Metaphysics is a self delusional anadyne

[DrZoidberg]

Support for the idea that the meaning of life (for example) is metaphysics and not some other 'branch' (I use the word loosely) of philosophy.

Which that article doesn't cover.

Philosophy itself is metaphysics. Science answers how. Metaphysics answers why.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysics

metaphysics
[met-uh-fiz-iks]
ExamplesWord Origin
See more synonyms for metaphysics on Thesaurus.com
noun (used with a singular verb)
the branch of philosophy that treats of first principles, includes ontology and cosmology, and is intimately connected with epistemology.
philosophy, especially in its more abstruse branches.
the underlying theoretical principles of a subject or field of inquiry.

Yes science what? First you said there was a spirituality that was metaphysical that was beyond science and naturalism, and now I don't know what you're saying.

Spirituality are practices that use beliefs in the supernatural. But the beliefs themselves can have an effect on our behaviour in the real world. An example is, if you believe that your arms start from your shoulders your range of motion will be about 10 centimeters less than if you believe that your arms start from the middle of your back. It's the same body, the only difference is your faith in how it works. Yoga is another example. While you are doing yoga, if you believe all that nonsense they're spouting you'll become calmer and more flexible. Your flexibility is not only in your head. It's measurable. It's like this for many things. Praying or meditating every night has measurable positive effects even if the dieties they pray to don't exist.

That's why spirituality can be part metaphysics and part science.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spirituality

Yes, science.

Science is not metaphysics? How come? Everything else apparently is.

As ever, that is too simple.

Science is the only thing it's not. Everything else is metaphysics. Unless you're talking philosophy of science = metaphysics.

You don't have to take my word for it. These are among the most fundamental and well defined topics in philosophy.

Even a moment's googling a recognised philosophy encyclopedia shows that it is not well defined at all. The opening line at the Stanford entry on metaphysics is "It is not easy to say what metaphysics is."

That's a cop out. Stanford's philosophy dictionary has one job and it's to serve up correct definitions for philosophic terms. That's just lazy of them.

I think it's useful. It's an umbrella term for everything that isn't science. I actually use it a lot in discussions.

Metaphysics is a useful word for anything that isn't science? That's the first time I've heard that one. What about epistemology for starters? But hey, you use it as you like. Everyone else does. That's vague terms for you.

Epistemology is metaphysics. I typically use the word in discussions on pseudoscience. Pseudo-scientific claims are often metaphysical. Saying that something is metaphysical around people who believe dumb shit often sounds like I'm validating them, when I most certainly don't. It's a way to be smooth in discussions.

I'd argue that's wishful thinking. I also think it's an absurd claim. Why would nature do that?

Ok. It's just incorrect to say that we are controlled or progammed by our genes. But by all means keep peddling the idea that it isn't. Just don't ask a genetic scientist nowadays. I can put my daughter on if you like. She has a masters in genetics.

I suggest asking her then. My claim isn't in the least controversial. But I think we've reached the end of this discussion. You are free to believe whatever you like.

But just to be super clear... I don't mean, programme like a computer is programmed. That's not how it works. Our brains aren't computers.

 

[Grendel]

Do you know what the word "clear" means?

ummmmm ... as in Scientology ???

I'm not sure what you mean by fuzzy. I see a clear picture of a false reality using my senses alone, the same general 3D reality that we all see. But when I put on a set of contact lenses like the LHC, then I see a physical reality, obviously the only reality. You can't have two physical realities in the one system can you?

This reality bears no resemblance to any philosophy (except compositional nihilism)

The problem under discussion is, how does this micro-world become our macro-world .. the bizarre behaviour of the micro-world, obeying nothing more than statistical probabilities gives rise to our regulated, continuous macro-world.

I'm saying that Scientific Philosophy is away with the fairies when it comes to explaining how this universe works. We need a new way of teaching/explaining our Universe so that everyone can understand. But worse than that is that nearly all current philosophy is still related in some way to Aristotelian thought and is totally misleading.

 

[Grendel]

The opening line at the Stanford entry on metaphysics is "It is not easy to say what metaphysics is."

Bwahahahaaaaaaaa

 

[Speakpigeon]

Stanford University: Quantum Mechanics
First published Wed Nov 29, 2000; substantive revision Sat Feb 7, 2015

Quantum mechanics is, at least at first glance and at least in part, a mathematical machine for predicting the behaviors of microscopic particles — or, at least, of the measuring instruments we use to explore those behaviors — and in that capacity, it is spectacularly successful: in terms of power and precision, head and shoulders above any theory we have ever had.

