Metaphysics concerns the nature of physical world. What is matter, does it exist independently of us? Is it created by God? It concerns the introduction of (still) non-existent abstract stuff which obeys it's own physics, like strings in string theory, or economical things like product prices.

The metaphysics of dialectical materialism contains the tension between how it is and how it should be, considering the distribution of material property, a tension which inevitably leads to revolution.

The metaphysics of the mind is a physics guiding thoughts, ideas, emotions, etc. Dawkins' selfish memes and memes are a metaphysics of the biology and the mind, insofar it tries to explain behavior in the biological sphere and the human mind. All organisms are creation of selfish genes whose only selfish will it is to stay alive and he projects the same idea to memes, which created the mind to realize their selfish desire to stay alive. One can create a similar idea for altruistic genes and memes though.

The metaphysics of music seeks a theory to explain music and its behavior. Like economics for money. The metaphysics of humor seeks an explaining theory of jokes and funny situations. There is even metaphysics in physics itself. Physics tries to explain physical situations but. It is non-meta in the sense that the stuff to be explain is physical and a similar kind of explanation can be extended to a different subject matter.

One can even talk about the metaphysics of dragons, angels, or God (he can be considered omnipotent, omnipresent, and omnisapient, or just a modest guy with the power of creation and no further intentions to interfere with his creation). I suspect that even the metaphysics of philosophy can be considered.

:ok:

Metaphysics concerns the nature of physical world. — Cartuna

Yes yes, the Nature of nature (Spinoza).

What are you talking about? I'm not proposing or discussing 'scientific theories'; interpretations, however, are the philosopher's business as well as calling out pseudo-science and sophistry and philosophical anachronisms like (your) Platonist / essentialist 'metaphysics'. I don't advocate positivism and I actively oppose idealism / antirealism as vacuous (i.e. groundless). Physics, however, is not proffered by me as the alternative to metaphysics; negative metaphysics, as I propose with good reasons , surpasses (anachronistic – Platonic-Aristotlean) 'positive metaphysics'.

Simply put, I'm a naturalist for whom nature is self-explanatory (i.e. immanent — though in no way 'self-evident') without recourse to accounts of non/super-natural (i.e. transcendent/al) entities, forces, etc. There is some overlap between metaphysics and "Meta-Physics" (as you call it) but just as there is between chemistry & alchemy or astronomy & astrology or mathematics & numerology. Nonetheless, I ask you too, Gnomon: why do you post on a Philosophy (i.e. contra sophistry, pseudo-science, woo-of-the-gaps) website instead of a site dedicated to New Age (esoteric) "theories"? :eyes: :sparkle:

I was listening to a promo for Brian Cox's interesting show on the Cosmos last night when I heard him say that 'we are the most amazing things that nature has created'. It occured to me that no Christian would ever say that. In the Christian worldview, nature is created, not creator. Scientific culture has elevated nature to the role formerly occupied by God, endowing it with creative agency. But what in nature demonstrates that? As far as science is concerned, the second law of thermodynamics is iron-clad, the inevitable tendency of nature is always towards greater disorder. Life itself is an anomaly, 'negentropic', and furthermore, at least in the public mind, the result of sheer chance or physical necessity.

The idea inherent in all idealistic metaphysics–that the world is in some sense a product of the mind–is thus turned into its opposite: the mind is a product of the world, of the processes of nature. Hence, according to popular Darwinism, nature does not need philosophy to speak for her: nature, a powerful and venerable deity, is ruler rather than ruled. Darwinism ultimately comes to the aid of rebellious nature in undermining any doctrine, theological or philosophical, that regards nature itself as expressing a truth that reason must try to recognize. The equating of reason with nature, by which reason is debased and raw nature exalted, is a typical fallacy of the era of rationalization. Instrumentalized subjective reason either eulogizes nature as pure vitality or disparages it as brute force, instead of treating it as a text to be interpreted by philosophy that, if rightly read, will unfold a tale of infinite suffering. Without committing the fallacy of equating nature and reason, mankind must try to reconcile the two.

