OK, then let's call it metaphysics, if you're ok with that. Now, are you willing to recognize that a metaphysician, trained in the principles of metaphysics is most likely a lot more capable of doing this work (metaphysics), than is a physicist, who is trained in the principles of physics, and not in metaphysics? — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes and no. Metaphysicians are better equipped for conceptual analysis, including developing general metaphysical frameworks, but they would be abysmal at the "metaphysics" that is part of the core work of theoretical physicists - the thinking outside the box. As I brought up earlier, no metaphysician would have thought up the Page-Wooter mechanism, had the insight about time that we gained from special relativity, predicted quantum uncertainty, nor proposed the nature of quantum fields as (possibly) fundamental. Metaphysicians can reflect on these advances, and perhaps propose a metaphysical framework (like ontic structural realism), but they won't actually be contributing to the advance of physics - even if you choose to label this "metaphysics".

I did, in my last post, it was your example of the standard model of particle physics. It incorporates uncertainty as a fundamental principle of quantum physics; obviously bad metaphysics. — Metaphysician Undercover

But you're wrong, so I infer that you have no actual cases in which an ignorance of metaphysics impaired physicists.

The uncertainty principle is a feature of all quantum field theory, and therefore the standard model as well. — Metaphysician Undercover

But even if you denied quantum uncertainty, you can't deny the existence of these particles. Furthermore, quantum uncertainty has been verified.

Of course it's been verified experimentally, when you are uncertain of something it's easy to demonstrate this. But that doesn't mean that the uncertainty is not derived from bad metaphysics.

Is this a joke? If not, then it just indicates you don't know what you're taking about.

He’s still guilty and still a felon the last time I checked. Crossfire Hurricane and the Mueller probe were a farce. They spied on a political campaign and ruined the lives of people who should not have been investigated, Stone included. — NOS4A2

You're spouting the Trump line about the Mueller investigation being a farce. Even if there were problems with the FISA applications, the investigation was conducted in a legal manner - with legally obtained subpoenas that obligated Stone to tell the truth. He didn't. Why?

The point is to demonstrate that you are wrong in your conclusion. Physicists do go beyond the work of physics, into the field of metaphysics. And, they aren't trained in metaphysics, as you accept. So why not accept as well, that their metaphysics is very often deficient, faulty in comparison with classical metaphysics, because they are not educated in some of the fundamental principles of metaphysics? And your conclusion "this does not seem to have handicapped them" is demonstrably false. — Metaphysician Undercover

If you're going to label as "metaphysics" any work physicists do that is outside the box of established physics, feel free - but it doesn't change anything. I'd be more inclined to just call the entire venture "natural philosphy", as was the norm prior to the 19th century. Categorizing the work of physicists as partially science and partially philosophy just seems a forced fit into semantic categories. It's harmless, but doesn't serve to improve the process.

You say it's "demonstrably false" that their ignorance of metaphysics has handicapped physicists. Please provide one or two good examples.

The standard model is extremely deficient. It accepts uncertainty (the uncertainty principle), as inherent within the thing being modeled. What kind of a model is that? We're modeling something, but fundamental aspects of the thing being modeled cannot be modeled using our metaphysical principles, so we'll just incorporate "uncertainty" into the model. The problem here is that the metaphysics of time being employed in the standard model is very deficient in comparison with the classical metaphysics of time, and this produces an extremely deficient model, full of uncertainty. — Metaphysician Undercover

Sounds like you don't understand what I'm talking about. I'm referrring to the Standard Model of Particle Physics, which consists of things like quarks, leptons, bosons. This model was proposed in the 1960s to explain the large number of (supposed) elementary particles that were being generated and identified in particle collisions. The model proposed that those observed particles were actually composed of these more elementary components. It was derived mathematically, but over the decades was verified experimentally.

The uncertainty principle isn't directly related to this, so perhaps you were mistaken. Nevertheless the uncertainty principle of quantum mechanics has also been verified experimentally - so I'm sorry, but it's nonsensical to dismiss its reality based on some metaphysical principles. Physics needs to come first, and the metaphysics needs to be consistent with it. Not the other way around. As I said earlier, physics has proven the natural world is weird at the fundamental level, a fact that would never be exposed by pure philosophical reflection.

And what do physicists mean when they say something like "we can just change the math on this one a little". They literally say stuff like this all the time!! If the math merely reflects the quantities measured, it would seem ALL of physics is about experimentation. So where does that leave theoretical physics? I think in philosophy, but I am willing to be corrected — Gregory

You can call it philosophy if you like, but understand it's the sort of philosophy that can only be done by physicists. Personally - I don't see any value in categorizing the work of physicists into the separate categories of physics and metaphysics.

