No, science is not devoid of metaphysics. First off it makes claims about the nature of reality and the meta-nature of reality: iow ontology which is a part of metaphysics. Certainly if any scientist is working with a model: physicalism, natural laws: they are working with metaphysical assumptions. Metaphysics often gets treated as a pejorative term. It's not. And science weighs in on metaphysics - certainly physics does - with great regularity.

Measurement is one, two or three-dimensional information,
— Possibility

Are you saying one can't measure time? Anyways where do you take this definition from, what's it based on?

observation is four-dimensional and experience is five-dimensional
— Possibility

How does observation get an extra dimension? What's the fifth dimension and where does it come from? — Echarmion

The measurement of ‘time’ that we know is a value attributed to the interval between two events. So when we measure time, this is two-dimensional information: change in relation to this ‘time’ value.

Observation takes into account the relative position of the observer in spacetime, hence the ‘extra’ dimensional aspect. We can observe events in relation to ourselves and in relation to each other.

And the fifth dimension is where I believe metaphysics comes into play. This is basically potential, probability, value: both quantitative and qualitative. It takes into account not only relative distance, direction, speed, trajectory, etc (all reducible information), but also the relative perceived value/potential of an experience. It is the fifth dimensional aspect of reality that enables us to talk about an experience that hasn’t happened yet.

The measurement of ‘time’ that we know is a value attributed to the interval between two events. So when we measure time, this is two-dimensional information: change in relation to this ‘time’ value.

Observation takes into account the relative position of the observer in spacetime, hence the ‘extra’ dimensional aspect. We can observe events in relation to ourselves and in relation to each other.

And the fifth dimension is where I believe metaphysics comes into play. This is basically potential, probability, value: both quantitative and qualitative. It takes into account not only relative distance, direction, speed, trajectory, etc (all reducible information), but also the relative perceived value/potential of an experience. It is the fifth dimensional aspect of reality that enables us to talk about an experience that hasn’t happened — Possibility

I don't really understand how you use the term "dimension" here. Is there some mathematical concept I need to look up? I am only familiar with dimensions as spatial dimensions. I suppose you could have a system for the dimensionality of information, but I am not familiar with any specific one.

It's also strange that you apparently treat measurements as if they don't have an observer.

Thus, is science really devoid of metaphysics? It would seem to me that no, science is not devoid of metaphysics, and also has some theories that pertain to the domain of metaphysics.

Would you agree with this? — Shawn

The metaphysical by it's definition ought to lie out of reach of the scientific method as from one point of view quite well explained.

Perhaps the reason for the misunderstanding is that we nowdays use the term meta- quite trivially. For example, we use the term metatext, a text that describes or discusses text. And that of course is totally normal text and nothing to do with metaphysics. Or then there's metaprogramming, where a computer running a program treats other programs as data. Again, that is an ordinary computer program.

Hence just to talk about science, use the scientific method to study the process of people making science isn't anything meta at all, and totally misses the point of metaphysics. A metaphysical question would be like asking about the universe looking at the universe from outside the universe.

Perhaps the reason for the misunderstanding is that we nowdays use the term meta- quite trivially. For example, we use the term metatext, a text that describes or discusses text. And that of course is totally normal text and nothing to do with metaphysics. Or then there's metaprogramming, where a computer running a program treats other programs as data. Again, that is an ordinary computer program. — ssu

I don't really see the issue with that usage. They all describe a situation where the operation happens on a higher level of abstraction to the usual way it operates.

If we understand metaphysics to be about the "reality behind reality", then that's exactly what we're doing - going to a higher level of abstraction.

Hence just to talk about science, use the scientific method to study the process of people making science isn't anything meta at all, and totally misses the point of metaphysics. — ssu

Wouldn't that just be sociology?

No. Metaphysics, again as I understand it, proposes criteria for discerning 'impossible worlds' (i.e. ways reality necessarily cannot be) from 'possible worlds' (i.e. ways reality can be) — 180 Proof

I think this is a very important point to understand. As such, metaphysics doesn't tell us what is the case, it tells us what is necessarily not the case. And this is the only way that a specific type of knowledge, called "certainty", is obtained, by determining what is impossible.

