I thought about this topic briefly, and this is what I came up with. It could be wrong. If you see any points that are not right, or don't make sense, please let me know. Thanks.

I was reading Hume on Time, and his idea of time is that it is the internal perception of mind, just like cause and effect, when objects exist in duration and succession. So without the external objects, and without changes in duration and succession, there would be no time. I agree with this view on time.

Indeed, time does not exist in the external world. It is in human perception when the mind perceives changes of the external objects, or movement of the objects in succession, the perception of time happens internally.

The time we are using now on the clocks is the universal cultural agreement by the movement of the Earth around the Sun (365 days per one rotation), and also rotation of the Earth (24 hours per one self rotation), and it is just measurement of the duration for general life conveniences. It has nothing to do with the actual time itself. They could easily declare today is year 0, and 1 day will be 100 hours on some other duration measurements, and the whole time contract will work differently.

The reason that time travel is not possible in the physical world is that actual time doesn't exist in the physical world.

Time is just a product of human perception, which is mental in nature. If one is put into a room with no windows, but just 4 walls, floor and ceiling, and he has been kept in the space for few days, he will never have a single clue on the amount of time passed while he was in captivity in the space, because there was no events, changes or movements at all around him for his perception to realise the time durations happened in that space.

We only feel time because every morning, we see the Sun rise, even if it is raining or cloudy, it still is brighter than the night, and the daylight changes to the evening, and nights again, hence knows a day has passed. Therefore with nothing existing, there is definitely no time. With everything existing, still there is no time, because time is in the human mind inaccessible to the outside world and other humans.

I can't speak for Wayfarer, but as an idealist, my own thoughts on that are idealism inevitably leads to god for just that sort of reason. — RogueAI

Perhaps that is the reason why we don't know anything about God, because he is hiding in the idealist's mind. :D

:cool::ok:

Is extreme idealism not prone to illusion and misrepresentation of the world? Even with all the justification, your own mind created evidence, logic and justification without the external reference would be still illusive and deceptive. How do you prove it is real, and doubtless knowledge?

G.W.F Hegel by Stanley Rosen - Yale University Press 1973

A great book elucidating Hegel's system.

I am not sure if the OP's definition on Metaphysics is formally accepted by the public and academics. Metaphysics doesn't use imagination and conjectures all the time as its investigative methods.

For instance, Kant's Metaphysics arrives at its conclusions via rigorous logical arguments. Aristotle's Metaphysics analyses the abstract concepts and universals again via logic. I don't see any imagination there at all. Plato creates the new world of ideas and forms again with the supporting arguments.

Modern Metaphysics has evolved into working with Epistemology, Theology, Ethics and Science, and it asks and investigates the topics these subjects cannot deal with or ask, such as the "why" questions.

The OP's unorthodox definition of Metaphysics seems to lead to the bizarre conclusion with the extreme view discarding the valuable aspects of the studies which are actually essential and important in Philosophy.

Formal logic and Symbolic logic are not able to deal with the real world phenomenon and states very well. They are OK for dispositional propositional truths findings, and as "tools for understanding the world" - (www.marxists.org), but for real world applications, Dialectic Logic seems a better system.

https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hegel/txt/system2.htm

I have thought about this topic briefly, and this is what I came up with. It could be wrong. If you don't agree with any of the points, please let me know.

Math describes the objects in the external world, and that is it. It is just a numeric and logical language operating from the mind. Our spoken and written literal language describes the objects, world and even mental states in the propositions we express. But math can only describe the objects and world in numeric forms.

Unlike the literal language, math cannot describe mental states of the human mind. For example, the literal language is able to say something like "I l feel tired." or "I am anxious." "I am excited about the new book I just ordered." Math cannot describe that at all in any shape of form or ways.

Therefore math is limited to be applied to only physical objects, movements of the objects, location of the objects, temperature, speeds, brightness pressures etc of the external world.

When one says, 1 apple + 1 apple = 2 apples. In this case, there is absolutely no necessary connection between the apples and the numbers. The number was added by the observer and the counter empirically. The apples are physical objects in the world. The numbers, and the deducted total are from the human mind observing and counting the apples.

And when you say, the car was travelling at 60 miles per hour, it is the same case. The car and 60 miles per hour has no necessity at all. It was just measured by a speedometer (speed = distance ÷ time
) or laser speedo gun at that moment of observation, the car was running at the speed.

So, math is just a measuring and calculating tool using numbers applied to describe and predict the measurable properties of the external objects and movements. Math is not embedded in the universe. Of course not !

