Simple. The intent lies within the cause of the equation themselves - Schrödinger. Why else would you call it the Schrödinger equation if not for the intent of Schrödinger himself when coming up with the equation. Wherever you find a statement, or law, you will find intent, for as far as I know, only people write statements and laws. Did Schrödinger design the universe to behave a certain way, or did he just write some equation that represents the way the universe behaves in a certain way? — Harry Hindu

I see, you pretend that somehow Schrödinger's desire to express quantum mechanics in differential equation form, has somehow infected the mathematical expression of the physical law discovered by Heisenberg.

You really are jumping the shark. The Schrödinger equation expresses the exact same law of physics as the Heisenberg equation, the exact same law as Dirac's equation (the interaction picture) and the exact same law as Feynman's path integral formulation.

But just so you know, the Schrödinger equation can be DERIVED from the most powerful formulation of classical mechanics - namely the Hamilton-Jacobi equation - by applying the extra constraint that the H-J equation must be globally deterministic.

Okay, so you mean something else with the second use of the term, "law", than you mean with the first use. Like I said, I dislike the use of the term, "law" when referring to the way things are. There is no underlying code, or rules for the way things are. There is simply the way things are and our representation of the way things are with language and math (laws). — Harry Hindu

No I don't. Principles are laws about laws. There is no direct way to use or test a principle.

We seem to be saying the same thing, just using different terms. The fact that you keep using the names of people who came up with these formulas for representing some State of Affairs in nature shows that intent was involved in coming up with a formulas not in designing nature the way it is.

Mathematical formulas are just representations of the way things are, just like any language.

"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

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

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

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

You've obviously put a lot of effort into this. So I read it, but you don't seem to be saying anything that I can get hold of sufficiently to respond to. Also you seem to be misinterpreted me freely. For one thing I am not a materialist. I think it's best if we just leave it there; I'm not up for a bout of "talking past" each other.

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

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

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 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

???! :D — Michael Ossipoff

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


I misread your post, because one does not expect such nonsense.

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?

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

How?

Physicists call Conservation of Energy a law. — Michael Ossipoff

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.

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

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

See above. — Michael Ossipoff

At least we have established that you are neither a physicist nor know one.

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.

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.

We are probably getting a bit ahead of ourselves, but you might find it helpful to also read sections 31 and 35 of your copy of "The Logic of Scientific Discovery" by Karl Popper.

This article, by the famous philosopher and physicist who invented the quantum computer might help clear things up for you:

https://www.edge.org/conversation/david_deutsch-constructor-theory

— 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

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. — Michael Ossipoff

I would never commit such a crime, that is why you are given magnitude and direction.

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

It is literally the simplest system though. You are free to make perfect measurements if you wish, under whatever laws of motion you choose. And you HAVE to choose.

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

Choose one of these systems, and describe how measurements of the total energy might be made. Or concede the argument and admit you have been enlightened.

You think? :D — Michael Ossipoff

I know!

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

We get triggered by B.S'ers

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

My PhD was in Computational Quantum Mechanics. Most of my friends are physicists (I know what they think, and why. We received the same education and training). My wife if a highly successful physicist. I am surrounded by them. I can't get away from them!

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

I think he was referring to you.

My PhD was in Computational Quantum Mechanics. — tom

Sure :D

Not if what you've been posting is any indication.

I'd said:

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

You replied:

I think he was referring to you.

No, I don' think so, because I'm not the one expounding on physics, or trying to bring it into a philosophical discussion.

I'd said:

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

You replied:

Choose one of these systems, and describe how measurements of the total energy might be made.

Have a piece of solid matter in an insulated vacuum container, supported from the top by strings, so that it has as little contact with anything as possible.

The container's inner surface is completely reflective, or maybe the piece of matter is at thermal equilibrium with the thin inside layer of the wall when both temperature-measurements are made.. The piece of matter is of a material that won't undergo a reaction or decay (to any degree that would affect the temperature-readings).

Measure its temperature by infrared sensing, or any temperature-measurement that won't significantly affect the object's temperature, at two successive times.

If its temperature changes, when it's effectively-isolated, then Conservation of Energy is falsified.

Depending on how sensitive you want the experiment to be, the isolation could be made more elaborate.

Michael Ossipoff

By the way, I've encountered "physicists" on forums before.

One of them (what a coincidence) said that he, too, had a PhD. ...but he miss-spelled PhD.

Another said that his PhD was in physics. But later, when he said something so ridiculous that that pretense wouldn't work, he suddenly changed into a population-ecology scientist.

Michael Ossipoff

I don't think reincarnation or resurrection, for that matter, are logically incompatible with materialism. But they are both incompatible with present human understanding of the physical; there is no conceivable mechanism by which they could be actualities. — Janus

I'm not posting this to advocate that there's reincarnation, but just to answer the above-quoted comment.

