In other words, we're talking either about hypothetical explanations for physical systems¹ or about categorical interpretations² of those explanations, respectively; the latter (metaphysics) says nothing about the objects¹ of the former (physics) but only about how to construct² a 'coherent, presuppositional / systematic synopsis' of the former. — 180 Proof

The object of metaphysics is not to synopsize science. Rather, to link what is unlinked. It is the boundary of knowledge at the current limits of abstraction. Increasing technical and epistemic expertise results in a practical expansion of domains of enacted knowledge. What once was alchemy and religion and folklore becomes organic chemistry and medicine. A grand unified theory would unite the quantum and cosmic domains. It's metaphysics until it isn't.

Aristotle's First Philosophy (i.e. classical metaphysics) is my point of departure and, in that light, I disagree with your assessment and your (mis)reading of my previous post.

What once was alchemy and religion and folklore becomes organic chemistry and medicine. A grand unified theory would unite the quantum and cosmic domains. It's metaphysics until it isn't. — Pantagruel

It seems wrong to say that alchemy, religion and folklore became chemistry and medicine. In keeping with the idea of significant paradigm shifts in human thought and investigation "were replaced by chemistry and medicine" seems more apt.

I agree that what might be classed as metaphysical speculation (abductive reasoning or extrapolating imaginable possibilities) certainly plays a role in science, but I can think of no examples of metaphysics becoming science.

I can think of no examples of metaphysics becoming science. — Janus

:up:

I can think of no examples of metaphysics becoming science. — Janus

Metaphysics becomes science in the same way poetry becomes music or literature becomes dance, through a shift in modality of expression.

Metaphysics becomes science in the same way poetry becomes music or literature becomes dance, through a shift in modality of expression. — Joshs

I don't think poetry actually becomes music or literature dance, but poetry may inspire music and literature dance, just as metaphysics may inspire science.

Cribbed from public domain sources:

E. A. Burtt's book, "The Metaphysical Foundations of Modern Physical Science," published in 1924, analyzes the metaphysical and epistemological foundations of science, particularly focusing on the transition from the classical worldview to the emerging scientific worldview of the early 20th century. Burtt traces the historical development of scientific thought from the ancient Greeks highlighting the significant changes in worldview brought about by figures like Galileo, Copernicus, Newton, and others, leading to the rise of modern physical science. Burtt examines the prevailing mechanistic view of the universe that emerged during the scientific revolution. He discusses how scientists started to view the world as a vast machine governed by mathematical laws and how they sought to explain natural phenomena in terms of mechanistic processes and metaphors

He explores the epistemological foundations of science and the centrality of the concept of objectivity. He investigates how the scientific method aims to eliminate subjective biases and opinions in favor of objective observation, experimentation, and the formulation of laws based on empirical evidence.

He critically examines reductionism, the approach of reducing complex phenomena to their fundamental constituents, and materialism, the philosophical position that everything can be reduced to physical matter. He delves into the implications of these philosophical positions on the understanding of reality and the limitations they may impose on scientific inquiry.

He discusses the concepts of causality and determinism in science. He explores how the Newtonian worldview assumed a deterministic universe governed by precise cause-and-effect relationships and how subsequent developments, such as quantum mechanics, have undermined this understanding.

Burtt examines the role of mathematics in modern physics and its significance as a tool for understanding and describing the natural world. He reflects on the relationship between mathematics and reality, considering whether mathematics is merely a human invention or an inherent aspect of the universe.

Throughout the book, Burtt highlights the limitations of scientific inquiry and the boundaries of what science can explain. He emphasizes the need for a broader metaphysical framework that goes beyond science to address fundamental questions about existence, meaning, and values.

—-

Much has happened since the publication of this book, but the themes Burtt addresses are still relevant to the discussion. But I would say that the 1927 Solvay Conference coming shortly after this book was published was the watershed between modernism and post-modernism.

It seems wrong to say that alchemy, religion and folklore became chemistry and medicine. In keeping with the idea of significant paradigm shifts in human thought and investigation "were replaced by chemistry and medicine" seems more apt.

