RE: To What Extent Can Metaphysics Be Eliminated From Philosophy?
SUBTOPIC: Alternative Consideration
⁜→ Agent Smith, et al,

(OPPOSING VIEW). There have been many sound and valid alternatives on the definition of Metaphysics. But I believe this equation is invalid. Metaphysics is not that simple, certainly not as simple as conceiving what 11 dimensions would look like. It is not any more simple, and maybe even more so, than string theory. If anyone here thinks they understand Quantum Mechanics, well they need to think again. And I think that Metaphysics is at that level of difficulty.


(COMMENT)

There is no scientific explanation for the Three-dimensional → life-size image found embedded on the Shroud of Turin a two-dimensional medium. You can argue about what the image represents and it can stand alone outside any religious platform → in a secular fashion. However, you cannot deny that the shroud contains intelligent content of a 3-D Image that could be nearly 2000 years old. The imagery cannot be replicated using today's technology.

Now, the examination and study of the shroud is the examination of Empirical Evidence. It is provided us with apriori (from a much earlier time) knowledge that is beyond today's technology. It can be examined by all the cornerstone sciences (Math, Chemistry, Biology, and Physics), and still defy an explanation for its existence. That is an example of the realm of Metaphysics.

Most Respectfully,
R

RE: “Supernatural” as an empty, useless term
SUBTOPIC: Definition and conveyed Meaning.
⁜→ et al,

“Supernatural” means above and beyond the natural world. — ”Art48”

Thinking of “Supernatural” as an empty, useless term is possible if and when you think that, by natural explanations, you are able to exhaust all that we need to know, essentially, about something. — ”Angelo Cannata”

The fact that we don't know the limits of the natural doesn't matter - supernatural is a provisional term — ”Tom Strom”

But that which manifests in reality and that which are mere manifestations of a curious human imagination regarding that which is currently misunderstood or is currently unknown, should never be conflated. — ”universeness”

Supernatural should refer to super nature, such as Stars and Solstices. — ”Varde”

Science can do without the term and just study phenomena, but then has to replace indistinguishable 'man and nature' with indistinguishable 'subjective and objective', or indistinguishable 'observer and observation'.

Thus if 'supernatural' refers to nothing, 'natural' refers to everything, and both terms lose their meaning.

To deny meaning to "supernatural" is equivalent to claiming that "all is one" (all is natural), which, ironically, is very much the cry of the mystic. — ”unenlightened"

It looks like the supernatural refers to a class of things/phenomena that defies natural (read scientific) explanation. — ”Agent Smith”

Seems to me the word "supernatural" can more or less be replaced with "unknown" without incurring any informative loss. — ”jorndoe”

‘Miracles are not against nature, but against what we know of nature’
~ St Augustine — ”Wayfarer”

(COMMENT)

The utility and definition (meaning) of the term "supernatural" is a matter of "context." The intention of the term is very dependent on what the communicator intended to convey and what the receiver of the communication actually understands.

I think, for the most part, all the contributors made some very thought-provoking commentary.

Excluding the introduction of "Dark Energy/Matter" and "Exotic Particles" or the duality (wave vs particle) concepts of the supernatural component, which most religions have, imply some tangible aspect (detectable energy) acting as a cause. IF you can "see" an apparition THEN there is some form of energy involved. That is true even if the energy is divinely inspired. And that is where the natural laws of the universe become ensnarled. The Abrahamic Religions have foundational beliefs that involve the supernational (and sometimes alchemy). In Matthew 14:13-21, there is a description of a compound event in which both the supernatural and alchemy seemed to have been enterlaced.
____________________________________________________________
CONTEXTUAL SUPPORT NOTES

David Hume defined the term "MIRACLE" as a violation of a law of
nature by a supernatural agent. (Dictionary of Philosophy of Religion Copyright © 2010 Charles Taliaferro, Elsa J. Marty and contributors, pp151 )