Mathematically, the theory is well understood; we know what its parts are, how they are put together, and why, in the mechanical sense (i.e., in a sense that can be answered by describing the internal grinding of gear against gear), the whole thing performs the way it does, how the information that gets fed in at one end is converted into what comes out the other.

The question of what kind of a world it describes, however, is controversial; there is very little agreement, among physicists and among philosophers, about what the world is like according to quantum mechanics.

Minimally interpreted, the theory describes a set of facts about the way the microscopic world impinges on the macroscopic one, how it affects our measuring instruments, described in everyday language or the language of classical mechanics. Disagreement centers on the question of what a microscopic world, which affects our apparatuses in the prescribed manner, is, or even could be, like intrinsically; or how those apparatuses could themselves be built out of microscopic parts of the sort the theory describes.

That is what an interpretation of the theory would provide: a proper account of what the world is like according to quantum mechanics, intrinsically and from the bottom up.

(...) Quantum Mechanics and the Universe it describes is proven. That's all the proof needed. There is no doubt that the small-world produces the big-world, and there is no doubt that the small-world is governed by the laws of probability that make no recognition of the large-world we see around us.

OK, it's clear you just like to jump to unsupported conclusions. QM is proven just means it's a logically consistent theory and the limited set of predictions we've tried are all consistent with corresponding observations. The thing is, we didn't wait for QM to achieve such a feat. Newton mechanics worked wonderfully well according to the scientists of the time. And even before science could come into play, it's just the case that what happens within the limited confine of my everyday life fits my expectations, and I'm sure this would be true for other people. And we can all look at other animals to see that their limited understanding of the world is good enough for the species to perdure a very long time, and certainly longer than humanity has achieved so far.

So, proven, yes, but, as the piece you quoted here says itself, this leaves us with no certain interpretation of QM, which is exactly the situation I already described broadly saying that as long as you keep away from making ontological claims based on your proven science you're safe. Beyond that, it's just metaphysics, the very thing you've dismissed in your OP.

The problem with giving a QM interpretation, not just a comforting, homey sort of interpretation, (i.e., not just an interpretation according to which the world isn't too different from the familiar world of common sense) is that we are unable to give any interpretation at all.

I agree and that's what I already told you in different terms.

(...) we are unable to give any interpretation at all. Compositional Nihilism does give an interpretation.

Ouch. This is a straightforward contradiction in terms. You're being illogical on top of committing the very sin you denounce in your OP of going into metaphysics, so it's kinda double contradiction in just one short phrase.

Anyway, thanks for being at least articulate and grammatical if illogical. You've been very quick to show how limited your point is. I guess you have nothing else to say.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

There is only a physical world. There is only a physical Universe.

Yes, we get the picture, thanks.
EB

 

[ruby sparks]

The opening line at the Stanford entry on metaphysics is "It is not easy to say what metaphysics is."

Bwahahahaaaaaaaa

No, it's ok. Luckily we have with us an expert, on both metaphysics and genetics. All is clear.

 

[Grendel]

OK, it's clear you just like to jump to unsupported conclusions. QM is proven just means it's a logically consistent theory and the limited set of predictions we've tried are all consistent with corresponding observations.

QM is responsible for all electronics. if no transistor then no chip ... no chip, no cell phone, no iPad, no computer ...... no digital data ...

That's a little bit more proven than 'logically consistent theory (with a) limited set of predictions'. That's not jumping to an unsupported conclusion. Stanford's words .. 'it is spectacularly successful: in terms of power and precision, head and shoulders above any theory we have ever had.

Why should I believe, or anyone else believe, anything you have to say? I expect a retraction from you if you're genuinely unbiased. But it seems to me that your more interested in downplaying and putting down everything I've said than you are interested in understanding my posts. And that also says something. And mostly what is says is that when your personal philosophy is under threat you'll gladly stoop to personal subjectivity to prop it up.

And as for me having nothing left to say ... well ...

​

 

[DrZoidberg]

No, it's ok. Luckily we have with us an expert, on both metaphysics and genetics. All is clear.

So what programmes your behaviour then? It's got to be something. The only information that goes into the organism is the DNA. So it has to be that. Any other explanation falls back on magic. Since I'm an atheist I don't believe in magic. It's just simple deduction.

What you're doing is just sciency hand-waving. You might sound smart to someone, but you won't fool anybody who gives this any thought.