Compare this to scientific knowledge which is based in inductive rules derived from empirical observations. Indictive reasoning, telling us what is, in the form of an inductive rule, is based in probability. So metaphysics, by telling us what is impossible, gives us greater certainty than science which tells us what is likely the case. This is why scientism is bad philosophy, and metaphysics ought to be applied toward rejecting faulty science.

They all describe a situation where the operation happens on a higher level of abstraction to the usual way it operates.

If we understand metaphysics to be about the "reality behind reality", then that's exactly what we're doing - going to a higher level of abstraction. — Echarmion

Going on a higher level of abstraction changes the game.

And it's really only abstraction, not in the sense of sciences can be abstract. There isn't any way to verify anything of the metaphysical. Otherwise it wouldn't be metaphysical.

Wouldn't that just be sociology? — Echarmion

Perhaps if you define sociology or social sciences in the broadest way. It surely isn't metaphysics.

No. Metaphysics, again as I understand it, proposes criteria for discerning 'impossible worlds' (i.e. ways reality necessarily cannot be) from 'possible worlds' (i.e. ways reality can be)
— 180 Proof

I think this is a very important point to understand. As such, metaphysics doesn't tell us what is the case, it tells us what is necessarily not the case. And this is the only way that a specific type of knowledge, called "certainty", is obtained, by determining what is impossible.

Compare this to scientific knowledge which is based in inductive rules derived from empirical observations. Indictive reasoning, telling us what is, in the form of an inductive rule, is based in probability. So metaphysics, by telling us what is impossible, gives us greater certainty than science which tells us what is likely the case. This is why scientism is bad philosophy, and metaphysics ought to be applied toward rejecting faulty science. — Metaphysician Undercover

We agree for once. :cool:

It seems to me awkward to say that science is devoid of metaphysics. — Shawn

How else could a certain systematic way be recognized as necessary in order for something to be done in compliance with it, that is, the very possibility of science itself, if not first thought by means of reason? If human reason has its ground in metaphysics, it follows that science cannot be devoid of metaphysics. Understanding, of course, that that to which science is directed, is not itself science.

In Greek philosophy, the term "metaphysics" originally meant "that which comes after physics." It refers to the fact that Aristotle's metaphysics was found, untitled, placed after his treatise on physics. But metaphysics soon came to mean those topics that lie beyond physics (we would today say beyond science) and yet may have a bearing on the nature of scientific inquiry. So metaphysics means the study of topics about physics (or science generally), as opposed to the scientific subject itself. Traditional metaphysical problems have included the origin, nature, and purpose of the universe, how the world of appearances presented to our senses relates to its underlying "reality" and order, the relationship between mind and matter, and the existence of free will. Clearly science is deeply involved in such issues, but empirical science alone may not be able to answer them, or any "meaning-of-life" questions.

Although metaphysical theorizing went out of fashion after this onslaught, a few philosophers and scientists refused to give up speculating about what really lies behind the surface appearances of the phenomenal world. Then, in more recent years, a number of advances in fundamental physics, cosmology, and computing theory began to rekindle a more widespread interest in some of the traditional metaphysical topics. The study of "artificial intelligence" reopened debate about free will and the mind-body problem. The discovery of the big bang triggered speculation about the need for a mechanism to bring the physical universe into being in the first place. Quantum mechanics exposed the subtle way in which observer and observed are interwoven. Chaos theory revealed that the relationship between permanence and change was far from simple.

Time and Eternity: The Fundamental Paradox of Existence

"Eternity is time

Time, eternity

To see the two as opposites

Is Man's perversity"

The Book of Angelus Silesius

"I think, therefore I am." With these famous words the seventeenth-century philosopher René Descartes expressed what he took to be the most primitive statement concerning reality about which any thinking persons could agree. Our own existence is our primary experience. Yet even this unexceptionable claim contains within it the essence of a paradox that obstinately runs through the history of human thought. Thinking is a process. Being is a state. When I think, my mental state changes with time. But the "me" to which the mental state refers remains the same. This is probably the oldest metaphysical problem in the book, and it is one which has resurfaced with a vengeance in modern scientific theory.

