Is There a Cure for Metaphysical Dogma?

[Nous]

It is not merely about quoting definitions, it is about whether or not you have said something that is not so obvious that it could not possibly - even conceivably - been any other way.

But for clarity here are the briefest Oxford Dictionary definitions of the key words:

Entity: A thing with distinct and independent existence.
Structure: The arrangement of and relations between the parts or elements of something complex.

So, hopefully you agree that the definition of "structure" does not create a tautology of this sentence: "All structures discovered by physicists using the scientific method are objectively existing." Right?

In any case, again, you are welcomed to supply any term that you wish to indicate what it is that physicists discover about empirical reality by using the scientific method. You can even make it a nonsense placeholder term or symbol.

-or (if we use the definition of "structure") -

All arrangements of and relations between the parts or elements of something complex discovered by physicists using the scientific method are having objective reality in a way that is not dependent on the mind for existence. (Well no, we certainly do not know that this is necessarily true absent the assumption that such structures - mathematical ones for example - are real

How many times I have asked you to define "real"?

That premise that you just stated here is going to be used to deduce that the mathematical structures that physicists discover using the scientific method are real. Right?

You quoted this clause from Routledge: "a mathematical statement is true just in case it accurately describes the mathematical facts" as an explanation of what mathematical realism means. Is E=mc2 a mathematical statement? Of course it is. So if that explanatory clause from Routledge is correct, what it is claiming is that E=mc2 is true even if there is not a (particular) universe for it to true about - it is true just in case such a universe exists? Of course there may be universes for which E=mc2 is not true, but can I then not also make the claim that E=mc3 is also true just in case there is a universe in which the empirically observed facts would bear this out?

Why ask such a vacuous question? If you can show that there is another universe where E=mc3 is genuinely referential, then do so. You will be demonstrating that the thesis of mathematical realism is true in that universe too.

And more than that it means that there must actually (but not necessarily physically) exist an E, an m and a c that fulfills any and all of the possible relations among them for any conceivable actually existing physical entities whether or not any of these entities actually exist, just in case they do? So mathematical realism is really just like any other form of idealism - it makes entirely unfalsifiable claims about things which may or may not exist in such superlative abundance that it tells us precisely nothing at all. Its Plato's "beard" gone wild again.

If these sentences are supposed to be an argument, then state it:

P1: [. . . ]
P2: [. . . ]
C: Therefore [. . . ]

 

[Nous]

look in a mirror and make your denial to THAT guy

Be sure to let me know if you come up with any comment relevant to the topic.

 

[Thief]

I reiterate....

so...you want to discuss ...metaphysics....
but you have no means to define what is physical

have you not undone yourself?

 

[Nous]

I reiterate....

There's really no reason for you to "reiterate" your nonsense. I read it the first time.

Have you read anything on metaphysics?

 

[Thief]

There's really no reason for you to "reiterate" your nonsense. I read it the first time.

Have you read anything on metaphysics?

have decided what is physical?

 

[blü 2]

Nous in the OP asks (and I number his questions for further reference below),

"[1] do you “have” a metaphysical thesis, one that you assert to be true? [2] If so, on what grounds have you concluded its truth? [3] Is this thesis falsifiable? [4] If so, what fact or evidence would falsify it?"​

[1] Yes, I have several. Their basis is in three assumptions I make about reality ─ (a) that a world exists external to the self (b) that our senses are capable of informing us about this world and (c) reason is a valid tool. (They're assumptions, because each of them can only proceed to demonstration after first assuming it's true.)

Anyone who posts here demonstrates agreement with (a) and (b) ─ and, but this is a hope, not a datum, (c).

I'll start with this one, since it underlies the others ─

(Objective) reality is the same thing as the realm of the physical sciences; and (from Smart and Armstrong, noted philosophers in metaphysics, but not in supernatural metaphysics) only such entities and processes exist (are objectively real) as are recognized by physics from time to time.​

[2] and [3]: I think this is true because ─

(a) it's consistent with my assumptions,
(b) it's falsifiable but unfalsified
(c) I'm unable to think of any alternative definition of reality that's superior.

[4] First, the way to falsify it is to define an alternative ─ I'll call this alternative 'the supernatural" unless someone raises a reasoned objection, since I suspect the identity of physics with nature will be uncontroversial.

Second, this alternative must be defined in such a way that if we found an example of a supernatural thing we could demonstrate to the impartial onlooker that it was indeed supernatural.

Third, this example would then need to be produced so it could be examined and compared to the definition. If
it proved to be supernatural, then my belief would be wrong and I'd need to reconsider.

(A footnote: if anyone wishes to claim that supernatural examples are immaterial, 'spiritual' or the like, and therefore not susceptible to examination, let that claim be accompanied by an objective test which will distinguish the 'spiritual' (&c) from the imaginary, and the 'immaterial' from the imaginary and from non-existence.)

 

[Willamena]

[4] First, the way to falsify it is to define an alternative ─ I'll call this alternative 'the supernatural" unless someone raises a reasoned objection, since I suspect the identity of physics with nature will be uncontroversial.

There are alternatives to physicalism, without resorting to the supernatural, or magic, and that still allow that the physical be identified with nature. The most popular is (philosophical) idealism. To borrow your style above, idealism would be represented such:
(a) that a world and a self exist inseparably (b) that our senses inform this world and (c) reason is a valid tool.

Good post, by the way.

 

[Jonathan Ainsley Bain]

My impression is that most philosophically conversant adults hold some belief that a thesis of metaphysics states a truth about the nature of reality. If you do not hold any such belief, you are welcomed to declare your metaphysical neutrality.

Further, my impression is that it isn't uncommon people to hold their metaphysical beliefs tenaciously, even when presented evidence contrary to the thesis, or on the basis of clearly invalid reasoning. In other words, the belief takes on the characteristics of a dogma, in which there is an intellectual or emotional allegiance to it, possibly motivated by identification with a group.

Definition of DOGMA

1 a : something held as an established opinion; especially : a definite authoritative tenet

b : a code of such tenets pedagogical dogma

c : a point of view or tenet put forth as authoritative without adequate grounds​

Indeed, any sort of overt affirmation of a single metaphysical thesis might be considered suspect, given that metaphysical theses are not scientifically tested or shown to be true to the exclusion of all others. Some metaphysical theses or certain tenets of some theses might be (and seemingly have been) empirically ruled out. But that doesn't leave us with which, if any, thesis is true.

So, do you “have” a metaphysical thesis, one that you assert to be true? If so, on what grounds have you concluded its truth? Is this thesis falsifiable? If so, what fact or evidence would falsify it?

Metaphysical Truth:

Dualism. Mind is quite distinct from Material.
The purest logic comes from the keenest minds.
The universe is underpinned by impeccable logic, (math)
thus it originated in the perfect mind: God (Thanks Aquinas & Plato)

My own thesis comes to me from direct contact with incorporeal Christian spirits,
John the Baptist and Jesus.

The underlying argument flies on the face of atheist academia and yet
its proof is actually entirely material, and logical, and the topic is contemporary
with materialist astrophysics.

So; can you falsify the pure logic that they have imparted to me that
gravity is a force propagated instantly?

Here is that proof: Instant Gravity Proof

As you cannot falsify it, my metaphysics is authenticated.

The full thesis is much more than that; however.
But it falsifies almost all of formal academia, whilst being undeniable except
by those in denial due to their knee-jerk assumptions; those that lack clinical computational logic:

The sophists of atheist academia and their legion upon legion of bleating blind sheep!

 

[Jonathan Ainsley Bain]

There are alternatives to physicalism, without resorting to the supernatural, or magic, and that still allow that the physical be identified with nature. The most popular is (philosophical) idealism. To borrow your style above, idealism would be represented such:
(a) that a world and a self exist inseparably (b) that our senses inform this world and (c) reason is a valid tool.

Good post, by the way.

Aah. But which came first?
The world or the self - or both together.
If you answer: 'the world' - its physicalism,
and all else will be labelled supernatural whether you like the label or not.

Sooner or later the fence is a very uncomfortable place for the philosopher to sit.
(Now who said that first?)

 

[Willamena]

Aah. But which came first?
The world or the self - or both together.
If you answer: 'the world' - its physicalism,
and all else will be labelled supernatural whether you like the label or not.

Sooner or later the fence is a very uncomfortable place for the philosopher to sit.
(Now who said that first?)

"Came" implies physicalism.

 

[Thief]

a cure?...for 'after the physical'....(metaphysical)

no

you would need to kill ALL of the spiritual world


and you think you could survive in this world and celebrate?
knowing that nothing waits for you after your last breath

or maybe you ARE concerned that Something Greater is waiting for you
standing over you in your last hour
waiting to see what stands from the dust

 

[blü 2]

Willamena

(a) that a world and a self exist inseparably (b) that our senses inform this world and (c) reason is a valid tool.
​

Thanks for that.