 

[ruby sparks]

...you won't fool anybody who gives this any thought.

Drat. But hey, on the upside, at least I can still always count on fooling you.

 

[Speakpigeon]

The Cogito argument is that you don't need to pretend you know anything beyond your own thinking. If you don't know your own thinking, fair enough, there's nothing I can do for you. Just go see some doctor. The argument is that it's good enough to know your own thinking and when you know your own thinking then you are thinking and therefore you are. As Descartes was careful to explain, what you know you are in this juncture is just the thinking itself. Beyond your own thinking, you may have things like Guinness and Turtle soup that I agree in effect you know nothing about in themselves. All you have that you know are your ideas of them, ideas which are just a bit of thinking.

I'm sorry. I don't agree with Descartes, he just speaks Kant.

What kind of argument is that?!

I don't accept Qualia because things are not the way things seem at all.

Sorry, I'm missing the logical connection between "qualia" in the first part of your sentence and "things" in the second part of the sentence.

So, what's wrong with qualia exactly according to you? Do you mean to say that qualia are not what they seem? If so then you just don't understand the notion of qualia and then you'd have to go back to school before we can have a meaningful conversation.

Here is a short tutorial:

Qualia (singular form: quale) are claimed to be individual instances of subjective, conscious experience. Examples of qualia include the perceived sensation of pain of a headache, the taste of wine, the redness of an evening sky etc. Qualia are just the way things seem to us.

So, are you saying that the way things seem to us is not the way things seem at all?!

???

Again you just sound illogical to me. I think it's fair to say you're not making sense. Can you explain yourself properly at all?

We are biological beings and we physically react, act, and interact in a physical material world. Just like ants and ant-lions and deep sea snapper, we act objectively.

We are, we are... Here you go again all metaphysical... The very thing you pretend to despise in your OP!

And you still have to support your claims.
EB

 

[DrZoidberg]

...you won't fool anybody who gives this any thought.

Drat. But hey, on the upside, at least I can still always count on fooling you.

That's what I thought. You haven't thought this through enough to have an opinion. When you do we can continue this discussion.

 

[Speakpigeon]

And here is the complete explanation of the problem and the solution in a single sentence. Compositional Nihilism.

Taking science metaphysically seriously, means that metaphysicians/philosophers must abandon the picture of the world as composed of self-subsistent individual objects, and the paradigm of causation as the collision of such objects.

How is that even an explanation, let alone "a complete explanation of the problem". This suggests you don't understand what it takes to provide a proper justification of your views.

So, what's left once we "abandon the picture of the world as composed of self-subsistent individual objects, and the paradigm of causation as the collision of such objects"? That there isn't anything at all that exist? Please explain yourself.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

Compositional Nihilism.

Yes? What is that? Can't you explain yourself?

Here is, in three short sentences, what we need to know about compositional nihilism:

Mereological nihilism or compositional nihilism is the mereological position that objects with proper parts do not exist. Only mereological simples, those basic building blocks without proper parts, exist. Or, more succinctly, "nothing is a proper part of anything".

So I have to provide the explanation in your stead?

OK, so that's sweet to know what mereological nihilism is but that's also entirely metaphysical. Once you go into ontology, once you pretend to know what exists out there, you're doing metaphysics and the whole of metaphysics has the same knowledge value: zero.

Further, you seem to believe, along with people expressing this position, that mereological nihilism is different from the conventional view scientists have. I don't think that's even true. There is no orthodox view on the ontology of science because it's essentially every man for himself. People, scientists, all believe what they like without necessarily being prepared to articulate their thinking or even to make public their view. All we have is the scientific theory, say QM or Relativity. Please provide a quote of the kind of ontological claims scientists are supposed to make according to what you suggest in your post here. Not some book by some idiot but something coming with the exposition of QM or Relativity.

And crucially, provide also a proof that mereological nihilism is true. You've started a thread and you are proving yourself incapable of articulating your position coherently. All you've done so far is illogical, unsupported and unexplained statements. Not good.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

Dr. Z, et al,

Since when does metaphysics cover all the branches of philosophy? Since when does morality fall under the branch of metaphysics? I had learned that the branch called ethics covered questions of morality, just as epistemology covers questions of how we (can) know things - and hence logic would actually be a subcategory of epistemology?*

*ETA: A quick search tells me logic is sometimes considered a sixth category. That's new to me.

Here are (were) the five main branches of philosophy as I learned them many a year ago - not online but in books:

Metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, politics, and esthetics. Other more specified studies would fall somewhere under one of those categories, like ontology, axiology, etc.