In traditional theology and metaphysics, the natural was largely conceived as the evil, and the spiritual or supernatural as the good. In popular Darwinism, the good is the well-adapted, and the value of that to which the organism adapts itself is unquestioned or is measured only in terms of further adaptation. However, being well adapted to one’s surroundings is tantamount to being capable of coping successfully with them, of mastering the forces that beset one. Thus the theoretical denial of the spirit’s antagonism to nature–even as implied in the doctrine of interrelation between the various forms of organic life, including man–frequently amounts in practice to subscribing to the principle of man’s continuous and thoroughgoing domination of nature. Regarding reason as a natural organ does not divest it of the trend to domination or invest it with greater potentialities for reconciliation. On the contrary, the abdication of the spirit in popular Darwinism entails the rejection of any elements of the mind that transcend the function of adaptation and consequently are not instruments of self-preservation. Reason disavows its own primacy and professes to be a mere servant of natural selection. On the surface, this new empirical reason seems more humble toward nature than the reason of the metaphysical tradition. Actually, however, it is arrogant, practical mind riding roughshod over the ‘useless spiritual,’ and dismissing any view of nature in which the latter is taken to be more than a stimulus to human activity. The effects of this view are not confined to modern philosophy. — Max Horkheimer, The Eclipse of Reason

I was listening to a promo for Brian Cox's interesting show on the Cosmos last night when I heard him say that 'we are the most amazing things that nature has created'. It occured to me that no Christian would ever say that. In the Christian worldview, nature is created, not creator. Scientific culture has elevated nature to the role formerly occupied by God, endowing it with creative agency. — Wayfarer

Ahem, Brian Cox is not "scientific culture". Paul Davies, for instance, wouldn't attribute "creator" to nature. Pro tip: All swans ain't white, sir. :eyes:

As far as science[Wayfarer] is concerned, the second law of thermodynamics is iron-clad, the inevitable tendency of nature is always towards greater disorder. Life itself is an anomaly, 'negentropic'...

Wtf? :roll: Life increases disorder (re: erosion (e.g. compare extant meteor-impacts features on the surfaces Earth to Luna), mass extinctions that produce hydrocarbons, greenhouse effects, anthropogenic climate change, etc). Also, entropy is the tendency of disorder not to decrease especially in thermodynamically closed systems. For example, you're not getting any younger (or smarter), Wayf. :mask:

Paul Davies, for instance, wouldn't attribute "creator" to nature. — 180 Proof

But then, he won a Templeton prize. See for instance this OP which triggered a backlash from the secular intelligentsia.

They can only be determined to be reasonable or not, based on Logic and incomplete evidence. — Gnomon

The problem is that logic alone cannot determine plausibility only validity, and what you would count as constituting evidence, in anything beyond simple empirical observations, is controversial and depends on your presuppositions.

Yes, so please stop spouting uninformed nonsense about science and scientists. Thanks.

There are points in the Paul Davies OP that I think are worth discussing in the context of metaphysics.

Over the years I have often asked my physicist colleagues why the laws of physics are what they are. The answers vary from “that’s not a scientific question” to “nobody knows.” The favorite reply is, “There is no reason they are what they are — they just are.” The idea that the laws exist reasonlessly is deeply anti-rational. After all, the very essence of a scientific explanation of some phenomenon is that the world is ordered logically and that there are reasons things are as they are. If one traces these reasons all the way down to the bedrock of reality — the laws of physics — only to find that reason then deserts us, it makes a mockery of science.....

Clearly, then, both religion and science are founded on faith — namely, on belief in the existence of something outside the universe, like an unexplained God or an unexplained set of physical laws, maybe even a huge ensemble of unseen universes, too. For that reason, both monotheistic religion and orthodox science fail to provide a complete account of physical existence. — Paul Davies

He concludes:

In other words, the laws should have an explanation from within the universe and not involve appealing to an external agency.

Which is what motivates this statement:

I'm a naturalist for whom nature is self-explanatory — 180 Proof

But he goes on

The specifics of that explanation are a matter for future research. But until science comes up with a testable theory of the laws of the universe, its claim to be free of faith is manifestly bogus.

I'm reminded of Wittgenstein's aphorism that 'the whole modern conception of nature is founded on the illusion that so-called laws of nature are the explanations of natural order'.

I don't agree with Davies that the explanation of 'why scientific laws' are a matter for science. Science has discovered that f=ma and e=mc², but how can it deduce why these are the case? How could you create 'a testable theory' short of discovering some other universe where these values are different?

So - what is Davies getting at in this OP? Does he really believe that science will 'one day' understand why the laws of science are they way they are by discovering even deeper laws that explain them? Or is it a polemical argument that indirectly shows how science itself was originally derived from the belief in God's laws?

Fuck. :sweat:

:up: Local negentropic processes "steal" order at the expense of increasing global entropy.

In other words, the laws should have an explanation from within the universe and not involve appealing to an external agency.

The specifics of that explanation are a matter for future research. But until science comes up with a testable theory of the laws of the universe, its claim to be free of faith is manifestly bogus.