SUPERNATURAL From the Latin super, “above” and natura, “nature.” Refers to God or gods or incorporeal agents such as angels or demons. Because “supernatural” is sometimes associated with the “superstitious,” some use the term “supra-natural” to refer to God and/or other realities that are beyond corporeal, cosmic agents. (Dictionary of Philosophy of Religion Copyright © 2010 Charles Taliaferro, Elsa J. Marty and contributors, pp222 )

COSMOLOGICAL PRINCIPLE [astronomy] (1) The universe is uniform, homogeneous, and isotropic* (2) The presence of intelligent life on Earth places limits on the many ways the universe could have developed and could have caused the conditions of temperature that prevails today.5 (3) Our existence necessarily puts some constraints on the evolution of the universe.^ (4) Associated anthropic coincidences support the thesis that God exists and does not support supernaturalism."
(Dictionary of scientific principles / by Stephen Marvin Copyright © 2011 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc. pp60)

ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE [astronomy, genetics](Brandon Carter, b. 1942; theoretical physicist, British mathematician) (1) The nature of the universe is constrained because of our presence as observers. (2) Life, even if abundant on many worlds, is only an infinitesimal portion of t h e cosmos. The presence of intelligent life on Earth places limits on the many ways the universe could have developed and could have caused t h e prevailing conditions. (Dictionary of scientific principles / by Stephen Marvin Copyright © 2011 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc. pp9)

Most Respectfully,
R

RE: To What Extent Can Metaphysics Be Eliminated From Philosophy?
SUBTOPIC: Metaphysics
⁜→ Wayfarer, et al,

(OPENING) It would be rather unwise of me (or anyone) to dismiss Karen Armstrong's perspectives just out of hand. But I believe she has a much more narrow view of Metaphysics than I. All the branches of science were once a form of philosophy. But science evolves, just as humanity evolves, and just as views on how humanity knows what it knows, and by what means the knowledge was acquired.

↪Rocco Rosano: — Wayfarer

"Personally I would never use the word faith to describe reasonable actions taken in the world."
— universeness

Have a read of Metaphysical Mistake, Karen Armstrong.

(COMMENT)

We know that when we study the central themes of cause and effects, the probability for change, and the reality of the universe as we evaluate the outcome relative to the first principles. In this regard, "physics" and "metaphysics" have very similar goals and objectives. They both research the universe and the reality to which they belong. Yet, they use different techniques, processes, and methodologies (accumulated truth). This becomes obvious when we examine the duality (wave • particle) of the electron.

Both Physics and Metaphysics will have hiccups from time to time. But as long as humanity has a belief in the supernatural, Metaphysics will have the advantage over physics.

Most Respectfully,
R

RE: To What Extent Can Metaphysics Be Eliminated From Philosophy?
SUBTOPIC: Metaphysics
⁜→ Jack Cummins, Jackson, et al,

(OPENING)

Aristotelian metaphysics (the study of reality) generally transcends the boundaries of the laws of physics (natural laws as understood at any single point in time). As our friend "Jackson" points out, "It is similar to the problem of skepticism. Doubt does not lead to knowledge." Scientists do not need Metaphysics to shape their critical thought. "Metaphysics" (as a general rule) cannot be subjected to the processes of the scientific method. So here we have the views of each end of the spectrum.

(THE CONDITIONAL STATEMENT BECOMES)

IF Metaphysics" CAN NOT be included as "Science" and is excluded from "Philosophy" THEN where does Metaphysics belong?

