I think the idea that science adequately explains things is probably an illusion or complacency in the same way some religious people believe there religion is the only guide needed for Life. — Andrew4Handel

Yes. We need each other. However, counterbalance, equilibrium and detente are difficult. They require skill of negotiation and compromise.

Camus said: "There is but one truly serious philosophical problem and that is suicide" — Andrew4Handel

Philosophy at its core, one might argue, concerns wisdom about living the good life. If suicide per Camus is the philosophical problem, then his character bore the stamp of deepest skepticism.

I think questions arise at least partly through discontent. Would we have any progress scientific artistic or otherwise if people were content? — Andrew4Handel

I think part of the irony of success is how it breeds discontent.

After success, the terrifying question looms: "Now what?" The terror in living is how it is an unspooling skein of "Now whats?"

You've been giving me some clear and meaningful answers. I appreciate your candor. Your thinking on these issues is helping me with my thinking about same.

I don't use the word soul or any substitute for it. It's a non starter for me, a poetic or historical term — Tom Storm

Okay. For you soul has no practical use or, at least, no practical use within scientific or philosophical contexts.

A soul is an imperishable essence, so it has no role I can think of in fragility or frailty. — Tom Storm

I think the word human is a synonym for frailty - but also for resilience. — Tom Storm

Given your above understandings, is it reasonable to conclude they suggest you might regard the pairing: human soul as being a contradiction, an oxymoron?

If a friend active within an intersubjective community to which you also belong should happen to say "Intersubjective agreement is the soul of worthy codes of conduct." would you find such usage acceptable? — ucarr

I would say, what do you mean? Perhaps what is intended in that sentence is: 'Intersubjective agreement is the substance of all codes of conduct.' — Tom Storm

Okay. If another person uses soul to mean {something ≠ human soul}, but instead something like substance, would find such usage tolerable?

A soul is an imperishable essence... — Tom Storm

Regarding essence, I understand the word as having two main attributes: a) unavoidable; b) invariant. What do you say?

I am beginning to think that philosophy is a cry for help trying to make sense of the world we have been thrown into. — Andrew4Handel

If you were tasked with putting words to such a cry for help, what words would you use?

In my earlier response to you I was referring to a person's moral or emotional nature or sense of identity — ucarr

Then the word 'soul' is of no practical use. — Tom Storm

Are you rejecting soul in favor of other words you regard as more appropriate labels for perishable human identity such as: mortal, frail, fragile, delicate, finite, terminable etc?

The fact that humans, like animals, can be run over or shot or harmed emotionally points to any number of things, 'soul' not being one which springs out to me. — Tom Storm

I assumed Ucarr was referring to moral facts from a mysterious and transcendent source. — Tom Storm

Is there any context, set of circumstances or the like in which soul could work as a practical label you could accept?

I don't have good reason to think there are moral truths or moral facts - just intersubjective or communities of agreement about behaviours - codes of conduct if you like, which vary according to context and culture. — Tom Storm

If a friend active within an intersubjective community to which you also belong should happen to say "Intersubjective agreement is the soul of worthy codes of conduct." would you find such usage acceptable?

Scientific theories are a somewhat different kettle of fish. It is true that they don’t always get thrown out when their limitations are revealed and can remain useful for specific purposes. — Ludwig V

Newtonian physics in the wake of Relativity.

I can’t help feeling that there is a difference between Knowledge (“what is known”) – I would argue this is a variant of the concept - and people knowing things – I would argue that this is the basic use. — Ludwig V

I acknowledge the truth of your above distinction. I think one useful measurement of the difference between the two categories is duration. Knowledge-the-variant and knowledge-the-basic differ in how long a certain type of knowing has been accepted and established. Knowledge-the-variant I will generalize as being of longer duration than Knowledge-the-basic.

• For example: knowledge stones roll downhill is presumably older than knowledge France and Belgium have a border.

Another useful measurement of their difference is scope of application.

• Presumably more people in more places know stones roll downhill than people who know France and Belgium have a border.

