¡Si! :point:

So I also, as much as I can, examine rationally and seek confirmation of validity before I act or speak or type. — universeness

My writing comes directly from... somewhere inside and directly onto the page. That's the first time it shows up in words. The Tao Te Ching and other Taoist writings talk about "wu wei," acting without acting, without intention. That's how writing is for me. The words write themselves. I sometimes say that the best class I took in high school was typing. I rarely used it till word processors came along. Now it allows me to put my words down almost as fast as I could say them.

Before I post, I generally reread what I've written, but that's mostly to fix they're, their, there and make sure it makes sense. Most thinking, for me and many others, takes place in a place that is not conscious. I guess It's preconscious.

I disagree with you that experienced intuitive responses are mainly irrational and illogical. — universeness

I wrote "...in my experience it and it's contents are not rational or logical." I didn't say my intuition is irrational and illogical. There's another choice - non-rational and non-logical.

I sometimes say that the best class I took in high school was typing — Clarky

Me too.

Metaphysics, on the other hand with respect to natural science, only reflectively conceptualizes natural science's presuppositions and principles (including – or implying – a 'natural-supernatural distinction'), which, of course, is categorical (analytic or hermeneutical) and not hypothetical (scientific or factual) – re: how we must look at 'whatever we can see', not what we can see. — 180 Proof

You and I see metaphysics in a similar way, although I might object to the "only" in "...natural science, only reflectively conceptualizes natural science's presuppositions and principles..."

The idea of looking at 'how we see' may be part of this way of thinking because the thoughts which a person has are based on consciousness itself, so cannot be separated from the meanings, even if they are shared by many. — Jack Cummins

I think one of the purposes of philosophy is to separate how we see from what we see. Although it's not too hard to be aware of what we see, doing the same for how we see is much more difficult.

I don't think metaphysics is theoretical or contributes to the content of natural science; thus, I think, it only reflects on ("the nature" of) theoretical practices and experimental findings. What more is possible for metaphysics to do with respect to natural science?

RE: To What Extent Can Metaphysics Be Eliminated From Philosophy?
SUBTOPIC: Alternative Consideration
⁜→ Agent Smith, et al,

(OPPOSING VIEW). There have been many sound and valid alternatives on the definition of Metaphysics. But I believe this equation is invalid. Metaphysics is not that simple, certainly not as simple as conceiving what 11 dimensions would look like. It is not any more simple, and maybe even more so, than string theory. If anyone here thinks they understand Quantum Mechanics, well they need to think again. And I think that Metaphysics is at that level of difficulty.


(COMMENT)

There is no scientific explanation for the Three-dimensional → life-size image found embedded on the Shroud of Turin a two-dimensional medium. You can argue about what the image represents and it can stand alone outside any religious platform → in a secular fashion. However, you cannot deny that the shroud contains intelligent content of a 3-D Image that could be nearly 2000 years old. The imagery cannot be replicated using today's technology.

Now, the examination and study of the shroud is the examination of Empirical Evidence. It is provided us with apriori (from a much earlier time) knowledge that is beyond today's technology. It can be examined by all the cornerstone sciences (Math, Chemistry, Biology, and Physics), and still defy an explanation for its existence. That is an example of the realm of Metaphysics.

Most Respectfully,
R

@Rocco Rosano

Good post. If there's a message to metaphysics, it's exactly that which you state viz. it's not as simple as one thinks it is or it's more complicated than that.

However, we may be conflating difficulty with complexity here, oui? Our brains are habituated to decomposing stuff into simpler parts - that's how we seem to understand things, much like how children break their toys apart. This simple, even ingenious MO fails big time with metaphysics for the simple reason that we're seeking to delve into the simplest, the most fundamental, aspects of the world, our understanding of it to be precise.

I think, it only reflects on ("the nature" of) theoretical practices and experimental findings. What more is possible for metaphysics to do with respect to natural science? — 180 Proof

I've always considered metaphysics and epistemology to be two aspects of the same subject. Recently I've come to see that, even though I still think that's true, talking about them in those terms confuses people. So I've decided to try to try to keep them separate them in my discussions. In that regard I think "the nature of theoretical practices and experimental findings" is epistemology. I guess the metaphysical aspects of science include that reality behaves lawfully and is consistent across time and space.

the metaphysical aspects of science include that reality behaves lawfully and is consistent across time and space. — Clarky

Yes, deterministic science. Never proven, just believed.

Yes, deterministic science. Never proven, just believed. — Jackson

Collingwood and I would not say "believed," we'd say "presumed." I think he and I would agree it is a reasonable presumption.

I think he and I would agree it is a reasonable presumption. — Clarky

I do not think it is. And quantum mechanics shows why it is false.

