• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Paradigms of reality: Metaphysics vs Science

S

steve_bnk

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 23, 2008
Messages
646
Location
seattle
Basic Beliefs
Skeptic
A continuation of this discussion.
http://www.freeratio.org/showthread.php?p=7664725#post7664725

What is the difference between science and metaphysics.

What defines the validity of a metaphysical paradigm of reality.




Last posts of user named Paradigm.


'...Paradigms of reality: Metaphysicsvs Science
Physicalism is the philosophicalposition that everything is a product of physical process and sorejects all forms of metaphysics and religious notions. The processof evolution is a Physicalist process. The process of the wholeUniverse is a Physicalist process. My Physicalism includesmaterialism in the sense that I see everything as being composed ofthat substance that we call matter. Essentially, the Universe can beseen as a process of the construction and de-construction of matteracross Cosmology and Biology.

paradigm
The Oxford English Dictionary definesthe term Paradigm as be “a typical example or pattern of something;a pattern or model". The Paradigm of Types is a model whichrepresents the types of complex matter that can be constructed acrossCosmology and Biology within the finite construction possibilities ofthe Universe.
Although the essay cannot be reproducedhere directly, due to the natural numbers and arrows notation, it canbe pointed out that the Paradigm indicates that all solar systemsbegin with 11 planets. Of these, 7 will become solid planets and 4will remain gas planets. All of the planets will ultimately bedestroyed by the increasing gravity of the Sun.

There needs to be a distinction drawnbetween the Paradigm in and of itself, and its interpretation orapplication. The Paradigm in and of itself cannot be wrong. On theother hand, a specific interpretation or application can be wrong.
As the title of the essay makes clear,what’s presented is an “introduction” and is not in any sense acomplete interpretation or application of the Paradigm.


Also, the Paradigm is not a Physicstheory which is tested to determine its validity. The Paradigm as amodel is tested through its interpretation or application based on itbeing the most fundamental and complete perspective of theconstruction possibilities of the Universe.

Paradigm ...'
 
My view.

http://www.freeratio.org/showthread.php?p=7664721#post7664721

'...Modern science IMO began with Newton,He gave us an organized mathematical language and grammar. Calculus.The science grammar was finalized over the last 150 years with thedevelopment of Systems International.


http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/index.html


The is no place in modern sconceoperationally for structured metaphysical systems. It provides noutility.


Creationism, Naturalism, Physicalism,Materialism...ad iinfinitum.


Natural Science under philosophy spitoff into modern empirical mathematical science because metaphysicswere no longer adequate


A paradigm is view of how realityworks. There is a saying that has come about over recent decades,'science always works'


Meaning it does not matter how youthink of or imagine re reality, our causal scientific models alwayswork. Newtonian physics work regardless of whether you think godcreated the universe. Or if there is a higher power guiding theuniverse and so on.

Metaphysics can never refute amathematical scientific model that has some empirical evidence.


(PRADAUGM SAYS)
'...Also, the Paradigm is not a Physicstheory which is tested to determine its validity. The Paradigm as amodel is tested through its interpretation or application based on itbeing the most fundamental and complete perspective of theconstruction possibilities of the Universe. ..'


Creationists might think otherwise.


I prefer Naturalism. All that exists bydefinition is all that exists.. There can be nothing outside of theUniverse.


Any phenomena that would be calledsupernatural that interacts with our reality will do so via causallinks or laws. If telepathy exists then there are causal laws even ifwe can not deduce them.



Naturalism idsthe most comprehensiveuniversal paradigm.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalism_(philosophy)


'...Naturalism is "the idea orbelief that only natural (as opposed to supernatural or spiritual)laws and forces operate in the world; (occas.) the idea or beliefthat nothing exists beyond the natural world."[1] Adherents ofnaturalism (i.e., naturalists) assert that natural laws are the rulesthat govern the structure and behavior of the natural universe, thatthe changing universe at every stage is a product of theselaws.[2]..'
 
Newton? Pfah.

