Solving metaphysics

Tell us a little about yourself.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Advocate
Posts: 25
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:27 am

Re: Solving metaphysics

Post by Advocate » Wed Sep 13, 2017 1:20 am

uwot wrote:
Wed Sep 13, 2017 12:27 am
In contrast with how "The word "real" is often used", you have just defined it as 'that which is in our bubble of experience'-precisely the bubble that is the object of physics. Therefore, not metaphysics. I think many physicists would agree that it is a complete waste of time investigating something that has absolutely no impact on our experience.
Physics can't describe or explain everything in our bubble, existence itself, meaning, epistemological warrant, etc.

ken
Posts: 1582
Joined: Mon May 09, 2016 4:14 am

Re: Solving metaphysics

Post by ken » Wed Sep 13, 2017 5:15 am

Advocate wrote:
Wed Sep 13, 2017 12:14 am
ken wrote:
Tue Sep 12, 2017 11:13 pm
What distinction do you make between stuff and things?
There's no such thing as distinctiveness, individuality, separateness, outside human uses for human purposes (leaving aside animals and other sentient being for the moment).
Agree.
Advocate wrote:
Wed Sep 13, 2017 12:14 am
Everything before it is sensed and/or defined is stuff, undifferentiated from anything else in the entirety of existence.
Agree, for the sake of moving this discussion along. However would it better to use the phrase 'stuff' instead of 'everything' if we are talking about BEFORE sensing and/or defining?

If you want to use the word 'stuff' as being before a certain point in existence, and, the word 'things' as being after that certain point, then to use the phrase 'everyTHING before', that certain point, shows to Me that you have not really settled on that distinction your self properly yet.

Also, if stuff is undifferentiated, then there can NOT be 'anything else', so to suggest that there were other THINGS before, could lead to some sort of confusion, and/or misunderstanding, taking place.

And, the word 'stuff' implies, has a connotation of, or brings with it a sense of more than one, which obviously contradicts what you are trying to refer to here. Anyhow, I generally agree with that what you are trying to say here, to move this along.

These are just some of the subliminal wrong messages, which you may not have been aware of, and which can be past on from person to person unintentionally. Just some thing to think about and be more aware of, especially if you are going to write that what you are proposing.
Advocate wrote:
Wed Sep 13, 2017 12:14 am
When we perceive a pattern and give it distinctiveness toward some purpose, then it's a thing.
That is your distinction between and definition of 'stuff' and 'things', which is of course fair enough and I will accept and agree with for now. [/quote]

We can discuss this more thoroughly at a later stage.
Advocate wrote:
Wed Sep 13, 2017 12:14 am
We don't create Reality but we create Our reality by literally defining it into existence.
If by the word 'we', you mean human beings here, then do you realize that you are contradicting your first point about: There's no such thing as distinctiveness, individuality, separateness, outside human uses for human purposes?

1. 'We', indistinctive "stuff", as you call It, do actually create Reality.
2. 'we', human beings, however, have NOT yet created our reality, or any reality for that matter. 'we', human beings, make perceptions of what is around us, which comes from and through any of the five senses of the body. Although, what IS really happening here, currently on planet earth, that is the wars, the pollution, and the destruction of earth IS actually being created by 'us, human beings, from 'our', human beings' wrong doing.
3. Depending on your definition, of course, I do not yet see how human beings are literally defining their reality into existence. I am pretty sure I know what you are trying to say, but how do you explain the supposed difference between Reality and Human beings reality? If human beings'reality does NOT fit in with Reality, then they are NOT defining reality into existence. What they are doing is just misconstruing Reality.
4. Reality has always been in existence. No thing, including human beings can bring nor define Reality
into existence.

Surely there is only One Reality, of which human beings misconstrue what It actually IS, which is caused, and which comes, from their misinterpreted perceptions and views of the one and only Reality, right?

uwot
Posts: 3047
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: Solving metaphysics

Post by uwot » Wed Sep 13, 2017 7:34 am

Advocate wrote:
Wed Sep 13, 2017 1:20 am
Physics can't describe or explain everything in our bubble, existence itself, meaning, epistemological warrant, etc.
True; but you say: "The things which exist must exist as pattern because only pattern allows both for the physical (thinker), and non-physical ("spiritual", thought) to be real, as they must be." So the question, as it pertains to the physical, is: Patterns in what?