My impression is that one could say physicists engage in metaphysics when they develop concepts (like the curvature of space and interpretations of quantum mechanics). — Relativist


Would you agree, that when Einstein went beyond the accepted principles of physics of his day, he was practicing metaphysics rather than physics? Since he wasn't following the conventional rules of physics, we cannot say he was doing physics. If you agree, then why would you think that it's physics rather than metaphysics which gives us insight into the nature of time? — Metaphysician Undercover

No, I do not agree that Einstein went beyond the accepted principles of physics of his day. He was addressing some outstanding problems in the physics of the day.

As I said previously, one can classify some of the work of physicists as "metaphysics", but what's the point? Physicists aren't typically trained in the field of metaphysics, they're trained in physics, and this does not seem to have handicapped them. Theoretical physics entails developing new frameworks - which could be labelled metaphysics. For example, when the standard model of particle physics was proposed, one could have called this an exercise in metaphysics (it proposed a suite of particles that constitute the fundamental building blocks of material reality), but it's not the sort of metaphysics a philosopher could do because it depended on knowledge of physics.

He started yesterday.

Physicists can construct new theories that bring about paradigm shifts but they have to do so under the bias of an already preconceived ontology which may or may not be justified. Take general relativity in which it's popular to envision a substantival real existent spacetime which is curved when in reality physicists should be rather dumbfounded as most analysis i've seen into general relativity make the question of whether there is or isn't a real existent spacetime being curved rather unclear. Perhaps physics enjoys throwing numerous metaphysical concepts at the wall until one sticks experimentally. — substantivalism

This is the nature of scientific revolutions. Without science investigation, metaphysicians would be spinning their wheels and getting nowhere.

It's unquestionably always the case that proper time is invariant while coordinate time is not because it's an outside analysis done onto other inertial frames of reference. — substantivalism

What is "proper time"?

I'm highly skeptical of physical theories which stress such absolute features as fundamental to time but also to physicists who believe they can attain change/time from unchanging/timeless entities.

This paper, The Problem with the Problem of Time, similarly argues that something more is needed - the passage of time is not an illusion. Nevertheless, the Page-Wooters effect seems real. This suggests something is missing from our theories. My question is: who is more likely to find a solution, a philosopher or a physicist? I think the latter.

Regarding the fundamentals of time, I also question whether metaphysicians are equipped to answer it. Physicists are exploring it (see Time: An Emergent Property of Matter).

Unlike metaphysicians, physicists will propose solutions that are consistent with theory, and positioned to develop experiments that can validate their hypotheses.

Special relativity and Page-Wooters clearly show that time is weirder than anyone would have thought. Weirdness like this is not going to be uncovered without new Physics. If Physics can't do it, there's no hope for Metaphysicians.

I’ve explained my views on Stone before. I think the investigation and prosecution were political and unjust. — NOS4A2

Stone was charged with, and found guilty of, lying to Congress and witness tampering. Even if the investigation was inappropriate, that does not excuse Stone's illegal acts.

It's hard to believe that Stone wasn't hiding something, and that's why he lied. We'll never know what it was because he got away with it. No one, other than a friend of the President, could get away with such behavior. Trump does not respect the rule of law.

I have a prediction. If Trump is defeated in November, then sometime before Biden takes office, Trump will pardon everyone, including himself, preemptively, claiming this will put an end to the "witch hunt" once and for all.

Isn't this a metaphysical analysis which is exposing these deficiencies? — Metaphysician Undercover

No. It was the implication of theory. Page and Wooters considered the implications of the Wheeler-DeWitt equation. Subsequently, the Page-Wooter's effect was experimentally verified

Seems you don't know the difference between physics and metaphysics. — Metaphysician Undercover

Feel free to enlighten me. My impression is that one could say physicists engage in metaphysics when they develop concepts (like the curvature of space and interpretations of quantum mechanics). If you'd like to divide the work of physicists this way, I have no objection, and I think philosophical reflection is important. My main issue is that the relevant paradigm shifts only occur because of new physics, not because of this philosophical reflection. My initial comment in this thread was: "I don't think metaphysical analysis can provide definitive answers about time. On the other hand, physics may develop insight into its nature"

And I haven't seen any reason to think this isn't true. That doesn't mean philosophical reflection can't be of use, but given the weird things we've learned about time through leading-edge physics, it seems unlikely philosophical reflection alone can solve this.