It started with Copernicus because he had the balls to admit that he was wrong: "This is what I wanted to prove, and this is why I failed" (paraphrased, obviously). The great thinkers among the ancients would never have published such a thing.
 
Underseer said:
Newton? Pfah.

It started with Copernicus because he had the balls to admit that he was wrong: "This is what I wanted to prove, and this is why I failed" (paraphrased, obviously). The great thinkers among the ancients would never have published such a thing.
Click to expand...

The rapid growth in science in the west was fueled by Newton's synthesis of calculus and his mechanics based on it.

The basic concepts had been around for many centuries, but he synthesized it all into a unified whole.
 
I'm not sure synthesis is the right word. He invented one to do the other.

There is hardly a branch of science that was not in some way influenced by something Newton did, but science is a process, and Copernicus admitting he was wrong introduced one of the most important parts of that process.
 
steve_bnk said:
What is the difference between science and metaphysics.

What defines the validity of a metaphysical paradigm of reality.
Click to expand...

Metaphysics admits of no constraints except rationality.

Science admits of no constraints except observation.
EB
 
steve_bnk said:
I prefer Naturalism. All that exists bydefinition is all that exists.
Click to expand...
Tautology.

steve_bnk said:
All that exists bydefinition is all that exists. There can be nothing outside of theUniverse.
Click to expand...
Which is a non-sequitur. The two propositions are obviously independent.

You wouldn't know if there is something outside of the universe, either because the universe is somehow contained in something larger like a superverse that would be unknowable for us or because there are other universes totally unconnected to our own and also therefore unknowable.

Since you are claiming something you cannot know your claim is metaphysical. :sadyes:
EB
 
The title of the thread, "Metaphysics vs Science", is also wrong.

All scientists have metaphysical views, and they sometimes, possibly always, frame their scientific theories to contain certain metaphysical elements. Metaphysics is not necessarily about God and God is not necessarily against science even though most of the time, in effect if not necessarily in intention, it is.

You should change your ideological paradigm. :sadyes:
EB
 
Physical reality is that which can be known. I'm not sure what else matters? Until I can see something that's demonstrably different from 'physical reality' then I see no reason why that concept has any importance for me.

I can make guesses about metaphysical reality until the cow's come home, but as long as they are guesses they are effectively meaningless.
 
rousseau said:
Physical reality is that which can be known. I'm not sure what else matters? Until I can see something that's demonstrably different from 'physical reality' then I see no reason why that concept has any importance for me.

I can make guesses about metaphysical reality until the cow's come home, but as long as they are guesses they are effectively meaningless.
Click to expand...

You stepped in it and on it when you wrote 'known' in the same sentence as science. That which is known is always known and certain. As I understand science it, through observation, experiment, analysis, and postulation is a process which provides more useful understandings of that in the material world it explores. That idea makes it different from Metaphysics and the main reason for that is that science doesn't presume - from my perspective it doesn't permit - things can be known.
 
fromderinside said:
You stepped in it and on it when you wrote 'known' in the same sentence as science. That which is known is always known and certain. As I understand science it, through observation, experiment, analysis, and postulation is a process which provides more useful understandings of that in the material world it explores. That idea makes it different from Metaphysics and the main reason for that is that science doesn't presume - from my perspective it doesn't permit - things can be known.
Click to expand...

What you're saying makes sense, but deep inside my wormy brain I like to keep my own definitions and understandings of things.

On a scale of 1 to 10 how true is evolutionary theory? 9.99999999999999999999999999999999999999? Ok, pretty good model for understanding reality, and might as well be factual for all practical purposes. Will that model become more realized? Definitely.

On a scale of 1 to 10 how true is Christian God? 0. Therefore it might only be good to alter my behaviour in such a way that doesn't offend Christians, but that doesn't assume a Christian God exists.

And that is why I call much of physical reality 'known', when strictly speaking that might not be totally true.
 
rousseau said:
What you're saying makes sense, but deep inside my wormy brain I like to keep my own definitions and understandings of things.

