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

Heisenberg sums up the explanatory power of atomism in his speech, The Debate between Plato and Democritus:

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.

Atomism however enjoyed a resurgence in the Enlightenment, due to a revival of interest in Lucretius De Rerum Natura, and of course the discoveries of Dalton and ultimately of the periodic table.

Heisenberg goes on to say in that lecture that the model of atomism has been extraordinarily fruitful - which it has. But he also talks about the conceptual problems of atomism, which, he says, have been brought into clear relief by quantum mechanics, of which, as we all know, he was one of the founders. Ultimately he decides for Plato, saying

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

But physicalism, by definition, believes that everything in the Universe is resolvable to physical laws. Ultimately everything comes down to the movement of matter governed by physical laws (which Whitehead says in Science and the Modern World occupy the role of the ‘inexorable decrees of fate’ in Greek drama. Hence the outrage directed against those who dare question physicalism.)

:up:

The problem, of course, is where to begin. — Fooloso4

I feel there’s a very deep and fundamental understanding that has become lost to philosophy. It is the distinction and relationship between the unmade, uncreated, unborn, and the made, the created, the compounded.

Over the course of centuries, this distinction became absorbed into theology and re-conceptualised in theistic terms, and so has subsequently fallen into obscurity on those very grounds. But you see the same fundamental orientation in the early Buddhist texts, which were not theistic in the least (see the nibbana sutta.) I’m sure that a similar vision inspires the Parmenides, Plotinus vision of ‘the One’, and the Brahman of Advaita Vedanta.

It’s even preserved up until 17th century philosophy:

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

But with the decline or erosion of metaphysics in modern philosophy, I don’t think there’s any category that corresponds with the ‘unborn’ or ‘unconditioned’ in modern philosophy. That is the issue that I’ve been researching through books like The Theological Origins of Modernity and A Secular Age. I don’t think you can even approach the question, or ask the question, in the terms posited by modernity.

Is there a more widely misused term on the internet than "ad hominem"? If there is, I'd like to know what it is. People cry "ad hominem" any time a personal remark is made... but its only fallacious if its intended as an argument, i.e. "person X is a dummy-head, therefore the thing they're arguing for is false"

EXACTLY. "Ad hominem" is a mental crutch like "fuck no" which is a conspicuous tell by people who don't have any cards in their hand to play and recognize that their "bluffs" won't work. Wayfarer is the poster-child! :smirk:

I mean, sometimes you just can't help but remark or observe when someone is being evasive or dogmatic. It might not be polite (though it may well be accurate and warranted), but its not necessarily fallacious. 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.

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

:up: (Quoted so those who need to get this point notice it.)

You need to notice that calling other folks’ philosophy « woo » is disrespectful, condescending and useless.

You need to notice that calling other folks’ philosophy « woo » is disrespectful, condescending and useless. — Olivier5

I would be surprised if @180 Proof didn't know that it is disrespectful and condescending.
It isn't helpful - neither are the emoji exchanges - but it may have its use to him.
I don't think laying down challenges to have a debate then being dismissive when the other person declines is a helpful way forward either.

Both @Wayfarer and @180 Proof are long-standing and productive members of TPF.
So why all this increased aggro right now ?

Respect is important.

The jealous God dies hard.

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

I couldn't agree more...

The crackpot infallacy. You know what I mean. Or is that a fallacy?

So why all this increased aggro right now ? — Amity

Not a clue. I find it tiresome.

It's pretty straightforward. Those who don't obtain to the mainstream attitude that science is the arbiter of what is real are 'peddling woo'. As I have a long-standing interest in idealist and other non-materialist forms of philosophy, then I'm often so accused,. Part of what you learn on Internet sites like this is to let that stuff go.

Quite a few other long-time members (and from the prior incarnation of this site) can attest to how often Wayfarer disrespects the discussion and his interlocutor with his aloof or smug evasiveness whenever asked to clarify or explain his 'holy writ'. Instead he wanks-off a torrent of links which he usually (deliberately?) has misread, followed by non sequiturs and strawmen, and when countered or criticized accuses his interlocutor of "ad hominems". As far as I'm concerned, Wayfarer's persistent disrespect of the give-and-take reasoning process whenever his positions are challenged loses him much credibility in many quarters.

Not long ago I gave up addressing him in thread discussions unless he directed remarks to me and even then I've frequently have ignored him. It's not malice on my part, he all too often merely pontificates and I'm here mostly to run my ideas and my understandings through the gauntlet of dialectics. Smart, widely-read, urbane, experienced, and yet Wayfarer seems to need to project onto others his incorrigible shallowness – especially onto whomever he deems a "materialist" or "atheist" or "reductivist" or not a "subjectivist" like him.

When I do ridicule Wayfarer, I do it to register my irritation with his poor discursive tactics and not because I disagree with his 'perennialist' or 'transcendentalist' or 'supernaturalist' positions: he asserts them, misinterprets modern physics with eclectic citations mostly as appeals to authority/tradition and then proceeds to ignore objections all the while arguing with strawmen and caricatures of positions he doesn't like (or understand). Not a troll, really; Wayfarer just engages more in sophistry than philosophizing.

So why all this increased aggro right now ?

Frustration with taking Wayfarer serious ebbs and flows, as it has with me for at least a decade of trying to engage him critically.

Yeah, especially if it's warranted to do so.

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

To which I say.....big fat whoop!! To be human is to be a two-aspect biological entity, so even if physicalism proves we don’t really think, that brain mechanics is entirely determinable by natural law, it will still seem to us that we think. Any empirical science that denies that, is just stupid. I mean, c’mon, man. Has any experiment been done that wasn’t first thought? That wasn’t predicated on a necessarily antecedent judgement?