That physics has identified a "problem of time" demonstrates that the principle they apply, are deficient. The "things" that you say physics has shown about time are the things which lead to the "problem of time", which demonstrates that despite your claim, these "things" are not truths. They are simply useful principles which are limited in their application, demonstrating their deficiencies. — Metaphysician Undercover

I agree the "problem of time" implies deficiencies in our concept of time, but my point is that metaphysical analysis would never expose the deficiency.

We could begin with the way that we apprehend the substantial difference between past and future. The past consists of events which have actually occurred, and the future consists of events which are possible, as indicated by human behavior. This means that the present as what divides future from past, is ontologically significant. — Metaphysician Undercover

Yeah, right - no one noticed a distinction between past, present, and future before some metaphysicians pointed it out.

Metaphysics consists of conceptual analysis, and in that regard it can help identify implications of concepts, but the paradigm shifting breakthroughs regarding our understanding of time has been a result of advances in physics - not metaphysics.

I think this is actually the opposite of reality. Analysis of the problems which physics encounters with its representations of time, juxtaposed with the firmly established metaphysical conceptions of causation, is what develops insight into the nature of time. Physicists do not value metaphysical conceptions, metaphysicians do. — Metaphysician Undercover

I'm open to considering the value of metaphysical analysis in this regard, but it was physics - not metaphysics- that showed time is not absolute, that it is relative to a reference frame (i.e. special relativity). It is physics that showed space and time are coupled, and identified the "problem of time". And it's physicists who are exploring what may be the fundamental basis of time.

What specific insights have metaphysicians provided regarding time?

There is no fact that Trump doesn’t read intelligence reports. It is fake news because the story is, according to the administration, false. — NOS4A2

And if the administration says so, it must be true. ROFL! It's pretty ludicrous to think Schiff's staff would have been given the information, but that it would have been omitted from the report Trump receives.

But there is a way to spin it so it is negative for Trump. Hence the leaker, the Democrats, the fake news singing the same songs in unison. They want hearings on unverified information, the leaks of which may have compromised ongoing intel and operations and even lives. — NOS4A2

It IS negative for Trump. It highlights the fact that he doesn't read the written intelligence reports he's given. We knew this previously only because of leaks from his staff, but it had not been admitted by the administration. It also shows he's an idiot for his knee-jerk "fake news" response when he first heard about it. This is absolutely not fake news.

It's interesting that you make the most positive possible assumptions about this. We really don't know how credible the intelligence was, but we do know it was credible enough to include in his briefing. You parrot the administration (talking about singing in unison!) stressing that it's "unverified" - which is the general nature of intelligence.

Why was it leaked? Was it strictly for partisan purposes, or was it because someone had a genuine concern? I acknowledge it could be either, or it could be both. Why can't you?

It wasn’t raised to his attention because it wasn’t credible intel and could not be corroborated. It’s gossip. So it’s no surprise opponents have grasped onto it. — NOS4A2

If you truly believe the intel was not credible, why did you blast Schiff?

The publicly available information on this intelligence does not support your view that it wasn't "credible". It was unproved, but that doesn't imply it shouldn't be a cause of of concern. - it was not presented as a questionable, unsupported rumor. It was not a "hoax" as Trump initially alleged, and it WAS in the written briefing material he received. A competent President would have known it was not a hoax - he had the information, but failed to read it.

There's no way to spin this in way that is positive for Trump.

I agree with everything you said.

Is this exactly the case? I thought it was a bit more complicated than that, — jgill

Yes it's the case, and yes, it's more complicated than that. It's not mysticism, it's confirmed physics.

if intelligent creatures are conducting galactic seeding operations of the kind I described here, it's more likely that they intend to create intellgent life like themselves than not. — TheMadFool

It would take a lot more than radio waves to direct evolution toward the development of intelligence.

I don't think metaphysical analysis can provide definitive answers about time. On the other hand, physics may develop insight into its nature.

The Page-Wooters mechaism is a fascinating phenomonen. It suggests time is a local phenomenon associated with quantum entanglement. An elapse of time is experienced by observers within a quantum system, but external observers to not observe the elapse of time within the system:

In 1983 theorists Don Page and William Wootters suggested that quantum entanglement might provide a solution to the Wheeler-DeWitt “problem of time”. When quantum objects are entangled, measuring the properties of one changes those of the other. Mathematically, they showed that a clock entangled with the rest of the universe would appear to tick when viewed by an observer within that universe. But if a hypothetical observer existed outside the universe, when they looked in, everything would appear stationary. -source

I'm aware of no metaphysical analysis that would have predicted this, nor that even attempts to account for it. Hence, I suggest metaphysics is futile for understanding it.

According to “multiple intelligence sources familiar with the briefing”, Schiff was briefed in February, but for some reason took no action.