On a scale of 1 to 10 how true is evolutionary theory? 9.99999999999999999999999999999999999999? Ok, pretty good model for understanding reality, and might as well be factual for all practical purposes. Will that model become more realized? Definitely.

On a scale of 1 to 10 how true is Christian God? 0. Therefore it might only be good to alter my behaviour in such a way that doesn't offend Christians, but that doesn't assume a Christian God exists.

And that is why I call much of physical reality 'known', when strictly speaking that might not be totally true.
Click to expand...
What do you mean with "how true"?
 
Juma said:
What do you mean with "how true"?
Click to expand...

It may have been bad wording.

How about: on a scale of 1 to 10, how likely are [insert certain] theories deduced by the scientific method to make accurate predictions about objective reality. If they're very good at giving me a framework to understand the nature of my surroundings, then their truth value is quite high.

With the depth of what the scientific world has discovered I'm comfortable saying that I have a pretty good view of objective reality, but philosophy would say that technically speaking objective reality is 'unknowable'.
 
Einstein’s formulation of relativity nitially had more of an impact on philosophy than science.


For us on Earth there can be noabsolute motion.


Standing on Earth we say today the Earth goes around the Sun, but the Sun also goes around the galaxy, and TheARE in motion relative to us.


IF you take the reference point, inertial frame of reference, as Earth then it is correct that say the Sun goes around the Earth. The old mathematical models based onthe Earth as center could predict motions of planets and stars.


Any theory can never be true nor false in any absolute sense. We have no absolute point of reference.


What QM showed is there can be noseparate experiment and observation. Any experiment IS a disturbance of that which is being measured. It is inescapable.


Put a glass thermometer in a glass ofwater and you measure both thermometer and water.


At the atomic scale it becomes much more difficult to separate the measurement effects from that which isbeing investigated.


In the slit particle experiment weinfer a wave like attribute based on the the test set up. If we look for a particle like a photon or electron, we see particle like quantized properties. The dual particle-wave description of particles provides a good working model that produces results, butw ho knows what the real underlying phenomena may be. That we can never know in any absolute terms.


Science is interpreting and extrapolating ffrom observation using the meter, kilogram, andsecond.
 
rousseau said:
How likely are [insert certain] theories deduced by the scientific method to make accurate predictions about objective reality.
Click to expand...
Fits with my view: "truth is what works best" (which requires a definition of "works")

rousseau said:
With the depth of what the scientific world has discovered I'm comfortable saying that I have a pretty good view of objective reality
Click to expand...
Really? I think you would be suprised of how much of that "objective reality" that is just something your brain has created.
 
steve_bnk said:
Einstein’s formulation of relativity nitially had more of an impact on philosophy than science.


For us on Earth there can be noabsolute motion.


Standing on Earth we say today the Earth goes around the Sun, but the Sun also goes around the galaxy, and TheARE in motion relative to us.


IF you take the reference point, inertial frame of reference, as Earth then it is correct that say the Sun goes around the Earth. The old mathematical models based onthe Earth as center could predict motions of planets and stars.


Any theory can never be true nor false in any absolute sense. We have no absolute point of reference.
Click to expand...
This is Newtonian mechanics. What Einstein showed was that there is something that is NOT relative: the speed of light.
 
Juma said:
This is Newtonian mechanics. What Einstein showed was that there is something that is NOT relative: the speed of light.
Click to expand...

It appears absolute as a speed limit.

At one point time was considered absolute. Point being we have no way of knowing what C actually represents. And C is not absolute in the sense you infer.


Two space ships are at rest with each other. One accelerates away.. A beam of light passes through each ship and both ships measure the same velocity locally. However by the overall theory it is a result of the fact that time and space itself changes with relative velocity such that C will always appear the same. It is also related to the way time and space are defined in SI.

When clocks-time change due to relativistic time dilation by the SI definitions space and velocity as measured in any inertial frame scale proportionally.



It was Maxwell who derived EM theory and c.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom