The discussion is re-framed so as to move on. — Banno

And also is not reframed, and does not move on.

A423/B451

Thing is, we are only impartial umpires for someone else’s judgements as expressed in his language. For each of us, for whatever our own reason concludes, there can be no impartiality, insofar as there are no disputants in a singular cognitive system.
—————

“…. In the course of our discussion of the antinomies, we stated that it is always possible to answer all the questions which pure reason may raise; and that the plea of the limited nature of our cognition, which is unavoidable and proper in many questions regarding natural phenomena, cannot in this case be admitted, because the questions raised do not relate to the nature of things, but are necessarily originated by the nature of reason itself, and relate to its own internal constitution.…”

So it is that reason always concludes to an answer its own questions, insofar as it is its nature to do so, but may without contradiction invoke different judgements as ground for them, insofar as its internal constitution is always a logical syllogism. It’s no different in principle than considering getting to Chicago from Tampa by way of St. Louis (the thesis), or considering the same thing but instead, by way of Seattle (the antithesis). Doesn’t matter….you get there either way (the conclusion) and while one route may be better in one respect (faster, cheaper, the major premise in a syllogism), it may be better in another (you get to stop in and see Grandma and Grandpa, the major in a different syllogism). As you say, on the one hand, a logical disjunction, but not on the other, a contradiction.

Going to Chicago is of course not a transcendental notion, but the logical method is the same as an antinomy. And while the antinomies themselves in the text exhibit negation…beginning of the world/no beginning, etc….in principle the trip to Chicago is thetic/antithetic as well, re:, go this way/don’t go this way, and furthermore, even if empirically conditioned hence certainly determinable post hoc by experience, the syllogistic method remains cum hoc consistent with reason itself.

The whole point of the antinomies is that for any transcendental idea, not just the four listed major examples of one, there is an antithesis for it, which follows logically from the fact any idea presupposes its own negation. And while it may be only the philosopher that dreams this shit up, every human is capable of it, assuming his sufficient rationality. Just because he seldom if ever does, doesn’t mean he can’t, and pursuant to the proper interest of philosophy, we want to know what we can do, along with the consequence of it, not what we can’t be bothered doing.

But this insight can't be captured or described in propositional terms, as it is something that has to be actualised. The crucial error in Western culture is to attempt to reduce it to propositional knowledge on par with (but inferior to) empirical or natural science. — Wayfarer

True. But, I doubt that Western science is seriously challenged by the notion of Eastern self-transcendence, since each person can define his own criteria, and keep his propositional knowledge to himself. But Transcendence of physical (space-time) limits would undermine some basic assumptions of classical empirical science. So, it's a no-go.

Likewise, Metaphysics (Idealism) would be like a parallel realm of Reality (what I call "Ideality") that is inaccessible to the physical tools of Science. Also, mathematics is sometimes conceived in Platonic terms, and Psychology can be interpreted as dealing directly with the metaphysical Mind, instead of the physical Brain. Yet again, those classifications are moot.

Self-transcendence may be subjectively "actualized" without being objectively realized. So, it's not much of a threat to a Materialistic worldview. That's why Steven Jay Gould could accept the conciliatory notion of "non-overlapping magisteria" as a compromise between Science (how) & Religion (why). Similarly, I tend to view Philosophy, ideally, as an attempt to live in that demilitarized zone. :smile:

Each of Kant's antimonies looks to me to have been re-framed, and for the better, in the years after his demise. — Banno

Kant's polarities probably seemed to be more fundamental from a classical (Newtonian) physics perspective. But quantum physics has knocked holes in some watertight classical categories. So, it's understandable that one era's firm facts may tend to wilt over time. But, if you are trying to set-up logical oppositions, for philosophical purposes, can you make a better list? :smile:

Kant vs Newton :
Kant thus directly confronts the metaphysical question of how to understand attraction that Newton attempted to avoid by positing it merely mathematically. As Kant interprets the situation, Newton “abstracts from all hypotheses purporting to answer the question as to the cause of the universal attraction of matter … [since] this question is physical or metaphysical, but not mathematical” (4:515). In response to the “most common objection to immediate action at a distance,” namely “that a matter cannot act immediately where it is not” (4:513), Kant argues that action at a distance is no more problematic than action by contact (whether it be by collision or pressure), since in both cases a body is simply acting outside itself.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-science/