From my paper encyclopedia on metaphysics, there are, unsurprisingly, quite different views on what metaphysics is. Summing up for myself, I think the crucial point is that metaphysics is a rational speculation or investigation on the reality or ontology of the world beyond the appearance of phenomena. This doesn't explain how on earth anybody should be capable of guessing correctly what's beyond the appearance of things to get at what's ontologically real. Doing a rational investigation is fine, but that doesn't tell you what is, merely what is logically conceivable, not quite the thing. Further, you just can't ignore all phenomena. You have to start from them, which is what science does, as indeed all of us in our everyday life.
EB

Nota
Apparently, morality has be taken by some historical figures of metaphysics as properly metaphysical. I think that there is an overlap. No big deal.

 

[Speakpigeon]

OK, it's clear you just like to jump to unsupported conclusions. QM is proven just means it's a logically consistent theory and the limited set of predictions we've tried are all consistent with corresponding observations.

QM is responsible for all electronics. if no transistor then no chip ... no chip, no cell phone, no iPad, no computer ...... no digital data ...

That's a little bit more proven than 'logically consistent theory (with a) limited set of predictions'.

No it's not. Seems we also disagree on what straightforward English sentences mean.

You still have to support your claim.
EB

 

[DrZoidberg]

Dr. Z, et al,

Since when does metaphysics cover all the branches of philosophy? Since when does morality fall under the branch of metaphysics? I had learned that the branch called ethics covered questions of morality, just as epistemology covers questions of how we (can) know things - and hence logic would actually be a subcategory of epistemology?*

*ETA: A quick search tells me logic is sometimes considered a sixth category. That's new to me.

Here are (were) the five main branches of philosophy as I learned them many a year ago - not online but in books:

Metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, politics, and esthetics. Other more specified studies would fall somewhere under one of those categories, like ontology, axiology, etc.

From my paper encyclopedia on metaphysics, there are, unsurprisingly, quite different views on what metaphysics is. Summing up for myself, I think the crucial point is that metaphysics is a rational speculation or investigation on the reality or ontology of the world beyond the appearance of phenomena. This doesn't explain how on earth anybody should be capable of guessing correctly what's beyond the appearance of things to get at what's ontologically real. Doing a rational investigation is fine, but that doesn't tell you what is, merely what is logically conceivable, not quite the thing. Further, you just can't ignore all phenomena. You have to start from them, which is what science does, as indeed all of us in our everyday life.
EB

Nota
Apparently, morality has be taken by some historical figures of metaphysics as properly metaphysical. I think that there is an overlap. No big deal.

You're talking about the colloquial use of the term metaphysics, equating it with woo. It's not what the word means in philosophy. As far as I'm aware the word hasn't changed meaning since Aristotle invented it. And while discussing in this thread I did some looking up just to assure myself I wasn't going crazy. And nope... I'm correct.

 

[Speakpigeon]

You're talking about the colloquial use of the term metaphysics, equating it with woo. It's not what the word means in philosophy. As far as I'm aware the word hasn't changed meaning since Aristotle invented it. And while discussing in this thread I did some looking up just to assure myself I wasn't going crazy. And nope... I'm correct.

Sorry, I merely summed up a long article which started by saying that already in the Middle-Ages the notion of metaphysics had evolved from the Aristotelian origine. The article gives something like seven or eight different perspectives on what metaphysics is. It's all in French and it's also an old book. And it's also nothing like "colloquial".
EB

 

[fromderinside]

So in which Minoan cave did you find this article in French? I'm sure your saying you read is convincing as to facts. BTW what were those facts again? /snark

 

[Speakpigeon]

So in which Minoan cave did you find this article in French?

The cave is my flat.

I'm sure your saying you read is convincing as to facts.

Yes. Publication of a book is a fact, like it or not. And the book has been a reference in French at the time. Initially published in 1902...

BTW what were those facts again? /snark

The fact was that I read the article of this book relative to metaphysics and offered a summing-up since the article is several pages long and goes into fine distinctions between different views as to what the word metaphysics is used to mean.

Read the introduction in French here: https://www.researchgate.net/public...laire_technique_et_critique_de_la_philosophie

It's still on sale in France and there's some activity about it on the Internet.

And it's more recent than Aristotle, I think.
EB

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

That there may be something objective behind some of the experiences and not others is a subjective hypothesis.

An observation of trivial importance, considering the evidence.