I agree that what might be classed as metaphysical speculation (abductive reasoning or extrapolating imaginable possibilities) certainly plays a role in science, but I can think of no examples of metaphysics becoming science. — Janus

That's a very interesting point. So often I've heard people say that chemistry evolved from alchemy and astronomy evolved from astrology. I'm interested in your use of the word 'replaced' as in, I imagine, 'superseded' by? What happens in this process of replacement? Are paradigm shifts still seen as an appropriate way to describe the evolution of human thought models? I wonder what the process was that led alchemy to be superseded by chemistry - was alchemy in any way foundational in this process?

I agree that what might be classed as metaphysical speculation (abductive reasoning or extrapolating imaginable possibilities) certainly plays a role in science, but I can think of no examples of metaphysics becoming science. — Janus

Metaphysics is the outside borders of science. It's an epistemological distinction. The idea that reality consists of four elements is completely erroneous. But the concept of the four elements was a metaphysical characterization of the nature of being. Just as science itself consists of metaphysical presuppositions. That metaphysical characterization was displaced when scientific understanding revealed the underlying atomic nature of all such physical phenomena. And the boundaries of metaphysics were pushed back further. Paradigm-shifting, as you described. Science more replaces metaphysics or perhaps validates a certain set of metaphysical presuppositions, I guess you would say. Then the metaphysical question gets asked at a higher level of abstraction.

Metaphysics is the outside borders of science. It's an epistemological distinction. — Pantagruel

Yep. Metaphysics reasons about possible worlds, cashing out as general logical argument. Science reasons about the actual world, cashing out in terms of models and measurements.

One grounds the other to the degree that the distinction is rather arbitrary. And indeed. they used to be combined as natural philosophy. That they seem separate is only because science has exploded as a human practice.

Of course there is then those who give another contemporary definition of metaphysics as that which enjoys the prestige of an academic discipline, but then gives them social licence to go around claiming ... anything. Especially if it puts upstart science in its place.

Do you think that the dark matter conjecture qualifies as metaphysics? It’s a conjecture based on abductive reasoning, arising from apparent contradictions between theory and empirical observation, positing the existence of an unknown force or substance which has never been, and may never be, directly observed.

Do you think that the dark matter conjecture qualifies as metaphysics? It’s a conjecture based on abductive reasoning, arising from apparent contradictions between theory and empirical observation, positing the existence of an unknown force or substance which has never been, and may never be, directly observed. — Wayfarer

Dark matter might be as bad an example as you could pick for science and it’s willingness to follow the Peicean method of rational inquiry. There is something to explain - why the observable mass density of the Universe is too light to do the job of creating the observably flat balancing act. This is cashed out in the maths of predictive theories. Science then looks and starts throwing even its favourite babies out as they fail the test - like the supersymmetry which would have been such a neat discovery for the string theory camp.

Where has science done anything but follow the book on this?

And in what sense do you think any particle or force is directly observed? Isn’t having a gravitational signature coupled to the lack of an electromagnetic one enough to say there is something to be explained?

Why the defensiveness? I’m not accusing you, or accusing science, of anything. But at this time it is a conjecture.

But at this time it is a conjecture. — Wayfarer

:roll:

[deleted]

Bottom line: the goal of metaphysics is to describe the nature of reality. Specifically, in domains that at the present time are not amenable to scientific investigation. Metaphysical inquiries however can, through conceptual analysis, reveal facts about reality leading to paradigm shifts which can broaden the possibilities of scientific investigation. Popper describes this as a 'metaphysical research program.' Dark matter is a perfect example. It isn't an observed phenomenon, it is the value of an inferred variable balancing the equations of a specific theoretical model. The Ptolemaic universe wasn't just an inaccurate physical model, it was an anthropocentric view of reality. When heliocentrism finally prevailed, it altered fundamental beliefs about the nature of man. That's why the Church opposed it so violently.

THE TITLE OF THIS POST IS HOW TO PUT TOGETHER A SYSTEM OF METAPHYSICS IN WHICH THE ONTOLOGY IS THE ISSUE.

But, for the moment, I want to address this even though it has nothing to do with the topic:

which is interchangeable with matter through said equation - was THE fundamental existent. — Wayfarer

Are you serious? The equation calls for the measure/quantity contained "in this matter" to come up with "that capacity" in joules. You're confusing identity with the equivalence.

@Pantagruel's post above is an excellent introduction to what a metaphysical system should be.

In my own thesis I define Energy as a form of Information (power to cause change in form or state), which is also a causal interrelationship (e.g. organization)*4, not a thing in itself. — Gnomon

Rule 1. Thingness is a metaphysical must have, if you're going to have an ontology. Without the thingness, it's either an accidental feature or a conditional feature which must depend on other essences for it to exist. Determinate things are what we call things in metaphysics.