What, then, is absolutely constant? One is inevitably led away from the material and the physical to the realm of the mystical and the abstract. Concepts like "logic," "number," "soul," and "God" recur throughout history as the firmest ground on which to build a picture of reality that has any hope of permanent dependability. But then the ugly paradox of existence rears up at us. For how can the changing world of experience be rooted in the unchanging world of abstract concepts?

Men and women, perhaps for psychological reasons, being afraid of their own mortality, have always sought out the most enduring aspects of existence. People come and go, trees grow and die, even mountains gradually erode away, and we now know the sun cannot keep burning forever. Is there anything that is truly and dependably constant? Can one find absolute unchanging being in a world so full of becoming?

No attempt to explain the world, either scientifically or theologically, can be considered successful until it accounts for the paradoxical conjunction of the temporal and the a temporal, of being and becoming. And no subject confronts this paradoxical conjunction more starkly than the origin of the universe.

--
Paul Davies

We agree for once. :cool: — 180 Proof

Wooo! Let's party! Must be that despicable coronavirus, brings people together.

I don't really understand how you use the term "dimension" here. Is there some mathematical concept I need to look up? I am only familiar with dimensions as spatial dimensions. I suppose you could have a system for the dimensionality of information, but I am not familiar with any specific one. — Echarmion

No mathematical concept needed. That dimensions are necessarily spatial is an assumption; they’re a relational structure, applicable to all information.

It's also strange that you apparently treat measurements as if they don't have an observer. — Echarmion

They do have an observer - or measuring device, really - when/where the measurement is taken. But a measurement (once taken) loses a dimensional aspect: time, distance, etc. It’s confusing, but as a measuring event, it’s four-dimensional, but as a recorded measurement, it’s only three-dimensional information at best.

The term metaphysics is very ambiguous. If we don't clarify it, we can make a mess of it.
In my opinion and since Kant (to quote the sources is useful) metaphysics is a branch of knowledge that is based on universal and necessary knowledge obtained in the sole light of reason (without being based on experience). — David Mo

I agree. That's why, for my personal worldview, I provided a definition that is specifically tailored to the primary subject of the thesis: Information. It's obvious that Aristotle believed that both volumes of his encyclopedia of early iron-age knowledge were scientific. But the Physics volume was focused on physical material aspects of reality, while the volume that later came to be called "Metaphysics" was mostly concerned with how we come to know the truth about reality : the mental & rational element.

After the Enlightenment though, both Religion and Philosophical metaphysical traditions were rejected by physical scientists because they were ambiguous enough to support religious doctrines that were deemed superstitious. Since then, only philosophers wasted their time on mushy metaphysics, especially anything that involved understanding of the human mind and consciousness. But eventually some thinkers attempted to apply scientific methods to off-limits subjects that came to be called Psychology and Sociology. These are metaphysical topics about "stuff" that's invisible & intangible.

Now, in the 21st century, Metaphysics has become unavoidable in scientific investigations. Information Theory, Quantum Theory, Systems Theory, and Consciousness studies have become mainstream Science, even though they are all about invisible intangible topics that are not subject to empirical methods. So, philosophy can no longer be viewed as the red-headed step-child of Science. :smile:


Metaphysics : Physics refers to the things we perceive with the eye of the body. Meta-physics refers to the things we conceive with the eye of the mind.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page14.html

No mathematical concept needed. That dimensions are necessarily spatial is an assumption; they’re a relational structure, applicable to all information. — Possibility

And what is that structure? I can see a basic dimensional structure where one dimension is a value, two dimensions are a list of values, 3 dimensions are a table and so on. But that doesn't match up to your examples. The distance between two points is just a value, so it's one dimension. Adding timezones merely modifies that value, there is no extra dimension.