Certainly reincarnation is incompatible with your present human understanding of the physical, if you believe that the physical world comprises all of Reality.

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

Not in Materialism :D

But, as I said before, reincarnation is implied by an inevitable, uncontroversial metaphysics--the one that I've been proposing.

Michael Ossipoff

Certainly reincarnation is incompatible with your present human understanding of the physical, if you believe that the physical world comprises all of Reality. — Michael Ossipoff

It's not a question of whether the physical "comprises all of reality"; different answers to that question will be given depending on different interpretations of the terms. It is really a more or less meaningless question. In any case reincarnation is incompatible with any testable understanding of the 'how' of the actual world; the world we find ourselves in, the world we sense, feel and attempt to explain. It is also incompatible with my own personal experience, as I have no sense whatsoever that I have lived prior to this life. If someone remembers, or believes they remember, a past life, then obviously they will not feel or think reincarnation to be incompatible with their experience.

I don't believe this kind of experience is common, though; although I don't doubt quite a few people may mistake their fantasies for experiences that actually indicate something about reality; humans can be gullible. In any case, if you reincarnate but don't remember your previous lives; then I can't see what relevance it could have to you, now, in this life.

But, as I said before, reincarnation is implied by an inevitable, uncontroversial metaphysics--the one that I've been proposing. — Michael Ossipoff

You may think the metaphysics you propose is "inevitable and uncontroversial", but I don't share that assessment; and I doubt many others would, since belief in reincarnation, at least in the modern West, is very much a minority viewpoint; and would seem to be extremely rare among philosophers.

Time for a reality check, dude. >:O

In one posting, Janus said:
.

I don't believe there is any "uncontroversial metaphysics", because all metaphysics start from unfounded assumptions.

.
Alright, Janus should feel free to name an unfounded assumption in the metaphysics that I’ve been proposing.
.
Earlier, he said that there were unsupported statements in that my proposal of that metaphysics, but, when invited to specify one, he was unable to.
.
In the reincarnation discussion, I’d said:
.

Certainly reincarnation is incompatible with your present human understanding of the physical, if you believe that the physical world comprises all of Reality.
— Michael Ossipoff

.
Janus replied:
.

It's not a question of whether the physical "comprises all of reality"; different answers to that question will be given depending on different interpretations of the terms. It is really a more or less meaningless question. In any case reincarnation is incompatible with any testable understanding of the 'how' of the actual world; the world we find ourselves in, the world we sense, feel and attempt to explain.

.
He’s saying that reincarnation doesn’t have a physical mechanism, doesn’t have a mechanism in terms of the beliefs of a Materialist. I’ve already agreed to that.
.
First he says “It’s not a question of whether the physical ‘comprises all of reality’ “, but then he says that his point is that reincarnation is incompatible with any “testable understanding of the ‘how’ of the actual (physical) world; the world we find ourselves in, the world we sense, feel, and attempt to [physically] explain.”
.
Janus’s objection, quoted above, to reincarnation, amounts to an objection that reincarnation isn’t compatible with Materialism. But Janus, in an earlier post, claimed to not be a Materialist.
.
He’s saying that there isn’t a physical mechanism for reincarnation, a mechanism compatible with Materialism. As I said, I’ve already agreed to that. I said that reincarnation is implied by a different metaphysics. I didn’t say that it’s implied by, or compatible with, Materialism.
.
But if that physical world doesn’t comprise all of reality, then a suggestion isn’t at all discredited by the fact that isn’t observed and reported by physical science?
.
But, in no way is reincarnation incompatible with physical science. Physical science is about the events within this physical universe, the interactions of its parts. That topic doesn’t bear on the question of reincarnation.
.

It is also incompatible with my own personal experience

.
Incorrect.
.

, as I have no sense whatsoever that I have lived prior to this life.

.
I’ve said that there’s no reason to expect someone to remember a previous life.
.
What Janus means is that his own personal experience neither confirms nor refutes reincarnation.
.
Actually, it isn’t just that we don’t remember a past life, or know if there was one. I suggest that the matter of whether or not there was one is indeterminate in principle.
.
This life is the result of your inclinations and predispositions—your perspective, in the words of another poster.
.
This life began because, among the infinitely-many timeless life-experience possibility-stories, there’s one with a protagonist who has the inclinations and predispositions—the same perspective—that are your inclinations and predispositions, your perspective. …because that hypothetical protagonist in that hypothetical story is you.
.
…regardless of whether or not you lived a life before this one.
.
…regardless of whether there’s reincarnation.
.
It isn’t true that there was a past life for you, or that there wasn’t.
.

If someone remembers, or believes they remember, a past life, then obviously they will not feel or think reincarnation to be incompatible with their experience.

.
I don't believe this kind of experience is common, though; although I don't doubt quite a few people may mistake their fantasies for experiences that actually indicate something about reality; humans can be gullible.

.
Don’t forget hoax.
.

In any case, if you reincarnate but don't remember your previous lives; then I can't see what relevance it could have to you, now, in this life.

.
That wasn’t the topic. As I said, not only is it unknowable whether or not you lived a life before, it’s also indeterminate. It isn’t true that you did, or that you didn’t.

I'd said:

.
"But, as I said before, reincarnation is implied by an inevitable, uncontroversial metaphysics--the one that I've been proposing

. — Michael Ossipoff

You replied:
.

You may think the metaphysics you propose is "inevitable and uncontroversial", but I don't share that assessment

.
Yes, that’s why I asked you which statement in the proposal you disagree with (or which one you don’t agree with, or which one I needs support that I didn’t supply, or is an "unfounded assumption"). You haven’t specified one.
.
All we hear from you is the usual grumbling, grunting noises.
.

; and I doubt many others would, since belief in reincarnation, at least in the modern West, is very much a minority viewpoint; and would seem to be extremely rare among philosophers.

.
Though the metaphysics that I propose implies, or at least plausibly implies, reincarnation, it’s uncontroverial-ness doesn’t depend on whether you think there’s reincarnation.
.
Maybe you don’t like its implications, conclusions, or consequences. But the metaphysics is still uncontroversial if there’s nothing in the statement of that metaphysics that you can specify that don’t agree with, or that is unjustifiably assumed, or that needs support that I didn’t supply.
.
…and your census-estimate regarding the beliefs of Western philosophers isn’t relevant to the matter.
.

Time for a reality check, dude

.
The reality of this discussion is that, in spite of your grunting noises, you haven’t specified a statement in my metaphysical proposal that you don’t agree with, or that needs support that I didn’t supply.
.
As for reincarnation, though it’s at least plausibly implied by my metaphysics, I don’t claim that there is, or even could be, observable evidence or proof about reincarnation.
.
Michael Ossipoff

If you prefer to continue with your evasive self-justificatory bullshit rather than offering up for assessment and critique just one central statement from your purportedly uncontroversial metaphysics, then don't complain that no one can be bothered trying to engage your "ideas".

If you prefer to continue with your evasive self-justificatory bullshit — Janus

Angry grunting noises, instead of specific objections.

Evasive? I've been repeatedly inviting you to give a specific objection to a specific statement in the proposal. You've been evading, via vague angry-noises, and the typical Internet-abuser's resort to namecalling as an "argument".

rather than offering up for assessment and critique just one central statement from your purportedly uncontroversial metaphysics

I offered all of it for assessment and critique. If I haven't named a "central statement", it's because I honestly don't know what you by that. All of it is equally essential to the statement of the metaphysics.

But I can guess at what might qualify as the most "central" statement. Something that best summarizes the overall point that distinguishes the metaphysics from other ones?

How about the statement that there's inevitably a complex system of inter-referring abstract if-then facts about hypotheticals, whose events and relations are those of your experience? ...and that there's no reason to believe that our world is other than that? That summarizes what characterizes this metaphysics.

...or the statement that any fact about this physical world can be said as an if-then fact. And the statement that any statement can be one of the hypotheticals of an if-then fact. ...either all or part of an if-then fact's "if " premise, or all or part of its "then" conclusion.

...or the statement that, because anything said about our world can be said as an if-then fact, then conditional grammar describes our world. That alone is enough to justify the statement that there's a complex system of inter-referring abstract if-then facts about hypotheticals, whose events and relations are those of your experience.

I don't refuse to name the most central statement, but I don't know exactly what you mean by that. A number of statements are all equally necessary parts of this metaphysical exposition.

There seems to be a popular misconception that metaphysics has to be speculative, and that it's a matter for relativism. No, as I've said, definite things can be said about metaphysics. It has things in common with science.

Definitions should be well-specified and consistently-applied. Statements should be supported. Unverifiable and unfalsifiable propositions are suspect. Assumptions and brute-facts are to be avoided if possible.

I've proposed a metaphysics without assumptions or brute-facts. ...unlike "Naturalism."

I've invited suggestions about what can be disagreed with. Someone expressed disagreement with a statement, and I've told my justification for that statement.

Michael Ossipoff

they are both [reincarnation and ??] incompatible with present human understanding of the physical; there is no conceivable mechanism by which they could be actualities. — Janus

Physics, the study of "the physical", is only about the workings of this physical world, and the inter-relations and interactions among its parts. For example, it describes the events observable in your life-experience. But it says nothing, one way or the other, about reincarnation, the matter of what world or experience-story you're in.

Reincarnation is metaphysically supported, but isn't incompatible with physics, because physics says nothing about it, one way or the other.

Science-Worship, the religion whose devotees want to apply science outside its legitimate area of applicability, is a form of pseudoscience.

Michael Ossipoff