...
I am thinking how many see these writers, especially Kant, as being outdated philosophers of the past. In the volume, ' Existentialists and Mystics', Murdoch describes the way in which the understanding of language paved the way for the logical positivist approach, including Ayer's criticism of metaphysics.
...
I am not suggesting that such an approach is mistaken, but, on the other hand, it may be that the ideas of the system building of Plato, Kant, Schopenhauer and Spinoza are still important. On this forum, many do refer to them and value their writings. Therefore, I do question the idea of the gradual elimination of metaphysics. Empirical knowledge through science is extremely important, but the metaphysical imagination and art of reason may be essential in understanding the larger picture. What do you think? — Jack Cummins

(COMMENT)

The outcome of this conditional vantage point is to ignore the existence of "Metaphysics." And this becomes the solution analogous to the assumption that → with death brings an end to a particular line of thought. Some 2300 years later, we still remember Hypatia of Alexandria and her death at the hands of the clergy.

IF you eliminate Metaphysics from that which is a traditional alternative study and thought, THEN it stands alone as an island outside the criticism of science. Academia CAN NOT challenge that which they CAN NOT define and recognize. By default, "Metaphysics" reside on the threshold -
distinguished as a conceptual alternative with its own frontier.

Most Respectfully,
R

RE: Is Economics (production/consumption) First Principles?
SUBTOPIC: Production and Consumption
⁜→ schopenhauer, et al,

It does not matter if you are studying ECON 101 or ECON 501, the First Principles in Econ hold just as true as the First Principles in the cornerstone sciences. They simply do not change (with any regularity).


(COMMENT)

What I think you are exploring is the stimulation of manufacturing and commerce, which are made more available through monetary manipulation, the availability of credit, and interest rates.

]
◈ Production is a function of resource costs, the credit (at a better rate than competitors) to meet the cost factors in terms of effective manufacturing, the ability to employ the most effective manufacturing techniques, and the ability to maintain dominance in workforce development and funding R&D.

◈ Consumption is driven by its affected by the network and infrastructure supporting vertical and horizontal integration. Consumption is either positively or negatively impacted by the quality of the end product. And consumption is driven by the marketing of the product and offering what the consumer finds attractive at a reasonably affordable cost.

Yes, of course, there will be common threads that run through the fabric of Economic Programs from the very basic to the most advanced. And you can entire libraries on the Economics of this, that and the other things. But enlist other forms of mathematics, Economics can very accurately describe the triggers leading up to major significant events. It can very accurately outline the temporal incidents that lead to a crash, major collapses, and bubble bursts (just to name a few), but it is not like tools that provide automatic braking. It does not render a sufficient warning relative to future adverse events. (Just to name a few.)

◈ The collapse of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
◈ Enron Scandal
◈ Major Bank Failures
◈ The integrity of the Big Six Accounting Firms in their responsibility for the S&L Scandals
◈ The $15 Trillion Dollar Taxpayer bailouts of the To Big to Fail Banks.

Production and manufacturing Sink Holes: One of the biggest examples of this is the problem of outsourcing manufacturing jobs. It has become a national security issue. Probably ≈ 40% - 50% of the parts in your computers are manufactured outside the US. And while the Major US Transnational Corporations will be quick to point out that these corporations do not owe Americans a job, As high tech as our electronics in cars, planes, trains, and computing tools, should overseas Pacific Rim Nations want to put the squeeze on the US, all they have to do is withhold critical parts.

Well, I'll shut up now and move back to the shadows.

Most Respectfully,
R

RE: Is Economics (production/consumption) First Principles?
SUBTOPIC: Production and Consumption
⁜→. et al,

(COMMENT)

Production and Consumption are basic factors that drive the economics of a given system → but as we apply Economics today, the VeryFirst Principle in Economics is that: Every choice has an opportunity cost.

We evaluate our continued existence (humanity) as having an opportunity cost.

The "Production Possibilities Frontier" (PPF) is a comparative analysis and prediction of two products competing for the same resource.

The two Goods or Services create consumption budget constraints that set the condition for the market. It is the continuing struggle over the cost of the resources that mark the production curve.

Each decision made concerning the available production represents the "opportunity costs" that drive the budget constraints.

(´ ∑ Ω )

Every choice has an "opportunity cost" associated with it.

