Given (3), why do we need (6)? — Banno
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
I disagree. If the universe can not be understood, science is pointless. — Clarky
As I noted in the OP, there may be some overlap, but I think 3 and 6 are different. — Clarky
You are making an assumption based on having observed a very limited part of the universe. — Clarky
Does that mean you agree it is a good example of an absolute presupposition? — Clarky
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
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
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
For the benefit of the members here, this is the euclidean geometry.8] The universe is continuous. Between any two points there is at least one other point. — 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. — Manuel
But if by understand you mean "theoretical understanding" - then we do not disagree — Manuel
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
[8] The universe is continuous. Between any two points there is at least one other point. — Clarky
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
[3] These substances behave in accordance with scientific principles, laws.
[4] Scientific laws are mathematical in nature. — 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. — Janus
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
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
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
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
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
But reality has the characteristic of consistency. — Bird-Up
Those seem like rephrasings of the original point; an elaboration of how humans go about understanding, not new characteristics on their own. — Bird-Up
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'll fall back on my premise of a materialistic/physicalist point of view. That would exclude God or a universal mind. — Clarky
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
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
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
1 - to some degree. As written it sounds like we know we can figure it all out.[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
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.