Top committee staff for Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), the chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, were briefed in February on intelligence about Russia offering the Taliban bounties in Afghanistan, but he took no action in response to the briefing, multiple intelligence sources familiar with the briefing told The Federalist. The intelligence was briefed to Schiff’s staff during a congressional delegation, or CODEL, trip to Afghanistan in February.


https://thefederalist.com/2020/07/02/schiff-learned-of-russian-bounty-intelligence-in-february-withheld-information-from-congress-and-took-no-action

So perhaps an investigation is indeed in order. I suppose we’ll see. — NOS4A2

Suppose Schiff was derelict. Does this somehow imply Trump was not?

The bounty issue was conveyed to Trump in his written intelligence briefings - which his senior staff also receive. Trump is derelict on an ongoing basis for failing to read these, but even if we set that aside because everyone knows he doesn't read them - why wasn't this verbally raised to his attention by his staff? Trump is responsible for the activities, and inactivities, of his staff. Their incompetence is his problem - he appointed them. Compound this with the fact that Trump's initial reaction was that it was a MSM hoax, which was clearly wrong.

I couldn't care less if Schiff gets investigated. It has zero bearing on Trump's dereliction of duty.

IMO, the biggest problem with the KCA is the equivocation on "begins to exist".

Premise one (Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its existence) is justified by our intuitions that observe things beginning to exist from a prior state of affairs in which the thing did not exist.

Premise two (The universe began to exist) is justified by the inference that the past is finite, so spacetime had a beginning. However, this is not consistent with the justification for premise 1 - because there is no prior time at which spacetime didn't exist. In fact, a finite past just entails an initial state for the universe (more properly: for material reality), one that cannot have been "created" because there is no prior state at which it didn't exist.

Space colonization could be rendered possible without having to build spaceships, developing life-support systems, etc. All we would need to seed the galaxy would be knowledge of what kind of electromagnetic radiation and what kind of frequencies/wavelengths would kickstart basic life-originating chemical processes on habitable planets. — TheMadFool

Even if you could cause life to appear on exoplanets, there's no reason to think intelligent life would develop. That is, unless you're a theist and believe in a telos.

I vote "none of the above" because you are reifying an abstraction. Consciousness isn't a thing that is housed, nor is it an illusion. It's a process of moving from one intentional state to the next.

Most people see this trashing of American cities for what it is, a hotchpotch of looters, rioters ,moronic students and middle aged people (like the majority on this forum) who should know better but have stuck with their student days leftist bullshit. It's all very sad. — Chester

Your comment brings me back to my left-wing student days: same old, same old from the right-wingers: ignore the legitimate protests by grouping it with the criminal behavior.

Where's our President? Clearing out peaceful protesters with tear gas and rubber bullets so he can stand in front of a church to get a picture taken.

Apparently quite a few people here do, because some of the girls asking money for it have been 18 for years. — ernestm

This answers your question about whether or not its ethical: of course it's ethical, since it will keep her perpetually young.

It's particularly sad that Trump slings this kind of mud on a near daily basis

They sling it at him. They deserve it. — NOS4A2

ROFLMAO!
I picture the petulant child that is our President sticking out his lower lip and crying, "They started it!" Which is sad enough, but that fact is, Trump a bully who has instigated more mudslinging than anyone else in history. By your grade school logic, Trump deserves everything HE gets.

A senate probe will suffice. I suppose Ukraine should want to know why the previous American administration was meddling in their politics, as well. — NOS4A2

That's the nature of our political system, but it's unfortunate that it has sunk that low. It's particularly sad that Trump slings this kind of mud on a near daily basis (consider his proclaiming that Joe Scarborough should be investigated for the accidental death of Lori Klausutis).

An investigation into Biden is warranted because his son was on the board of a corrupt Ukrainian energy company at the same time his father was vice-president and point man in Ukraine. The US had just finished helping far right fascists topple the government. Suddenly Biden’s crackhead son is getting lucrative positions at a corrupt Ukrainian energy company. The same has allegedly happened in China. — NOS4A2

If you're suggesting a criminal investigation is warranted, then you need to explain what crime Hunter or Joe has committed. Or is it that you're just hoping there's a fishing expedition to try and stir up some political dirt?

mblings from Ukraine. Leaked calls between Quid Pro Joe and former Ukrainian president Poroshenko have been leaked, giving ammunition to the Biden/Ukraine corruption narrative. Also featured is John Kerry.

Ukrainian president Zelensky said a probe into the call is begin — NOS4A2

OMG! Does this mean Joe Biden threatened to held up aid to Ukraine if Poroshenko wouldn't fire the corrupt Shokin? I'm shocked!