Most Respectfully,
R

RE: Action at a distance is realized. Quantum computer.
SUBTOPIC: The challenge? and Entanglement
※→ Agent Smith, noAxioms, et al,

PREFACE: Establishing an attitude that accepts or denies a theory and be prepared to work with it is NOT so great a challenge.

It's a challenge to realism. — Agent Smith

So for me, it is a pity that Einstein's idea doesn't work. The reasonable thing just doesn't work. — Wayfarer

(COMMENT)

◈ My Acceptance, with respect to the realism challenge, is that "Relativity" has been tested a number of different ways, and has NOT failed a single examination over the last century. I call that track record the response in terms of "realism."

◈ My Acceptance, with respect to the realism challenge, is that "Quantum Mechanics (QM)" may NOT be completely right (but then what I know about QM • and the implications it has opened up • can fit in the head of a pin), but has yet to be proven wrong.

But in both cases (1) the study of the very fast [Relativity], and (2) the study of the very small [QM], represent progress on a scale we have never seen before. And while the two do NOT currently interlock or mutually support the other (in all the critical ways), it is NOT likely that we will discard them any time soon.

We will still teach classical mechanics - and use it in all the same critical ways that Newtonian technology has dragged us over the last 300+ years, it may very well serve us over the next 300 years. The legacy of the giants (Isaac Newton, James Maxwell, and Albert Einstein, each once members of the Royal Society) will be remembered forever. We stand on their shoulders.

Most Respectfully,
R

RE: Would a “science-based philosophy” be “better” than the contemporary philosophy?
SUBTOPIC: What is "Science?" • What is a "science-based Philosophy?" • What is the "
Philosophy of Science?"
⁜→ Jackson, Skalidris, et al,

"Defining basic concepts is what the philosophy of science does. You seemed to reject this idea but I did not understand why."
— Jackson

"a concept in philosophy of science that is defined with scientific concepts?"
— Skalidris

"The philosophy of science does nothing but discuss scientific concepts."
— Jackson

(COMMENT)

The "Philosophy of Science" is a sub-discipline of "Philosophy." "Philosophy" is the (in a broad sense). the critical and systematic study of an unlimited spectrum of concepts (science being just one of these concepts). The "science-based Philosophy" is the study of a subject that is done through the scientific method that renders verifiable findings by observation or experience rather than theory or subjective approach via logic.

The idea of "contemporary philosophy" is also subjective in its definition and application. I am 70 years old. What I feel as to what might be "contemporary" is not likely to be the same as a new undergrad taking Philosophy 101.

It would do away with Popper 's methodology!
— Hillary

OK, I have my chuckle for the day.

I've completed my doctorate studies, and I just cringe when Karl Popper is mentioned. IF you understand Popper, THEN you are a level beyond me.

Most Respectfully,
R

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
SUBTOPIC: The new look...
※→ Gnomon, Hillary, et al,

Yes, that term ('information") is rather difficult to define.

Dear brother Gnomon, as interesting your thesis truly is, we still have to take into account that the wavefunction contains no information but a means for particles to explore. Information is not contained in the patterns connecting particles, but in the stuff describing them.
(COMMENT)

Information is anything detected or not, no matter what form the carrier would take; no matter the value or the content. Even the total lack of information is, in itself, the transmission of information.

It is virtually impossible to cite anything in reality that does not convey information.

Most Respectfully,
R

RE: God and Existence
SUBTOPIC: Sound and Valid Outcomes
※→ Hillary, et al,

An exploded view of gods, how you imagine that?[/reply]
(COMMENT)

An "Exploded View" of any supernatural entity is an image of the respective components of that entity. If you are defining the attributes of a Supreme Being, the components bundled like omnipotence, omniscient, omnipresent, immortal, and preeminence, as the key components that must be assembled for the entity to be The Supreme Being. In the case of a Supreme Being having dominion over lesser deities, the exploded view would also demonstrate the relative strengths of the particular entity. The God of War might be the most powerful (second only to the Supreme Being) but greater than all other deities in that regard. However, the Goddess of Love would have more influence in that quality than the God of War; etc, etc, etc.


