It depends if you're talking about a line segment or a line that has both ends expanding. And I don't know why you asked this question.So there is an infinite number of points between any two points? — baker
I don't see why. Hey, let's learn as much as we can. I don't think we need to assume that all can be known by sentient creatures. If we found out - how I don't know - that there was a limit, would we need to stop?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. — Clarky
Yes, classical and also with the metaphysical baggage, I would argue, from taking a stand against dualisms and transcendant 'things'. So we are left with an ism that seems to be taking a stand on ontology, when really science at least is taking a stand on methodology. I think slowly we will end up with something like scientific verificationism and drop the seeming ontological stand of physicalism/materialism. Neutrinos and even massless particles, fields particles in superposition or even whole entities in superposition, and even some physicists beliefs in mathematical realism run counter to substance type claims.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. — Clarky
I'd say we'd be testing if it still holds or did hold. I can see the sequence in method, but I don't see any reason to assume it. In fact I think it would be good not to. Counterevidence will take more time to be noticed and accepted. I guess, I am thinking of specific scientific minds. Is a scientist hampered if the don't assume that the laws have held since the Big Bang (or before ?! that) and if they don't assume it must hold everywhere (deep in black holes, far away across the universe, wherever). I don't see where this stops him or her. It even seems positive to me. I can see the advantage of not deciding we have to begin at zero knowledge when they jump through a wormhole to another galaxy in the future. IOW they go with technology that works in our part of the universe and all that. But once the ship appears in the other galaxy, being open to rules being different seems like a positive idea. In fact I would suggest any jump say, to a new area, it would be wise to immediately check and see a lot of things right away. And then to be open over time to changes. And then when looking way back in time to keep open to the rules having changed.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. — Clarky
Ah, sorry. But I would assume people were at least open to if not leaning towards irreducible levels pre-QM because it seemed like there were fundamental particles to some, even Democritus. I don't have a good way to google this issue however. I'd be interested to hear what science assumed about there being utter continuousness all the way down or not. I am not sure that depends on QM in the history of science.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. — Clarky
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. — Clarky
:clap: :yikes: (Not bad for an "immaterialist".)[1] We live in an ordered universe that can be understood by humans.
— Clarky
well, at least 4% of it, anyway. — Wayfarer
:fire: Yes. And didn't classical atomists (dis)solve "Zeno's paradox" by disputing 'unbounded divisibility'? Thus, 16th-18th century "natural philosophers" had assumed corpuscularianism.I would assume people were at least open to if not leaning towards irreducible levels pre-QM because it seemed like there were fundamental particles to some, even Democritus. I don't have a good way to google this issue however. I'd be interested to hear what science assumed about there being utter continuousness all the way down or not. I am not sure that depends on QM in the history of science. — Bylaw
First focus - the discussion will take place from a materialist/physicalist/realist point of view. — Clarky
Then the point of this thread is to preach to the choir?The purpose of this thread is not to discuss the validity of a materialist viewpoint. — Clarky
Right. So for the purpose of this discussion, we accept the view that macro-sized "physical" objects are the interaction between smaller "physical" objects, and that those smaller "physical" objects are themselves composed of the interactions of even smaller "physical" objects. If "physical" objects are really the interactions of smaller objects, then it seems to me that it doesn't make any sense to say that it's "physical" all the way down. It appears that using a pre-relativity physicists viewpoint actually shows that the world is not "physical" but relational all the way down.Second focus - For the purposes of this discussion, we live before 1905, when the universe was still classical and quantum mechanics was unthinkable. I see the ideas we come up with in this discussion as a baseline we can use in a later discussion to figure out how things change when we consider quantum mechanics.
Third focus - We’ll stick as much as possible with issues related to a scientific understanding of reality. Physics in particular. — Clarky
I don't see why. Hey, let's learn as much as we can. I don't think we need to assume that all can be known by sentient creatures. If we found out - how I don't know - that there was a limit, would we need to stop? — Bylaw
Yes, classical and also with the metaphysical baggage, I would argue, from taking a stand against dualisms and transcendant 'things'. So we are left with an ism that seems to be taking a stand on ontology, when really science at least is taking a stand on methodology. — Bylaw
I think slowly we will end up with something like scientific verificationism and drop the seeming ontological stand of physicalism/materialism. Neutrinos and even massless particles, fields particles in superposition or even whole entities in superposition, and even some physicists beliefs in mathematical realism run counter to substance type claims. — Bylaw
Is a scientist hampered if the don't assume that the laws have held since the Big Bang (or before ?! that) and if they don't assume it must hold everywhere (deep in black holes, far away across the universe, wherever). — Bylaw
But once the ship appears in the other galaxy, being open to rules being different seems like a positive idea. — Bylaw
But I would assume people were at least open to if not leaning towards irreducible levels pre-QM because it seemed like there were fundamental particles to some, even Democritus. — Bylaw
The problem is, that ideas such as this, "there is an infinite number of points between any two points", are very useful principles, which are not true. Work done at the Planck level demonstrates the falsity of that principle. So useful principles, when not true, tend to have their limits, and when employed at those limits, are counter-productive, producing misleading and deceptive conclusions. — Metaphysician Undercover
We can take the position, that these fundamental principles, absolute presuppositions, need not necessarily be true, (which they are not in actuality), and we can also hold that the laws of physics which follow from them need not be true as well, (they just require a predictive capacity), but we will suffer from the consequences of such a choice. — Metaphysician Undercover
When I was a Christian, I didn't seriously think about the view of being a Christian. I just was, and accepted the idea that God exists without seriously thinking about what that meant. Once I began to seriously take on the view and asking deeper questions about this viewpoint in an attempt to better understand and defend this viewpoint did I come to understand that what I believed simply didn't fit with more objective observations. So it was only in delving deeper into the view that I began to reject the view. — Harry Hindu
Right. So for the purpose of this discussion, we accept the view that macro-sized "physical" objects are the interaction between smaller "physical" objects, and that those smaller "physical" objects are themselves composed of the interactions of even smaller "physical" objects. If "physical" objects are really the interactions of smaller objects, then it seems to me that it doesn't make any sense to say that it's "physical" all the way down. It appears that using a pre-relativity physicists viewpoint actually shows that the world is not "physical" but relational all the way down. — Harry Hindu
You missed the point. In discussing materialism you inevitably get to the point of realizing it has no merit. — Harry Hindu
How can you discuss the viewpoint of materialism without discussing it's validity? In discussing materialism you are inherently discussing its validity. — Harry Hindu
Every problem we encounter, from our perspective might be solvable. That's enough of a window, even in not correct in some cases (and we wouldn't recognize them) to try. It's not like we encounter some new kind of object in space and go, oh, that thing we'll never understand. We'd go ahead and give it a shot, and again. We have a metaposition that perhaps not everything can be understood and we have the day to day trying to learn about stuff. I see no reason the metaposition inhibits the species, though some individuals might do better without the metaposition. It's very likely to some scientists that there is a good chance they won't figure something out in their lifetimes and even that their research might be a wrong turning.But on they go.I don't agree. As we approach any problem, ask any question, we have to act as if it's solvable, answerable. If we reach an impasse, we just recalibrate and continue on. — Clarky
I think I was addressing that. I don't think that in practice most physicalists or materials will demand that something discovered to be real must have certain qualities (that it is physical). We've already expanded what stuff we now call physical can be like and what qualities it need no longer have. So, if we are talking about assumptions in m and p isms, I don't think it includes assumtions about substance. Another way to put that is the words are expanding categories, they are placeholder terms.This is not a discussion of the merits of materialism or physicalism. It's an examination of what the underlying assumptions of materialism might be. — Clarky
I think some assume they must and others do not. The latter group may expect them to, but do not assume they must. I would guess this is more common related to changes over time. I don't see why this would stop or hinder anyone. And it seems rational not to assume, regard less of the period in history.We study things billions of years old and billions of light years away. When we find something that doesn't fit our expectations, we rewrite the laws, but we still expect the new laws to apply everywhere. — Clarky
Yes, my position is that one need not assume. Expecting X and not assuming it must be X are not mutually exclusive. I haven't heard a reason yet why this would stop people from researching or it must be assumed to move on. You've asserted it, but I don't know why it must be so. These things would not stop me and in fact, since there are a number of contingent problems I keep trying to solve and am aware i may never solve yet keep trying anyway and i see this quality in others (laypeople in their lives and researchers in their work) I don't see why it should be the case in general that humans would give up, avoid research or presume that any particular research could not be effective and an particular phenomenon could not be understood, despite the metaposition.As I noted, we already study things further away than galaxies. I think it's reasonable to expect conditions to be different in different places and times, but not laws of science. — Clarky
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. — Clarky
Again, remove (6) and there is no need for a first cause. (2) says that there is stuff, so the issue is resolved. — Banno
Are you proposing that because we do not understand everything, we do not understand anything?
Of course you aren't. — Banno
I wasn't familiar with RGC, but his notion of "absolute presumptions" is interesting. In metaphysical discussions on this forum certain "presumptions" & prejudices quickly become apparent as posters line-up on opposite sides : crudely described as Physics versus Metaphysics. However, RGC seems to be returning to Socratic, versus Analytic, methods; apparently in response to Two-value Logical Positivism. Analytical Positivism seems to presume that knowledge is either True or False. Yet, Socrates demonstrated that most human knowledge is debatable.R.G. Collingwood wrote that metaphysics is the study of absolute presuppositions. Absolute presuppositions are the unspoken, perhaps unconscious, assumptions that underpin how we understand reality. Collingwood wrote that absolute presuppositions are neither true nor false, but we won’t get into that argument here. I would like to enumerate and discuss the absolute presuppositions, the underlying assumptions, of classical physics. I’ll start off. — Clarky
[2] is at the root of most of our interminable debates. Disagreements on the other items may depend on degree of commitment to Materialistic or Spiritualistic worldviews — Gnomon
2] The universe consists entirely of physical substances - matter and energy.
Note ---Since the advent of Quantum & Information theories in Science, the physical foundation of the world was been undermined. What was classically presumed to be absolute, now seems to be indeterminate & uncertain. — Gnomon
Yes. But a materialist might disagree with the label of "presupposition", and insist that it is just an "absolute truth" or "known fact". Assuming you do find some "absolute presuppositions" in Materialism, will that reflect on its Validity? Likewise with Spiritualism or Idealism or any kind of -ism. One man's presupposition may be another man's fundamental Truth.As I said in my original post, the validity of materialism is not the subject of this discussion. It's purpose is to try to identify the absolute presuppositions of a materialist view point, i.e. materialism is assumed for the purposes of this discussion. — 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.