And no one who disputes you is allowed? — Jackson

I am not a materialist, although I think most scientists are and were in 1905. As I noted in the OP, I want to keep this focused on absolute presuppositions and not on the validity of a materialist position.

I am not a materialist, although I think most scientists are and were in 1905. As I noted in the OP, I want to keep this focused on absolute presuppositions and not on the validity of a materialist position. — Clarky

No problem. I will just ignore you from now on.

Given (3), why do we need (6)? — Banno

As I noted in the OP, there may be some overlap, but I think 3 and 6 are different.

If as proposed scientific law is found to work in one situation and not in another, then it needs modification. A generalisation that accounts for both instances would suffice. — Banno

That's true.

No problem. I will just ignore you from now on. — Jackson

Oh, @Jackson, you're just so cranky and cute. I want to give you a big hug.

Pretty good OP Clark. — Manuel

I forgot to say thank you. Thank you.

I disagree. If the universe can not be understood, science is pointless. — Clarky

We come up to the point raised in the title of the thread: the metaphysics of materialism. If you say that studying the universe as was done in 1905 is metaphysics - that's fine. Though I doubt scientists then thought they were doing metaphysics.

They were doing physics. They study what we still call "matter", but beyond that name, I don't see a metaphysics. They studied the universe, call it whatever you like. The results won't vary if you call matter, "immaterial" or "mental", as you seem to agree.

I should've emphasized that I have in mind intuitive understanding of the universe, which was the goal of the great scientists/philosophers of the 17th century onward. This has been dropped, even before 1905.

But if by understand you mean "theoretical understanding" - then we do not disagree, and happily, science has a point. Understanding is a complex topic in its own right.

As I noted in the OP, there may be some overlap, but I think 3 and 6 are different. — Clarky

See Causality, Determination and such stuff. I think Anscombe's differentiation between causation and determination would serve your purposes well, in that you might avoid the incessant arguments about first causes and such. So if one has a scientific law in mathematical form that provides a satisfactory description of some event, including being predictive, then notions of cause are inconsequential.

You are making an assumption based on having observed a very limited part of the universe. — Clarky

. As I acknowledge, we have only observed a very limited part of the universe, but I disagree in that we have (so far) found the universe to be comprehensible to us, so I don't see that as an assumption. Of course it doesn't follow that every part of the universe will be comprehensible to us, or that the universe will always be comprehensible to us, if we were to think those to be true then that would be an assumption, but, to repeat, we do know that the universe has been comprehensible to us, so I don't see that as an assumption.

Does that mean you agree it is a good example of an absolute presupposition? — Clarky

Maybe; I'm not sure. If we can't think of any other serious possibilities, maybe not, so I guess it comes down to whether we consider god and/or universal mind to be serious possibilities.

ME: Laws are formulated post hoc to codify the behavior of observed invariances. We know that the substances and parts of the universe that we have observed seem to behave invariantly. YOU: Again, we have observed a very limited amount of the universe. — Clarky

I think this is the same question as the first, so already answered.

There is a long debate about whether the mathematical behavior of the universe is discovered or projected by observers. I come down on the side of projection. — Clarky

Right, but the fact is we know we can express the laws mathematically and make very precise predictions which always seem to be observed, so whatever the explanation is, I think we can safely say that we know that we can express (at least some) of the laws (I would prefer to say invariances) of nature mathematically.

ME: I think this is more speculative, but it is bolstered by the apparent consistency and universality (within our science and regarding what we have actually observed) of the Laws of Thermodynamics.YOU: Are you saying it is an absolute presupposition or is not? — Clarky

I'd say it's universal applicability is an assumption based on what we have observed so far. I'm not sure if that would count as 'absolute'. Again, the caveat would be that we only know it applies to what we have observed, and any assertion beyond that would be an assumption, if not a presupposition.

Good OP!

8] The universe is continuous. Between any two points there is at least one other point. — Clarky

For the benefit of the members here, this is the euclidean geometry.

Materialism is best says the novacula occami (do not multiply entities without necessity). If materialism is false, it must be out of a dire need viz. an inability to explain some entity/phenomenon materialistically.

We come up to the point raised in the title of the thread: the metaphysics of materialism. If you say that studying the universe as was done in 1905 is metaphysics - that's fine. Though I doubt scientists then thought they were doing metaphysics.

They were doing physics. They study what we still call "matter", but beyond that name, I don't see a metaphysics. They studied the universe, call it whatever you like. The results won't vary if you call matter, "immaterial" or "mental", as you seem to agree. — Manuel

Scientists don't do metaphysics. As Collingwood wrote, metaphysics describes the underlying assumptions that scientists follow while doing science. They are often not explicitly aware of those assumptions.

But if by understand you mean "theoretical understanding" - then we do not disagree — Manuel

I didn't say the universe is understood, I said it can be understood. It is understandable.