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.

“....Let us once again assail your ears, That are so fortified against our story...”
(“Hamlet”, 1.1)

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

:up: You're a drink of water in the desert, you know.

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

Bollocks. You said in this thread, and I quote:

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

This is patently false. Write in any term paper in philosophy that 'science is a metaphysics', you get an automatic F. Science is not metaphysics - simple statement of fact. The original term, as you no doubt know, refers to Aristotle's writings 'after than' or 'other than' physics. 'Unproven first principles' is the term he uses.

I attempted to explain why this is not true, what the difference is between 'methodological naturalism' and 'metaphysical naturalism', according to the textbook definitions. And from you I get emojis and snide one-word remarks. Anyone reading this thread can go back and check that. The fact is you have a mental block about anything you deem religious, which in your case, covers a huge amount of territory including almost everything I say. But if you check the list of essays on my profile none of them are by relgious apologists (OK, except for Maritain). But nearly all are from secular critics of scientific reductionism. (Plus a few songs.)

Wayfarer disrespects the discussion and his interlocutor with his aloof or smug evasiveness whenever asked to clarify or explain his 'holy writ'. — 180 Proof

I am a pretty patient and conscientious poster. I found, to my dismay, when the old site died, that I had accumulated about 300,000 words of posts, as you could download from there - not all my own, but all conversations I contributed to. I'm dismayed because it's such a lot of time, and such a lot of writing, and for what? I am going to shift focus soon, while I'm still alive.

But in philosophy there are points past which explanation becomes either pointless or impossible. I hit this many times with one poster, in particular, who's the only Forum contributor that I've met in person, as we're in the same region, and he's a great person. But he often accuses me of being 'evasive; or 'not answering a question', when I believe I've answered the question. I try to make a point, I get the feeling it's not understood. So - do I see something that he doesn't, or am I kidding myself? Obviously I'm not the one to make that judgement, but when I hit that point, I stop trying to respond. There's a point past which it becomes futile to continue.

I own up to a lot of faults - my reading is scattershot, there are many fundamental principles I'm ignorant of, about a million books I haven't read. I've been here a long time, I repeat myself a lot - another reason I should take a good long break. But other than that, I totally reject that I'm eiither evasive or smug. I'm not a church-going type, but I've never accepted Nietszche's proclamation of 'the death of God', so I guess you and I are always going to be on the other side of a great divide, but overall, I don't resile from anything I've said, about physics or anything else.

//AND, one more thing. Recently I copied a well-known quote by biologist Richard Lewontin (not long deceased, and peace upon him) from his review of Carl Sagan's last book, a passionate polemic for science, against religion. This quote describes the attitude of the 'secular intelligentsia' regarding religion generally, so I post it here, because it makes clear the divide:

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.

That materialism is identifiably and clearly a descendant of Christian monotheism, it is one of the reasons, or THE reason, it can brook no dissent.

Hence: 'the jealous God dies hard'.

Wayfarer/Jeeprs has been posting the same handful of quotes, posting the same silly strawmen and deliberate misrepresentations for years. Like, literally, years, going back to the old forum. It gets aggravating after a while, because it is not a productive contribution to any philosophical discussion, and amounts to spreading misinformation. What does posting the same decades-old strawman of Daniel Dennett, or dropping red herrings about scientism (in an unrelated thread) add to any discussion in 2021? Nothing. He should just change his username to "materialism makes me cry" and save us all the trouble of his actually posting in threads on those topics because that's all his contributions amount to, at least, provided you've already read his favorite Thomas Nagel quotes before.

Those who don't obtain to the mainstream attitude that science is the arbiter of what is real are 'peddling woo'. — Wayfarer

Science deals with the way natural things happen to behave and evolve. At best it can say what is known about natural things and their behavior. That's an important function, note.

What is 'real' is an essentialist question, a question about 'being', which has limited practical utility. Who really cares about whether the real numbers are real or not?

Both Wayfarer and @180 Proof are long-standing and productive members of TPF.
So why all this increased aggro right now ? — Amity

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:

couched in : to express something in carefully chosen or deceptive words.
https://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/couched+in

You're a drink of water in the desert, you know. — Wayfarer

Yeah, well, you know how it goes. In keeping with the complementary nature of human reason, I’m as likely to be found just as full of centuries-old cow patties as are you.

:gasp: Ouch! That one's below belt ...

↪Gnomon
:gasp: Ouch! That one's below belt ... — 180 Proof

Truth hurts! :joke:

He should just change his username to "materialism makes me cry" — Seppo

Sapientia, I believe. A faculty which is immortalised, supposedly, in our species name.

An honest post. Kudos.

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".

I am interested in how one can even begin the process of legitimate metaphysics? — Shawn

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?

The difference between restarting a civilization after collapse with access to all the books it produced versus without. — Cheshire

I think you're referring to Alisdair McIntyre, 'After Virtue'.

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

Not wrong in the least. Ideas have consequences.

I think you're referring to Alisdair McIntyre, 'After Virtue'. — Wayfarer

He may have referenced it as part of the "Three Worlds" lecture where I encountered it. Surprise agreements are the best. Cheers.

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

:up:

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: With ideas we can change our reality, so we must be real.

Rather: With ideas we can change our reality, so we must be real. — 180 Proof

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.

Reification fallacy I think (or is it misplaced concreteness?). Prescription lenses*, for instance, are just pieces of 'glass' independent of us. 'Ideas' are abstract tools insofar as we (or some complex information processing systems) use^ them, otherwise they are just 'footprints on the beach at low tide' so to speak. *Benny & ^Witty, respectively.