly dimensional axis of progressively complex dimensionally unfolding matrices.
— ucarr
If this is the case, what does this contribute to your understanding of the world and models of reality? — Tom Storm
I didn’t mean to leave the impression that I thought a metaphysical framework is generated ‘in the head’ before and outside of exposure to an outside world. — Joshs
...subject and object, are not two separate realms, they are only poles of an indissociable interaction. — Joshs
Through this interactive experiencing we construct and evolve schemes of understanding and predicting ( metaphysics) — Joshs
Using the physical object as the starting point for our understanding of the self-world interaction is getting it backwards, — Joshs
...because we are starting with a sophisticated metaphysical scheme without recognizing that modern concepts of the physical object are the products of a long constitutive development , the evolution from one metaphysical scheme to the next( scientific paradigms) that involves the communication among many subjective perspectives within an intersubjective scientific community. — Joshs
Your statements, considered as evidence, suggest deep internal conflict within your mind. You know cerebration is indissociable from experience, and yet, when push comes to shove, according to your heart's desire, you must assert that metaphysics is both temporally and logically antecedent to physics. — ucarr
You are again addressing the issue in terms of metaphysical worldviews rather than, as I specifically asked for, metaphysical concepts. — javra
Asking the same question I previously asked in greater detail: How can one justify physicality in manners that make no use of identity or change, space or time, causation, and necessity or possibility? All these being subjects of metaphysics and most of these not being topics of investigation in physics. — javra
Metaphysical concept Vs. Metaphysical worldview > Is the difference that concept is an abstract idea whereas worldview is an abstract idea in application to the real world and thus contextualized empirically? — ucarr
ma·trix | ˈmātriks |
noun (plural matrices | ˈmātrəˌsēz | or matrixes)
1 an environment or material in which something develops; a surrounding medium or structure: free choices become the matrix of human life.
In my Apple Dictionary I have an animated graphic most instructive. It starts with a black dot (point) that expands to a line that expands to an area that expands to a cube that expands to a hypercube.
This exemplifies "an upwardly dimensional axis of progressively complex dimensionally unfolding matrices."
This is my view of the ultimate medium, reality. — ucarr
Making things interesting is the fact the world is full of Hemingway knockoffs who keep telling me most ideas beyond beer, dames, sports and money are twaddle spewed by idlers who need to get real jobs. You can however get exemption from assignment to the woo woo chorus by scoring a career that pays living wages for commercially viable twaddle (academics/entertainment). — ucarr
Put differently, what all kinds of theories of objects have in common is that they are all theories, even though only one of them represents modern physics. In another few hundred years we may be using a theory of the real world that no long calls itself physics and no longer deals with what we today think of as material objects. So ‘physics’ and ‘material object’ may be historically transient concepts , but theory and metaphysics, like self-world interaction, are common to all eras of scientific inquiry. Metaphysics is not prior to the self-world interaction, but it is prior to ( the condition of possibility for) modern physics. — Joshs
When I say that metaphysics is prior to modern physics I just mean that theorization is ‘prior’ to any particular historical content of a theory. — Joshs
Metaphysics is not prior to the self-world interaction, but it is prior to ( the condition of possibility for) modern physics. — Joshs
Well, the metaphysical ideas of identity and causality, for instance, are themselves abstracted from experience, and most (if not all) of these abstracted ideas of metaphysics are in application to the "real world" as we best interpret it. — javra
As to the issue of normalization, I merely intended to evidence that there cannot be concepts in physics without a preestablished foundation of metaphysical concepts. — javra
...one can work with metaphysical concepts abstracted from experience - however tacitly they might be held - without in any way entertaining concepts in physics... — javra
a toddler will actively learn and apply metaphysical concepts such as those of identity/change and causation - this non-linguistically - without making use of concepts pertaining to physics, be it Newtonian physics or that of relativity. — javra
In my Apple Dictionary I have an animated graphic most instructive. It starts with a black dot (point) that expands to a line that expands to an area that expands to a cube that expands to a hypercube.
This exemplifies "an upwardly dimensional axis of progressively complex dimensionally unfolding matrices."
This is my view of the ultimate medium, reality.
— ucarr
Not sure I follow. Are you saying that the possibilities for a human life are immeasurably fecund and the most authentic life is one of continual learning and reinvention? — Tom Storm
This leads me to the following difficult conceptualization: all of existence is physical, and yet the metaphysical is integral to this physicality. I proceed forth from this puzzle by claiming metaphysics_physics are coordinate and contemporary with each other. Furthermore, metaphysics_physics are both independently and mutually non-reductive. Lastly, all of the preceding suggests to me our universe is an upwardly dimensional axis of progressively complex dimensionally unfolding matrices.
— ucarr
If this is the case, what does this contribute to your understanding of the world and models of reality? — Tom Storm
I accept top placement of metaphysics on a flow chart tracking scope of inclusion.
I don’t accept top placement of metaphysics on a flow chart tracking logical priority.
I think you and Joshs, in your conceptualization of metaphysics, are conflating scope of inclusion with logical priority. — ucarr
Generalization of logical data organization to a multi-disciplinary scope of inclusion does not necessarily grant such expanded scope logical priority to the disciplines included. — ucarr
The crux of our disagreement might be your view: placing metaphysics logically first, conflicting with my view, placing metaphysics_physics logically simultaneous. — ucarr
This seems overstated. There's a difference between 'working assumptions' and well-defined, or determinate, 'concepts'. Belonging to the world to begin with, we study and intervene in the world by relying on working assumptions (heuristics) e.g. "identity", "causality", "physicality" long before we (have need to) reflect on them as categorical properties of the world (re: metaphysics), thus, ta meta ta physika, or "the book after the book on nature".I'm only suggesting that physics, or even the notion of physicality as we adults know of it, is impossible without first holding some estimate of what identity and causality are - these being metaphysical concepts. — javra
I'm saying our universe, as evidenced by QM and string theory, includes expanded spatial dimensions additional to the four mentioned above. Newly discoverable types of time and motion are available for our enrichment. In saying this, I'm answering your earlier response to something I said (both quoted below). — ucarr
Of course a cutting edge philosopher must have absorbed the most most advanced scientific ideas of their day. This is because those sciences are philosophical positions articulated via the conventionalized vocabulary of science. If they don’t, they will simply be repeating what a science has already articulated. The same. is true of science. If an empirical
researcher in psychology or biology has not assimilated
the most advanced thinking available in philosophy they will simply be reinventing the wheel. — Joshs
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.