Can they be productive in the way that debates among competing approaches within the economic, political or psychological sciences are productive without producing a clear ‘winner’, expect perhaps in the eye of the beholder? — Joshs
↪Tom Storm
Two previous threeads for you: Confirmable and influential Metaphysics goes into some detail concerning defining metaphysics in terms of the logical structure of propositions. Metaphysical statements are neither verifiable nor falsifiable, yet some are nevertheless meaningful and, some, true — Banno
Suppose that non-existence = unspecifiably small volume of unlimited application. — ucarr
lso ontology of becoming, or processism is an approach to philosophy that identifies processes, changes, or shifting relationships as the only true elements of the ordinary, everyday real world. It treats other real elements (examples: enduring physical objects, thoughts) as abstractions from, or ontological dependents on, processes. — ucarr
↪ucarr Isn't the issue here that no one really avoids metaphysics, no matter what position you hold? — Tom Storm
The claim that reality is described by the 'laws of physics' is itself a metaphysical claim. — Tom Storm
↪jgill So the project uses computers to pars arguments from ontology formally.
Like Russel's theory of descriptions, Wittgenstein in the Tractatus, Davidson's project, and so many others. It's an idea at the centre of analytic philosophy, to use logic to set out clearly the structure of our arguments. — Banno
Naturalism is a counterpart to theism. — Tom Storm
“… God could understand his language and his thoughts about the world, apart from any interaction with the world. (Joseph Rouse)
— Joshs
...many naturalists still implicitly understand science as aiming to take God's place. — Joshs
... — Banno
what metaphysics is legitimate? — Banno
we might proceed by having a discussion about the definition of metaphysics. And then we would be doing philosophy. — Banno
...not all metaphysics is legitimate. — Banno
I can't see how you can conceive of a small volume with unlimited application. That seems incoherent. — Metaphysician Undercover
Suppose that non-existence = unspecifiably small volume of unlimited application. — ucarr
Naturalism is a counterpart to theism.
— Tom Storm
The Natural and the Supernatural, being related by contrast (a complicated affair) don't strongly suggest themselves to me as being counterparts. — ucarr
the upshot of this discussion-within-a-discussion concerns the particularities of the interrelationship of physics_metaphysics. — ucarr
Some of what is called metaphysics is just nonsense.
Some of what is called metaphysics is integral to physics.
Some of what is called metaphysics has been clearly defined, by Popper, Watkins, etc, according to it's logical structure.
So, some of what has been called metaphysics is legitimate, some not. — Banno
Well, generally physics rests upon the assumption that the natural world can be understood and that reality is physicalist in origin — Tom Storm
and that reality is physicalist in origin. — Tom Storm
Wikipedia - Process philosophy - also ontology of becoming, or processism is an approach to philosophy that identifies processes, changes, or shifting relationships as the only true elements of the ordinary, everyday real world. It treats other real elements (examples: enduring physical objects, thoughts) as abstractions from, or ontological dependents on, processes. — ucarr
This is poorly written. If processes are the only elements of the real world, then there is no such "other real elements. Someone made a mistake writing that Wikipedia piece, and you are running away with the mistake. — Metaphysician Undercover
I can't see how you can conceive of a small volume with unlimited application. That seems incoherent. As a matter of fact, i can't see how you would conceive of anything having unlimited application. That in itself appears incoherent. — Metaphysician Undercover
Suppose that non-existence = unspecifiably small volume of unlimited application. — ucarr
Predetermination is not existence. You might like to claim some sort of principle like, only something existing could predetermine, but I think the proper position is that only something actual could act to predetermine, as cause. And it is not necessary that an act is an existent. I think that is the point of process philosophy. — Metaphysician Undercover
As I read the Wikipedia definition above, it claims that process (a fluid, dynamical phenomenon) is the principal operator in Process philosophy. — ucarr
Other operators, such as material objects and thoughts, although objectively real, hold subordinate positions of importance beneath processes. It doesn't claim processes are the only elements of the real world. Rather, the claim says there is a hierarchy with processes at the top. Are you denouncing this hierarchical definition? — ucarr
My weird language above, as definition of non-existence, exists because I'm contorting it into something that does exist in order to talk about non-existence with a semblance of rationality. When trying to talk about something non-existent, we're thrown into the paradoxical land of talking about non-existence as an existing thing. — ucarr
Whenever I see a claim of non-existence, I'm reminded of the question "Why is there not nothing?" My answer to the questioner is "Because you exist." This is a way of saying ontology has a special problem of perspective. This problem of perspective is rooted in the fact that existence is an all-encompassing ground WRT consciousness. Query presupposes consciousness, and consciousness presupposes existence. Existence, when it queries "Why existence?" presupposes itself in the asking of the question, which presupposes the ground for asking the question i.e., existence. — ucarr
Speaking linguistically, you cannot claim something doesn't exist because, in making the claim, you posit the existence of the thing denied existence. Coming from another direction, when you deny the existence of something, that denial contradicts itself.
