Okay. But why should the Western ones have the final say? Because we're at a "Western" forum? — baker

I misunderstood you. I'm not sure that's what @Bozo, I mean @Banno, meant to say.

But there hasn’t been a technical notion of matter for centuries, despite your feelings. — Xtrix

So, you do not consider the Standard Model a "technical notion?"

I also said nothing about “fully understood.” — Xtrix

I believe that was me.

Plenty of people argue the same thing about God, incidentally. God isn’t “fully understood,” but not mysterious. I don’t find that very convincing. — Xtrix

That's a different discussion. If you don't understand that, then this one is pointless.

The thread topic is enlightenment. Since when does philosophy concern itself with enlightenment or should have the final say over it? — baker

The OP specifically identifies enlightenment as discussed in both eastern and western philosophies.

There is indeed a combination of physical constants (h, c, and G) that gives rise to that lengthscale but that doesn't mean space is not continuous beneath that scales. — Cartuna

That's the case according to loop quantum gravity. According to general relativity and string theory it's continuous. — Michael

I identified it as a hypothesis, not a fact. The explanation I found indicates that below that size, addition of energy, as would be required to take a measurement, would cause a black hole to form. My point was that it is not yet established that space is continuous at all scales.

That's popular science, which is maybe the best suited for this forum. — Cartuna

Another good reason not to communicate with you any further.

If I watch TV, the TV merely functionss as an intermediary, a sophisticated medium, like air, by means of which information is sent to you. It's in principle the same like the air between you and me if we directly talk to each other. — Cartuna

Not true. The TV takes information from outside and then processes it to form the image and sound we see as the images. You would not be able to understand the electromagnetic signal put out by the transmitter. Let's give up on this discussion.

misunderstanding or inability to undestand. — Cartuna

Another good reason to stop the conversation.

The problem is that individual, separated quarks, cannot actually be observed. — Metaphysician Undercover

I understand the concern. I think it's not just that they cannot be observed, it is my understanding that they can not exist independently. From the point of view of @Gnomon's point, I'm not sure that it matters.

It seems most natural to me to think of space as infinite. — Gregory

It is my understanding that the universe is generally seen as finite but unbounded. The analog often used is a sphere. If we were on the surface, which we are, we could walk forever without ever getting to an edge.

There is no end to how small something can shrink. — Gregory

It is also my understanding that the universe is hypothesized to be granular at a sub-sub-sub-sub atomic level. The planck length, 1.616255(18)×10−35 m, is considered by some to be the smallest meaningful dimension of space.

If TV were to play movies without any understanding of how, I think that too would qualify as a mystery. — Xtrix

Every day, billions of people watch TV without any understanding of how it works. They don't think it's particularly mysterious.

Regardless, the main point is that the entire idea of matter (which includes brains) is a mystery. — Xtrix

I don't see matter as particularly mysterious either. "Not fully understood" is not the same as "mysterious." Also, matter also includes wood, computers, and TV sets.

In Gnomon's defense, he offers definitions and glossary links to every term he uses. You don't have to agree with him but you can't say that he's not trying. — Wayfarer

In my responses I have noted that, although he uses "metaphysics" in a way I don't think is appropriate, he is careful to define what he means by the words he uses. I appreciate that.

Yet quarks are supposed to be the constituent parts of massive objects. Where does all that mass actually come from? — Metaphysician Undercover

Quarks have mass. I do remember reading that the mass of the quarks making up larger subatomic particles; i.e. protons, neutrons, and mesons; add up to less than the mass of the particle itself.

Now, you're just getting nasty. So, I'll back-off the stinky word "Metaphysics", and present my aromatic turkey dinner in the form of Karl Popper's notion of non-falsifiable Worlds 2 &3 as noted in the reply to Janus below. — Gnomon

My only complaint has been your confusing misuse of the word "metaphysics." As for your ideas themselves, I don't have strong feelings either way.

And I repeat is again too. The brain is no medium through which information flows to show it to the ones watching. — Cartuna

I didn't understand this argument before, and I don't understand it now.

But we know how a television and computer work. — Xtrix

I don't understand why that matters. I don't see any evidence that the brain is mysterious, just that we don't understand important things about how it works yet.

To the extent that the wood is identical to the camp fire. — DingoJones

To the same extent that a program is identical to a computer. — khaled

I used this last week. I like it so much, I'll use it again.

To the same extent that your TV set is identical to "Gilligan's Island."

I've often heard of it - and was tempted to take a loo. A child of the 80's, I was a bit skittish about watching another The Day After, but I should be able to handle it now. Now I just need to find the time away from my 6 year old — Joshua Jones

It's not brutal at all. Just sad and a bit uplifting at the end. Those Australians, all stiff upper lip and all.