HexHammer
Posts: 2836
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 8:19 pm

Re: Solving metaphysics

Post by HexHammer » Wed Sep 13, 2017 10:46 pm

Advocate wrote:
Tue Sep 12, 2017 6:52 pm
Naysaying is a worthless commodity, but is there something specific you had in mind? The universe isn't specific so i don't know why the answers to the mysteries of it would be.
Things are deterministic, so we can calculate and predict outcomes it's just that our knowledge are limited so we can't predict much yet, but the universe IS deterministic ..that's why there's a whole field called astrophysics!

User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 2640
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: too close

Post by henry quirk » Wed Sep 13, 2017 10:59 pm

"Solving metaphysics" is kinda like calculatin' how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

Impenitent
Posts: 1531
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 2:04 pm

Re:

Post by Impenitent » Wed Sep 13, 2017 11:19 pm

henry quirk wrote:
Wed Sep 13, 2017 10:59 pm
"Solving metaphysics" is kinda like calculatin' how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
360 angles

-Imp

Advocate
Posts: 25
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:27 am

Re: Solving metaphysics

Post by Advocate » Fri Sep 15, 2017 4:05 am

uwot wrote:
Wed Sep 13, 2017 7:34 am
True; but you say: "The things which exist must exist as pattern because only pattern allows both for the physical (thinker), and non-physical ("spiritual", thought) to be real, as they must be." So the question, as it pertains to the physical, is: Patterns in what?
Patterns in the mind. We don't render the physical stuff into existence, but we render it into things for useful purposes, "our reality". Outside that process there's no meaning so no borders, no barriers, no edges or things.

uwot
Posts: 3047
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: Solving metaphysics

Post by uwot » Fri Sep 15, 2017 12:17 pm

Advocate wrote:
Fri Sep 15, 2017 4:05 am
We don't render the physical stuff into existence, but we render it into things for useful purposes, "our reality". Outside that process there's no meaning so no borders, no barriers, no edges or things.
Sounds to me like early Wittgenstein. Dunno if you'e read the Tractatus logico philosophicus, but without boring everyone with all the bits in the middle, it starts out (off the top of my head):
1. The world is everything that is the case.
1.1 It is the totality of facts, not of things.
And it ends up with:
Whereof we cannot speak, thereof we must remain silent.

Like you, Wittgenstein thought he had solved metaphysics by insisting that anything outside "our reality" should be ignored. It has a pragmatic utility, but it doesn't 'solve' metaphysics.

Advocate
Posts: 25
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:27 am

Re: Solving metaphysics

Post by Advocate » Fri Sep 15, 2017 3:19 pm

uwot wrote:
Fri Sep 15, 2017 12:17 pm
Sounds to me like early Wittgenstein. Dunno if you'e read the Tractatus logico philosophicus, but without boring everyone with all the bits in the middle, it starts out (off the top of my head):
1. The world is everything that is the case.
1.1 It is the totality of facts, not of things.
And it ends up with:
Whereof we cannot speak, thereof we must remain silent.

Like you, Wittgenstein thought he had solved metaphysics by insisting that anything outside "our reality" should be ignored. It has a pragmatic utility, but it doesn't 'solve' metaphysics.
Largely correct, but that's only one piece of the puzzle. Solving metaphysics needs that as a foundational element, along with Cogito Ergo Sum, anything which cannot be taken to it's logical extreme is not logical, etc. etc. It makes sense to say that Wittgenstein has *defined* Metaphysics, in the sense of what we can and cannot question - delimited the human bubble.

Eodnhoj7
Posts: 104
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Solving metaphysics

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Sat Sep 16, 2017 12:02 am

Metaphysics is an approximate structure of the nature of "contemplation" itself. Contemplation is a way of life, the most noble in all likelihood, and in these respects it is a continual process evidenced by the nature of "now". To "solve the problem" of metaphysics, is by extension to call contemplation a problem and what we understand of "now".