Underestimating grammar's capacity to mislead is the source of metaphysics, don't you think? — Banno

In the book I'm currently reading, Fire In The Mind (1995), by science writer George Johnson, I came across several passages that deal with the contention between material Physics & mental Metaphysics. The book is generally about the Santa Fe Institute's*1 unsettling work on Information & Complexity. Are such forays into previously unexplored fringes of physical science (Chaos, Complexity, Cosmology, etc) leading us into Metaphysical error? What is the grammar of Information?

Johnson notes that "we are finite creatures contemplating the infinite, and there is always the danger of confusing our maps of reality with reality itself". But that warning works both ways. Later, he tells about a son who asked his father, "do you believe in ghosts?". The father replies, "No, they contain no matter, and have no energy and therefore, according to the law of science, do not exist except in people's minds". Then, he reflects, "Of course, the laws of physics contain no matter and have no energy either and therefore do not exist except in people's minds". Tit for tat.

The author goes on to observe that : "Pushed up against this edge, science often retreats into platonism". As an example of such platonic idealism, he offers "information physics*2, being pursued in Los Alamos, Santa Fe, and elsewhere suggest a way of bridging the divide : the laws of the universe are not ethereal, they say, but physical --- made from the stuff called information" Ironically, until Claude Shannon labelled his algorithm's of 1s & 0s as "information", that word had traditionally referred to the ethereal contents of a human mind, such as ideas & memes.

If, as some cutting-edge physicists have concluded, "information is as physical as matter and energy, and if ideas and mathematics are made of information, then perhaps they are rooted in the material world. But the price for banning platonic mysticism may be a dizzying self-referential swirl ; the laws of physics are made of information; information behaves according to the laws of physics. Everything begins to seem like ghosts." Continuing with that theme, he says "with its grand unification theories and cosmological schemes, it is seeking answers so fundamental that they border on theology".

Should we then declare that border a no-fly zone for philosophers and theoretical physicists? Johnson thinks its too late to close the barn door. "Los Alamos and Santa Fe, where people are re-thinking some of the most basic beliefs of science, invite one to gaze inward and wonder if the maps could be drawn differently . . ." And I think grammar-weilding philosophers should lead the exploration of Terra Incognita of mind & matter. Of course, they must be careful to avoid errors of grammar & logic. :nerd:


*1. The Santa Fe Institute is an independent, nonprofit theoretical research institute located in Santa Fe, New Mexico, United States and dedicated to the multidisciplinary study of the fundamental principles of complex adaptive systems, including physical, computational, biological, and social systems. ___Wikipedia

*2. Information Physics: The New Frontier
At this point in time, two major areas of physics, statistical mechanics and quantum mechanics, rest on the foundations of probability and entropy. . . . . Information physics, which is based on understanding the ways in which we both quantify and process information about the world around us, is a fundamentally new approach to science.
https://arxiv.org/abs/1009.5161 (mathematical physics)

Underestimating grammar's capacity to mislead is the source of metaphysics, don't you think? — Banno

In the book I'm currently reading, Fire In The Mind (1995), by science writer George Johnson, I came across several passages that deal with the contention between material Physics & mental Metaphysics. The book is generally about then new Santa Fe Institute's*1 unsettling work on Information & Complexity. Are such forays into previously unexplored fringes of physical science (Chaos, Complexity, Cosmology, etc) leading us into Metaphysical error? What is the grammar of Information?

Johnson notes that "we are finite creatures contemplating the infinite, and there is always the danger of confusing our maps of reality with reality itself". But that warning works both ways. Later, he tells about a son who asked his father, "do you believe in ghosts?". The father replies, "No, they contain no matter, and have no energy and therefore, according to the law of science, do not exist except in people's minds". Then, he reflects, "Of course, the laws of physics contain no matter and have no energy either and therefore do not exist except in people's minds". Tit for tat.