I do not think it is. And quantum mechanics shows why it is false. — Jackson

How the metaphysics of classical vs. quantum mechanics differ is something I'm struggling with. My interim answer is that quantum mechanics is physics, not metaphysics.

My interim answer is that quantum mechanics is physics, not metaphysics. — Clarky

Yes, indeed. Just physics.

In that regard I think "the nature of theoretical practices and experimental findings" is epistemology. I guess the metaphysical aspects of science include that reality behaves lawfully and is consistent across time and space. — Clarky

More precisely, IME: Epistemology concerns criteria for deciding how to formulate theoretical models and perform experiments which test theoretical models whereas Metaphysics concerns the ontological commitments, or interpretation – e.g. realism or antirealism – presupposed by theoretical models.

How the metaphysics of classical vs. quantum mechanics differ is something I'm struggling with. My interim answer is that quantum mechanics is physics, not metaphysics. — Clarky

I agree. Classical mechanics and quantum mechanics just 'mathematically describe' different scales of 'relational events' which entail different epistemic conditions (e.g. deterministic-causal and stochastic-correlational), respectively, about reality? experimental apparatus? the observer? etc.

More precisely, IME: Epistemology concerns criteria for deciding how to formulate theoretical models and perform experiments which test theoretical models whereas Metaphysics concerns the ontological commitments, or interpretation – e.g. realism or antirealism – presupposed by theoretical models. — 180 Proof

This is terrible!!! You and I keep agreeing. Something must be wrong.

I agree. Classical mechanics and quantum mechanics just 'mathematically describe' different scales of 'relational events' which entail different epistemic conditions (e.g. deterministic-causal and stochastic-correlational), respectively, about reality? experimental apparatus? the observer? etc. — 180 Proof

That's where I stand right now. As I wrote, I have some more thinking to do about it.

:sweat: :up:

Dynamical systems (causal) can be so complicated that stochastic-correlational is the only way to work with them. Pretty much all it takes are functions that are not invertible.

I think the scientific method does employ 'inference,' 'rigorous conceptual analysis,' 'distinctions,' 'explicit disputation,' 'argument rebuttle,' etc. This will be based on many many, rigorously controlled
experiments, but scientists will still interpret the results gained in different ways and project implications. — universeness

Well yes, but conceptual analysis is not what natural scientists generally do. At least they do not bring it to the foreground. That generally does not hurt natural science, the scientific method was a big leap forward for the sciences. It does lead to mishap sometimes when scientists start writing about metaphysics and think it can mean anything and everything and that how it is used colloquially is of equal value as to how the concept is used in the philosophical community, like the concept of metaphysics. To illuminate that concept, the scholastic method is of more use than the scientific method.

Not 10,000 laypeople no, but perhaps you will garnish the opinion of a few of your experienced colleagues to build confidence in your own direction of thought. This is akin to the scientist trying the same experiment or different scientists trying the same experiment more than once to attempt to confirm results or find anomalies in interpretations of results already gained. — universeness

Well, I might consult them informally, indeed to garner their opinions and see if they can spot flaws in my reasoning. Asking a few learned colleagues is not a very scientific way to go about the question actually, from the point of view of the scientific method. I would not know if the answers can be extrapolated to what society generally feels if I just ask a couple of people in the same circumstances as myself. A social scientist will shoot that approach full of holes. She will tell me that to answer the question what commonly accepted conduct is in this case, you would have to leave the books and see for oneself. She would advice me to set up a survey use this case as a 'vingette' and garner the responses of a statistically valid representative sample.

A lawyer would tell me that my learned colleagues are not sources of law, although it depends a bit on how learned they are. She would advice me to take a trip to the sources of law first, legislation, case law, treaties, jurisprudence, and custom and maybe then 'the doctrine', the communis opinio of learned scholars as found in the hand books. What counts as a source of law though differs in different jurisdictions and is, on the edges still a matter of some controversy. Legislation and case law though are considered most important.

Do you think all 'philosophers,' would agree with you here? — universeness

Yes, although I do not know what you mean with 'philosophers'. Ontological questions may be metaphysical questions of course. There was once, centuries ago, a debate in metaphysics whether non material creatures, creatures of pure form could exist. I do not know anyone who does metaphysics nowadays that wonders about this question anymore. What is wondered about, is for instance the ontological proof of God, but it is a squarely logical proof, it has nothing to do with whether God is indeed a man with a long beard or something.