The idea of scope is interesting. I’m not quite clear how it would apply to the everyday knowledge that epistemology usually discusses. — Ludwig V

The hostess at your favorite restaurant seats you at a booth. As you peruse the menu, you hear a woman talking in the adjacent booth. Within seconds you recognize her voice as belonging to Hermione. Hermione! She's the peachy girl you'll be asking to the prom at school tomorrow. Next moment, you hear the voice of Beatrice, your older sister. The two women are good friends in spite of the age difference. That's how you've enjoyed good looks at Hermione at home and, moreover, know she's quite mature for her age. "I've got a strong feeling he'll ask me to prom tomorrow." "I toldja. Whenever you come over to visit, he can't stay out of the living room. " "Maybe it's 'cause he's gotta use the unabridged dictionary. He's always hitting the books." "Ha! Ha! Ha! The dictionary is a cover. And, it's a good vantage point for catching glances at you in all of those smart outfits you never fail to wear on visits to our house. Ah! You're blushing." As you sink down in your seat, not wanting to be caught eavesdropping on the bestest girl in the world, you start thinking. "So, dad's refurbished Mustang and last year's tux were gonna be just fine for the prom, huh? Oh, I wish I knew yesterday what I know today! Now that I'm assured of getting Hermione for the prom, gotta get a top-of-the-line tux and I'm also renting a black Dodge Challenger SRT Hellcat!"

In Enactivism, cognition arises through a dynamic interaction between an acting organism and its environment. The environment of an organism is brought about, or enacted, by the active exercise of the organism itself. Living beings and their environments stand in relation to each other through mutual specification or co-determination. — RussellA

Is it your belief that human mind and physical world enact and maintain an ecological handshake?

• Do human mind and physical world create together a Venn Diagram of an overlap, which is to say, a portion of each identity blended into a shared identity? As I eat the earth I become the earth? As I work the earth the earth becomes me?

do you believe that mind independent world conveys to your mind its contents without any intentions whatsoever? — ucarr

Yes. If a raindrop hits a leaf and moves the leaf, there is no intention on the raindrop's part to move the leaf. — RussellA

Is it your belief that rainfall in the rainforest that grows the plants results from random forces such as air currents, barometric pressure, temperature and the seasons?

I know beyond doubt is that for every effect there is a cause, in that self-causation is not possible, and that there is a world outside my mind, in that I am not a Solipsist. — RussellA

Is it your belief the world caused you?

Therefore, I know beyond doubt my sensations, I know beyond doubt these sensations as effects have had a cause, and I know beyond doubt some of these causes are external to my mind. — RussellA

Okay. So external world causes some of your sensations.

I may experience the colour red in my mind, and intellectually question whether in fact I really am experiencing the colour red, but no amount of intellectual musing will alter my visceral knowledge that I know beyond doubt that I am experiencing the colour red. — RussellA

Is it your belief your brain causes some of your visceral knowledge -- I know I'm seeing red. -- a priori without any help from external world?

So, there's a handshake between you and external world. The sense impressions of your sensory mind result from that handshake. Your rational mind, however, operates independently of mindless external world, creating knowledge of sense impressions a priori.

Do you find the above summary acceptable?

What is a soul? Are you referring to an immortal/immaterial essence as per Aquinas? — Tom Storm

soul | sōl |
noun
1 the spiritual or immaterial part of a human being or animal, regarded as immortal.
• a person's moral or emotional nature or sense of identity

2 emotional or intellectual energy or intensity, especially as revealed in a work of art or an artistic performance -- The Apple Dictionary

In my earlier response to you I was referring to a person's moral or emotional nature or sense of identity

Let's look at numbers, morals, the human brain and the world.

• We look at material objects and count them on our fingers. From doing this we say numbers describe the world around us.

• We look at human individuals behaving and we make judgments about right and wrong behavior. From this judgment we say morals describe the world of human behavior. Also, we say, because morals describe, qualitatively, human behavior, moral concepts can prescribe, via the law, acceptable/unacceptable behavior

Do you think moral truth, as perceived and understood by humans, is local to the human brain, or does it also have a presence in the world independent of human cognition?