I appreciate that you're not trying to sell me idealism, but I'd be grateful if you could clarify a bit further.

'A world', not 'the world' and thus that world peculiar to that self?

Inseparably but distinctly, sort of yin and yang, or inseparably but indistinctly, sort of can't ever be sure, or inseparably and indistinguishably, sort of world ≡ self ie solipsism?

How can the senses inform anything but the self they're attached to?

And to inform, there must be some version of sentience being informed; so is the claim that the world of that self is distinct from self and also sentient?

 

[blü 2]

Mr Bain

You say, "Here is that proof: Instant Gravity Proof"

And you add," As you cannot falsify it, my metaphysics is authenticated."

In fact it's not a proof. And I can't tell if it's even a realistic model of what it purports to demonstrate. We need a reputable physicist for that.

But that shouldn't be a problem. Surely the author of your model has had it examined by such people, and if it's so successful that you can claim it to justify your metaphysics, surely it's been the subject of at least one paper published in a reputable journal of science?

If so, please refer us to that paper, or those papers.

If not, then I'll wait till there are.

 

[Willamena]

a cure?...for 'after the physical'....(metaphysical)

no

you would need to kill ALL of the spiritual world


and you think you could survive in this world and celebrate?
knowing that nothing waits for you after your last breath

or maybe you ARE concerned that Something Greater is waiting for you
standing over you in your last hour
waiting to see what stands from the dust

Meta doesn't mean 'after,' it points to an underlying concept 'behind.' In the way that a mastermind is 'behind' a criminal activity.

 

[Willamena]

Willamena

(a) that a world and a self exist inseparably (b) that our senses inform this world and (c) reason is a valid tool.
​

Thanks for that.

I appreciate that you're not trying to sell me idealism, but I'd be grateful if you could clarify a bit further.

'A world', not 'the world' and thus that world peculiar to that self?

No, "a world" in the sense that there is, indeed, a world. It is "the world."

The same way that you used it.

Inseparably but distinctly, sort of yin and yang, or inseparably but indistinctly, sort of can't ever be sure, or inseparably and indistinguishably, sort of world ≡ self ie solipsism?

How can the senses inform anything but the self they're attached to?

Inseparably in the sense that there is no self without world, and there is no world without self. That is how the senses inform everything. "Self" is nothing more than the idea that there is something other, something special, that is a target of awareness. But the world that self is aware of is the self that is aware of the world.

Solipsism is 'self' doubting that there is an external world. But if self and world are inseparable, there is nothing to doubt.

And to inform, there must be some version of sentience being informed; so is the claim that the world of that self is distinct from self and also sentient?

The necessity for there to be an entity to be the subject of a verb is just that, a grammatical trick. Grammar teaches us that "a verb has a subject." That's tantamount to believing in words at the expense of reality.

Sentience isn't a necessary characteristic.

 

[Thief]

Meta doesn't mean 'after,' it points to an underlying concept 'behind.' In the way that a mastermind is 'behind' a criminal activity.

as the Creator is behind His creation?
as the id is behind your mind?

yeah...I honestly thought the prefix meant ....after the physical

 

[Willamena]

yeah...I honestly thought the prefix meant ....after the physical

Nope.

 

[blü 2]

In English: Shorter Oxford:
meta-, met-
... Its chief senses are : sharing, action in common, pursuit or quest; and esp. change (of place, order, condition, or nature), corresp. to L[atin] trans-. Occas. it has the sense 'after' or 'behind', as in metaphrenon ...

In old Greek: Pocket Oxford:
μετά: adv. among them; besides; afterwards; ... into the middle (of); in quest or pursuit of; after; behind; next to; next after; according to; ... among; between; with; together with; at; according to; ... in company with.

In short: very versatile.

 

[Jonathan Ainsley Bain]

"Came" implies physicalism.

Only if you consider time to be a physical entity;
which I suppose that many people do.
But not me.
Physical mechanisms are reversible in time (supposedly),
but it is only consciousness that apprehends time;
it is our minds that are confined to temporal events.

But you DID avoid the question,
and hence bought yourself
more time.

 

[Willamena]

Only if you consider time to be a physical entity;
which I suppose that many people do.
But not me.
Physical mechanisms are reversible in time (supposedly),
but it is only consciousness that apprehends time;
it is our minds that are confined to temporal events.

But you DID avoid the question,
and hence bought yourself
more time.

Neither came first, the world or the self.