Which is part of our disagreement. To me, you are suggesting that insisting all knowledge and all future knowledge belongs to the label 'natural science,' is problematic and insufficient. I disagree and insist that the label 'natural' is sufficient for all knowledge that passes scientific scrutiny and any proposal or idea that does not pass such scientific scrutiny should be refused the label 'knowledge.' — universeness

That is fine but do note that you are then using your concept of natural science in a very stretched way, which leads to misunderstandings. If I say that I am a natural scientist because I am a lawyer, people look at me in a puzzled way. They would be right, law is not generally considered, nor considers itself, a natural science. Yet, me knowing that you will have to pay indemnification when you leave open a tap and it harms the goods of others, is knowledge. Legal knowledge.

Then they might make better choices in their day-to-day lives.
If we keep providing them with very bad examples of 'applied knowledge,' such as swearing to tell the truth by placing their hand on a book of fables.' Then they might feel they can waste as much water as their mood dictates, regardless of the cost to another. — universeness

I do not think so, swearing an oath does not need to be done on the bible. I once did it, just by saying 'I promise' before somebody competent to take the oath from me. I think it is also not knowledge. It is in fact a legal device, for instance you are subjected to penalty when you break a properly administered oath. It is not knowledge at all, just like saying 'I do' at your wedding ceremony is not knowledge.

They can always claim god commanded them to 'let its glorious waters flow freely into the thirsty Earth!!' Who are you to judge the will of the supernatural? Metaphysically speaking of course. — universeness

It is not a metaphysical question :) It is a legal question. If I am the judge of the case, I am competent to judge the will of the supernatural. The metaphysical question would be what grants the judge this competence. That is a question of legal metaphysics and a question of the philosophy of law.

Collingwood and I would not say "believed," we'd say "presumed." I think he and I would agree it is a reasonable presumption. — Clarky

My interim answer is that quantum mechanics is physics, not metaphysics. — Clarky

I agree. I think that quantum mechanics suggests that at some point, 'size really matters,' in that the 'rules' differ in many ways from the macro world compared to the subatomic.
I don't think we will ever discover two planets/stars/galaxies which are in two places at the same time. The closest we have observed to quantum superposition in the subatomic world imo is gravitational lensing in the macro world but the 'extra' skewed images produced are merely 'bent light.'
I don't think macro objects are entangled or can perform 'quantum tunneling.'
It seems that certain tiny quanta can do stuff that combined quanta cannot do.
I know my projections here are not much better than theistic quotes about the ease of a camel passing through the eye of a needle compared to rich people getting entry to heaven but I also insist that my projections are not beliefs but are suppositions/assumptions.

I know that some mention objects such as 'buckyballs' etc being entangled and I know about Leonard Susskinds lecture, in which he posits creating pairs of black holes entirely out of entangled particle pairs, thus making the black holes fully entangled.

https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/does-macro-object-get-entangled.884133/

but I don't think we will ever show entangled planets or people.

My interim answer is that quantum mechanics is physics, not metaphysics. — Clarky

I wonder why, then, the great Albert Einstein was compelled to ask, rhetorically, 'doesn't the moon continue to exist when we're not looking at it?'

I think that is a metaphysical question, and that it grew directly out of the discoveries of Bohr, Heisenberg, and Pauli.

I think that quantum mechanics suggests that at some point, 'size really matters,' in that the 'rules' differ in many ways from the macro world compared to the subatomic. — universeness

There are not two worlds, the large and the sub-atomic. It's all the same world. What sensible scientific realists would have hoped to have found, circa 1900 or so, is that there was a reasonable and coherent causal account of the nature of matter reaching right down to the purported 'fundamental constituents'. That is not, however, what happened, and the philosophical implications of that are still far from settled.

There's a specialist who writes on the metaphysics of physics - Tim Maudlin, from memory. Jim Baggott and Philip Ball are two others who say sensible things about it from within a fairly mainstream POV. But my favoured intepretations all tend towards the 'idealistic physicists', of whom there are a few (for instance, Richard Conn Henry, The Mental Universe - note the publication - and Bernard D'Espagnat.)

I do not think so, swearing an oath does not need to be done on the bible. I once did it, just by saying 'I promise' before somebody competent to take the oath from me. I think it is also not knowledge. It is in fact a legal device, for instance you are subjected to penalty when you break a properly administered oath. It is not knowledge at all, just like saying 'I do' at your wedding ceremony is not knowledge. — Tobias

I agree that taking oaths or stating 'I do,' at weddings or in court is merely a 'promise' (to tell the truth) or as a way to give your consent to a proposal. The person involved can break their promise/oath so such is more related to the concept of probability imo.