They do have an observer - or measuring device, really - when/where the measurement is taken. But a measurement (once taken) loses a dimensional aspect: time, distance, etc. It’s confusing, but as a measuring event, it’s four-dimensional, but as a recorded measurement, it’s only three-dimensional information at best. — Possibility

Can you explain this with an example? Say I measure the speed of a passing car. The measurement is the speed, which I'd assume is one dimensional by itself. What's the measuring event and how many dimensions does it have?

Can you explain this with an example? Say I measure the speed of a passing car. The measurement is the speed, which I'd assume is one dimensional by itself. What's the measuring event and how many dimensions does it have? — Echarmion

The measuring event is the act of you (or the measuring device you use) measuring the speed of the passing car. Let’s say that you use a laser speed gun, which basically measures the rate of change in distance relative to direction. The event is inclusive of the laser gun’s relative speed - if the laser gun was attached to a police car heading in the opposite direction, it would need to take into account the rate of change relative to direction of the police car in relation to the passing car, in order to determine an accurate speed of the passing car. Otherwise it’s just a relative speed.

If the laser gun were stationary, fixed to a point in spacetime, then the fourth dimensional variable is assumed to be constant, and so doesn’t need to be taken into account in obtaining an accurate measurement. The resulting measurement is reduced to two-dimensional information and then a one-dimensional value in relation to a value system or language (ie. km/hr), without which this value has no meaning in relation to me. So any fifth and sixth dimensional information is also assumed to be constant, and need not be taken into account if you then communicate that speed value to me.

Physics refers to the things we perceive with the eye of the body. Meta-physics refers to the things we conceive with the eye of the mind.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page14.html — Gnomon

So is the distinction (i.e. duality) of "body" & "mind" itself physical or meta-physical? Do "we perceive" this body-mind distinction (as it is / as we are) or do "we conceived" of this body-mind distinction (formally / grammatically)? Does the latter cause (or mediate) the former, or vice versa?

On a more prosaic and less mystical level: there's the physical form of a symbol - like, you can cast the letter 'A' in bronze, and it's a physical object. But the referent of the symbol is not physical, it's an idea or a semantic unit. This is the fundamental rationale behind semiotics, which is that the symbolic order exists on a completely different level to that described by physical laws.

All signs, symbols, and codes, all languages including formal mathematics are embodied as material physical structures and therefore must obey all the inexorable laws of physics. At the same time, the symbol vehicles like the bases in
DNA, voltages representing bits in a computer, the text on this page, and the neuron firings in the
brain do not appear to be limited by, or clearly related to, the very laws they must obey. Even the
mathematical symbols that express these inexorable physical laws seem to be entirely free of
these same laws. — Howard Pattee

Physics and metaphysics of biosemiosis.

So, actually, I'm in agreement with the quote there, but would consider changing the last description to 'the eye of reason'.

So is the distinction (i.e. duality) of "body" & "mind" itself physical or meta-physical? Do "we perceive" this body-mind distinction (as it is / as we are) or do "we conceived" of this body-mind distinction (formally / grammatically)? Does the latter cause (or mediate) the former, or vice versa? — 180 Proof

Perception and Conception are functions of the brain, not things in themselves. One does not cause the other. Perception is what we experience physically. Conception is what we think or feel about what we experience. Perception is physical, Conception is metaphysical. But both process are generated by the working brain. In visual perception, you can trace the flow of energy from eyes through various brain components to the "visual cortex". But the conscious conception of that energy is a holistic function; it emerges globally, not located in any single part of the brain.

In my view, the MInd/Soul/Self does not exist apart from the body. Minding is what the brain does, just as hammering is what a hammer does. One is the function of the other. :nerd:

I would define metaphysics as concerned with relational structures and concepts — Possibility

This definition is extremely vague. Almost everything fits into it. Logic or philosophy, for example. Even science. You should clarify it.