The author goes on to observe that : "Pushed up against this edge, science often retreats into platonism". As an example of such platonic idealism, he offers "information physics*2, being pursued in Los Alamos, Santa Fe, and elsewhere suggest a way of bridging the divide : the laws of the universe are not ethereal, they say, but physical --- made from the stuff called information" Ironically, until Claude Shannon labelled his algorithm's of 1s & 0s as "information", that word had traditionally referred to the ethereal contents of a human mind, such as ideas & memes.

If, as some cutting-edge physicists have concluded, "information is as physical as matter and energy, and if ideas and mathematics are made of information, then perhaps they are rooted in the material world. But the price for banning platonic mysticism may be a dizzying self-referential swirl ; the laws of physics are made of information; information behaves according to the laws of physics. Everything begins to seem like ghosts." Continuing with that theme, he says "with its grand unification theories and cosmological schemes, it is seeking answers so fundamental that they border on theology".

Should we then declare that border a no-fly zone for philosophers and theoretical physicists? Johnson thinks its too late to close the barn door. "Los Alamos and Santa Fe, where people are re-thinking some of the most basic beliefs of science, invite one to gaze inward and wonder if the maps could be drawn differently . . ." And I think grammar-weilding philosophers should lead the exploration of Terra Incognita both mind & matter. :nerd:


*1. The Santa Fe Institute is an independent, nonprofit theoretical research institute located in Santa Fe, New Mexico, United States and dedicated to the multidisciplinary study of the fundamental principles of complex adaptive systems, including physical, computational, biological, and social systems. ___Wikipedia

*2. Information Physics: The New Frontier
At this point in time, two major areas of physics, statistical mechanics and quantum mechanics, rest on the foundations of probability and entropy. . . . . Information physics, which is based on understanding the ways in which we both quantify and process information about the world around us, is a fundamentally new approach to science.
https://arxiv.org/abs/1009.5161 (mathematical physics)

"Pushed up against this edge, science often retreats into platonism" — Gnomon

'Philosophy buries its undertakers' ~ Etienne Gilson

I doubt that Western science is seriously challenged by the notion of Eastern self-transcendence — Gnomon

It's more like becoming absorbed by it. Deepak Chopra is a regular at the Consciousness Studies conferences held at the University of Arizona. The Tao of Physics was published in 1970. There are many memes and themes that have seeped through from Eastern culture into current science.

Fire In The Mind (1995), by science writer George Johnson — Gnomon

Does look a very interesting read.

I again recommend Mind and the Cosmic Order, Charles Pinter.

Thing is, we are only impartial umpires for someone else’s judgements as expressed in his language. For each of us, for whatever our own reason concludes, there can be no impartiality, insofar as there are no disputants in a singular cognitive system. — Mww

True, (except for the fact that we can dispute with ourselves).

And while it may be only the philosopher that dreams this shit up, every human is capable of it, assuming his sufficient rationality. Just because he seldom if ever does, doesn’t mean he can’t, and pursuant to the proper interest of philosophy, we want to know what we can do, along with the consequence of it, not what we can’t be bothered doing. — Mww

Yep, it's most important to exercise that metaphysical imagination, and also to feel the affective differences different perspectives bring with them. Given that all views are under-determined and inadequate, it's the differences different views make to how we live our lives that are most important. Correctness and general usefulness are pedantic illusions.

As you say, that depends on what is to count as metaphysical. The term is used, and misused, quote broadly.
By way of an example, in the Popperian school ideas are metaphysical if they are not falsifiable. So the conservation laws, being neither provable by mere deduction nor falsifiable, are metaphysics. For Watkins this is no more than an evaluation of their logical structure, but others will take this as an insult, not wanting anything in physics to be metaphysical. The conservation laws are not derived only from logic, but from experimenting and theorising over considerable time. — Banno

Yes, the "Meta" label has debatable baggage. Aristotle didn't classify his Nature topics in terms of falsifiability-by-experimentation, but he did divide his book between A. topics that were knowable by observation (Empirical) and B. topics that were knowable by reason & imagination (Theoretical). The latter later became known as "Metaphysics", and concerned concepts that are not directly knowable by the senses, and not verifiable by empirical methods. Most theories, even today, are endlessly arguable.