The topic of this "philosophical discussion" is "what IS metaphysics", not "what is the correct or conventional definition of an obsolete Aristotelian concept". — Gnomon

You can define words any way you want. You can define a dog turd a large breed of poultry, but please don't invite me to Thanksgiving dinner at your house.

Why should enlightenment be the same for each of us? — Banno

Good question. I'm not sure it is meant to be the same but I have a poor understanding of the idea, hence this OP. Would there perhaps be certain themes in common? — Tom Storm

Why should the experience of an apple be the same for all of us. Why should the feeling of pain be the same for all of us. People have shared experiences that are worth talking about.

Sorry for cluttering your thread. — TheMadFool

That was just me being cranky. Sorry.

As you've discovered, the forum is imperfect. Welcome.

In the movie Dr. Strange they had Tilda Swinton play the role of "The ancient one", which in the comic books was always an old Asian man. This received a certain amount of backlash. But was it racist? Maybe having a martial arts master be an old asian dude is a archetype so isn't that almost racist in a sense? When is creative license allowed in matters of race? — TiredThinker

I think it's a good idea. White people can only play white people. Asians can only play Asians. Blacks can only play black people. Hispanics can only play Hispanics. Gay people can only play gay people.

Who looks outside, dreams; who looks inside, awakes. — Carl Jung

Perhaps a little of your own thought.

1. Ontology
2. Identity & Change
3. Causality
4. Space & Time
5. Necessity & Possibility

It appears that metaphysics is the study of broad conceptual frameworks with which we make sense of our world.

I guess we could call metaphysics pre-science, not proto-science. Meta-science. — TheMadFool

You made the same comment with the same list back around page 5 or 6 of this thread.

I removed my link to the wrong Hoffman. — Wayfarer

To late. I looked at it. I'm melting, melting.....

which is pretty well what I've been saying since I joined this forum. — Wayfarer

I don't see that as a surprise. You and I agree quite often on the forum.

ps//Oh - actually, wrong Hoffman. I was referring to Prof. Donald, you were referring to a Peter Hoffman. But I'll leave it in as it's relevant to the general subject. — Wayfarer

I don't know what Peter Hoffman would say about the manifesto. Probably wouldn't like it. Even I think it overstates the case. I don't think materialism is false (It's metaphysics so...yadda, yadda, yadda. Never mind). I think it is not always the best way of seeing things.

By which scientists, for example? — Wayfarer

I gave an example in my post - Hoffmann. His proposed mechanisms seem really plausible to me, which is beside the point. Fact is that reputable scientists are currently studying mechanisms other than wild random action and intelligent guidance.

Ever run across https://www.thethirdwayofevolution.com/ ? — Wayfarer

I took a quick look. It seems to be about evolution, which is a completely different subject than the origin of life.

On the Beach (1957) by Nevill Shute — Bitter Crank

Good book. Great movie. "I think I'd like to have that tea now."

Maybe attachment can be added to the list of provocative trigger words. — Tom Storm

I think it's tied up with distrust and disdain for the idea of mysticism.

I don't think it's uncommon for notions like unattachment and detachment and apathy to merge into a maelstrom of studied indifference in mainstream Western eyes. — Tom Storm

I think it comes from ignorance and an inability to understand or imagine how someone might think differently about the world than they do.

I never found the "million monkeys' idea compelling. — Janus

It has been calculated that a million monkeys typing would take more than the life of the universe to type one of Shakespeare's plays.

His argument is that until now, scientists simply assume scientific laws, without exploring why they are the way they are. That's why he is saying science 'rests on faith' - faith in scientific laws. — Wayfarer

I think scientific laws are formulated to describe observed invariant phenomena. So, for example, minimally,the law of gravity is just the observed invariability of unsupported objects falling until they are supported. — Janus

I'm with @Janus. There's another way of looking at things. Much simpler and less fraught with misunderstandings than what you are talking about. As I, and many others, see it, science does not explain anything. It is just and only a description of how things have been observed or predicted to behave. In that way of seeing things, there are no whys. Asking for why is a contamination of science by human notions of purpose and meaning.

I take it as axiomatic that the predominant belief in secular culture is that 'life arose by chance'. Once you dispense with the idea of divine creation or emanation or a divine origin of some kind, what is the alternative? It can only be physical or chemical necessity, a kind of chain reaction that starts and then simply grows according to natural laws. — Wayfarer

If by "secular culture" you mean science, you're wrong. Scientists who study the origins of life see a middle way. Life is originated, not by random behavior of physical substances and not by divine intervention, but by a natural tendency toward self-organization. Rather than try to explain how that might have happened, which I am not qualified to do, I would point you toward "Life's Ratchet, How Molecular Machines Extract Order from Chaos" by Peter M Hoffmann. As the book describes, physical and chemical reactions may have a direction that makes life much more likely than if reactions happened purely by chance.