Soul is the heart of vulnerability — ucarr

I'm not sure this means anything, unless you force it to. What, in this sentence, are the words 'heart' or 'vulnerability' referring to? — Tom Storm

Heart -- Remember how you told your best pal Marty in high school that Ruthie was your dream girl in this momentary lapse to insanity you even divulged hot summer night the week before classes started back how you woke from a Ruthie dream at three a.m. feeling that wet stain in your pajama pants and even had to make up story to mama concerning your late night lemonade run to the fridge with spilling to explain the soaked pajama crotch you steeped and wrung out before retuning to sack?

And then in hallway going to next class next day Luther, star school jock ribs you with "Hey, Georgie Porgie sweet on Ruthie wants an orgy. I'll make your orgy Georgie Peorgie!" "Naw, man!" You say when suddenly Marty says "Yeah, Georgie -- I mean, George. You love Ruthie dream girl, boy!" ?

And then you grab Marty's collar enough to throttle him down to hell as he falls dying choking on the linoleum the hottest chicks Midge and Miriam crack up as you turn not red but death-purple?

That's heart, man. The secret chamber padlocked and barricaded. It's the place at where we are really.

Well, where there's heart there's vulnerable. Matched set. Twins. Thaied for life.

Vulnerable -- simply means you can die. You can be embarassed, hurt, throttled, crushed, smashed, murdered, killed, annihilated -- did I mention destroyed?

Simple Test -- Wanna know if a soul you got? Ask yourself one question: Am I vulnerable?

...people are still looking for a soul. Its not really a philosophical discussion, but a faith based and emotional discussion. Once neuroscience ends that avenue, I'm sure people will look elsewhere. — Philosophim

Soul is the part of you that truly believes
Soul-belief comes to children naturally
After childhood it threatens to slip our grasp
Soul is the heart of vulnerability

I write the above four lines hoping they'll bring a response from you

...everything I know exists in my mind. — RussellA

Only the contents of your mind hold the status of knowledge?

I believe that there is a world that exists independently of my mind. — RussellA

I also believe that within this world that exists independently of my mind, there are other minds, such as John's and Mary's. — RussellA

Everything external to your mind holds the status of belief?

Is your belief Justified True Belief (JTB)?

My belief is that this something external to our minds is not another mind but is mind-independent. — RussellA

Do you believe the contents of your mind depend upon the mind-independent world as their source?

Do you believe the mind independent world, not being a mind itself, cannot and therefore does not know itself? {Acknowledgement -- For the mind independent world, not being a mind itself, "itself" is meaningless.}

If you believe the mind independent world is the source of the contents of your mind, but is not itself a mind, do you also believe the mind independent world cannot and therefore does not know you exist?

If your answer to the above is "yes," do you also believe the link goes in one direction only (mind independent world to RussellA's mind) and, moreover, do you believe that mind independent world conveys to your mind its contents without any intentions whatsoever?

Not having put out milk last full moon doesn't justify a belief that fairies exist and cursed his cabbages.

Whereas seeing something that looks like a cow in his field may justify his belief that there is a cow in his field. — Michael

Does the context in which the {observation ⇒ analysis ⇒ conclusion} unfolds play a critical role in the scope of the truth content of the JTB?

Can we reasonably support the scope of truth of a belief as valid by acknowledging the context of the OAC {observation ⇒ analysis ⇒ conclusion} is limited?

The above question is suggested to me by knowing all theories limit the scope of truth they posit conditionally against future additional OAC.

My generalization is that historical progress of knowledge tells us that for any given present day: knowledge has limited scope and is therefore conditional.

...understanding is of concepts that only exist in the mind... — RussellA

...governments don't exist in a mind-independent world. — RussellA

...understanding can only ever be a better understanding of the concepts existing in our mind and can never be an understanding of what in a mind-independent world caused these concepts in the mind. — RussellA

You have concluded our world is mind-independent?

You've lost me. — 180 Proof

Let's revisit a couple of my communications.

'Topics in epistemology' (re: e.g. truth, know vs opinion, etc) comes later once philosophizing has begun in earnest and, IMO, themselves do not, cause us to philosophize. — 180 Proof

When a philosopher is working in topics in epistemology, s/he is doing philosophy. That you believe this you make clear by declaring topics in epistemology come later once philosophizing has begun in earnest. When you follow this by declaring, IMO, topics in epistemology themselves do not cause us to philosophize, you appear to contradict your prior statement that working in topics in epistemology occurs once philosophizing has begun in earnest.