The second is a strange statement,considering that science is not a matter of faith at all, but of provisional hypotheses. The idea behind science is to find things wrong with your theories so that knowledge can grow, which is the opposite of religious faith which tries to find confirmation.

The second is a strange statement,considering that science is not a matter of faith at all, but of provisional hypotheses. — Janus

It's worth reading the OP. Paul Davies got a lot of pushback for that piece. His argument is that until now, scientists simply assume scientific laws, without exploring why they are the way they are. That's why he is saying science 'rests on faith' - faith in scientific laws. I think that's a hangover from science's Christian origins. (See Nancy Cartwright No God, No Laws.)

I take it as axiomatic that the predominant belief in secular culture is that 'life arose by chance'. Once you dispense with the idea of divine creation or emanation or a divine origin of some kind, what is the alternative? It can only be physical or chemical necessity, a kind of chain reaction that starts and then simply grows according to natural laws. That's what Daniel Dennett spells out in Darwin's Dangerous Idea, and Jacques Monod in Chance and Necessity, but there are many other examples. But more than that, it's a tacit consensus about how the Universe must be, according to scientific materialism.

I'm more inclined to a kind of 'orthogenetic' philosophy. This is that the Universe gives rise to sentient life-forms as a way of discovering horizons of being that could not be realised any other way. You find ideas like that in Tielhard du Chardin, Henri Bergson, and others. It's neither creationist on the one side, nor materialist on the other.

His argument is that until now, scientists simply assume scientific laws, without exploring why they are the way they are. That's why he is saying science 'rests on faith' - faith in scientific laws. I think that's a hangover from science's Christian origins. (See Nancy Cartwright No God, No Laws.) — Wayfarer

I think scientific laws are formulated to describe observed invariant phenomena. So, for example, minimally,the law of gravity is just the observed invariability of unsupported objects falling until they are supported.

Explanations as to what the "mechanism" of gravity "is" are another matter; the invariant behavior of objects, at least as so far observed, is not an assumption. If matter and energy always behaves the same way, and must do so, because that is simply the nature of things, then laws are just the way we say that is the case; no need for any God.

Buddhism posits invariable laws in the form of karma, codependent origination and rebirth, for example, without positing a God who intends these things to be so.

I take it as axiomatic that the predominant belief in secular culture is that 'life arose by chance'. — Wayfarer

I don't think that is the predominant view, or at least it is not "axiomatic" in my view. Given the nature of the basic chemical elements and the inevitable diversity of conditions that can come about in an immense universe, the arising of life seems inevitable. That said, if all you mean by "chance" is that the advent of life was not planned or "programmed" by anything "outside" the natural order, then I would agree with what you say. There just doesn't seem to be any strong evidence for design, so no reason to believe in it, beyond human wishes (in some humans) that it might be so.

This is that the Universe gives rise to sentient life-forms as a way of discovering horizons of being that could not be realised any other way. You find ideas like that in Tielhard du Chardin, Henri Bergson, and others. It's neither creationist on the one side, nor materialist on the other. — Wayfarer

This seems like an anthropomorphization of the universe, as though it had some intention or wish, or at minimum, an internal striving, to bring life into being..It seems most plausible to me to think that this kind of thinking is a case of us projecting our own natures out into the universe.

On the other hand such ideas can be richly creative and imaginative, so they are not without poetic value. They can even inspire scientists to look down avenues that they otherwise wouldn't and discover unexpected things.

I think scientific laws are formulated to describe observed invariant phenomena. — Janus

No argument there. But what do you make of that statement 'the whole modern conception of nature is founded on the illusion that so-called laws of nature are the explanations of natural order'? Why does Wittgenstein think this is an 'illusion'?

This seems like an anthropomorphization of the universe, as though it had some intention or wish, or at minimum, an internal striving, to bring life into being..It seems most plausible to me to think that this kind of thinking is a case of us projecting our own natures out into the universe. — Janus

That's how it must seem to us in this day and age but do please notice the implicit division between 'our own natures' and 'the Universe', as if these are separable. But really they're not, as nature is not something we're outside of, or apart from. The idea of being a subject in a world of objects is just that - an idea. An idea which then becomes a condition.

Given the nature of the basic chemical elements and the inevitable diversity of conditions that can come about in an immense universe, the arising of life seems inevitable. — Janus

That is just another way of saying 'by chance'. The million-monkeys idea - give a million monkeys typewriters and enough time and they'll produce a manuscript. When in fact what you will get is an enormous pile of broken typewriters covered in shit.