:cool: :ok:

That seems to me to prefigure the answer from Austin. — Banno

Sure.  Is it not what Austin was also pointing out in his book "Sense and Seinsibilia"?

"there are no criteria to be laid down in general for distinguishing the real from the not real. How this is to be done must depend on what it is with respect to which the problem arises in particular cases. Furthermore,even for particular kinds of things, there may be many different ways in which the distinction may be made."  (Austin, p.76).

Without knowing what particular case of "Real" the OP is asking about, we really don't know what he is even asking about. No? :)

What is real? And how can you know that for real? — A Realist

Is the OP question grammatically correct ? "Real" is an adjective which needs a noun after it in English grammar. What is Real X? How can you know that for real X? Is this not what OP should have asked?
X= any abstract or concrete object, e.g. world, book, God ...etc.

Just asking "What is Real" sounds something not right grammatically and contextually. What object is the OP asking as Real?

Depending on how you define it, yes. In the sense I defined it in the OP, no. — Bob Ross

I have nothing to define, but would you not agree that the OP's claim sounds like Metaphysical itself?

Claiming that the world is unknowable for whatever grounds has been a typical Metaphysical conclusion made by various philosophers in history. The world itself is a metaphysical concept too. :)

"X is unknowable." is also a Metaphysical comment. Because if it were Science, they will make up some hypothesis on the object they want to find out. But Metaphysics don't use hypotheses for their methodology. It just declares "X is unknowable." (with the supporting argument), and it would be a good enough Metaphysical knowledge.

‘HOW IS METAPHYSICS POSSIBLE?’ Kant’s Great Question and His Great Answer by Nicholas F. Stang

https://philarchive.org/archive/STAHIM

What say you? — Bob Ross

Isn't this a metaphysical question? The Metaphysicians have been asking and investigating on the nature of Metaphysics and its legitimacy of the claims. One of the point of CPR by Kant was to find out, "How Metaphysics is possible as a Science."

Quite compelling quotes from Wiki. I suppose there would be controversies on some of the historically famous and influencing scientists.

It is a pretty bad therapy, telling everyone that we suck at being humans, we deserve hell. God saves us even though we suck. — Isaiasb

The concept of hell is interesting actually.

If there were real hell for the dead, then some might find it consoling and comforting. Because if they are sent to hell, ok they might suffer horrendous punishments in there, but at least they may find a way to escape back to the earth, or immigrate from the hell to some other parallel universe to continue their new expat times.

And there are also some groups of people who enjoy the physical pain for their pleasure. For them hell punishment could be a godsend? :D

The real worry for the dead could be that there is no guarantee even for hell. An abrupt and eternal transition from a being to non-being is more depressing than possibility of being thrown into hell? Even suck, this world is the best place to be? :D

I don't think Science and Religion contradict.  They have different methods in their pursuit of knowledge.  Science uses hypothesis, observation, evidence and verification for arriving at their knowledge, theories and answers.  Religion is based on an individual's faith on the doctrine and belief of their Gods. 

In history they shared and filled each other's shortcomings.  Religious people tried to borrow scientific methods to justify and strengthen their arguments and claims. Science used Religious beliefs and entities such as God, as the creator of the universe etc, for the answers they cannot find.

Many famous scientists in history were not atheists or anti religious as your quotes, because they too were human beings with flesh and bones.  When their bodies getting old nearing,  feeling death they needed something to rely on spiritually.  Even when they are young and healthy, all humans think about death and question their aftermath of deaths. Nothing really tells them about these topics apart from religion. Science was their academic and rational pursuit for truth in the material world. Religion was the therapy for human conditions and existence.

This is the reality of life. — RussellA

My point was that Wittgenstein's view on meaning is that, when you make meaningful use of language in your social environment, the language is meaningful.

Not the other way around. Your interpretations of Wittgenstein and PI seem to keep claiming that you must first learn the meanings of words by pointing at the objects in the world.  I didn't agree with that.

Therefore your previous statement and question in the post, that if the barmaid doesn't know what X is, "X me beer." wouldn't make the maid bring the beer to you, was absurd. 

This whole statement is not meaningful because no pub owner would hire a person who doesn't understand the meaning of the word "Bring"as a barmaid for his pub.   You made a senseless statement using an impossible scenario in your and my social world.