All of this folderol is a way of saying conscious beings cannot think themselves out of existence, nor can they think material objects out of existence.
When you say "Predetermination is not existence." I suppose you want to say something parallel to saying "Unicorns don't exist." Unicorns do exist as thoughts, as proven by the denial. — ucarr
By way of summary of what I have said:
Some of what is called metaphysics is just nonsense.
Some of what is called metaphysics is integral to physics.
Some of what is called metaphysics has been clearly defined, by Popper, Watkins, etc, according to it's logical structure.
So, some of what has been called metaphysics is legitimate, some not. — Banno
Some of what is called metaphysics is integral to physics. — Banno
Since things, or objects, are what we attribute "existence" — Metaphysician Undercover
Since things, or objects, are what we attribute "existence" to, then form this perspective there is activity which is prior to existence. — Metaphysician Undercover
.Is the above an example of physics masquerading as metaphysics, or is it an example of authentic metaphysics sharing fundamentals with physics? — ucarr
I do not know how you distinguish top from bottom in your analysis... — Metaphysician Undercover
...process philosophy puts processes at the bottom, as the foundation for, and prior to, existence. And not only that, it is processes all the way up. That's the point of process philosophy. The appearance of "an object" is just an instance of stability in a system of processes, such that there is a balance or equilibrium (symmetry perhaps), of processes. — Metaphysician Undercover
Your approach defeats your proposed purpose of "rationality" by causing contradiction. If it is the case, that we can only talk about existent things, and because of this you are inclined to define the non-existent as existent, so that you can talk about non-existence, then your approach is producing contradiction. You need to change your approach, and allow yourself to talk about non-existent things as well as existent things, to avoid this contradiction which you have just forced onto yourself. This means that you need to redefine "exist", to allow that we talk about non-existent things as well, because you find yourself inclined to talk about nonexistence. — Metaphysician Undercover
This is a good example of the deficiency in your approach. You create a vicious circle between consciousness and existence, which traps you, and incapacitates you from understanding. That's what happens if you define one term (consciousness) with reference to another (existence), then turn around and invert this by defining the latter (existence) with reference to the former (consciousness). — Metaphysician Undercover
...the better way to proceed is to use increasingly broad (more general) terms, always assigning logical priority to the broader term. So for example, we can say "human being" is defined with "mammal", which is defined with "animal", which is defined with "living", and then "existing". In this way we do not get a vicious circle. And we can avoid an infinite regress by moving to substantiate, that is, to make reference to individuals. — Metaphysician Undercover
This is like asking if physics masquerades as linguistic conceptualization, or if linguistic conceptualization shares fundamentals with physics. Of course, the answer is that these are not separate, potentially overlapping domains. Rather, the former is the pre -condition for the latter. Therencan be no physics without linguistic conceptualization, and there can be no physics without metaphysics mad it’s condition of possibility. — Joshs
It's not really true this, because a physicist can be dualist, and believe that God created the universe — Metaphysician Undercover
If you're saying metaphysical physics is the necessary pre-condition for physical physics, then how do you explain away the physical brain observing the physical earth being a ground for not only the discipline of physics, but also the ground for cerebration populated by metaphysical notions?
Is this an argument that grounds existence upon language (and thus grounds language upon itself, which reflexivity is an origin ontology puzzle)? I smell the presence of idealism herein. — ucarr
If you're not interested in QM, then your lens for viewing physicalism is probably Newtonian, and thus your POV predates the 20th century. — ucarr
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.