I am unsure about 5. — Tom Storm
Not sure if this helps but generally the physicalists I know call themselves methodological naturalists as opposed to philosophical naturalists. — Tom Storm
[1] We live in an ordered universe that can be understood by humans.
[2] The universe consists entirely of physical substances - matter and energy. — Clarky
[7] Substances are indestructible, although they can change to something else. — Clarky
Did you not mean to call the propositions in that list APs? — Mww
Collingwood wrote that absolute presuppositions are neither true nor false, but we won’t get into that argument here. — Clarky
The metaphysical universe is extremely consistent, albeit unproven. — Bird-Up
Is that because you are an advocate of a materialist viewpoint?( Just curious) — Joshs
[1] We live in an ordered universe that can be understood by humans.
[2] The universe consists entirely of physical substances - matter and energy.
— Clarky
(1) is of greater antiquity than (2). The idea of an ordered universe was one of the motivating beliefs of the Greek philosophers and indeed of science wherever it was found. But (2) was until recently one view among others, proposed by the ancient atomists and other materialist philosophies. — Wayfarer
[7] Substances are indestructible, although they can change to something else.
— Clarky
What do you think is the meaning of 'substance' in this context? I ask this, because I think there is considerable confusion about the philosophical, as distinct from everyday, sense of the word 'substance'. It is related to Cartesian dualism as mentioned above. — Wayfarer
The issue, for the purposes of this discussion, is whether or not these two presuppositions are absolute presuppositions of a materialist point of view. — Clarky
When I said "substance" I meant matter and energy. — Clarky
Of course the absolute presupposition of materialism is that matter - nowadays, matter/energy - are the only real substances. — Wayfarer
It's not a mistake, so much as a very pervasive confusion in philosophy, in particular.
The everyday meaning of substance is 'a material with uniform properties'. Examples might be gases, plastics, metals, radioactive substances, etc. The difficulty is, 'substance' in philosophy has a different meaning, namely, 'the bearer of attributes'. — Wayfarer
I am proposing the items in my list as the underlying assumptions — Clarky
[1] We live in an ordered universe that can be understood by humans.
[2] The universe consists entirely of physical substances - matter and energy.
[3] These substances behave in accordance with scientific principles, laws.
[4] Scientific laws are mathematical in nature.
[5] The same scientific laws apply throughout the universe and at all times.
[6] The behaviors of substances are caused.
[7] Substances are indestructible, although they can change to something else.
[8] The universe is continuous. Between any two points there is at least one other point. — Clarky
That’s fine. It’s your thread, you can do with it as you please. But you referenced Collingwood, so it hardly seems fair to call something an AP that conflicts with the predicates of that reference. — Mww
Firstly, are humans substances? — karl stone
Are our thoughts, feelings, actions - caused? You wish to stick to physics, but have immediately invoked the question of consciousness/free will. — karl stone
It seems like either one of these would be consistent with the absolute presuppositions I listed. Or was that your point? — Clarky
Item 5 on my list - "The same scientific laws apply throughout the universe and at all times"
If by "unsure" you mean you're not sure it's true, of course you're not. There's no way you could be. But if it's not true, and if we can't at least act as if it were, we can't do science. — Clarky
[5] The same scientific laws apply throughout the universe and at all times. — Clarky
I am unsure about 5. — Tom Storm
Kind of but that also that philosophical naturalism is too extreme and a lot of folk think all scientists presuppose this too. — Tom Storm
Well it depends upon what you mean by all times, and what you mean by universe. I'm not a big science guy, but I guess my point would be if you mean 'in the known universe and since what we call the 'big bang'' then yes. I don't know what might be true outside of the known universe or outside of time as we know it. — Tom Storm
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.