All reality/being/existence maintains structure through the reflection of space. The nature of contemplation as an act of reflection is the intellectual and moral median through which humanity not only maintains it's dignity and "being", but is what determines the nature of "humanity" itself for we are strictly a median of all "being's" bound under the reflective nature of "space" with "space" being one of the true roots and apex's of all "being".

surreptitious57
Posts: 1304
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: Solving metaphysics

Post by surreptitious57 » Sun Sep 17, 2017 1:32 pm

uwo wrote:
Wittgenstein thought he had solved metaphysics by insisting that anything outside our reality should be ignored
This seems to be implying that anything outside our reality can actually be known when that is just not possible

Eodnhoj7
Posts: 104
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Solving metaphysics

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Sun Sep 17, 2017 5:23 pm

surreptitious57 wrote:
Sun Sep 17, 2017 1:32 pm
uwo wrote:
Wittgenstein thought he had solved metaphysics by insisting that anything outside our reality should be ignored
This seems to be implying that anything outside our reality can actually be known when that is just not possible
That fact that the axioms of "outside", "our", and "reality" can reflect to form the axiom "outside our reality" by default the act of trying to negate it already proves that to some degree an "outside [to] our reality" exists.

Even if one where to negate a lie, on must observe the lie as a gradation of truth exists, and in the act of nullification the reality proves itself as "being".

If we observe "reality" for strictly what it is: a structure or deficiency in structure (which in itself is a structure) to argue that their is no further structure
past our own structure does not make to much sense. I say this does not make sense for all structure, by its very nature as space, propagates itself as an act of stability. We observe this in life forms, but also in rocks, minerals, etc. It is in these respects that "reality" must "propagate" past itself.

User avatar
Harbal
Posts: 3633
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2013 10:03 pm
Location: Yorkshire
Contact:

Re: Solving metaphysics

Post by Harbal » Sun Sep 17, 2017 5:34 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Sun Sep 17, 2017 5:23 pm
surreptitious57 wrote:
Sun Sep 17, 2017 1:32 pm
This seems to be implying that anything outside our reality can actually be known when that is just not possible
That fact that the axioms of "outside", "our", and "reality" can reflect to form the axiom "outside our reality" by default the act of trying to negate it already proves that to some degree an "outside [to] our reality" exists.
He didn't say it doesn't exist, he said we can't know what it is. Unless you know what it is.

Eodnhoj7
Posts: 104
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Solving metaphysics

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Sun Sep 17, 2017 5:40 pm

Harbal wrote:
Sun Sep 17, 2017 5:34 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Sun Sep 17, 2017 5:23 pm
surreptitious57 wrote:
Sun Sep 17, 2017 1:32 pm
This seems to be implying that anything outside our reality can actually be known when that is just not possible
That fact that the axioms of "outside", "our", and "reality" can reflect to form the axiom "outside our reality" by default the act of trying to negate it already proves that to some degree an "outside [to] our reality" exists.
He didn't say it doesn't exist, he said we can't know what it is. Unless you know what it is.
If we argue that something does not exist, by default we prove its exists by the very act of trying to negate it. The questioned existence, at minimum, must exist as an axiom and as an axiom of act of "consciousness/experience" it is to some degree actualized through the person himself/herself. It is in these respects, by forming an axiom, the nature of reality has already expanded through the nature of consciousness, if not also physically also.

Advocate
Posts: 25
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:27 am

Re: Solving metaphysics

Post by Advocate » Sun Sep 17, 2017 7:56 pm

The "spiritual world", inside our heads, has room for things which are beyond our grasp in the physical/material world. There, things like unicorns, paradox, win/win, lose/lose, nothing, one, zero, equals, do exist. The distinction is whether it has material/measurable form. Metaphysics can probe how we interact with reality in ways which do not have such form. That makes them no less real, but in a sense which is not what is normally meant by the word.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest