[D]ifferent 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. — Clarky

:nerd: :up:

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

Well, the macro is made up of the subatomic, so something like an entangled particle maybe a part of you as well as being entangled to another particle that’s not a part of you. Many subatomic units that make up you, will change over time. Skin cells for example.
An individual particle in you at the moment may also be in superposition. All of you does not have to be in superposition because a single particle is?
Quantum mechanics is happening in ‘you’ all the time, I think.

Richard Conn Henry, The Mental Universe — Wayfarer

Insufferably smug baloney. Mr. Henry doesn't understand the difference between metaphysics and physics either.

and Bernard D'Espagnat. — Wayfarer

Mr. D'Espagnat is also confused about metaphysics.

Quantum mechanics is happening in ‘you’ all the time, I think. — universeness

Agree.

The word metaphysics should be eliminated from discussions of science. It is archaic, like a lady two hundred years ago suffering from the vapors after witnessing a strand of ectoplasm.

When Lao Tzu asked that kind of question, it was metaphysics — Clarky

There was nothing of the kind in the Tao Te Ching. Einstein's question was the consequence of a particular moment in history, and a highly consequential one at that.

The word metaphysics should be eliminated from discussions of science. — jgill

Just as the word ‘teleology’ was eliminated from biology, only having to later require the neologism ‘teleonomy’ to serve in the role.

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

Until God became a ghost in his own machine…..

Until God became a ghost in his own machine… — Wayfarer

Indeed.

There was nothing of the kind in the Tao Te Ching. — Wayfarer

Of course there was.

All things are born of being.
Being is born of non-being.

Therefore, by the Everlasting Non-Being,
We desire to observe its hidden mystery;
By the Everlasting Being,
We desire to observe the manifestations

It's closer to poetry than to metaphysics. Metaphysics developed out Platonism and the core subjects such as the Ideas, Forms, Universals, the nature of number, the nature of substance, and so on. That was the intellectual heritage that enabled the scientific revolution and the discovery of quantum physics. It never happened in China (or India) nor showed any sign of happening in those cultures.

It never happened in China — Wayfarer

Are you saying the Ancient Chinese didn't have metaphysics? If so, I'm surprised to hear you say it. The Tao Te Ching is pure metaphysics. The fact that it's poetic in form is not relevant.

Are you saying the Ancient Chinese didn't have metaphysics? — Clarky

There are comparisons between them, but the Tao Te Ching is not metaphysics per se. You tend to refer to the Tao Te Ching to give you a kind of handle on anything that 'sounds metaphysical'. But 'metaphysics' is not generic term for 'anything spiritual' (or, more pejoratively, 'woo') which is how most people here seem to treat it. Metaphysics proper developed in the Western, specifically Platonist-Aristotelian, philosophical world.

Tao Te Ching is not metaphysics per se. — Wayfarer

Of course it is. The whole theme of this thread is about whether it is possible to reason without metaphysics. It is clear to me it is not possible.

This is too big a disagreement to fit into this thread. We can take it up some other time.

As the Tao Te Ching is amenable to vastly divergent interpretations, it makes sense that some folks call it metaphysics, others not so much.

It's a notoriously difficult word to define. I grant there's a vernacular definition of metaphysics which denotes a wide range of ideas from many different traditions and cultures, but I try to keep in mind the definition specific to European culture (e.g. here.)

As the Tao Te Ching is amenable to vastly divergent interpretations, it makes sense that some folks call it metaphysics, others not so much. — ZzzoneiroCosm

It's a notoriously difficult word to define. I grant there's a vernacular definition of metaphysics which denotes a wide range of ideas from many different traditions and cultures, but I try to keep in mind the definition specific to European culture (e.g. here.) — Wayfarer

What could the Tao Te Ching be if it's not metaphysics? A literal description of the Ancient Chinese understanding of astronomy? A pretty poem I guess. As I said, I think this is too big a disagreement to be addressed here.

It easy to accept there's a kind of ontological thrust to the assertion of the Tao as prior to the creation of the ten thousand things. If ontology, then metaphysics.