Energy is not a cause". Philosopher David Hume discussed the mysteries of Causation at a time before scientists had pieced together our modern notion of Energy. He referred to the producer of causation as an "illusion"*1, but Einstein might say it is a "stubborn illusion", that there is some kind of physical "connection" between Cause & Effect*2. — Gnomon

Rule 2. Causation is at the heart of a metaphysical system -- and it is what we know as scientific causation that involves the physical/material entities. Without a thing that can cause something or in relation with causes, it has no essential existence.

Energy is not a substance, not something in the sense of “some thing”. Energy often appears to be a substance that flows, for example if charging a battery or an electrical capacitor. — Gnomon

Rule 3: The Doctrine of Haecceity. That tree is a tree. Treeness is what makes a tree a tree. Use haecceity to assign an identity to a thing. There is mindness in "mind" as explained by Descartes or Kant. If you cannot have a uniqueness of a substance, then you don't have a system. All you have is a parasite feature that cannot exist without the other features. It is a conditional existence. Haecceity also calls for the "wholeness" -- the mind is a whole thing. If you posit that the mind exists, then it is the measure of all things.

Data is defined as individual facts, while information is the organization and interpretation of those facts. — Gnomon

Rule 4: Prehension is what you are talking about and facts are what we spit out when we have enough prehension of a thing or phenomenon. We use language to put together a statement of facts. Information is our own expression of the thing that caused us to have this epistemic values. Your metaphysical system is working well if you could come up with data or information in the process of your existence. So, if the mind is the thing, then the mind perceives, makes logical connections, makes hypotheses, puts together a coherent explanation of the world.

That's a very interesting point. So often I've heard people say that chemistry evolved from alchemy and astronomy evolved from astrology. I'm interested in your use of the word 'replaced' as in, I imagine, 'superseded' by? What happens in this process of replacement? Are paradigm shifts still seen as an appropriate way to describe the evolution of human thought models? I wonder what the process was that led alchemy to be superseded by chemistry - was alchemy in any way foundational in this process? — Tom Storm

It seems reasonable to me to say, insofar, as alchemy dealt with substances, which chemistry also does, that in that sense chemistry evolved from or out of alchemy, and similarly with astrology and astronomy. But both alchemy and astrology (more so the latter) still exist as disciplines, which science does not take seriously.

So, I see it as being the case that the mainstream paradigm has shifted, and not only in those disciplines, but overall, to the kind of empirical model of investigation, observation, conjecture and experiment which characterizes science as we know it today.

The central aspect of modern science is the postulating of mechanistic causal hypothetical explanations for observed phenomena, which entail predictions about what should be observed if those hypotheses are true. Alchemy and astrology do not involve those kinds of hypotheses, so that's why I speak of a paradigm shift.

So, to answer the question as to whether alchemy was foundational in the advent of chemistry, I would say only insofar as it had enabled its practitioners to be familiar with the general characteristics of the substances it dealt with, like melting points and reactions with other substances and so on; things which can be directly observed. Same with astrology; mapping the stars and recording their movements and so on.

It seems reasonable to me to say, insofar, as alchemy dealt with substances, which chemistry also does with, that in that sense chemistry evolved from or out of alchemy, and similarly with astrology and astronomy. But both alchemy and astrology (more so the latter) still exist as disciplines, which science does not take seriously. — Janus

Cool. Sounds like we are on the same page. Of course, the Jungian view of alchemy was it was an allegory for the search for God.

Alchemy and astrology do not involve those kinds of hypotheses, so that's why I speak of a paradigm shift. — Janus

Yep, pretty sure I mostly agree with your summary.

Metaphysics is the outside borders of science. It's an epistemological distinction. The idea that reality consists of four elements is completely erroneous. But the concept of the four elements was a metaphysical characterization of the nature of being. Just as science itself consists of metaphysical presuppositions. That metaphysical characterization was displaced when scientific understanding revealed the underlying atomic nature of all such physical phenomena. And the boundaries of metaphysics were pushed back further. Paradigm-shifting, as you described. Science more replaces metaphysics or perhaps validates a certain set of metaphysical presuppositions, I guess you would say. Then the metaphysical question gets asked at a higher level of abstraction. — Pantagruel

As I said earlier I agree with Popper that metaphysical speculation can inspire scientific investigation, but I think this would only apply to metaphysical speculation which is informed by science and takes off from places where current scientific knowledge reaches its limits.