Later still, empirical science began to develop methods for testing theories*1. But what we call a "Theory" today is still a philosophical generalization (generic class) that can't be verified short of testing all possible instances of the category hypothesized. So modern science still combines Observation (Physics) with Theorization (Metaphysics)*2. Some theories reach a dominant consensus for a while, but remain open to refutation.

Theoretical Metaphysics has been found useful in Science. So, the problem is not its lack of empirical verifiability (e.g. Big Bang ; Multiverse), but with its associated worldview (Materialism vs Idealism). Some form of Big Bang/MV theory can be taken for granted by those who don't accept religious theories (Genesis ; Messiah) on faith. Both types of theories are "Metaphysical" according to Popper. And neither has any confirmable consequences in the here & now Real world.

So, a pre-BB theory (Cosmology) can be judged plausible if it predicts observable post-BB consequences. Inflation Theory was intended to do so, but fell short*3. Both Multiverse and Genesis theories imply some real-world consequences*4. And both are Metaphysical in that they are not directly & conclusively verifiable. Therefore, "what is to count as metaphysics" seems to boil down to whether it supports your own philosophical worldview, or an "erroneous" view. :smile:


*1. Scientific theory :
A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world and universe that has been repeatedly tested and corroborated in accordance with the scientific method, using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and evaluation of results. __Wikipedia

*2. Metaphysics of Science :
Metaphysics of Science is the philosophical study of key concepts that figure prominently in science and that, prima facie, stand in need of clarification. It is also concerned with the phenomena that correspond to these concepts. Exemplary topics within Metaphysics of Science include laws of nature, causation, dispositions, natural kinds, possibility and necessity, explanation, reduction, emergence, grounding, and space and time.
https://iep.utm.edu/met-scie/

*3. Is The Inflationary Universe A Scientific Theory? Not Anymore :
And it's even worse, they argue, inflation is not even a scientific theory:
“nflationary cosmology, as we currently understand it, cannot be evaluated using the scientific method.”
https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/09/28/is-the-inflationary-universe-a-scientific-theory-not-anymore/?sh=6066fd61b45e

*4. Genesis Prophecies :
https://www.icr.org/article/genesis-prophecies

Somewhat controversially, Kant took Newtonian physics and Euclidian geometry as fundamental. For a while, "Kant's conception looked quaint at best and silly at worst". I'm sceptical that Kant can provide what you are after.

You might enjoy Watkins' Confirmable and influential metaphysics, perhaps. Watkins followed Popper at the LSE, and here gives a firm logical basis for certain sorts of metaphysics, with great sympathy for scientific method built in.

Fire In The Mind (1995), by science writer George Johnson — Gnomon
Does look a very interesting read.
I again recommend Mind and the Cosmic Order, Charles Pinter. — Wayfarer

Yes. I read the book almost 30 years ago, before the universal function of Information became a central focus of my personal philosophy. My current Enformationism worldview began only about 15 years ago. So, I'm hoping, the second time around, I'll absorb more of his historical & journalistic overview of post-quantum science. I especially appreciate his metaphorical writing style, that is easier for an amateur to picture, compared to the abstractions of typical technological teaching. As a trivial example, he refers to the Atomic Bomb, developed at Los Alamos, as "mathematical transubstantiation".

Referring to Los Alamos and Santa Fe institutes in northern New Mexico, he says : "There seems to be something about the altitude here and the stark relief between mountains and desert that pushes speculation to the edge and makes even the most sober of scientists more reflective, more willing to turn science back on itself, to theorize about what it means to theorize --- about how we make these maps of the world. A theory can be thought of as the fitting of a curve to a spray of data." [my emphasis] He goes on to juxtapose the otherworldliness of quantum science with the variety of religious "maps" in the same area : pueblo Indians, catholic Mexicans, anti-catholic Protestants, and peace-loving Muslims, along with a myriad of New Age notions. "Retracing the history of these disciplines in a different way --- viewing them more as artful constructions than as excavations of preexisting truth . . ." Then, he suggests a novel way to understand, both the complexities & contradictions of the world, and our methods of making sense of it. "Conversely, we will see physicists seeking signs of contingency in the way the universe happened to crystalize from the Big Bang, Perhaps the particles and forces we observe and the laws they obey are 'frozen accidents', just like biological structures."