...shocked because we already knew this occurred, and that it does not imply Biden did this for personal gain (unlike Trump's impeachable quid pro quo).

If a philosophy is "proven" does it not graduate into the field of science? — Outlander

We'll cross that bridge if we ever come to it.

If apealing to authority to support a position (presumably referencing a fact or at least a hypothesis vs. a random opinion) is not rubbish as in is "true", how exactly would doing the same thing to refute or throw into question an opposing idea be "false"?

It wouldn't. Dueling authorities results in no one's mind being changed. Not that minds get changed very often.

I think I've more or less dealt with this, justified suspicion is not enough to refute the claim, but it is enough to dismiss the appeal to authority and if that is all the claim is based on, the claim itself as anything other than bare assertion. In other words, you're back to square one, how do we settle the claim? In the absence of direct methods to do this (in the case of scientific claims), more reliable authorities will need to be sought — Baden

I think "direct methods" are the only hope of settling a disagreement - which means examining the basis of the expert opinion.

Yes, I think you missed something.
It is generally appropriate to appeal to authority to support one's position - it's a reasonable starting point. It becomes fallacious only when used to refute a contrary opinion (you must be wrong because expert X says so). The person arguing from authority then has the burden to dig into the expert's reasons for his opinion and to defend those.

Regarding genetic fallacies: there often are good reasons to be suspicious of a claim that comes from questionable sources (e.g. suppose I claim carbon dating is completely unreliable, and support this claim by linking to articles on the website of the Institute for Creation Research). But suspicion alone is not enough - you would need to dig into the basis for the claims.

I voted NO. Government is problematic as a form of government, but not necessarily as a way of life. My impression is that medieval monastic orders (like the Cistercians) were successful commune-istic societies. To make this work, the participants needed strong commitments to the society's ideals. A government can't impose such ideals.

You are born in a body without any senses. You are kept alive by artificial means, but you don't know it.

No external stimulus, no language, nothing. What do you think life would be like? — JoeyB

I imagine there would be no organized thoughts - it would be a life more similar to a lower life form.

Yes, the Dems fucked over the best candidate (for a second time) and nominated the worst — Baden

I have a problem with anthropomorphizing "the Dems". Biden is the nominee because that's where the process led. Was there something unfair about the process that you'd like to have changed, or is it just that you are unhappy with the result of the process?

Since we’re spouting conspiracy theories, maybe big pharma doesn’t like hydroxycloroquine because it’s super cheap and has been in use for decades. Many doctors from Gilead were a part of the NIH panel that advised against hydroxycloroquine in favor of Gilead’s expensive drug Remdesivir. Coincidence? — NOS4A2

Jeez, Trump has screwed with your mind. Remdesivir is a broad-spectrum anti-viral medicine. Hydroxychloroquine is not. If the latter turns out to be effective, it would be a surprising coincidence. If remdesiver is effective, it shouldn't be all that surprising.

Hydroxychloroquine may have SOME antiviral effects, but it also acts as an anti-inflammatory. Anti-inflammatory medicines are contra-indicated for COVID-19 because they suppress the immune system, which is a bad idea. That's why we're told to avoid anti-inflammatory medicine if we have COVID-19 - take Tylenol, not ibuprophen or aspirin. That's why it's unclear if the positives outweigh the negatives. That said, I'm perfectly happy to let Trump try it out. We've got absolutely nothing to lose.

Piddle around with the words all you want. — NOS4A2

My "piddling" entails using words consistently. You should try it.

The Obama administration not only used Russian-sourced, DNC gossip to justify spying on the Trump campaign—American citizens—they used the state apparatus to do so. One of the differences between Obamagate and Watergate is the Nixon campaign didn’t have the technology and access to intrusive data collection, so they had to physically break in to access their opponent’s documents and put bugs on their phones. — NOS4A2

It's an artful construction to refer to "the Obama administration" in this way. In one sense, everything the intelligence community did during Obama's Presidency can be attributed to "the Obama Administration." However, this doesn't imply Obama was directing the activities. That's the sort of construction Trump likes to use when talking about Obama, but of course - he never applies it to himself.

Not Even the People Ranting About “Obamagate” Know What It Is -

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/05/trump-tweet-obamagate-rand-paul-richard-grenell.html

Our little forum being a microcosm lol. — StreetlightX

From the article, in response to a question "what's the crime?":

“You know what the crime is,” the president responded. “The crime is very obvious to everybody. All you have to do is read the newspapers, except yours.” — Trump

This is so very much like the Emperor's new clothes. Only Trump suck-ups see the invisible crime.