Why has the uncertainty principle offer a perspective on a proof that has greater probability? Do you mean a greater probability being true than the gods being true,?[/reply]
(COMMENT)

With the Uncertainty Principle, you may be able to attribute a given event to a God Like Power being used, but not know which God was exercising that power.

With the Principle of Sufficient Reason (PSR), you might be able to discern the likelihood of the power behind the event, but not know for sure. The Greek God Aeolus's primary power was dominion over the winds. However, the Greek God Poseidon had dominion over the seas. Strong winds over the ocean may create storm-tossed seas. The PSR might deduce a storm to one or the other. But might not know for sure.

Both the PSR and the Uncertainty Principle have an element of probability associated with it.

Most Respectfully,
R

RE: God and Existence
SUBTOPIC: Clear and Convincing
※→. et al,

I must have misunderstood the topic at hand. I'm still looking for some evidence of the Supreme Being.

[◈] Rationalist Proof.
. ✦ (Explanations for the existence of the things we encounter...)

[◈] Thornistic Proof.
. ✦ (The nature or essence of a discovery...)

[◈] Augustinian Proof.
. ✦ (The observation or decoction of abstract and generalized patterns...)

[◈] Neo-Platonic Proof.
. ✦ (The recognition of an end consequence by means of an exploded view.)

[◈] Aristotelian Proof.
. ✦ (Sensory perception of change, the logical sequence of nature, and the exceptions of a path...)

Much the the Principle of Uncertainty (Quantum Mechanics - Heisenberg) or the Principle of Sufficient Reason (Logic - Leibniz), I thought we would approach the topic from the perspective of the outside observer and moving towards the Proof that had the greater probability.

OR -- Am I completely off track?

Most Respectfully,
R

RE: What is Metaphysics?
SUBTOPIC: Metaphysics can sometimes be stretched too far.
※→ Constance, et al,

"But beneath this, one would ask, isn't there something intuitively foundational? E.g., when we speak of God, but deliver the concept from its fictions, is there not something undeniably there that necessitated the fiction in the first place? This is the "essence" of God, one could argue."
- Constance

There is a paradox to an intelligent discussion on the topic of "The Supreme Being;" or even lesser deities. It is exceptionally difficult to discuss an entity when:

• You cannot define the entity in concept or general characteristics.
• You cannot agree on the capabilities of the entity.
• You cannot define the connection between the Supreme Being (or lesser deities) and humanity.

The Abrahamic Religious factions all acknowledge the same Supreme Being. But the practice of morals are inconsistent when - one faction makes the claim that another faction is "impure" and "the world's dogs." This is an example of a "depraved indifference" to life. And Metaphysics cannot uniformly make that leap.

Regards
R

RE: What is Metaphysics?
SUBTOPIC: Time
※→ javi2541997, Constance, et al,


(COMMENT)

"※→".= To the attention of
It is not so dissimilar to the arrow you select when making a reply in this forum.

" javi2541997, Constance," = Obviously the identification of those specifically mentioned or in response to

et al = Definition of "et al,"

Regards,
R

RE: What is Metaphysics?
SUBTOPIC: Time
※→ javi2541997, Constance, et al,

I wonder what I did that caused you to ask that question?



No, I am not an AI Program.
-----------------------------------------------------------------


I believe you are correct. It is about "reality." But "reality" is a difficult subject → that most people do not want to address. It requires a very careful vocabulary.

Regards,
R

RE: What is Metaphysics?
SUBTOPIC: Time
※→ javi2541997, et al,


It is the concept of time and its paradoxes which I am most interested on metaphysics.

(EXPLORATORY QUESTION)

• "Javi: Interesting, doesn't it?"