Can you say more? Do you mean to say that unattachment is a less pejorative manifestation of apathy? — Tom Storm

I think Mr. @Cheshire just means that he doesn't understand and can't imagine what is meant by "Enlightenment" in the context we are discussing it. That allows him to reject its value with a smug sneer.

Tell me why I'm wrong. Show me your viewpoint why I should feel like society is collapsing, or that winter is coming. Challenge me, and we shall discuss your assumptions and see if they hold up when detailed. — Philosophim

Yes, I agree, although I think there would also be value in discussing end times visions, whether or not we think the world will end soon.

As someone who claims to be educated and a counsellor no less, you seem to have a penchant for emotive and passive aggressive language. Could it be that as a counsellor your work is overshadowed by your own anxieties? All this talk of burning books and burning people, Joshua - just how helpful do you think this might be? — Tom Storm

I have no new tales to tell, just a desire to see the darkness for what it is, and some companions to share in the light. — Joshua Jones

I'm with @Tom Storm. I thought a discussion of end times visions would be interesting, but you seem to be waving a flag of surrender to despair and rejecting those who disagree with you without providing evidence. Woe is us.

West, so report in pounds. — praxis

16.4 stone.

To be enlightened is to find out that you were wrong in thinking a particular thought and instead of doubling down you change your mind. — Harry Hindu

Then enlighten me about enlightenment. Am I enlightened now when I'm "wrong", or when I change my mind and agree with you? — Harry Hindu

Come on HH, you know the sense in which you are using "enlightenment" is different than how others on this thread are using it. You are intentionally being difficult.

Then what enlightenment is is subjective? — Harry Hindu

Enlightenment is an experience, so, yes, I guess that means it's subjective.

Dear Harold Bloom said of Emerson: "Emerson is the mind of our climate; he is the principal source of the American difference in poetry and criticism and in pragmatic postphilosophy." Do you think this holds? — Tom Storm

I like the way it sounds, but I don't know what it means. I've never cared for Emerson's poetry much.

Metaphysics, in my opinion, is supposed to be focused on ideas that literally transcend the scope of empirical scientific methods, such as "what caused the Big Bang?" — Gnomon

Those educated guesses are what we call "Hypotheses", and when some guesses survive the scrutiny of peers, or lead to some replicable evidence, we may even call them "Theories". But even the best of our Theories, such as Thermodynamics and Evolution, are based on incomplete evidence. Hence, they are subject to falsification or revision in the future*1. Consequently, understanding the difference between Theory and Practice is essential to my understanding of Meta-Physics. — Gnomon

General concepts and Universal Properties are Meta-Physical — Gnomon

But that's not what I mean when I use the hyphenated term "Meta-Physics". By that I simply refer to the same difference that Descartes formalized between a physical Brain and a metaphysical Mind. — Gnomon

In my theory of Philosophy, Meta-Physics is about models and theories that are not currently verifiable. — Gnomon

Your use of the word "metaphysics" is not consistent with how I use the word or how anyone else I've heard of uses the word. Adding a hyphen doesn't change things. Of course, you can define it any way you like. At least you try to be clear about what that definition is.

Your idea of "meta-physics" may have value in philosophical discussions, but it isn't "metaphysics" as we normally use the word. We've been through all this before. I don't think we'll get anywhere going through it again.

What is the impetus for transformation - is it being who you really are, which may not be an improvement? — Tom Storm

Lao Tzu writes about wu wei, which means acting without acting. Acting that arises from your true self without intention. As to whether or not that is an improvement, I always think of lines that I love from Emerson's "Self-Reliance."

I remember an answer which when quite young I was prompted to make to a valued adviser, who was wont to importune me with the dear old doctrines of the church. On my saying, What have I to do with the sacredness of traditions, if I live wholly from within? my friend suggested, — “But these impulses may be from below, not from above.” I replied, “They do not seem to me to be such; but if I am the Devil’s child, I will live then from the Devil.” No law can be sacred to me but that of my nature.

It always makes me laugh and brings tears to my eyes.

Interesting post. I'm not particularly interested in end times, although I'll tune in to see what others say.

Suggestion - your title has nothing to do with the subject, which you don't actually get to till the end of your post. I think many people who might otherwise be interested won't get far enough to realize what it is about.

Welcome to the forum.

Metaphysics is about first principles which, from a scientific standpoint, are theoretical frameworks or theories in short. — TheMadFool

I'm not sure you and I are using "theory" the same way. I don't see a scientific theory, e.g. general relativity, as a metaphysical entity. Theories have truth value. For me, the scientific method is a metaphysical entity. Perhaps that includes the methods by which theories are developed and verified. I'll have to think about that.