No argument there. But what do you make of that statement 'the whole modern conception of nature is founded on the illusion that so-called laws of nature are the explanations of natural order'? Why does Wittgenstein think this is an 'illusion'? — Wayfarer

Perhaps Wittgenstein thinks it is an illusion because the laws of nature are not explanations but descriptions of natural order. I mean even if you take Einstein's explanation for gravity; that it is due to the warping of spacetime by mass, that just pushes the need for explanation back one step; we can now ask what causes mass to warp spacetime. Whatever we come up with as an explanation becomes then another phenomenon that we can seek to explain.

That's how it must seem to us in this day and age but do please notice the implicit division between 'our own natures' and 'the Universe', as if these are separable. But really they're not, as nature is not something we're outside of, or apart from. The idea of being a subject in a world of objects is just that - an idea. An idea which then becomes a condition. — Wayfarer

I don't know, I think it is more the fact that we observe a (staggering) diversity of phenomena, including ourselves. On one perspective our natures may be understood to follow the same micro-physical laws as everything else, but on another we behave very differently than other kinds of phenomena. We don't need to think we are separate from nature to acknowledge that there is a diversity of observable phenomena, that show apparent invariances on many different levels and to different kinds of observation.

Perhaps Wittgenstein thinks it is an illusion because the laws of nature are not explanations but descriptions of natural order. — Janus

My point exactly.

//ps// check out this blog post. Don't know anything about this guy, but his blog is pretty interesting.

I wonder if much of these discussions about science being this or that could be alleviated by speaking of "habits", rather than "laws", as this latter term implies something of which there can be no exception.

But we know circumstances in which such universal "laws", break down, in black holes or near the singularity. We might discover more exceptions when the James Webb telescope goes to space (hopefully) in a few months and takes extremely high resolution images.

I personally don't see the problem in substituting "God" for "nature". That's what makes sense now, I reckon a good deal of the traditional figures in philosophy (perhaps not all) would've agreed, given how things have changed.

I wonder if much of these discussions about science being this or that could be alleviated by speaking of "habits", rather than "laws", as this latter term implies something of which there can be no exception. — Manuel

I think this is a good idea. If I remember rightly from long ago reading Peirce spoke this way. Hume point out there is no deductively valid reasoning to support our belief that the so-called laws of nature will continue to hold sway. On the other hand there is an enormously complex and coherent scientific picture, and no well-documented exceptions have been observed.

But we know circumstances in which such universal "laws", break down, in black holes or near the singularity. — Manuel

I could be wrong but I thought black holes were theoretical entities which were posited on account of our understanding of the laws of nature. I believe I've read that they have subsequently been observed, but I'm not sure. (I could search that but I can't be bothered).

I like Spinoza's deus sive natura ("God or nature'). For us nature is God indeed (but I don't agree with the pantheistic reading of Spinoza's idea) I agree that the great philosophers would likely have very different views if they were alive today..

I don't think what science tells us about the world should be blithely ignored or that we should believe in certain metaphysical notions just because they might "feel right" (which could just amount to serving our wishes regarding how we might like things to be).

That is just another way of saying 'by chance'. The million-monkeys idea - give a million monkeys typewriters and enough time and they'll produce a manuscript. When in fact what you will get is an enormous pile of broken typewriters covered in shit. — Wayfarer

I never found the "million monkeys' idea compelling. In any case if life is inevitable then it is not by chance. That doesn't have to mean it was planned or "striven for' somehow. On the macro scale the universe appears to be deterministic, which would mean that, on that scale nothing is by chance, even if on the micro-physical level processes are uncaused and utterly random, macro processes could still be statistically determined.

Not sure if I am on board with your apparently low opinion of monkeys. :wink:

:100:

I think this is a good idea. If I remember rightly from long ago reading Peirce spoke this way. Hume point out there is no deductively valid reasoning to support our belief that the so-called laws of nature will continue to hold sway. On the other hand there is an enormously complex and coherent scientific picture, and no well-documented exceptions have been observed. — Janus

Yes, Peirce and Hume are correct. For all we know, tomorrow gravity could work differently, unlikely to happen, but not impossible. If we take multiverse ideas seriously, then different "laws" might reign. There is no great word for this, "law" sounds too sacred, "habits" sounds to anthropomorphic, but better overall.

I could be wrong but I thought black holes were theoretical entities which were posited on account of our understanding of the laws of nature. I believe I've read that they have subsequently been observed, but I'm not sure. (I could search that but I can't be bothered). — Janus

Yeah, they exist. They even were able to picture one (due to the light if a nearby star): https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-01155-0

I like Spinoza's deus sive natura ("God or nature'). For us nature is God indeed (but I don't agree with the pantheistic reading of Spinoza's idea) I agree that the great philosophers would likely have very different views if they were alive today..