See Causality, Determination and such stuff. I think Anscombe's differentiation between causation and determination would serve your purposes well, in that you might avoid the incessant arguments about first causes and such. So if one has a scientific law in mathematical form that provides a satisfactory description of some event, including being predictive, then notions of cause are inconsequential. — Banno

I have argued before that the idea of causation is not very useful. Didn't you and I discuss that previously? In 1912, Bertrand Russell wrote "On the Notion of Cause" which endorsed that view. On the other hand, I think scientists in 1905 in general assumed that all events are caused.

I agree; cause is more misleading than helpful. So I wondered why it is included. Again, it seems to me that given obedience to physical laws, causation is unnecessary; a hangover from Aristotle. But let that pass, if you prefer.

[8] The universe is continuous. Between any two points there is at least one other point. — Clarky

Isn't there supposed to be an infinite number of points between any two points? Why would you state it as "at least one"? It seems like the incoherency of this idea, demonstrates the falsity of the proposition "The universe is continuous". A number of your stated "absolute presuppositions" can be demonstrated to be false.

Are you saying that the universe is homogeneous? I think that's probably true. It is my understanding that matter is well distributed within the observable universe and the cosmic microwave background radiation is uniform in all directions. I think that is a scientific finding, not an underlying assumption. — Clarky

No I was speaking more of the difference between dreams and realty. Both can share any amount of detail or traits. But reality has the characteristic of consistency.

In my view, this sums it up:
[1] We live in a consistent universe that can be understood by humans.

[3] These substances behave in accordance with scientific principles, laws.
[4] Scientific laws are mathematical in nature. — Clarky

Those seem like rephrasings of the original point; an elaboration of how humans go about understanding, not new characteristics on their own.

As I acknowledge, we have only observed a very limited part of the universe, but I disagree in that we have (so far) found the universe to be comprehensible to us, so I don't see that as an assumption. — Janus

Isn't science people trying to understand the universe? Why would we do that if we didn't think the universe is comprehendible? Even if it might not be, I think we have to act as if it is just to proceed. I think that's a lot of what an absolute presupposition is - acting as if something is true even though it isn't proven and can't be proven.

Maybe; I'm not sure. If we can't think of any other serious possibilities, maybe not, so I guess it comes down to whether we consider god and/or universal mind to be serious possibilities. — Janus

I'll fall back on my premise of a materialistic/physicalist point of view. That would exclude God or a universal mind.

Right, but the fact is we know we can express the laws mathematically and make very precise predictions which always seem to be observed, so whatever the explanation is, I think we can safely say that we know that we can express (at least some) of the laws (I would prefer to say invariances) of nature mathematically. — Janus

Agreed.

ME: I think this is more speculative, but it is bolstered by the apparent consistency and universality (within our science and regarding what we have actually observed) of the Laws of Thermodynamics.YOU: Are you saying it is an absolute presupposition or is not?
— Clarky

I'd say it's universal applicability is an assumption based on what we have observed so far. I'm not sure if that would count as 'absolute'. Again, the caveat would be that we only know it applies to what we have observed, and any assertion beyond that would be an assumption, if not a presupposition. — Janus

For me, and I think for Collingwood, this all comes back to the fact that we have and can only observe a very limited portion of the universe.

So I wondered why it is included. Again, it seems to me that given obedience to physical laws, causation is unnecessary; a hangover from Aristotle. — Banno

I think the point of Russell's essay was that, even though there are scientific laws, the idea of causation is unnecessary. I guess great minds think alike, because I agree with that.

Isn't there supposed to be an infinite number of points between any two points? Why would you state it as "at least one"? It seems like the incoherency of this idea, demonstrates the falsity of the proposition "The universe is continuous". A number of your stated "absolute presuppositions" can be demonstrated to be false. — Metaphysician Undercover

The way I said it was awkward and potentially misleading. Your formulation is probably better. Kant himself wrote "All phenomena, then, are continuous quantities" which is probably even better.

But reality has the characteristic of consistency. — Bird-Up

I agree, at least, that materialists in 1905 believed that.

Those seem like rephrasings of the original point; an elaboration of how humans go about understanding, not new characteristics on their own. — Bird-Up

I don't think saying that the universe is comprehensible is the same as saying there are universal laws or that it behaves in a mathematical way.

I was just reading through the "Does Nothingness Exist" thread. It got me thinking maybe we should add this to our list of absolute presuppositions - Something can not be created from nothing.

Or is that the same as "Everything has a cause?"

Isn't science people trying to understand the universe? Why would we do that if we didn't think the universe is comprehendible? Even if it might not be, I think we have to act as if it is just to proceed. I think that's a lot of what an absolute presupposition is - acting as if something is true even though it isn't proven and can't be proven. — Clarky

I think science is an extension of ordinary everyday lived understanding. The world is intelligible, "makes sense", to us, and to animals; if it weren't we could not survive. I think science is the endeavor to extend that basic comprehensibility.

We understand the world of natural events in terms of causes, and the world of (some) animal and human behavior in terms of reasons. It seems natural to try to extend the inquiry in terms of reasons to the cosmos, and that leads to religious understandings. Since there can be no empirical evidence for these kinds of metaphysical "why" questions, any answers to them remain faith-based.