If, when a philosopher does work in topics in epistemology, this work, once it's underway, exemplifies philosophizing in earnest, as you claim, but then you next claim that, IMO, topics in epistemology themselves do not cause a philosopher to philosophize, then you need to further unpack this statement with a clarifying explanation. Without a clarifying explanation, I claim your statement is a self-contradiction.

Since what I say here, like what I said previously, is easy to understand, if you continue to plead non-comprehension, I will conclude your plea is a pretense that enables you to avoid acknowledging self-contradiction.

Reality is ineluctable and, therefore, discourse/cognition–invariant. — 180 Proof

My response to this claim, in short, says it's nature viewed through the lens of rigid determinism, thus giving the claimant power to deny varieties of perception of nature. This leads straight into viewing topics in metaphysics with the same rigid determinism.

Can you unpack the quote? Also, can you cite its source?

The Pyrrhonist argument is quite simple and as powerful. For every thesis an equal and opposite antithesis (adiaphora). The scale of truth is perfectly balanced at the center. Hence epoché, post-aporia. — Agent Smith

Appears to me skepticism has a mathematical structure akin to the cancellation of opposite charges resulting in zero. Since zero in isolation is impractical, philosophy with practical content must be irrational.

...philosophy... begins when we question our assumptions and givens. — 180 Proof

The above quote is how I boil down your statement to its essentials.

philosophy – reflective thinking – begins when... — 180 Proof

The above quote I understand to be synonymous with: Philosophy = reflective thinking. This can be restated as: Philosophy = deep thought.

'Topics in epistemology' (re: e.g. truth, know vs opinion, etc) comes later once philosophizing has begun in earnest and, IMO, themselves do not, cause us to philosophize. — 180 Proof

I read the syntax of the above quote as having 'Topics in epistemology' as the antecedent of themselves and thus I get: 'Topics in epistemology...' themselves do not, cause us to philosophize.

There might be a problem of contradiction because the sentence first claims topics in epistemology come later once philosophizing has begun in earnest, and then it says topics in epistemology themselves do not cause us to philosophize.

If topics in epistemology don't get underway until philosophizing has begun in earnest, and if topics in epistemology exemplify philosophizing (I think they do), then to follow that by saying topics in epistemology themselves do not cause us to philosophize appears to be contradiction.

However, this appearance of contradiction might be dispelled if you can say what precludes topics in epistemology from causing philosophizing after it has begun in earnest.

Reality is ineluctable and, therefore, discourse/cognition–invariant. — 180 Proof

The encompassing of reason that necessarily cannot itself be encompassed by reasoning, — 180 Proof

The real encompasses reason (Jaspers) and itself cannot be encompassed (Spinoza / Cantor) ... like 'the void within & by which all atoms swirl' (Epicurus). — 180 Proof

Reality is that which does not require "faith" and is the case regardless of what we believe. — 180 Proof

I read your definitions of "real" as follows:

Reality is inescapable because it subsumes the total being of sentients within its larger-than-sentience domain.

Reality is the acid test of the scope of sentient knowledge and understanding because the former is totally super-ordinate to the latter.

Reality is ontically independent of sentience. Humans, for example, cannot create themselves because self-creation would entail creation of a context for self, which is to say, self-creation would entail the concomitant of creation of reality, an impossibility given its permanent super-ordination of sentience.

Reality is totally stifling WRT to individuality of perception and WRT to self-determination of identity because there is one and one only nature of reality, and thus reasoned discussion and its understanding are confined to an absolute determinism thereof.

Philosophy, IMO, begins (again and again) wherever the question "How do we know our assumptions are true or our givens are real?" predominates like an itch that grows as we scratch it. — 180 Proof

As I understand it, your above statement claims the question therein seeks a way, a manner or a means of knowing our acceptances-without-proof are real.

Objectivist is one way of defining "real."

objectivism (noun) philosophy - the belief that the things of the natural world, especially moral truths, exist independently of human knowledge or perception of them.



What's your way of defining "real?"

How do we know our assumptions are true or our givens are real? — 180 Proof

Is it incorrect to characterize the above question as a spark igniting epistemological inquiry? — ucarr

No, ex mea sententia, no! — Agent Smith

I take you to mean (because of the double-negative) it is correct to understand:

How do we know our assumptions are true or our givens are real? — 180 Proof

as a question that sparks the epistemological project of philosophy.

There is, however, a caveat:

However, though the objective is knowledge (theoretical and practical, re sophia), philosophy is also the realization that the epsitemological [sic] project it has undertaken is futile, bound to fail). — Agent Smith

A general truth about the epistemological project, then, has it bound by the mathematical concept of the limit. The philosopher-as-knowledge-detective makes an ever-progressing approach to the goal of certain knowledge without arrival.

I myself adopt what I call an ad interim weltanschauung/philosophy (stick to appearances; those who promise ultimate truths are usually charlatans... — Agent Smith

Per your view, Agent Smith, philosophy vis-a-vis knowledge stays confined within the bounds of an insuperable skepticism. Moreover, your skepticism is coupled with a sardonic jeering at claims to penetrate the world of appearances with counter-intuitive insights. Like a savvy gumshoe, you regulate your beliefs with a worldview that, in parallel with a floatation device, keeps you in hover mode around promising candidates for truth claims yet non-committal.

Like @unenlightened once remarked, a brilliant observation, "I treat dreams as real until I wake up." :fire: — Agent Smith

With his clever approach to self-mockery, wittily characterizing himself as a would-be adept, @unenlightened puts the steamed milk into your latte.

"How do we know our assumptions are true or our givens are real?" — 180 Proof

Is it incorrect to characterize the above question as a spark igniting epistemological inquiry?

Its predomination as an itch that grows as we scratch is not an investigation of what distinguishes justified belief from opinion?

Its expansion does not encompass both truth content of particulars and precepts about general attributes of truth?

Philosophy, IMO, begins (again and again) wherever the question "How do we know our assumptions are true or our givens are real?" predominates like an itch that grows as we scratch it. — 180 Proof

Philosophy occurs when a community permits discourses that question its truth and necessity.

Philosophy, IMO, begins (again and again) wherever the question "How do we know our assumptions are true or our givens are real?" predominates like an itch that grows as we scratch it.
— 180 Proof

:up: — Baden

So the spark of philosophy is epistemological and philosophers are knowledge detectives?

...philosophy is life.
— ucarr
Philosophy Is Comedy.
— ucarr

Divine comedy therefore. — unenlightened

:grin: Flattery comes unexpected. Thank-you for putting my name near your beautiful thought.

An equation is gibberish for those who aren't meant to utilize it's final product. And rightfully so. — Outlander

Day-old bread for the rabble.

Philosophy is like one of those small mock-up towns, complete with dummy occupants equipped with sensors, and gas station, and convenience stores, and a children's park, etc., constructed specifically to test the destructive power of atomic bombs (critical thinking). — Agent Smith

Long stretch of time with dozens of mock-ups getting vaporized until, one fateful day, the atomic hurricane knocks the latest Hooterville sideways and... it stays upright, un-vaporized. Influx of residents as real estate values skyrocket. Join the cocktail party chit-chat and you're bound to hear someone say, "Are you cotton to the latest take on being post-modern? Gender phantasia!"

I've wondered what happens to those when a philosopher loses them. Now I see where they end up. — jgill

Oh, yeah! Aspirant philosopher-in-training knuckles down with his grandfather-to-thumb-acer (all black, of course). Thinks he's gonna win! And yea! Pulls it off! Grand prize, all-expenses-paid vacation in the The Twilight Zone.

[ ... ] Without laughter there is no Dao. — Laozi

Sword of truth!

...the overarching notion that humans can arrive at ultimate truth does make me laugh... — Tom Storm

It makes everybody laugh. :rofl:

Funny how? How is philosophy funny? Like a clown? — Joshs

Aw, man! You almost got me!

Proper philosophy which concerns itself with a logical solution to a problem divested of ego is much more serious. — Philosophim

What you say is true. The big "however" is no human (like me) is logical all of the time nor entirely without ego. :rofl:

Philosophy is just a form of critical thinking — dclements

Agreed. Can we also make space for a bit of imagination?