I agree that Bohr and Einstein’s discussion is philosophical, not scientific, and that they are not navigating in pure abstraction. But my understanding of metaphysics is neo-positivist, not Kantian. — Possibility

Metaphysics according to neopositivism:
A statement is meaningful if and only if it can be proved true or false, at least in principle, by means of the experience -- this assertion is called the verifiability principle. Metaphysical statements are not empirically verifiable and are thus meaningless. Forbidden

These concepts are intended to correspond with the objective reality, and by means of these concepts we picture this reality to ourselves. — Einstein, Podolsky, Rosen

Can this proposition be verified?
I don't think so. According to the neopositivist concept of metaphysics, Einstein is doing metaphysics and what he says does not make sense.

Another problem: how to verify sentences about the Universe as a whole? We have no way of getting an experience of the Universe as a whole.

If you want to say that metaphysics has something to do with experience you should adopt a less rigorous criterion than the neopositivist one.
In my opinion, It would be easier if you just give up on the aspiration of seeing metaphysics as a factual knowledge.

The measuring event is the act of you (or the measuring device you use) measuring the speed of the passing car. Let’s say that you use a laser speed gun, which basically measures the rate of change in distance relative to direction. — Possibility

A laser speed gun does not measure these values. It measures how long it takes for the laser to be reflected off the car and return. More sophisticated devices probably have multiple beams and measure the angle of reflection as well.

But even apart from that, your list of "dimensions" (assuming that is what you bolded) seems arbitrary. "Rate of change" already implies a measure of "X over time" and the X here can only be distance. So either we treat the measurement as "distance over time", which is properly 2 dimensional and gives us "rate of change" as a one-dimensional derivative, or we drop "distance" as a dimension and use "rate of change" directly.

How this could be relative to "direction" is a mystery to me. First of all direction would be a vector in space, so even simplified to a plane it itself has two dimensions. But apart from that it doesn't make sense to have a "rate of change in distance" relative to direction. Because distance is obviously distance from something, so it's already relative. You can't add direction to distance.

if the laser gun was attached to a police car heading in the opposite direction, it would need to take into account the rate of change relative to direction of the police car in relation to the passing car, in order to determine an accurate speed of the passing car. Otherwise it’s just a relative speed. — Possibility

Yes, but this doesn't add any dimensions to the information. You obtain the absolute speed from the relative speed via a mathematical operation.

The resulting measurement is reduced to two-dimensional information and then a one-dimensional value in relation to a value system or language (ie. km/hr), without which this value has no meaning in relation to me. So any fifth and sixth dimensional information is also assumed to be constant, and need not be taken into account if you then communicate that speed value to me. — Possibility

A language without meaning isn't a language, so it makes no sense to consider language and meaning different dimensions.

It's obvious that Aristotle believed that both volumes of his encyclopedia of early iron-age knowledge were scientific. — Gnomon

In general, I agree. Just a point:

The names "Metaphysics" and "Physics" are not by Aristotle himself. They were added later. Furthermore, Aristotle's books are not by Aristotle. He was well known in his time for having written some dialogues that unfortunately were lost early on. Aristotle's books on philosophy are actually the work of many hands of students and disciples. A copy and paste of various materials. We cannot be sure if some parts were "remastered" in the final result. What we call "scientific" works is almost certainly due to other hands, perhaps revised or edited by Aristotle.
Some relevant scholar once said that we are not able to read Plato, but the Plato that was filtered and re-edited in the Middle Ages. I think this is also true of Aristotle.

According to our contemporary criteria we can make a distinction between the "science of first principles" (Metaphysics) and empirical knowledge (Physics or natural science), but this is our distinction and it is not clear what Aristotle would think of it.

'Metaphysics' was added by an editor of Aristotle's works, meaning 'after the physics', but coming to mean something more than simply 'after'.

As for the authorship of Aristotle's major works, I believe this is hardly in dispute. He was thoroughly literate, unlike many of the pre-socratics, and many of his major works were preserved. He was tutor to Alexander the Great, so a thoroughly historical figure. 'Iron age', tosh.

Metaphysics according to neopositivism:
A statement is meaningful if and only if it can be proved true or false, at least in principle, by means of the experience -- this assertion is called the verifiability principle. Metaphysical statements are not empirically verifiable and are thus meaningless. Forbidden

These concepts are intended to correspond with the objective reality, and by means of these concepts we picture this reality to ourselves.
— Einstein, Podolsky, Rosen
Can this proposition be verified?
I don't think so. According to the neopositivist concept of metaphysics, Einstein is doing metaphysics and what he says does not make sense. — David Mo

Well, I guess my position isn’t neo-positivism at all! I agree that metaphysical statements - those that are irreducible to scientific hypotheses - are not empirically verifiable, but I would argue that they are not meaningless as such. Rather, they contribute to our perception of potential and value in the world, which in turn enables us make predictions and test them by interacting with the world and increasing awareness, connection and collaboration, scientifically or otherwise.

This definition is extremely vague. Almost everything fits into it. Logic or philosophy, for example. Even science. You should clarify it. — David Mo

What’s to clarify? Metaphysics should be inclusive of science, logic and philosophy. That’s what ‘meta-’ means. Doing metaphysics is how we make sense of the world in order to interact with it - how we conceptualise reality.

If you want to say that metaphysics has something to do with experience you should adopt a less rigorous criterion than the neopositivist one.
In my opinion, It would be easier if you just give up on the aspiration of seeing metaphysics as a factual knowledge. — David Mo

I don’t see this as an aspiration of mine. Knowledge in my view is all relative, not factual. But I think I get what you’re saying.

Another problem: how to verify sentences about the Universe as a whole? We have no way of getting an experience of the Universe as a whole. — David Mo

I agree. But we can approach an understanding of the Universe as a whole by testing the potentiality of metaphysical statements against our subjective experiences. And we can also relate descriptions of the experiences of others. At each level, there is relative uncertainty in the information available, but it’s still better than ignorance, isolation and exclusion.

'Iron age', tosh. — Wayfarer

Aristotle's metaphysics is not a book made up of one hand. It is a series of readings for the Lyceum. What has come down to us is either some notes from Aristotle himself or the notes collected by some disciples. From Werner Jaeger' study on Aristotle it is assumed that they were written in various periods and put together more or less correctly (we see contradictions between some parts and others). The most radical critics, such as J. Zucher, think that much of Aristotle's work is actually attributable to others -specially Theophrastus (371-287 BCE). As Joseph Moreau -another scholar of reference- says, we should not go that far, but the truth is that we are not dealing with a homogeneous body of writings more or less faithfully collected by tradition. This idea is untenable. "Texts that are collected under the same common name can go back to different times, without prejudice to successive additions or revisions".
That is why, as I said, metaphysics is not a book written by Aristotle. In fact, its title comes from the first century CE, more or less.

Some of what I have told you can be found in a Wikipedia article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysics_(Aristotle) or in https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle/#AriCorChaPriDiv .

Rather, Aristotle's extant works read like what they very probably are: lecture notes, drafts first written and then reworked, ongoing records of continuing investigations, and, generally speaking, in-house compilations intended not for a general audience but for an inner circle of auditors. (Shields, Christopher, "Aristotle", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Winter 2016 Edition)

From here I wanted to comment on what Aristotle's writings mean by science has little to do with what we understand now, but I don't have time now. I'll leave it for tomorrow.

I have not understood what you mean by 'Iron age', tosh

The names "Metaphysics" and "Physics" are not by Aristotle himself. — David Mo

Yes, I know. But it's the content, not the title that I refer to as "Meta-physics". For the purposes of my thesis I adopted the term, but added a hyphen to emphasize the relationship of Mind to Matter. This is my definition, not a dictionary definition that equates Metaphysics with Spiritualism. The common usage is based on a mis-application of Aristotle's implicit distinction between the objective physical realm of Matter, and the subjective "meta-physical" realm of Mind. Volume Two was mis-interpreted, not as "after" Volume One, but as "above & beyond" Physics. Ari was not talking about spooky supernatural stuff, but mundane human ideas about nature. "Aboutness" is the essence of Consciousness. :nerd:

