How is 'the common understanding' relevant for metaphysics? Just because it's something 'everyone knows' or think they know, doesn't make it so. Numbers and geometric concepts are a case in point. — Wayfarer

The common understanding and use of words determines their meaning or meanings. I'm not saying you can't invent new meanings, or rather new nuances of meaning, but there has to be some justification for doing so.
It's not a matter of what people " think they know" but of the common understanding that meanings of terms are based upon.
As to number: I imagine most people would say it is real. It is as real as difference. Likewise with geometry: it is as real as form and measure, and I doubt you would find many who deny the reality of those.

It's not a matter of what people " think they know" but of the common understanding that meanings of terms are based upon. — Janus

It is exactly a matter of what they think they know. The problem is that we take some things for granted, because they are assumed to be "the common understanding", locked up into the way that we use the words. But the common understanding is often misunderstanding. it's almost like a fashion, we accept something as true because others do. This is evident in phrases like "the sun rises", and "the sun sets". These are phrases which used to represent the common understanding, things which people took for granted thousands of years ago, which we now know as misunderstanding, because we recognize that the earth rotates.

This is the important point of Plato's cave allegory, the philosopher sees beyond the common understanding (which is really misunderstanding) to the true reality.

The point is that human knowledge is grounded in things which we take for granted. But in reality these "things", (Wittgenstein's bedrock or hinge propositions) are the extreme limits of human knowledge, and they actual mark off, or even represent the unknown. When there appears to be a limit to what can be known about something (beyond this point appears to be beyond our intellectual capacity), we establish a principle which marks that limit, and allows us to work around that unknown element.

So we find these principles in examples like Aristotle's "matter", and Newton's first law of motion. Notice that we do not at all understand what matter is, or what inertia is, but these principles allow us to work around this area of the unknown, that aspect of reality which appears to be beyond our intellectual capacity. These principles are very useful, and lend themselves to "the common understanding". However, we know from quantum mechanics that Newton's law of inertia does not properly represent the temporal continuity of physical existence. So this principle, Newton's first law, is something we take for granted, and it has become the common understanding, but it really is a misunderstanding, because it creates the illusion that we think we know what we do not really know, as the unknown lurks behind this principle.

The problem though, is that matter itself is just an idea, a concept. — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes. According to Idealism, ultimately, everything in reality is an idea in the mind of G*D. Enformationism is essentially an update of ancient Idealism, using our modern understanding of Information to clarify such enigmas as how Minds can emerge from Matter. Answer : It's all mind.

That doesn't mean that you and I are ghosts, though. For us physical beings, what we perceive as real is as real as it gets. Since we are inside the Cave or the Matrix, so to speak, we can only imagine the "true" reality, unless someone like Plato comes along to unshackle our bodies, or like Morpheus to offer us the Red Pill.

So, for all practical purposes, Matter is what the world is made of. And divine Mind is merely an idea.

If that statement sounds like a reversal of the conclusion in the first paragraph, that's because Enformationism is a BothAnd worldview : our world consists of metaphysical Information in the Mind of G*D, but we perceive that Information as physical stuff. So, which is "true" depends on whether you are looking at the world from the Inside (subjective) or from Outside (objective). But we can "see" objectively only in imagination -- and then, only "in a glass darkly".

Real. Hence the fundamental truth of mathematical Platonism: that intelligible objects are real, but they're not material in nature — Wayfarer

Yes. That's why I prefer to avoid the Real/Unreal dichotomy, and refer to Mathematical "structures" as Metaphysical, and material structures as Physical.

As to number: I imagine most people would say it is real. It is as real as difference. Likewise with geometry: it is as real as form and measure, and I doubt you would find many who deny the reality of those. — Janus

Philosophers have argued about what's real for millennia, and the beat goes on. So, I simply say : "it's both/and".
The BothAnd philosophy : http://bothandblog5.enformationism.info/page6.html

Philosophers have argued about what's real for millennia, and the beat goes on. So, I simply say : "it's both/and". — Gnomon

Sure, something can be thought to be real in different senses, if there are different senses of the word. So, we can say that something could be empirically real but not real in any other sense. And we are able to conceive that something could be real despite not being empirically real, in the sense that it might be there but not available to the senses, even if augmented by instruments. But none of this tells us anything about what might be actually real beyond an empirical context. What is real can be conjectured or stipulated but its nature or character cannot always (if ever) be definitively determined.

Given the understanding that humans have apparently only been around for about 200.000 years and the understanding of biological evolution and cosmology that says that life has been around for about 2,000,000,000 years and the Universe for about 14,000,000,000 years, we are firmly committed to saying that something was real prior to the advent of the empirical context.

The usual idealist objection that this is being said from within the empirical context seems irrelevant to me, as long as naive realism is carefully avoided. We can say something was real prior to humans without saying anything about what it was "in itself". We know something was real prior to human life if we can trust our carbon dating methods and astronomical observations, because it has left traces that we can now observe.

In the case of the earlier-than-human history of the Earth the best we can do is to imagine what we would have seen if we had been there. In talking about the reality of what is beyond human experience, we are talking about conjectured conditions whose nature cannot be known beyond what we know (or think we know) they have given rise to. From that it obviously doesn't follow that they just are what they have given rise to, as naive realism assumes. It pays to remember that trying to talk about these things pushes against the limits of language.

I'm also interested to know how you interpret the idea of an intentional creator. Did the creator plan for some final outcome? If not are all outcomes precisely planned or was the creator like a computer programmer, producing an algorithm that is left to run and produce unpredictable outcomes? Is the creator sentient and sapient? Loving? Omnipotent? Infallible? Did the creator produce the laws of nature or must it work within them. Is the creator consciously aware of all events in its creation, or only some of them, or none of them?

But none of this tells us anything about what might be actually real beyond an empirical context. — Janus

Yes. That's why I prefer to make a different distinction from the usual Real/Ideal, Empirical/Theoretical Materialism/Spiritualism dichotomies. Materialism typically treats anything Ideal as non-existent. But then the Materialism hypothesis is itself an idea, so what is the status of its reality? Since we tend to accept our own ideas, memories, attitudes, feelings, and such as part of our personal reality, we need a name for that kind of non-physical realness. I suspect that the perceived need -- for a name with which to refer to mental intangibles (e.g. numbers, principles) collectively -- caused some ancient thinkers to adopt the informal title of Aristotle's second volume of his lectures on Nature (Physics) to cover everything immaterial. The Physics books discussed things we know via our senses (things-that-change in space & time, matter, hyle). But the Metaphysics books were mostly about human ideas, opinions, and theories regarding the external furnishings of Nature. You might call them the furniture of the mind.
Meta-Physics : http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page14.html

we are firmly committed to saying that something was real prior to the advent of the empirical context. — Janus

The existence of the universe prior to the emergence of human consciousness is not empirically justified, because it is just a theory based on projection of current events into the past. We assume that physical reality was trucking along just fine with no minds to perceive it. Yet Bishop Berkeley argued that the world was being perceived, not just by humans, but also by God. So, when he asserted that “esse est percipi” (to be is to be perceived) he was not referring just to human observers. That may also be relevant to the interpretation expressed by quantum theorists, that the Quantum Observer Effect means that a particle doesn't really exist until it is measured. “To Measure” is from the root “mens-” meaning “mind”. So you could say that reality is what has been “touched” by a mind. In other words, what we take to be real is a subjective opinion, that must be carefully compared to opinions of other perceivers in order to assign it the imprimatur of Objective reality.
Divine Observer : https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/261761-there-was-a-young-man-who-said-god-must-find

In the case of the earlier-than-human history of the Earth the best we can do is to imagine what we would have seen if we had been there. — Janus

That is exactly what astronomers were doing, in the 1920s, when they calculated the trajectory of all observable matter back to the point of coincidence. Many of us now accept their, then controversial, interpretation that the real world did not exist 15 billion years ago, but suddenly emerged in the so-called Big Bang. Yet again, that is an expert opinion, based on their translation from abstract mathematical calculations into an imaginary scenario that the rest of us can visualize. So, you could reasonably say that “reality is a theory”.
Reality is a Theory : http://bothandblog5.enformationism.info/page15.html
Reality is Ideality : http://bothandblog5.enformationism.info/page17.html

I'm also interested to know how you interpret the idea of an intentional creator. — Janus

The Enformationism worldview is based, in part, on my interpretation of the process of Evolution (En-form-ation) , not as a random chaotic mess, but as an orderly progression in the direction of Time's Arrow, toward some ultimate denouement, a resolution to this ongoing narrative. Of course, I have no idea what form that final summing-up will take, but it seems as certain as the Big Bang. The current scientific opinion is that reality will just fade away into the sunset. But other interpreters of evolution, such as Teillard deChardin, refer to the final chapter as the Omega Point, and describe it as the universe becoming something like a god. I'm not bold enough to go that far, but one allegorical scenario would be that our emerging world is like a fetus developing into the offspring of G*D. I wouldn't take that metaphor, or any other imaginary analogies too literally, but it gives us a way to imagine where we stand in the otherwise mysterious process of natural and cultural evolution. If that scenario is anywhere close to true, then we would have to attribute the human-like property of goal-oriented Intention to the First Cause and Prime Mover. Here's a chart I drew up to illustrate my concept of evolution from beginning to end.
Cosmic Progression Chart : http://bothandblog3.enformationism.info/page28.html

If not are all outcomes precisely planned or was the creator like a computer programmer, producing an algorithm that is left to run and produce unpredictable outcomes? Is the creator sentient and sapient? Loving? Omnipotent? Infallible? Did the creator produce the laws of nature or must it work within them. Is the creator consciously aware of all events in its creation, or only some of them, or none of them? — Janus

I don't claim to know anything about the Creator of our world beyond the properties that are logically necessary for such a Creation to exist. But my guess is that what I call "G*D" is more like a computer Programmer than the Great Magician portrayed in Genesis. This blog post may answer your other questions.
The EnFormAction Hypothesis : http://bothandblog3.enformationism.info/page23.html

while metaphysics as I would like to construe it is about the necessary, a priori philosophical framework needed to go about doing such description: — Pfhorrest

Actually, your definition of Metaphysics is not that different from mine. The primary distinction is that your terminology seems to derive from your education in Philosophy. But, since I have no formal training in Philosophy or Science, beyond first year 101-level classes, my labels may be more idiosyncratic. And they are primarily derived from years of autodidact reading in general scientific & philosophical publications. For those schooled in traditional terminology, my quirky terms may be puzzling. So, that's why I have compiled a glossary for those interested in decoding the unconventional Enformationism worldview.
Meta-Physics : http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page14.html

My somewhat unconventional use of "Meta-Physics" is also about that which is "necessary" and "a priori", which in my worldview is the Mind of G*D, and its subsidiary human minds. In other words, about Ideas and Ideals rather than the things and objects of Physics.

In my Codex Quaerendae (I guess we're allowed to link our personal projects here?) — Pfhorrest

I have begun reading your Book of Questions, but it will take time to review its manifold topics. As an amateur website builder, I find the graphics very well done. I'm afraid mine are rather crude & garish by comparison.

I like to think of the last four as being about the "objects of morality" or less verbosely as about purpose, will, intention, and governance. — Pfhorrest

My thesis is more about Ontology & Epistemology than Ethics & Morality, but it covers some of the same topics as yours : "purpose, will, intention, and governance" --- the last being more about natural laws than civil.

What's the difference between metaphysics and conspiracy theory? In both cases, the mind runs wild in the world of possibilities.

It's the first principles of reality which makes a structure.
You have a metaphysical structure, like foundationalism, coherentism, infinitism, monism, nihilism etc.
Then you have a means to traverse through that structure, or an ontological relationship narrative. In that you have emanationism, emergentism, successionism, Aristotle's logic etc.
Then you have ontological dimensions which is the narrative of what objects fundamentally are in number (so do you import light and darkness/wave vs particle light with dualism or just photons with monism). In that you have monism, dualism, trialism, quadrilism, etc, pluralism, nihilism etc.

From this structure one can derive their ontological framework and epistemological framework, their philosophy of history, sex, politics, writing, technology and anything else from their metaphysical structure.

Metaphysics can be the base of our Scientific and Philosophical hypotheses.Conspiracy theories can never be that.
There is good an bad Metaphysics. For bad metaphysics...just look at Theology, Supernaturalism and most Philosophical worldviews (Philosophical Naturalism and idealism included)>
For good Metaphysics just look how science constructs testable hypotheses and how Natural Philosophers use the latest epistemology to inform their metaphysical speculations.

I think that metaphysics is the most important issue in philosophy. The problem is that, since it is closely connected with ontology, it can be interpreted and reconsidered in so many ways that it can become just a point of confusion.

The word means literally "beyond physics". This expression can be considered from two essential perspectives.

One is that adopted by, for example, some artists, where "beyond physics" means beyond the world of material things; so, these artists try to represent pure emotions, feelings, abstract ideas. This is not the perspective we are interested in here.

The other perspective is that stemming from Aristotle, since his books describing the nature of things were called "metaphysics" because they were physically beyond, which means after, his books about physics. This important coincidence is the origin of the philosophical meaning of metaphysics. The basic meaning of "metaphysics" in philosophy thus depends on how we interpret the meaning and the importance of Aristotle's research. Since different philosophers have interpreted differently the other philosophies, as a result we have not a final, exact meaning of "metaphysics". However, I think that, at this point, we can ask what the best, the most productive, the most fruitful, the most useful, definition of metaphysics is. I think that this way we can obtain good results.
I think we can say that ontology is about being, while metaphysics is about how things are. This implies a specific interpretation of Aristotle's research. In this perspective, we interpret Aristotle's research as an effort to compensate the unreliability of knowledge acquired through physics. Knowledge acquired through physics is unrealiable because it relies on our senses: sight, hearing, smelling, touching and so on. Everyone can see that our senses can be easily deceived: we see an animal and after approaching it we realize that actually it was just a stone, or a plant. We interpret that Aristotle found a solution to this problem in the use of reason: reasoning, applied to the data given by our senses, is able to compensate and solve the problem of unreliability of senses. So, he elaborated all the stuff we know about form, substance, nature, essence and so on. What is important is that this way his highly systematic work gave a very strong and reassuring impression of order, domain over reality, reliable knowledge. Many philosophers after, or even before Aristotle, can be interpreted this way: they tried to find some strong interpretation able to explain how things are.
Now we can realize some points that are very useful to clarify what metaphysics is or implies. Metaphysics means:

- having been able to finally reach truth, true knowledge, absolute and objective certainty;

- that reality exists out there, it is not a dream, an illusion produced by our mind.

All of these strong points are based on the irresistible strength of logic, reasoning, whose roots are in Parmenides' principle of non contradiction. As a consequence, those who disagree must necessary be people who either don't understand, don't know, or are mad. Logic and reasoning are the roots of truth and, as such, the roots of what is good. From here, a lot of theology can be built, based on metaphysics.


Now we can better realize the difference between metaphysics and ontology: metaphysics is about the truth of being, the absolute certainty of reality; since ontology is just about being, if, for some reason, we say that "being" means actually doubt, or involvement in human time (Heidegger), or subjectivity, in that case what we say is ontology, because it is about being, but is not metaphysics, because it disagrees with the concept of objective truth, objective reality.

It is good to realize that, even when we say that the world is just a dream produced by our mind, although apparently this can be considered something non metaphysical, since it is against the idea of objective reality, actually it can still be accused of being metaphysics, because its conclusion sounds like "the real, objective, absolute truth, is that the world is a dream". Similarly, when we say that "everything is relative", this can be accused as well of being just another metaphysics, because it tries again to reach a final conclusion about "how things really are".

At this point the question is: is it possible to make a truly non-metaphisical philosophy, since, whatever we say is exposed to the criticism of being just another attempt of finally establishing how things objectively are?

One way to try to exit this cage is trying to be aware of the constraint coming from language: language is made grammatically in a way that forces us to talk by assertions, statements, that again and again make us fall into the mechanism of saying how things are. So, we can try some workarounds by specifying that what we say is not meant to be a final, objective, metaphysical statement.
Another way is to make clear that what we say is meant to be a subjective opinion, an hypothesis, an attempt. In this context, the opposite of metaphysics is the subjective perspective. Another philosophical perspective that is one of the greatest efforts to be non-metaphysic is postmodernism. There is also the "weak-thought" of the philosopher Gianni Vattimo.

What's the difference between metaphysics and conspiracy theory? — Agent Smith

The latter connects "ideological / existential" dots arbitrarily (i.e. inductively) in a paranoiac manner whereas the former tends to fill in "transcendent(al)" gaps deductively from arbitrary axioms in a dogmatic manner. Sometimes they converge e.g. Gnosticism.

The latter connects "ideological / existential" dots arbitrarily (i.e. inductively) in a paranoiac manner whereas the former tend to fill in "transcendent(al)" gaps deductively from arbitrary axioms in a dogmatic manner. Sometimes they converge e.g. Gnosticism — 180 Proof

:lol: God is a conspiracy theory, oui? There's an invisible, bearded ol' fogey who's pulling all the strings - we're mere puppets and YHWH is the puppetmaster! Predistination and all that!

Idk. I referred to gnosticism which says we're "spirits" trapped in prison-matter separated from "God" as an example of a 'metaphysical conspiracy'.

Idk. I referred to gnosticism which says we're "spirits" trapped in prison-matter separated from "God" as an example of a 'metaphysical conspiracy'. — 180 Proof

I did come across that view before; it was Socrates/Plato/Aristotle who said that the body is a prison for the soul, trapping us in the imitation, flawed world of the physical.

Then I met this other guy, forgot his name, who makes the exact opposite claim: bodies are trapped by souls. The point? The physical is more sublime than the mental.

:chin:

I was simply trying to point out that metaphysics is, by definition, speculative and so there's a clear risk that some of us might go overboard with it. God is, in my humble opinion, the quintessential conspiracy theory of cosmic proportions. Tertium quid. Have you watched The Invisible Man?

God is, in my humble opinion, the quintessential conspiracy theory of cosmic proportions. — Agent Smith

I think this point is only one conception of "God" and even then it's not "conspiratorial" but occult instead. Most of reality experienced by human beings is unseen, not "conspiratorial". Besides, in the Abrahamic tradition for instance, who (or what) is conspiring with "God" to carry out this "quintessential conspiracy theory of cosmic proportions" if there is "only one God"? And what is being transgressed – "law" is being broken – to constitute a "cosmic conspiracy"?

I think this point is only one conception of "God" and even then it's not "conspiratorial" but occult instead. Most of reality experienced by human beings is unseen, not "conspiratorial". Besides, in the Abrahamic tradition for instance, who (or what) is conspiring with "God" to carry out this "quintessential conspiracy theory of cosmic proportions" if there is "only one God"? And what is being transgressed – "law" is being broken – to constitute a "cosmic conspiracy"? — 180 Proof

I was thinking more along the lines of...

Everything happens for a reason.

and

God moves in a mysterious way. — William Cowper

and

There are no accidents. — Master Oogway

Chance as a manifestation of God. God intervenes by manipulating chance. The objective? Probably not to cause confusion and keep us guessing as much as to play by the rules. God doesn't break the laws of nature, He only, for instance, "suggests" you carry a Bible in your breast pocket, not just any breast pocket, the left one, that same Bible that blocks the bullet aimed at your :heart:. :grin:

Okay, but that's a providential idea, Smith, not a "quintessential conspiracy".

who makes the exact opposite claim: bodies are trapped by souls. The point? The physical is more sublime than the mental. — Agent Smith

You could read it that way.

Another way is that the body of a human is trained to talk about itself like there's a ghost inside it that's responsible for what that body does. The way we like to do things lately is just use one ghost.

Okay, but that's a providential idea, Smith, not a "quintessential conspiracy — 180 Proof

What's so different about a terrified woman trying to prove to disbelieving cops that there's an invisible man who's framing her and a priest claiming that there's an invsibe god who too intervenes/interferes in/with our lives?

You've lost me ... I need sleep, will reply later on today. :yawn:

You've lost me ... — 180 Proof

Really? What seems to be the issue with my position?

Everything happens for a reason. — The Principle of Sufficient Reason & Woo woo