At any rate, an argument can be made....

As I said, I think this is too big a disagreement to be addressed here. — Clarky

True enough.

What could the Tao Te Ching be if it's not metaphysics? — Clarky

It's a classic in Chinese philosophy and religion.

The Tao-te Ching presented a way of life intended to restore harmony and tranquillity to a kingdom racked by widespread disorders. It was critical of the unbridled wantonness of self-seeking rulers and was disdainful of social activism based on the type of abstract moralism and mechanical propriety characteristic of Confucian ethics. The Dao of the Tao-te Ching has received a wide variety of interpretations because of its elusiveness and mystical overtones, and it has been a basic concept in both philosophy and religion. In essence, it consists of “nonaction” (wuwei), understood as no unnatural action rather than complete passivity. It implies spontaneity, noninterference, letting things take their natural course: “Do nothing and everything is done.” Chaos ceases, quarrels end, and self-righteous feuding disappears because the Dao is allowed to flow unchallenged and unchallenging. Everything that is comes from the inexhaustible, effortless, invisible, and inaudible Way, which existed before heaven and earth. By instilling in the populace the principle of Dao, the ruler precludes all cause for complaint and presides over a kingdom of great tranquillity. — Encyclopedia Brittanica

Here is the beginning of the SEP entry on metaphysics:

The word ‘metaphysics’ is notoriously hard to define. ...The word ‘metaphysics’ is derived from a collective title of the fourteen books by Aristotle that we currently think of as making up Aristotle's Metaphysics. Aristotle himself did not know the word. (He had four names for the branch of philosophy that is the subject-matter of Metaphysics: ‘first philosophy’, ‘first science’, ‘wisdom’, and ‘theology’.) At least one hundred years after Aristotle's death, an editor of his works (in all probability, Andronicus of Rhodes) titled those fourteen books “Ta meta ta phusika”—“the after the physicals” or “the ones after the physical ones”—the “physical ones” being the books contained in what we now call Aristotle's Physics. The title was probably meant to warn students of Aristotle's philosophy that they should attempt Metaphysics only after they had mastered “the physical ones”, the books about nature or the natural world—that is to say, about change, for change is the defining feature of the natural world. — SEP

There are some very general conceptions that can be found in both sources - after all, they're both part of the world's perennial wisdom traditions. But I think it's mistaken to take the Tao Te Ching as an exemplar of the subject of metaphysics - there's a world of difference between 'the nameless' of Lao Tzu and the First Mover of Aristotle.

Richard Conn Henry, The Mental Universe
— Wayfarer

Insufferably smug baloney. Mr. Henry doesn't understand the difference between metaphysics and physics either.
and Bernard D'Espagnat.
— Wayfarer

Mr. D'Espagnat is also confused about metaphysics. — Clarky

Richard Conn Henry (born 7 March 1940[1]) is an Academy Professor of Physics and Astronomy at Johns Hopkins University, author of one book and over 200 publications on the topics of astrophysics and various forms of astronomy including optical, radio, ultraviolet, and X-ray. He reports being part of a team that discovered "vastly more baryons than had ever before been found in the universe".[2] He is also cited in the effort to recategorize Pluto as a dwarf planet.[3][4]

Bernard d'Espagnat (22 August 1921 – 1 August 2015) was a French theoretical physicist, philosopher of science, and author, best known for his work on the nature of reality.[1][2] Wigner-d'Espagnat inequality is partially named after him.

D'Espagnat obtained his Ph.D. from the Sorbonne at the Institut Henri Poincaré under the guidance of Louis de Broglie. He was a researcher at the Centre National de Recherche Scientifique CNRS, 1947-57. During this period he also worked with Enrico Fermi in Chicago, 1951–52, and on a research project led by Niels Bohr at the Institute in Copenhagen, 1953-54. He then pursued his scientific career as the first theoretical physicist at the European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN) in Geneva, 1954-59.[5][6]

I'll take them at their word.

It's a classic in Chinese philosophy and religion. — Wayfarer

It looks to be literature resting on a metaphysical base. Like the Gathas of Zarathustra or The Bible.