Before reading Wittgenstein, I would never have known this type of fallacy. Since reading him, I seem to be able to spot the fallacies like this in daily conversations and posts in the forums.  I find Wittgenstein's philosophy and methodology practical and useful. :D

Well, more that meaning is irrelevant. It's use that is of interest, and asking for a slab in an Australian pub is for some an effective way of improving one's weekend. — Banno

Meaning" is just how the word is used in terms of the context in which we say the word or think it. Nothing more is necessary. — Apustimelogist

:cool: :up: :fire:

Yes, as Wittgenstein wrote:PI 304 "But you will surely admit that there is a difference between pain-behaviour accompanied by pain and pain-behaviour without any pain?"—Admit it? — RussellA

He adds "The paradox disappears only if we make a radical break with the idea that language always functions in one way, always serves the same purpose: to convey thoughts - which may be about houses, pains, good and evil, or whatever." - PI. 304

It seems saying the word pain can convey your sensation of pain to someone by expressing it in description with language. It doesn't say that you learn the word pain by looking at someone's pain behaviour.

The sensation of pain is only accessible to the owner of the sensation. Therefore the observer of the other person's pain doesn't know if it is pain or pretention of pain. The observer can only guess. Meanings learnt from guessings are bound to be empty and unreal. :)

Is it possible to learn the meaning of every word one uses just from a dictionary? — RussellA

There is another problem with the pain behaviour of others. What if the person was acting as if he was in pain?  How do you tell if it is genuine pain or acting or pretending to be in pain?

If the barmaid doesn't know the meaning of X in the sentence "X me a lager", then the sentence cannot be meaningfully be used in the context of a pub, though it is true that it could be meaningfully be used in the context of a language class. — RussellA

You wouldn't walk into a pub, and say to the barmaid "X me a beer". That implies, even you, the speaker doesn't know what he is talking about, and what X means.

If you really didn't know what "Bring" meant, and for some reason, if the barmaid didn't know the meaning either, but you still wanted beer to be served to you, you could go and point to the menu, and the beer will be served to you for sure. It is a blooming pub.

Isn't learning the word pain by feeling it oneself the point of Wittgenstein's Private Language Argument?

Is it possible to learn the meaning of every word one uses just from a dictionary? — RussellA

Does that mean that, if you have never seen someone groaning and twisting their bodies with pain, you would never know what pain is? People react to pain differently, and also pain behaviours are all different depending what kind of pain one is having. Some people don't show any reaction to pain at all, if the pain is not severe enough, or if the pain sufferer doesn't want any body to know he is in pain.

Another is knowing the meaning of the words used, in that if the barmaid didn't know the meaning of "bring", she would never be able to bring you your pint of lager. — RussellA

I have shown some example sentences which can be meaningfully used without knowing the meaning of the word in the sentence in the previous posts such as "I don't know what the word bring means."

We know the meaning of angst, not because we can point to angst, but because we can point to to the visible effect of angst in the world, such as a person's behaviour.

We can have the word "pain" in language because we can point to pain behaviour, whereby the word "pain" replaces pain behaviour.

If not by "pointing", how do we learn the meaning of words such as angst? — RussellA

What would be observed behaviour of someone's state of angst like?

What if someone was acting as if he / she was in pain? How would you be able to tell if the person was acting or really in pain, or just expressing some mental stress and frustration in gesture, or anger? And what is it that you call "pain behaviour"? Is there such thing as formal pain behaviour?

I would rather have thought one learns the word pain by feeling it oneself , or reading about the description of pain rather than looking at someone else's pain behaviour.

The existence of God. — A Realist

Really? How do you know?

Hmm. Again, "Slab" is an Australian term for a carton of two dozen tins of beer. — Banno

Another testimony that meaning is contingent. G'day mate :D

At least we agree that meaning is an important part of communication. — RussellA

I was just pointing out your claims that
1. successful language use is only possible with knowing the meaning of words used
2. meaning of words can only be learnt by pointing at objects in the world
are absurd.

Thinking over the topic, I feel successful language use is only possible when you use language cogently to the situation.  For example, if you walk into a pub, and say to the barmaid "Bring me a slab.", then of course she knows what you mean by  "slab", "bring" and  "me", all the words you just uttered to her.  But she will think you are talking nonsense, pulling her leg or just plain barmy. You must say "A pint of larger please" or something like that, to be understood in the bar to the maid, since you walked into the bar, and you wanted a drink. No one would imagine you would walk into a pub, and look for a slab.