I'll fall back on my premise of a materialistic/physicalist point of view. That would exclude God or a universal mind. — Clarky

I tend to agree; as soon as we try to make any positive assertions about God or universal mind, we descend into incoherency.

For me, and I think for Collingwood, this all comes back to the fact that we have and can only observe a very limited portion of the universe. — Clarky

I agree, but perhaps where I might disagree is that I think the metaphysical assumptions we make are based on our experience; for example the assumption of causation is based on our experience of ourselves as causal agents, and is further warranted by its success in making the world intelligible to us. We can only speak from our ( necessarily) limited experience.

I said "perhaps...,might disagree" because that may not disagree with the idea of absolute presuppositions; I guess it depends on where Collingwood (and you) think they find their genesis. I don't tend to think they have their genesis in some transcendental, Kantian, pre-given, rational a priori of the Intellect, but rather in the primordial logic of our embodiedness, and in the experience of "being-in-the-world"..

8] The universe is continuous. Between any two points there is at least one other point.
— Clarky
For the benefit of the members here, this is the euclidean geometry. — L'éléphant

So there is an infinite number of points between any two points?

I think science is an extension of ordinary everyday lived understanding. The world is intelligible, "makes sense", to us, and to animals; if it weren't we could not survive. I think science is the endeavor to extend that basic comprehensibility. — Janus

I agree. I just went back to look at what lead up to this comment. A few posts back I misunderstood something you wrote. I thought you said the universe was not comprehensible. What I think you really said was that it is comprehensible, we know that because of our experience, and because of that it's not an assumption. That's a good point, and it's something I've thought about.

Let's go through the listed candidates for absolute presuppositions. I've added a couple at the end.

[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.
[9] Space and time are separate and absolute. This from @Manuel.
[10] Something can not be created from nothing. I added this, but I'm not sure it's different from 6.

I've bolded four items we might be able to say we know from experience. I guess, based on that, you could say they are not absolute presuppositions. I'm pretty sure Collingwood would disagree. I want to come down with Collingwood, but the argument seems nitpicky - "Well, you haven't seen all of the universe. You don't know what you'll find." That's in conflict with one of my favorite quotes from my favorite scientist, Stephen Jay Gould - In science, “fact” can only mean “confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent.

[1] We live in an ordered universe that can be understood by humans. — Clarky

well, at least 4% of it, anyway.

[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

1 - to some degree. As written it sounds like we know we can figure it all out.
2 - what is a physical substance and does this mean if we discover 'something' that is real but has qualities different from what we considered physical before we would drop physicalism? I ask because this has already happened. What is considered physical has opened up over time. IOW it sounds like physicalism is making a substance claim, but I don't think it is.
5 - I disagree with what you said elsewhere. I think we could do science without this assumption. If other galaxies have different laws, we can still use science to figure out this galaxies rules and then theirs. If the laws change over time, and there is some evidence this is the case, we can still try to keep up. And if the laws are changing slowly, well, then the research results are relevant for significant periods of time.
8 - I didn't think there was consensus on quantized vs continuous.

This has been a very useful thread. :clap:

Back then I'm not sure if they even calculated how much of the universe was knowable.

But the point you bring up, is extremely important to stress.

Although it is absolutely breathtaking that we have managed, as rather special creatures (given unique properties not found in other animals) to understand a portion of the universe, the overwhelmingly majority, we do not know.

And it's not even clear that these remaining things should be considered "matter" and "energy".

[1] We live in an ordered universe that can be understood by humans.
— Clarky

well, at least 4% of it, anyway. — Wayfarer

And that's why Collingwood says it's an absolute presupposition. We can't prove it's true, but we have to act as if it were in order to do science.

This has been a very useful thread. — Tom Storm

Yes. I'm having a really good time. In particular these last few posts about which of the items on the list are presuppositions and which might be facts have brought some of my own doubts into focus.

A line by line response. My responses in italics.

1 - to some degree. As written it sounds like we know we can figure it all out. I guess it probably does, at least at some level, but it doesn't mean we ever will. It seems like a good presupposition to me - We can't show it's true, but we have to pretend it is.

2 - what is a physical substance and does this mean if we discover 'something' that is real but has qualities different from what we considered physical before we would drop physicalism? I ask because this has already happened. What is considered physical has opened up over time. IOW it sounds like physicalism is making a substance claim, but I don't think it is. I tried to keep this simple by putting limitations on us as described in the OP. One limitation is that we look at things from a materialist /physicalist point of view. Another is that we look only at classical physics.

5 - I disagree with what you said elsewhere. I think we could do science without this assumption. If other galaxies have different laws, we can still use science to figure out this galaxies rules and then theirs. If the laws change over time, and there is some evidence this is the case, we can still try to keep up. And if the laws are changing slowly, well, then the research results are relevant for significant periods of time. Yes, it is possible we will someday find things going on far away and long ago that are inconsistent with how we currently see things. But the only way we'll be able to figure that out is by assuming that the rest of the universe operates on the same rules we have here until we run into a contradiction.

8 - I didn't think there was consensus on quantized vs continuous. I think in a classical universe there would be. That's why I included that limitation in the OP.