...not a lot of people know how to do it well nowadays as we are too often forced to act without really thinking about what we are doing. — dclements

Yes. Info overload.

This is likely more true for people in the US than other places in the world. — dclements

R-O-C-K-IN-THE-U-S-A! - Faster_smarter_better; condensed books; one-minute eggs; Cliff Notes; NFL highlight reels; motel rooms by the hour; muscle cars; fast food...

https://youtu.be/9p3DzUwxI0o

Well, for me, philosophy is inherently absurdist rather than comedic (even though most philosophizers are clowns). — 180 Proof

:ok: :smile:

I didn't even get one laugh out of the Critique of Pure Reason. — Baden

:clap: :grin:

Okay. The ace is a high card that can also be used as a low card with value of 1.

Aces are not ones... — Metaphysician Undercover

In most Western card games, the numeral 1 is designated ace and marked A accordingly. In games based on the superiority of one rank over another, such as most trick-taking games, the ace counts highest, outranking even the king. In games based on numerical value, the ace normally counts 1, as in cribbage, or 11, as an option in blackjack. In games based on arranging cards into ordered series, such as rummy, it may count either high or low or even both (as in a “round-the-corner” sequence such as Q-K-A-2-3). -- Britannica.Com

In Poker, the Ace is the highest card and the 2 card (Deuce) is the lowest. However, the Ace can also be used as a low card, with the value of 1. -- wsop.com

In Poker, the value of the ace is on a switch between highest card/lowest card. Which side of the switch is chosen by agreement prior to beginning of play.

An extension of the switch can be argued when numbers on the number line are viewed as being existential. Since this perspective on numbers destabilizes value as based on position, every number on the number line is on a highest card/lowest card switch by agreement, thus making the value of a given number arbitrary and axiomatic.

I can say axiomatic because through the lens of existential numbers, it's self-evident that an infinite line of positions unranked can be ranked axiomatically by agreement.

Something akin to this is demonstrated by the motion of a material object through surrounding space. Many -- perhaps infinite -- positions are open to the positioning-by-motion of the material object because those positions are unranked by any kind of physical difference that makes one position more-or-less attainable than another.

The point, as small one, is that there is a distinction between stipulating a rule and taking it as self-evident. — Banno

Yes. What you say is true.

My word game here -- not generally valid -- contextualizes stipulating a rule under the super-ordination of an arbitrary governing rule -- aces are the highest card -- that analytically equates by decree stipulation a = self-evident truth. A parallel is when a judge decrees that the jury disregard evidence they've already heard. Under this analytical artifice, hearing evidence = not hearing evidence. The equation is false, but the governing rule compels human subjects to act as if it were true.

The above sophistry, I expect, would be upheld in any court wherein the deuce-holder might try to claim a winning hand.



This tells us that {stipulated rule ≠ self-evident rule} is not a simple inequality, but rather a negotiable inequality under the hierarchy of super-ordination-by-consensus, an actionable edict therefore legal in court.

This tells us that 2 is greater than 1 along the cardinal_ordinal axis; along the existential axis, however, all points on the number line are equal. (It's the same argument in our US Constitution: all humans are existentially equal: the most physically_mentally incapacitated habituè of intensive care exists no less than the most thoroughly endowed polymath at the prestigious university.

Now we know that the claim {2>1} is conditional and, moreover, the condition of its superiority -- in the context of our example -- is precluded by one of the rules defining the game of poker.

No, not the axiom! Being axiomatic is considered being self-evident; but it is clearly not self-evident that aces beat two's! Nor is it something that cannot be questioned - it might have been otherwise, it is not a necessary truth! — Banno

By my argument above, I can claim existential equality of one point on the number line with respect to any other point on the number line. That {2>1}, or that {1>2} are equally logically debatable claims by force of existential equality.

By my argument above, I can claim existential equality of one point on the number line with respect to any other point on the number line ⇒ {1>2} and {2>1} are moot.

From here I can proceed to the claim that it is self-evidently true that existentially equal numbers have cardinal_ordinal inter-relations that are moot with respect to size.

What you say is true. I must publicly acknowledge defeat.