Meta-physics :
The branch of philosophy that examines the nature of reality, including the relationship between mind and matter, substance and attribute, fact and value.
1. Often dismissed by materialists as idle speculation on topics not amenable to empirical proof.
2. Aristotle divided his treatise on science into two parts. The world as-known-via-the-senses was labeled “physics” - what we call "Science" today. And the world as-known-by-the-mind, by reason, was labeled “metaphysics” - what we now call "Philosophy" .
3. Plato called the unseen world that hides behind the physical façade: “Ideal” as opposed to Real. For him, Ideal “forms” (concepts) were prior-to the Real “substance” (matter).
4. Physics refers to the things we perceive with the eye of the body. Meta-physics refers to the things we conceive with the eye of the mind. Meta-physics includes the properties, and qualities, and functions that make a thing what it is. Matter is just the clay from which a thing is made. Meta-physics is the design (form, purpose); physics is the product (shape, action). The act of creation brings an ideal design into actual existence. The design concept is the “formal” cause of the thing designed.
5. I use a hyphen in the spelling to indicate that I am not talking about Ghosts and Magic, but about Ontology (science of being).
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page14.html

Aboutness : "Aboutness and function, says Deacon, is not something added on top of things, but something that emerges from constraints on matter and ..."
http://somatosphere.net/2014/terrence-deacons-incomplete-nature.html/

A laser speed gun does not measure these values. It measures how long it takes for the laser to be reflected off the car and return. More sophisticated devices probably have multiple beams and measure the angle of reflection as well.

But even apart from that, your list of "dimensions" (assuming that is what you bolded) seems arbitrary. "Rate of change" already implies a measure of "X over time" and the X here can only be distance. So either we treat the measurement as "distance over time", which is properly 2 dimensional and gives us "rate of change" as a one-dimensional derivative, or we drop "distance" as a dimension and use "rate of change" directly.

How this could be relative to "direction" is a mystery to me. First of all direction would be a vector in space, so even simplified to a plane it itself has two dimensions. But apart from that it doesn't make sense to have a "rate of change in distance" relative to direction. Because distance is obviously distance from something, so it's already relative. You can't add direction to distance. — Echarmion

Ok, maths and physics are not my strength, so bear with me.

A laser speed gun does measure how long it takes for the laser to be reflected off the car and return - this gives us an initial distance measurement to the device. To get speed, it still needs to take several of these measurements and calculate the rate of change. But unless the speed gun is directly in front of the car at all times, then what you’re measuring is the rate of change in distance from the device, which is technically not the actual speed of the car. The information manifests a triangular shape which changes over time: three-dimensional.

Yes, distance is always relative to the observer, so we need to reduce this relativity to a zero point in spacetime (ie. take its relative position into account) in order to obtain an objectively accurate measurement of speed for the car. It seems arbitrary in this example, but as I said before, if the device was attached to a police car travelling the other way, or perhaps a helicopter flying over it, then the four-dimensional information is vital.

So long as one variable is assumed constant relative to the others (ie. the device) - and all points are assumed to be on a plane - then you can reliably reduce this three dimensional information (with a zeroed 4th dimension) to distance over time (speed) for the passing car - that is, you can calculate the changing distance of the car over time relative to a zero point in spacetime.

A language without meaning isn't a language, so it makes no sense to consider language and meaning different dimensions. — Echarmion

And a shape without space isn’t really considered a shape, either, is it? Yet space and shape are different dimensions because a shape can change in relation to space, just as language can change in relation to meaning.

A term to describe each dimension is difficult to pin down, because they’re all relative. But I tend to list them in emerging order as: distance, shape, space, time, value and meaning. This makes the most sense to me, from my position. I think it’s important not to define the relations as such, though. They’re not always in order, can be chemical or qualitative in nature, and therefore not always spatially defined. If you think of them structurally in terms of ratios (without assuming quantitative variables), then each relation takes into account only some of the available information. The rest of the variables are ignored, zeroed or assumed constant, for instance, but they still exist.