Pertinent to this thread on Transcendence & Cosmology, he makes a comment that only years later made sense to me. "an attempt to recast physics and cosmology by climbing back to the trunk of the tree of knowledge . . . . and taking a somewhat different branch, in which the seemingly ethereal concept of information is admitted as a fundamental quantity as palpable and real as matter and energy." [my bold] Later, speaking of the broken symmetries of quantum physics, he said "the world would be mathematical if only reality didn't mess it up". I'll let you guess what he meant by that.

I looked at the website for Mind and the Cosmic Order, but it requires an "institutional subscription". The only "institution" I'm a member of is Google. I downloaded a PDF, but it included only the index. Maybe later. :smile:

↪Gnomon
Somewhat controversially, Kant took Newtonian physics and Euclidian geometry as fundamental. For a while, "Kant's conception looked quaint at best and silly at worst". I'm sceptical that Kant can provide what you are after. — Banno

I'm not sure what you think I'm after. The point of this thread is not the authority, or lack thereof, of Kant's scientific worldview. I simply used his list of Antinomies as an outline for my own observations on Transcendence & Cosmology, and to elicit the opinions of others. His "quaint & silly" conception of physics is irrelevant for my purposes. However, if you find my own notions "quaint & silly", that can't be blamed on Kant, since I am not a Kant scholar or acolyte. Most of what I know of his philosophy comes from Wikipedia.

What I am "after" is an answer to the topical question : "How could something come from nothing?" I too, am doubtful that Kant could shed any light on the 21st century significance of that Big Bang lacuna --- the controversial "god gap" that Christians plug with the Genesis myth, and Atheists fill with Multiverse myths. A secondary question is regarding whether "Transcendence" should be off-limits for inquiring philosophers and cosmologists. Is that concept itself intrinsically "silly"? :smile:

Transcendence & Cosmology :
What are your thoughts on existential Transcendence? Is it irrational to imagine the unknowable "What-If" beyond the partly known "What-Is"? Should we "fall-down & prostrate"? or just "shut-up & calculate"? Or is it reasonable for speculative Philosophers & holistic Cosmologists daring to venture into the "Great Beyond" where pragmatic Scientists "fear to tread"?
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/14109/kants-antinomies-transcendental-cosmology/p1

What are your thoughts on existential Transcendence? — Gnomon

Categorical error. Existence for humans is immanent, not transcendent. There may be possible transcendent existences, but impossible that they be empirical for us, and for that contingent existence which is empirical, it is necessarily immanent for us.

Is it irrational to imagine the unknowable "What-If" beyond the partly known "What-Is"? — Gnomon

Beyond the partially known is merely unknown, which is not irrational to imagine. It doesn’t make any sense to ask for the unknowable what-if under any conditions, which makes asking for it regarding the partially known, irrational.

Or is it reasonable for speculative Philosophers & holistic Cosmologists daring to venture into the "Great Beyond" where pragmatic Scientists "fear to tread"? — Gnomon

Dunno about holistic cosmologists, but the speculative philosopher sometimes operates by the construction of his concepts, not solely with the employment of those having been already determined, so he can be said to venture any damn where he likes, leaving the pragmatist far behind.

Still, the reasonable speculative philosophers do have their own regulatory parameters, just that those happen to be other than determined by Nature, even if related necessarily to it, which, if overstepped, ironically enough, allows the pragmatic scientist to catch up.

My thoughts……

I looked at the website for Mind and the Cosmic Order, but it requires an "institutional subscription". — Gnomon

True, you can only access the chapter abstracts on the site, but the abstracts for the first few chapters convey the gist. I bought the Kindle edition.

"the world would be mathematical if only reality didn't mess it up". — Gnomon

Because we're intermixed with base matter, would be my guess.

What are your thoughts on existential Transcendence? — Gnomon

That if you don't know what it is you're seeking, you have no hope of finding.

What I am "after" is an answer to the topical question : "How could something come from nothing?" — Gnomon

You hinted, in your talk of metaphysics, at a broader interest in how this question is framed, and asked about "transcendence" being off-limits to philosophers and physicist. The Watkins article presents a logic that can be applied rationally to metaphysics by physicists and philosophers. Thought it might better suit your need than Kant.

My own approach at present would be more after Wittgenstein, as I think I have explained previously. The emphasis must be on the use to which a theory is put, to what can be done and what can be tested. Speculations are fine, provided they are understood as speculations, a parlour game.

You do not appear to be too far from that same view.

I do not think your posts silly, but they are somewhat unclear.

You hinted, in your talk of metaphysics, at a broader interest in how this question is framed, and asked about "transcendence" being off-limits to philosophers and physicist. The Watkins article presents a logic that can be applied rationally to metaphysics by physicists and philosophers. Thought it might better suit your need than Kant.

My own approach at present would be more after Wittgenstein, as I think I have explained previously. The emphasis must be on the use to which a theory is put, to what can be done and what can be tested. Speculations are fine, provided they are understood as speculations, a parlour game. — Banno

Thanks for the suggestions and link. But, I'm no better informed about Wittgenstein than Kant. My GI Bill college education had no place for Philosophy, except for Logic, and that was a math requirement. Ironically, most of my minimal philosophical knowledge comes from philosophical scientists (e.g. physicist Paul Davies). I find them easier to understand than most academic analytical philosophers. So, I suspect that Wittgenstein, like Kant, would be way above my pay grade. That's why I depend on dumbed-down Wikipedia for accessible tidbits of philosophy.

Regarding "off limits" topics, this thread was inspired by harsh skeptical (Logical Positivism) reactions to my naive willingness to cross the empirical line-in-the-sand, of a material Big Bang beginning, into the imaginary realm of Transcendence -- which was construed as an indication of a god-shaped hole-in-the-heart. Actually, my narrow interest in Metaphysics is due to the 21st century notion that post-Shannon Information is fundamental to reality and equivalent to Energy*1. Yet, the Big Bang theory, about the origin of the material universe, left the origin of Energy (causation), and Natural Laws (organization), as an open question. So, I'm interested in the implicit transcendent Causation & Legislation that Cosmological theories take for granted --- as existing, in some sense, prior to the beginning of our universe, perhaps even eternally.

As a philosophical theory, that supposed eternal Causation & Legislation could fill the "god gap" that current Cosmology leaves open. I'm not expecting to find evidence for a Genesis god, though, in the unclocked time-before-time. At the moment, I refer to "it" as a philosophical Principle, like an Aristotelian "First Cause" or Platonic "Logos", that may be necessary to explain the flow of Information/energy in the real world. A scientific name for that "flow of causation" is "Evolution". Moreover, Darwin's competition for resources has been compared to a computer program crunching information in order to calculate some ultimate output*2. So, I think of the transcendent source of Energy & Laws metaphorically as "The Programmer". That's not a religious concept, but merely a philosophical postulation for the ultimate question of Cosmology : why is there something?

Since I'm merely an unpaid amateur philosophical dabbler, I have no practical "use" for metaphysical speculations. And, I don't need such "parlour games" to support traditional religious beliefs. Yet again, I might be interested in Watkins's "haunted universe" logic, but it's hidden behind a paywall, and requires some kind of affiliation to read or download. I'd like to know a bit more about what's for sale, before I invest my sparse money. :smile:

*1. Is information the only thing that exists? :
Physics suggests information is more fundamental than matter, energy, space and time – the problems start when we try to work out what that means
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg23431191-500-inside-knowledge-is-information-the-only-thing-that-exists/

*2. Programming the Universe :
A Quantum Computer Scientist Takes on the Cosmos
___Seth Lloyd
https://www.amazon.com/Programming-Universe-Quantum-Computer-Scientist/dp/1400033861

it's hidden behind a paywall — Gnomon

You should be able to get access to https://www.academia.edu/ simply by registering, for free. Access to 100 articles a month from some of their collections.

And see https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/9909/confirmable-and-influential-metaphysics/p1

The upshot is that we might use "metaphysical" to refer at least in part to sentences whose logical form renders them unfalsifiable, and/or indemonstrable, but which are nevertheless useful, perhaps for methodological or ethical purposes.

hidden behind a paywall — Gnomon

https://www.academia.edu/3843328/Watkins0002

Scroll down, past all the other stuff. No registration, no pay.