I will, however, quibble as an exercise in futility in the following manner:

It's just that if you would play poker, you have to accept that aces beat two's. — Banno

This tells us the deuce-holding opponent in your example is playing Devil's Advocate for kicks, or doesn't know the game of Poker, which probably means the game couldn't've have gotten underway in the first place, which means your example, beyond the abstract, is dubious.

Alternatively, when the deuce-holder yells,"two is greater than one, a pair of twos beats a pair of aces," I yell "aces high!" Deuce-holder then yells, "numbers don't lie!" I then yell, "legal stipulations trump common sense!"

Furthermore, when a stipulation is common law by consensus and thus by a socially mandated definition, poker players, being savvy to "aces high!" by presupposition, must equate the stipulation with self-evident truth via the cognitive imperative of poker-as-defined.

I await your response to this word-salad.

P.S. I know it's pettifogging trench-fighting on my part. I think I could, in a courtroom, force a stalemate. What do you think?

... to infer a truth claim about how the world works — ucarr

For me, that's physics, not metaphysics. — 180 Proof

Can you write a flow chart showing the continuity extending from the five products of metaphysics (you listed: {categories, paradigms, criteria, methods, interpretations}) to the everyday world?

↪ucarr I don't follow any of this. — 180 Proof

Whaddya mean you don't follow? In making my explanation, I hewed to a close replication of your definition of metaphysics. I took in your definition and repeated it back to you in my own voice. This is meant to show I'm learning from what you communicated to me.

The reason I know a person uses a first-principle model (paradigm) to infer a truth claim about how the world works is because you taught the lesson to me.

Yes. I did add my two cents at the end. What's the mystery -- or incoherence -- about it? In order for a sign to point the way to wisdom, it must in itself be wise WRT to what it points toward. If you tell me you don't understand that small point, I can only say, once again, "Whaddya mean you don't follow?

Parsing precisely finely shaded distinctions of meanings between complex terms is your forté, not mine.

What is to count as proof here? In the end, you might just have to maintain that this is how we play the game... — Banno

Oh, yeah. The axiomatic, the limit of reasoned argument.

...metaphysics consists of categorical inquiries into reality... — 180 Proof

The resulting categories, paradigms, criteria, methods, interpretations constitute reflective ways of 'being in the world' (or world-making)... — 180 Proof

Proceeding from the conclusion of the above quotes, it seems reasonable to understand the five terms listed as guidelines-by-example that suggest how one might make his/her way through the world with a grasp of actionable truth that has has been modeled conceptually. After reflection upon these models, the enlightened person embarks upon principled empirical journeys through the everyday world of society.

For these reasons I say that a first principle is a signpost. Moreover, in its action of pointing towards a truth claim, signpost must embody a truth-claim-as-directive pointing towards a truth claim.

I think the first-principle truth claim is an epiphenomenon of the empirical truth claim because the former has no causal influence upon the latter.

Does this tell me that a charge can be considered fractional in a ratio with another charge but not ontically fractional in of itself? — ucarr

You still haven't defined what you mean by 'ontically fractional', so the question is unanswerable. — noAxioms

An ontically fractional electric charge is my attempt to describe an energy field that can only be accurately mathematically modeled to experimental observation by assignment of a fraction, and not by an integer.

The numbers assigned to the charges of various things are just conventions. — noAxioms

Given this convention, could someone, by convention alone, assign -1/2, -1/3, -1/4... as numbers assigned to the charges of various elementary particles?

Since a field by definition covers all of space, it would not seem to have a boundary. — noAxioms

Does it follow from this that what we call the gravitational field of the earth and the gravitational field of its moon are really one gravitational field?

I've not heard any suggestion of a 4th macroscopic spatial dimension. It only takes 3 coordinates to define any point in space, so you'd have to demonstrate that to be incorrect. — noAxioms

Does this tell me the hypercube is not a real entity, just an imaginary object of science fiction?

The holographic theory of the universe -- along with the event horizon surrounding a black hole -- adds complexity to the facts about the location of a material object in proximity to extreme gravitation.

Susskind's debate with Hawking re: the conservation of energy of material objects consumed by a black hole and the claims black holes are animate and eventually evaporate add complexity to the facts about where things are ultimately within spacetime.