2.6k
“....The true nature of things is evident only at the bottom, that is, on the molecular level, and so life can only be understood in those terms, that is, from the bottom up....” — Mww
At the beginning of Greek philosophy there stood the dilemma of the “one” and the “many.” We know that there is an ever-changing variety of phenomena appearing to our senses. Yet we believe that ultimately it should be possible to trace them back somehow to some one principle.
The founders of atomism, Leucippus and Democritus, tried to avoid the difficulty by assuming the atom to be eternal and indestructible, the only thing really existing. All other things exist only because they are composed of atoms. The antithesis of “being” and “non being” in the philosophy of Parmenides is here coarsened into that between the “full” and the “void.” Being is not only one; it can be repeated infinitely many times. Being is indestructible, and therefore the atom, too, is indestructible. The void, the empty space between the atoms, allows for position and motion, and thus for properties of the atom, whereas by definition, as it were, pure being can have no other property than that of existence.
During the coming years [written in the 1950’s], the high-energy accelerators will bring to light many further interesting details about the behavior of elementary particles. But I am inclined to think that the answer just considered to the old philosophical problems will turn out to be final. If this is so, does this answer confirm the views of Democritus or Plato?
I think that on this point modern physics has definitely decided for Plato. For the smallest units of matter are, in fact, not physical objects in the ordinary sense of the word; they are forms, structures or—in Plato's sense—Ideas, which can be unambiguously spoken of only in the language of mathematics.
the human conscious system, the primary determinant for understanding, does not operate in the same terms as cognitive neural biology measures. — Mww
The problem, of course, is where to begin. — Fooloso4
In contrast to contemporary philosophers, most 17th century philosophers held that reality comes in degrees—that some things that exist are more or less real than other things that exist. At least part of what dictates a being’s reality, according to these philosophers, is the extent to which its existence is dependent on other things: the less dependent a thing is on other things for its existence, the more real it is. — SEP
You need to notice that calling other folks’ philosophy « woo » is disrespectful, condescending and useless. — Olivier5
Fallacies are invalid inferences (i.e. premise -> conclusion), and calling a personal remark that doesn't form a premise in an argument or inference "ad hominem" is just a category mistake. — Seppo
Frustration with taking Wayfarer serious ebbs and flows, as it has with me for at least a decade of trying to engage him critically.So why all this increased aggro right now ?
the human conscious system, the primary determinant for understanding, does not operate in the same terms as cognitive neural biology measures.
— Mww
But physicalism, by definition, believes that everything in the Universe is resolvable to physical laws. — Wayfarer
I have a long-standing interest in idealist and other non-materialist forms of philosophy — Wayfarer
As do I, for the excruciatingly simple reason that the rational workings between the ears is never susceptible to its own contradiction, which, of course, physicalism attempts to prove. — Mww
Frustration with taking Wayfarer serious ebbs and flows, as it has with me for at least a decade of trying to engage him critically. — 180 Proof
The epistemic preeminence of science is not because "science assumed the cloak of authority" but rather simply due the fact that science is metaphysics which works and is reliably objective . — 180 Proof
Wayfarer disrespects the discussion and his interlocutor with his aloof or smug evasiveness whenever asked to clarify or explain his 'holy writ'. — 180 Proof
Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.
It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated.
Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. The eminent Kant scholar Lewis Beck used to say that anyone who could believe in God could believe in anything. To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that miracles may happen.
Those who don't obtain to the mainstream attitude that science is the arbiter of what is real are 'peddling woo'. — Wayfarer
I get the impression that polarized arguments (as opposed to mutually respectful dialogs), such as this Physics versus Metaphysics thread, is more political than philosophical : e.g. Conservative vs Liberal. It's typically "couched-in" accusations, instead of propositions. Materialists & Realists seem to feel that their ideology is under attack by the forces of evil (i.e. Idealists & woo-mongers). I suppose the animosity, revealed in ad hominem attacks (sorry, "True, corroborated, statements") are another sad sign of the times. The belligerent attitudes of some posters remind me of a Trump rally. :gasp:Both Wayfarer and @180 Proof are long-standing and productive members of TPF.
So why all this increased aggro right now ? — Amity
Popper's explanation is the one I at least understand. The difference between restarting a civilization after collapse with access to all the books it produced versus without. The point of which is to say ideas change reality, so ideas must be real. But, since they can't be sold by the pound they exist in a way that isn't tangible, but none the less real. Ergo, metaphysical. How wrong is that? Anybody?I am interested in how one can even begin the process of legitimate metaphysics? — Shawn
The difference between restarting a civilization after collapse with access to all the books it produced versus without. — Cheshire
ideas change reality, so ideas must be real. But, since they can't be sold by the pound they exist in a way that isn't tangible, but none the less real. Ergo, metaphysical. How wrong is that? Anybody? — Cheshire
:up:So it's finally been decided?
Metaphysics is defined as "peddling woo". Then there's a special class of peddling woo, wooing that works, and this is called "science". — Metaphysician Undercover
Rather: With ideas we can change our reality, so we must be real.The difference between restarting a civilization after collapse with access to all the books it produced versus without. The point of which is to say ideas change reality, so ideas must be real. — Cheshire
Rather than rather, ideas by way of us interact with our reality; exhibiting their metaphysical reality. They could remain apart from us as the content of books so they exist in their own right; even without demonstration.Rather: With ideas we can change our reality, so we must be real. — 180 Proof
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.