I am competent to judge the will of the supernatural. — Tobias

But your declaration of 'competence' here is based on your own license, backed up by license from the human authority you are sanctioned by. The accused can insist that you have not demonstrated you are sanctioned by the supernatural. So it seems to me that human law as practiced every day, rejects and over-rules any such appeals or insistence that the accuser had personal sanction from god as the supreme arbiter. Human law, in that sense, rejects god and the supernatural based on the fact that god and the supernatural are totally silent.
I think all mention of god and all religious references should be removed from all legal systems.

although I do not know what you mean with 'philosophers' — Tobias

I use quotes to cover the idea that the term philosopher is often applied to individuals in a subjective way. There have been many threads on TPF on 'what qualifies someone as a philosopher.'

There are not two worlds, the large and the sub-atomic. It's all the same world. What sensible scientific realists would have hoped to have found, circa 1900 or so, is that there was a reasonable and coherent causal account of the nature of matter reaching right down to the purported 'fundamental constituents'. That is not, however, what happened, and the philosophical implications of that are still far from settled — Wayfarer

I agree that there is one 'world' but I don't see why some rules cannot differ for the macro compared to the subatomic. As I suggested, perhaps at some point, size really begins to change the rules. Even in classical mechanics, if you are too big to fit in the space then you can't occupy the space but you can if you are smaller. Ok, I know you should never try to conceive anything quantum mechanical using a classic mechanics concept. I fully agree that 'the implications are still far from settled.'

But the point is, quantum mechanics concerned what was supposed to be the foundational level of the Universe. And yet, when Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle was discovered, it became 'oh yeah, well that's a special case, it's "quantum", you know.' The secular mainstream still firmly believes in physicalist determinism and causal closure despite all that.

But I am sure you also give cognisance to the possibility that quantum mechanics may not be fundamental, low level yes, but not necessarily fundamental/foundational. Maybe the fundamental is 'superstrings' and 'branes' etc. Maybe we are still as far away from the actual truth about fundamentals as the god posit is. Wiki has the sentence:
The uncertainty principle has its roots in how we apply calculus to write the basic equations of mechanics.
Perhaps the uncertainty principle arises as a mathematical inequality because there is a flaw in our understanding of wave/particle duality
All the current pieces of the puzzle don't all fit together. No quantum theory for gravity etc.

The secular mainstream still firmly believes in physicalist determinism and causal closure despite all that. — Wayfarer

I would certainly count myself within this group you describe but I would accept that my membership is only based on 'what makes the most sense to me,' and as such imo, is not as 'vacant' as belief in theism but is not so far from 'belief,' that I can firmly claim 'bragging rights,' or the 'high ground' on logic application and exclusivity of consistently rational thinking.

But the point is, quantum mechanics concerned what was supposed to be the foundational level of the Universe. — Wayfarer

Where did you get this from?

The secular mainstream ...

In other words, natural scientists (as opposed to "fringe" pseudo-scientists) working on fundamental physics, thermodynamics or cosmology. :roll:

The secular mainstream still firmly believes in physicalist determinism and causal closure despite all that. — Wayfarer

Yes. Newton's determinism was based on God as the supreme lawgiver.

I wonder why, then, the great Albert Einstein was compelled to ask, rhetorically, 'doesn't the moon continue to exist when we're not looking at it?' — Wayfarer

That's a question that was asked thousands of years before Einstein. When Lao Tzu asked that kind of question, it was metaphysics. When Einstein asked it, it was... I'm not sure. Probably physics.

I think that is a metaphysical question, and that it grew directly out of the discoveries of Bohr, Heisenberg, and Pauli. — Wayfarer

In situations like this, I apply the Clarky/Collingwood rule. (He's dead. I get top billing.) If it's true, it ain't metaphysics.

It's all the same world. — Wayfarer

Yes, I've said that many times. But different rules apply at different scales. At a subatomic scale, gravity is so weak it can be ignored. It's still there. It's the same world. But but it does not contribute significantly to phenomenal. Ditto for relativistic effects at human scale speeds. Ditto for quantum effects at human size scale.

the philosophical implications of that are still far from settled. — Wayfarer

I think that's true.

There's a specialist who writes on the metaphysics of physics - Tim Maudlin, from memory. Jim Baggott and Philip Ball are two others who say sensible things about it from within a fairly mainstream POV. But my favoured intepretations all tend towards the 'idealistic physicists', of whom there are a few (for instance, Richard Conn Henry, The Mental Universe - note the publication - and Bernard D'Espagnat.) — Wayfarer

I'll take a look.

https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/does-macro-object-get-entangled.884133/

but I don't think we will ever show entangled planets or people. — universeness

If I understand correctly, it is well established that quantum mechanics only applies at the subatomic, atomic, and small molecule scale.

If I understand correctly, it is well established that quantum mechanics only applies at the subatomic, atomic, and small molecule scale. — Clarky

Well, one could science only is true in labs or mathematics.