You should say "Bring me a slab." in the building site to your assistant, when you are working on the path or patio, and that sentence will be accepted as meaningful to your assistant and to anyone hearing you speaking.

The other point is that the meaning of words is not learnt by pointing to the objects in the world exclusively, unless it is the case with a child learning language for the first time in her life, or in certain situations such as when you are ordering or buying an item in shops or market, where the seller has many different type of goods for sale in front of you, and you are telling him, that particular item is the one you would like to buy. You would point to it, and say "I will take that one."

There are many words you cannot point to, but you know the meanings, and keep using them in daily life such as "angst", "when", "many" "know" "etc" ... etc.

Large part of consciousness is memory.  Suppose that you lost your memory totally, so you are unable to recall even 1 second of perception in your mind.  Then everything you perceive would be just a piece of photographic images just like a cell phone camera taken so many photos that you saw with no meaning and no thoughts or logic or memories.

Memory in perception is a significant process and it is always a large topic in psychology, but strangely the topic is not discussed a lot in cognitive science and especially epistemology.
Memory chips are the most important part of function in the computer systems along with the computer processors, and without it computing would be simply limited to abacus level in terms of its practicality.

How computer memories work and are manufactured can easily be found in electronics and computer engineering studies.

Anyhow, consciousness is largely made of memory function of the brain, and the way the brain's memory works could be analogised from the computer memory.

I am not an AI expert, but I am guessing this would be how the AI brains work too. AI brains would have large RAM (random access memory) and also hard disks of huge capacity. These would be stored with mega tons of information, how they must respond to the input signals. 

High power central microprocessor would monitor the input signals and analyse what response or action to take in the output forms.  It would then process the preprogrammed relevant set of data from the memory (either from RAM or the hard disk), and then output the instructions to the installed hardware in the form of facial expressions, movement of hands or legs, even fingers ordering these devices with the instructed jobs.

Of course, the memory function of the human brain itself alone cannot be reduced to the human consciousness, but it cannot be denied that it is a large part of it, if not the base of consciousness. This is what I believe.

True, if I said "xx xyx yyxx yxyx", and neither of us knew the meaning of any of the words used, would anything meaningful arise from our conversation? — RussellA

Yes, of course. I would say to you "What the heck do you mean by that? I have no clue what the bloody non-sense you are talking about." This is a meaningful sentence in our conversation.

How can you successfully use the word "bamba" in a sentence if you don't know what it means? — RussellA

One can make successful use of language using the word "bamba" without knowing the meaning of "bamba". Consider the following sentence.

You told me you like bamba, but I don't bloody know what you mean by "bamba".

That is a use of language using the word "bamba", and the speaker made up a sentence which any English speaker would understand without knowing the meaning of "bamba".

True, they don't have the same meaning, only similar meanings. As Wittgenstein said, family resemblances. — RussellA

Most of the words you listed as synonyms for pointing to seem wrong words for what you meant by pointing to in the context.

For the listener to understand the meaning of the sentence. — RussellA

What if the other party didn't know the meaning of "bamba", then what? What would be the point of you saying it thinking that you knew the meaning? You say to me "I don't like bamba". But having listened to your sentence, I don't know what it means. You knew the meaning of bamba, and said confidently what you said to me would make successful use of language. But the other party doesn't know what you are saying. I might ask you back "What the heck is bamba?" At that point, have you successfully used your language?

My point is your claim that knowing the meaning of words is a precondition of using language seems wrong.

How can you successfully use the word "bamba" in a sentence if you don't know what it means? — RussellA

What do you mean by "successfully" here? Could you please clarify?

I am using "pointing" to include its synonyms, such as signalling, showing, indicating, gesturing, flagging, labelling, motioning, etc. — RussellA

Synonyms are not to be used blindly to replace another synonyms just because they are synonyms. They all bear similar meanings, but depending on the circumstance and situation you are describing, you cannot use them as if they were the same meanings.

Consider the word "angst".

We could use the dictionary, where "angst" is defined as "a feeling of deep anxiety or dread, typically an unfocused one about the human condition or the state of the world in general". "Anxiety" is defined as "a feeling of worry, nervousness, or unease about something with an uncertain outcome". Continuing, "worry" is defined as "feel or cause to feel anxious or troubled about actual or potential problems". "Troubled" is defined as "beset by problems or difficulties". Either the definitions become circular or are never ending. — RussellA

The definitions become circular and never ending, because you have kept on looking for them.  They are not themselves circular and never ending in nature.

