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
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
Metaphysics becomes science in the same way poetry becomes music or literature becomes dance, through a shift in modality of expression. — Joshs
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
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. — Pantagruel
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
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.which is interchangeable with matter through said equation - was THE fundamental existent. — Wayfarer
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.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 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 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 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.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 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.Data is defined as individual facts, while information is the organization and interpretation of those facts. — Gnomon
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 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
Alchemy and astrology do not involve those kinds of hypotheses, so that's why I speak of a paradigm shift. — 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. — 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. — 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. — Pantagruel
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. — Pantagruel
Perhaps there is a mode of certainty that transcends discursive understanding. — Pantagruel
Some kind of "intellectual intuition?" — Pantagruel
Some kind of "intellectual intuition?" — Pantagruel
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.Is there an example of such a thing you can identify? — Tom Storm
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.