I don't think what science tells us about the world should be blithely ignored or that we should believe in certain metaphysical notions just because they might "feel right" (which could just amount to serving our wishes regarding how we might like things to be). — Janus

This sounds correct to me. I don't see any good reason to be suspect of nature. Everything is a natural thing, I see no scienticism here, nor denying all those very profound experiences most of us have, which we cannot explain.

I think that, despite our best efforts to the contrary, we end up adopting a metaphysics we like. Maybe we are uncomfortable with the idea, but then one accepts is it as a very good direction to go in.

All that's to say, nature is mind-boggling. That's a good thing, to me.

All that's to say, nature is mind-boggling. That's a good thing, to me. — Manuel

Amen! How boring would it be if it wasn't?

I think we generally do adopt metaphysics we feel good about. That said, I think we should adopt metaphysics we find most plausible, being as honest with ourselves as we can and having done our best to put what we might wish for aside.

Of course what we find most plausible will inevitably be influenced by our cultural conditioning; we have to live with who we are since living in denial of it would certainly seem to be a bad move. That said, I am not claiming we must be enslaved by our cultural conditioning; I think we can change by working through our conditioning, but not by denying it or pretending it's not there in us. It's a balancing act to be sure.

His argument is that until now, scientists simply assume scientific laws, without exploring why they are the way they are. That's why he is saying science 'rests on faith' - faith in scientific laws. — Wayfarer

I think scientific laws are formulated to describe observed invariant phenomena. So, for example, minimally,the law of gravity is just the observed invariability of unsupported objects falling until they are supported. — Janus

I'm with @Janus. There's another way of looking at things. Much simpler and less fraught with misunderstandings than what you are talking about. As I, and many others, see it, science does not explain anything. It is just and only a description of how things have been observed or predicted to behave. In that way of seeing things, there are no whys. Asking for why is a contamination of science by human notions of purpose and meaning.

I take it as axiomatic that the predominant belief in secular culture is that 'life arose by chance'. Once you dispense with the idea of divine creation or emanation or a divine origin of some kind, what is the alternative? It can only be physical or chemical necessity, a kind of chain reaction that starts and then simply grows according to natural laws. — Wayfarer

If by "secular culture" you mean science, you're wrong. Scientists who study the origins of life see a middle way. Life is originated, not by random behavior of physical substances and not by divine intervention, but by a natural tendency toward self-organization. Rather than try to explain how that might have happened, which I am not qualified to do, I would point you toward "Life's Ratchet, How Molecular Machines Extract Order from Chaos" by Peter M Hoffmann. As the book describes, physical and chemical reactions may have a direction that makes life much more likely than if reactions happened purely by chance.

I never found the "million monkeys' idea compelling. — Janus

It has been calculated that a million monkeys typing would take more than the life of the universe to type one of Shakespeare's plays.

:up: Good! We wouldn't want that; the Bard might turn over in his grave...

Asking for why is a contamination of science by human notions of purpose and meaning. — T Clark

I agree. And any explanation only brings forth more that needs explaining (which I see as a good thing).

Scientists who study the origins of life see a middle way. Life is originated, not by random behavior of physical substances and not by divine intervention, but by a natural tendency toward self-organization. — T Clark

By which scientists, for example? Ever run across https://www.thethirdwayofevolution.com/ ?

On the macro scale the universe appears to be deterministic — Janus

Determined by what? Or rather, what is it that determines?

By which scientists, for example? — Wayfarer

I gave an example in my post - Hoffmann. His proposed mechanisms seem really plausible to me, which is beside the point. Fact is that reputable scientists are currently studying mechanisms other than wild random action and intelligent guidance.

Ever run across https://www.thethirdwayofevolution.com/ ? — Wayfarer

I took a quick look. It seems to be about evolution, which is a completely different subject than the origin of life.

Yes, a fine balancing act indeed. The problem is finding arguments against what I believe, say, a Cudworthian innate-ism - I won't go into the details here , that deserves a thread- but I genuinely (I think) try to look for arguments against it, there are some but I'm not confident they touch the main issue.

The other metaphysical idea, does have more holes in it (things in themselves), those arguments are better, but not definitive in a way that I could abandon them.

That's my version. Others adhere to say, modern materialism, or panpsychism surely go through a similar process, as you do too, I'd wager.

It's a bit like adopting a stance in modern physics actually, you go through an intense phase of thinking about the problem, then you have an idea which you think is best: "many worlds", "Copenhagen", etc. It should be hard to change your mind, given the time invested.