I am often caught in the fog of time. In fact, I get lost almost immediately when traditional physicists place a sphere (a three-dimensional object) is embedded on a space-time grid (a two-dimensional object).

(METAPHYSICS. THOUGHT EXPERIMENT)
We often see this to demonstrate how a mass wraps the space-time. However, we know that space-time is also a three-dimensional object on a vector expanding outward (we think) both space and time. And, it must be creating some sort of turbulence would be created. But, if the mass is quasi-stationary inside the 3d space-time, then the wakes in space-time will not be created. And, as space-time of the universe expands, everything else is dragged along.

Regards,
R

RE: What is metaphysics?
javi2541997, et al,

I am probably the least credible source in the discussion. So I thought I would relook at some of the latest news from the latest brains on the subject.

On the issue of "Dark Matter:"

• Even after decades of searching, scientists have never seen a particle of dark matter. Evidence for the substance’s existence is close to incontrovertible, but no one yet knows what it is made of. For decades physicists have hoped dark matter would prove to be heavy—consisting of so-called weakly interacting massive particles (WIMPs) that could be straightforwardly detected in the lab.
  
• With no definitive sign of WIMPs emerging from years of careful searching, however, physicists have been broadening the scope of their quest.
  SOURCE: Direct Proof of Dark Matter May Lurk at Low-Energy Frontiers, Scientific American, By Daniel Garisto on June 9, 2020
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/direct-proof-of-dark-matter-may-lurk-at-low-energy-frontiers/

On the issue of "Dark Energy:"

More is unknown than is known. We know how much dark energy there is because we know how it affects the universe's expansion. Other than that, it is a complete mystery. But it is an important mystery. It turns out that roughly 68% of the universe is dark energy. Dark matter makes up about 27%. The rest - everything on Earth, everything ever observed with all of our instruments, all normal matter - adds up to less than 5% of the universe. Come to think of it, maybe it shouldn't be called "normal" matter at all, since it is such a small fraction of the universe.
SOURCE: Dark Energy, Dark Matter, NASA Science . https://science.nasa.gov/astrophysics/focus-areas/what-is-dark-energy

There is always some exciting news concerning "The Bulk" every time I turn around. But there is a connection to some potential problems.

First, when we consider the nonlinear nature of the mapping to a higher-dimensional space, what is the most sound and valid approach?

Second, At what point do scientific inquiries get put on the shelf given the expense involved related to the computation power required.

There may be a number of backdoor approaches that may yield more at a more reasonable and cost-effective outcome.

Most Respectfully,
R

.

.

,

Many Thanks, I learn something new every day. You are very correct. LINK: I had my labels backward.. My Old Man Syndrome is showing.

My thought is that the distance between your perception, and my perception of "Dark Energy" and Dark Matter is that area in which you capture some quantity of each dark substance (which we cannot do) and put your observation to the test under the Scientific Method. If the observation is not testable, it is not science.


What is the definition of a scientific hypothesis?

[*] The definition depends on the subject. In science, a hypothesis is part of the scientific method. It is a prediction or explanation that is tested by an experiment. Observations and experiments may disprove a scientific hypothesis, but can never entirely prove one.

Most Respectfully,
R

et al,

I think your response was most insightful.

(COMMENT)

I think it would be better if Metaphysics was thought of as the study of reality. It would be difficult to mention something that might not be entangled with the fundamental of reality.

Within the generalized material universe that is detectable, that is subject to examination by the Scientific Method, there are those things that are often talked about in Theoretical Physics that rightly belong to Metaphysics. (Imagine: String Theory, Dark Matter and Energy, the Multiverse, etc) These things can be imagined but not tested. Similarly, Physics today says that Dark Matter makes up about 80% - 90% of the tangible universe. You should be swimming in Dark Matter. That is as supernatural as the belief in the Supreme Being.

( ∑Ω)

Metaphysics encompasses many things in the alternative.

Supernatural Amino
Most Respectfully,
R