Metaphysics developed out [of] Platonism... — Wayfarer

No metaphysics (archai) before Plato? But "Platonism" developed out of – in response to – Thales, Anaximander, Pythagorus, Permenides, Heraclitus, Democritus et al aka "the Presocratics". Maybe you meant Orphism instead?

Tao Te Ching is not metaphysics per se — Wayfarer

So philosophical taoism (daojia) is just "poetry"? :roll:
https://iep.utm.edu/daoismdaoist-philosophy/#H3

:up:

I'll take them at their word. — Wayfarer

They're physicists, not philosophers. Most physicists don't take metaphysics seriously.

No metaphysics (archai) before Plato? — 180 Proof

As SEP notes, the word was coined long after Aristotle's death. And Plato never used the term 'metaphysics'. But the core concerns go back to Parmenides and the pre-Socratics. Gerson's books on the subject - one of his books is called Aristotle and Other Platonists - develops the idea of there being an 'Ur-Platonism' which is the original source of what became the subjects of metaphysics. Indeed Gerson claims that Platonism *is* philosophy proper, and that unless that is recognised, it has no proper subject matter (the subject of his most recent book, Platonism and Naturalism: The Possibility of Philosophy.)

I'm sure that someone has made the case for a thoroughly naturalist reading of the Tao Te Ching.

They're physicists, not philosophers. — Clarky

Ad hominem. D'Espagnat, in particular, has authored a number of books on philosophy and physics.

There's a reason I bring that up. Metaphysics has a way of resurrecting itself - as some philosopher noted, 'philosophy buries its undertakers' (referring to all the many positivist types, like Stephen Hawkings, who declared philosophy dead.)

it's mistaken to take the Tao Te Ching as an exemplar of the subject of metaphysics — Wayfarer

Here's a link to the SEP article on Chinese Metaphysics.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/chinese-metaphysics/

"Dao" is mentioned 43 times. Here's the first instance:

As far as we know, explicit metaphysical discussions began in China in the mid to late 4th century BCE with the Laozi (Daodejing) and associated texts.

Ad hominem. — Wayfarer

Yes. I know I was bad. But I stand by my position that they both have mixed up their physics and their metaphysics.

Noted, but also note the first sentence: 'While there was no word corresponding precisely to the term “metaphysics"...' And also notice in the introduction, that specific attention is drawn to the differences with European metaphysics. I agree that there are common areas, parallels, comparisons that can be drawn, but I still think it's mistaken to refer to the Tao Te Ching as a kind of exemplary metaphysic (especially if we're not Chinese speakers, but that's another can of worms.)

Nuff said.

:smirk: :up:

As SEP notes, the word was coined long after Aristotle's death. And Plato never used the term 'metaphysics'. But the core concerns go back to Parmenides and the pre-Socratics. — Wayfarer

My point exactly. You stand corrected, sir. Again. :wink:

You stand corrected, — 180 Proof

I will generally acknowledge any errors I make, but here I don't see one. I said, metaphysics developed out of Platonism, which I then qualified by saying that this not necessarily confined to 'the dialogues of Plato' but encompasses the themes found in the broader Platonic corpus, going back before the historical Plato and developed after his death by other schools of Platonism.

So philosophical taoism (daojia) is just "poetry" — 180 Proof

I didn't say that, either. The SEP entry on 'chinese metaphysics' starts with the heading '1. Is there “Metaphysics” in Chinese Philosophy?' and continues:
This entire entry could be taken up with the question begged by its title: Is there metaphysics in Chinese Philosophy?' It seems a splendid essay in comparative philosophy and religion, but I still say that it's mistaken to present the Tao Te Ching as an exemplar of metaphysics, and there's a lot of qualifications in that entry about whether it should be so considered.

It's interesting that the expression, metamathematics , coined by Hilbert a century ago, is much easier to describe than the more archaic metaphysics. Discussions of the former rarely use that term, whereas the latter produces volumes, and still gets nowhere it seems.