Aristotle divided his treatise on science into two parts. The world as-known-via-the-senses was labeled “physics” - what we call "Science" today. And the world as-known-by-the-mind, by reason, was labeled “metaphysics” - what we now call "Philosophy" . — Gnomon

I don't know if a little history of philosophy is helpful to our subject. Anyway, since we are...

Aristotle never made a distinction between inductive science and rational science. This is a further interpretation of his writings. His division was between science and opinion. Science is universal and necessary. Opinion is contingent and particular. Intuition is in the middle. It can help the intellect in the search for the first principles, but as a mere assistant to making hypothesis.

So Aristotle breaks the strict Platonic distinction between two worlds, the ideal and the empirical. This is an advantage for science because it encourages the empirical study of nature. And an obstacle -which lasted for centuries- because he subordinated natural science to metaphysics (in our modern language).

Modern science had to make a long journey to get rid of this pernicious influence by fighting with Aristotelian Scholastica. No modern philosopher (marginal exceptions are possible) tries to impose "first principles" on any science now. Science makes its way without internal restrictions (social determinants are something else). The only link between philosophy and science is a posteriori, not a priori. That is to say: interpretation, not guidance. Analysis, not synthesis.

In what sense is interpretation metaphysical? I do not see the point.

Meta-physics is the design (form, purpose); physics is the product (shape, action). The act of creation brings an ideal design into actual existence. The design concept is the “formal” cause of the thing designed. — Gnomon

This is a marginal case I was referring to earlier. One of the battles of science against medieval scholasticism was the elimination of final causes (purpose) in the study of nature. The author you quote introduces this old concept -the purpose of Universe-, but does not make it clear whether he is interpreting science or adding a first, purely speculative principle. In the first case it would be a very personal interpretation, without any basis, in my opinion. In the second case he would be trying to impose a metaphysical principle on science. This is even much odder and more retrograde.

The metaphysical by it's definition ought to lie out of reach of the scientific method as from one point of view — ssu

Though science and the scientific method are not the same. And without some metaphysics in the air, so to speak, no on is using the scientific method. It is always done - the scientific method - in a context saturated with metaphysics. Models, ideas about natural laws, realism, and then specific ontological assumptions that underlie the method in general and then in the specifics of any research application of it.

Aristotle never made a distinction between inductive science and rational science. This is a further interpretation of his writings. His division was between science and opinion. — David Mo

Aristotle did make a distinction between a> empirical Induction and b> rational Deduction, which roughly parallel the methods of a> Science and b> Philosophy. Are you saying that Philosophy is mere opinion, hence of no value to science? That has been the "opinion" of some prominent modern scientists. But, whether they realize it or not, most scientists use both methods.

Induction vs Deduction : https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-logic/

No modern philosopher (marginal exceptions are possible) tries to impose "first principles" on any science now. — David Mo

They are now called "axioms".

First Principles : A first principle is an axiom that cannot be deduced from any other within that system.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_principle

In what sense is interpretation metaphysical? I do not see the point. — David Mo

I'm not sure which "interpretation" you are referring to. A> That Science has rid itself of the "pernicious influence" of Philosophy, or B> That "Analysis" is superior to "Synthesis"?

Oh. Maybe you are questioning my implicit assertion that human opinions are metaphysical "interpretations", not physical Facts. The Closer To Truth TV series was a philosophy of science program, based on the understanding that Science deals not in final truths, but in pragmatic information, useful for specific applications. All Theories are philosophical conjectures. Ultimately, all human "facts" are somebody's "opinion". They are always subject to revision and update.

Apparently you didn't see the point of my reason for making a special definition of "Metaphysics" as it relates to Information Theory. But don't worry --- it's just my opinion. It doesn't matter to Science. :joke:

PS___Scientists are fooling themselves if they think their work has been purged from the pernicious influence of Metaphysics. Quantum Physics is full of such (literal) nonsense.

"Metaphysics is the science of immaterial Non-Things such as Ideas, Concepts, Processes, & Universals. Non-things are Agents (subjects), Actions (verbs), or Categories (adverbs, adjectives)."
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page14.html