I don't agree that the idea that reality consists of four elements is completely erroneous, though, it is reflected in the modern understanding that matter can be solid, liquid, gas or plasma. The idea expresses what the ancients actually observed, different modes of phenomena.

As I said earlier I agree with Popper that metaphysical speculation can inspire scientific investigation, but I think this would only apply to metaphysical speculation which is informed by science and takes off from places where current scientific knowledge reaches its limits. — Janus

Yes, insofar as we reach the limits of current scientific capabilities. I think that the science of the mind is hitting a wall now, and that quantum physics is coming up on that same wall as far as the link between the observer and the observed.

Yes, insofar as we reach the limits of current scientific capabilities. I think that the science of the mind is hitting a wall now, and that quantum physics is coming up on that same wall as far as the link between the observer and the observed. — Pantagruel

Right, we don't know whether the observer collapses the wave function or whether it occurs all the time on account of any macroscopic interaction, or whether the collapse is even a real phenomenon or an artefact of human conceptual understanding. And I think that as long as we remain in the dualistic mode of thinking in terms of observer and observed, subjects and objects, we will never understand the real nature of things, which I tend to think is non-dual. That said I wonder whether any other mode of thought or understanding is even possible. Maybe we can instinctively 'get a feel' for the nature of things, but as soon as we try to render that feel into discursive terms the confusions, inconsistencies and aporias emerge.

Maybe we can instinctively 'get a feel' for the nature of things, but as soon as we try to render that feel into discursive terms the confusions, inconsistencies and aporias emerge. — Janus

Perhaps there is a mode of certainty that transcends discursive understanding.

Perhaps there is a mode of certainty that transcends discursive understanding. — Pantagruel

Interesting. What would be an example of this in action?

Some kind of "intellectual intuition?"

Perhaps there is a mode of certainty that transcends discursive understanding. — Pantagruel

Some kind of "intellectual intuition?" — Pantagruel

I wouldn't say "intellectual intuition" so much as well "trained and tested intuition", though admittedly some might see those as fairly synonymous. Have you read Kahneman's Thinking, Fast and Slow?

Hence the requirement for noesis, philosophical ascent. The culmination of those states is in 'seeing things as they truly are', of arriving at an insight into the totality, an epiphany or a great 'aha' moment. This is not necessarily confined to mysticism. There are episodes in the history of science where individuals had sudden noetic insights into the nature of things which lead to great breakthroughs in scientific understanding. An example would be Copernicus' realisation that the orbits of planets were elliptical whilst searching for the Platonic ideals in his observational data; Nikolai Tesla's mystical vision of the Sun and the interchangeability of matter and energy which preceeded Einstein's discovery of the same fact. There are no doubt many other examples, at least some of which resulted in the overthrow of the current paradigm. Arthur Koestler's book The Sleepwalkers contains many examples. Another I recall is Neils Bohr's insight into 'complementarity' which he regarded as a novel insight into the nature of reality, so much so that when he was awarded an Order by the King of Denmark, he designed his own coat-of-arms, which features the Ying/Yang symbol:



(source)

Some kind of "intellectual intuition?" — Pantagruel

Is there an example of such a thing you can identify? Is there anything that couldn't be justified by using such an intuitive approach?

Is there an example of such a thing you can identify? — Tom Storm

Telling a lie while believing otherwise -- your pulse betrays you. The brain sometimes has its own motivation. Hence, there are times you make mistakes in the process of executing a particular action: you forgot to turn off the light when you exited your house, you forgot to lock your door, you missed your exit on the road.

Edit: intuition is a very private conscious deliberation -- private is the key word. When you know the subject well, your intuition will also be strong, so strong that you act on it confidently.

In the sense that metaphysics and ontology are closely related, I can see the point: science has ontological foundations, like everything else. There’s no way around it.

Science was once called natural philosophy, and for good reason. I think it’s exactly that, at its core. You have to assume a naturalism, or even a materialism, to be “doing” science. The very concept of nature, of material, etc., is within the realm of metaphysics.

Maybe this is somewhat close to what you’re getting at? Otherwise I’ve not fully understood.