Something is circular and never ending doesn't follow that one cannot learn them.
Words like Angst don't exist in the physical world.  It is an invented word by someone, and the meaning was given to it.  I recall the first time when I was confronted with the word, I had no idea what it meant, but by reading up the definition in the book, I roughly knew what it meant.  But my understanding of it was still not clear.  But I was able to use the word even with roughly knowing what it meant.

It is a state of mind, which one cannot point to.  It can be only described or explained by other words.

We have to learn the meaning of a word before we can use it successfully. — RussellA

People can and do use words without knowing the meaning of the word. I am not sure if there is such a thing as absolute right meaning of words anyway. Meaning is arbitrary and contingent, i.e. it changes, gets obsolete, newly made up etc. You can learn a meanings of some words, but you may not know the hidden meanings of the word used by another group of people or a person as well. In that case, can you communicate with the group of the people with the word you thought you knew the meaning of? Highly unlikely.

And I might use a word thinking it is the right meaning to mean what I think, but you might interpret it in totally different way. Is meaning then precondition of using language? No.

Sounds like something that happens routinely in engineering labs.

Points to waveform on oscilloscope and says, "The op amp doesn't have the balls to do the job." — wonderer1

It is not just humans, but machines such as oscilloscopes use language. They don't use phonetic utterance like humans do, but they use wave forms to say the op. amp has no balls to do the job. Human engineer looking at the wave form displayed on the oscilloscope, obviously knew what the oscilloscope was saying, and interpreted it in human language form.

In computer programming, there are Programming Language called "Machine Language", which only computer processors (such as Motorola 68000) can understand.

Or if you write programs in C language, you first write the instruction in high level language which is friendly to humans. Then you must compile the program using machine compiler, which will read your instructions to machine only readable code. Most of the Apps, and software system runs as the machine only readable language.

I would sack him for incompetence. — RussellA

Instead of sacking him, would it not be better for you to give him descriptive hints to recall his memory, or verbal instructions on where the slabs you are looking for are located in the site with details of what properties the slab has i.e. a small hexagonal slab in buff finish, because this is what language uses allow us to be able to do? Our memories are bound to fail time to time. :)

I would sack him for incompetence. — RussellA

Pointing at objects seems not a key ability to use language. Pointing at objects is primarily for learning words for children. They point at flowers viz. say flower and keep repeating trying to learn the word.

But when one is pointing at slabs saying "Bring me a slab.", that is to confirm that you want the slab brought to you (not a hammer or bucket), not because you didn't know what slab meant, or for any other reason.

I was unsure of your claims that pointing at objects is our key element to use language. I was not sure if it was your serious claim to mean it, or was it just a metaphor or rhetoric for something else.

Our key ability to use language is, from my point of view, not just uttering simple words, and simple sentences pointing at the object, but also being able to explain the situations, problems as well as trying to solve the problems by giving out some kind of verbal instructions or more information on the object depending on the situation that you are asking to bring, throw away, or make, and even be able to give out instruction how to get to a destination e.g. Paris from London by train or driving (book the ticket, go to the Channel Tunnel, and take the ferry ...etc) etc.

Language can deal, explain, describe, instruct a lot more complicated and abstract situations, scenarios, full stories of a novel or fiction by outlining or summarising, explain know-hows on making or repairing something etc.

Simply pointing to an object and uttering simple words sound like a limited elementary ability of language use by young children just starting to learn languages rather than key ability for the general language users.

Once something has been pointed out, it can be referred to without needing to name it again.

Pointing at something in the world is a key aspect in our ability to use language. — RussellA

What if today assistant doesn't remember which slab he brought to you yesterday, because he delivered so many different type of slabs - square one in large size, hexagonal shape in medium size, small size, and different finish (buff, sand, grey, brick red ...etc )??

Language is just a representation of the mind and thought of an individual, therefore it will never replace the content of thought or mind.

One will never know what slab you are talking about, when you say to your assistant "Bring me a slab." over the phone or in a text message out of blue.

However, if you and your assistant are talking facing the piles of slabs in the site, and when you point to a slab from distance "Bring me that slab.", he will know exactly what slab you are referring to.

So language can be used to talk about objects at a conceptual level without having to have the physical objects it is referring to, and it can also be used to point to real objects existing in the world.

You don't need to have exactly the same concept of slab, when you are talking about slab. Because there is no such thing as exactly the same concept of object. At this level the meaning of slab is also words and thoughts about a slab, not the real physical slab.

:cool: :ok: