Yes, Collingwood. Example - materialism, realism, physicalism, idealism, anti-realism, monism, dualism, solipsism, and all the other ontological isms are metaphysical positions. Determinism and free will are also. I don't know if Collingwood would agree with these examples or not, but he's dead so I can say what I want. — T Clark
You start to argue about that? On what basis? — god must be atheist
... and yet still agreeing that if they swapped places then they would also swap observations. The one would see the spoon, the other the fork.. In this case it would be like two people observing and one saying they see a fork and another a spoon. — Darkneos
On the basis that the examples you gave, e.g. "my spirit is green," are not metaphysical statements. — T Clark
As far as I'm concerned, you've not "proved" anything yet, gmba.The claim by 180 Proof, or by T Clark was that metaphysical claims can't be evaluated for truth or falsehood. I said, that's false, and proved it. — god must be atheist
and all the other ontological isms are metaphysical positions. — T Clark
Axioms are statements not subject to empirical verification. Thus they are not true or false. — T Clark
↪god must be atheist Yours, of course; not mine, sir. — 180 Proof
To say that these are metaphysical positions, you have to define "metaphysical" first. — god must be atheist
My one unending, drum beating message for almost all the time I've been on the forum has been that metaphysical statements are not true or false. They have not truth value. — T Clark
Axioms are statements not subject to empirical verification. Thus they are not true or false. — T Clark
I think you are being disingenuous in your posts. You have participated in discussions in the past where these issues were discussed, so you should know the distinctions that are being made, even if you do not agree with them. — T Clark
Are there any proposed experiments that could show which of locality and counterfactual definiteness is incorrect, or is it entirely dependent on an untestable interpretation? — Michael
Theorem 1. (No-go theorem for “observer-independent facts”) The following statements are incompatible (i.e., lead to a contradiction)
1. “Universal validity of quantum theory”. Quantum predictions hold at any scale, even if the measured system contains objects as large as an “observer“ (including her laboratory, memory etc.).
2. “Locality”. The choice of the measurement settings of one observer has no influence on the outcomes of the other distant observer(s).
3. “Freedom of choice”. The choice of measurement settings is statistically independent from the rest of the experiment.
4. “Observer-independent facts”. One can jointly assign truth values to the propositions about observed outcomes (“facts”) of different observers (as specified in the postulate above). — A No-Go Theorem for Observer-Independent Facts - Caslav Brukner
Problem of the criterion – you're aware of it's significance? — 180 Proof
This discussion may resemble other discussions. But my "catch" was that you said metaphysical statements can't be true or false. That is false. — god must be atheist
You talk past my point about counterfactuals. — apokrisis
Metaphysical claims are empty if they are "not even wrong" as theories. But if they claim something measurable, then you have something to compare and contrast. — apokrisis
So, a non-epistemic "true or false"? :chin:Yes, but it's an epistemological problem AFAIK. So, I wasn't asking whether, if a statement has no possibility of empirical verification, we can know it to be true or false, but whether we can know that it could not be true or false. — Janus
I would point out that the question as to whether QM has metaphysical interpretations is not itself a scientific question, which means that no matter how great your scientific knowledge, that will not put you in any better position to answer it. — Janus
because he actually understands QM — Tom Storm
And presumably he would see far more clearly than others what the actual gaps in QM are likely to be, where the science 'runs out' and the point where the metaphysical interpretations can begin. — Tom Storm
So maybe not recognizing the opportunity to go metaphysical is a feature rather than a bug. — Srap Tasmaner
So I'm back to thinking that philosophy is defined as whatever's left over, that it's whatever science hasn't been able to do much with yet. A mere science incubator — or nursery! — as it always has been. Maybe that's okay if we take that role seriously and try to raise good responsible little sciences. — Srap Tasmaner
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.