Metaphysics is Not 'Beyond Physics'

So what's really going on?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

PeteJ
Posts: 205
Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2015 1:15 pm

Re: Metaphysics is Not 'Beyond Physics'

Post by PeteJ » Tue May 14, 2019 10:31 am

Speakpigeon wrote:
Mon May 13, 2019 7:56 pm
. You say our usual view of time doesn't make sense. I take this as implying that time as we usually think of it doesn't exist. So, how come our clocks stay synchronised at all?
Well, I guess you have no easy answer or you would have given it already.
Well, I gave my easy answer. I suggested that you read Hermann Weyl and it really is an excellent suggestion. I'd suggest The Continuum or Open World. I'm just having a chat here and can't start writing essays. Same for the Law of Identity - Wiki is quite good on this topic.

Univalence
Posts: 492
Joined: Sun May 12, 2019 6:28 pm

Re: Metaphysics is Not 'Beyond Physics'

Post by Univalence » Tue May 14, 2019 11:10 am

Logic is metaphysics

Abstract. Analyzing the position of two philosophers whose views are recognizably divergent, W. O. Quine and M. Dummett, we intend to support a striking point of agreement between them: the idea that our logical principles constitute our principles about what thereis, and therefore, that logic is metaphysics.

1. Introduction
The idea that logic and metaphysics are bonded in some way and that our logical
principles represent principles about reality, despite sounding strange to many contemporary ears, is as old as logic itself.In the introduction of the first volume of his Logical Forms, Chateaubriand points out:
The grounds of this ontological aspect of logic were explicitly laid down
by Aristotle in the Metaphysics, where some of the basic laws of logic were
held to be among “the most certain principles of all things”. (Chateaubriand
2001, p. 17)
######

If one takes physical processes (quantum or classical) as the ontological foundations of reality, then one needs to take the Church-Turing-Deutsch Principle into account
The principle states that a universal computing device can simulate every physical process.

Belinda
Posts: 2869
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Metaphysics is Not 'Beyond Physics'

Post by Belinda » Tue May 14, 2019 11:27 am

Ontology does sometimes fit closely with science. One example of this is the view that brain and mind are two aspects of one thing. This is an example of dual aspect monism.

Study of what we can know , epistemology, fits closely with both artificial intelligence science, and modern biology.

The preposition 'beyond' is no longer a useful metaphor.

Univalence
Posts: 492
Joined: Sun May 12, 2019 6:28 pm

Re: Metaphysics is Not 'Beyond Physics'

Post by Univalence » Tue May 14, 2019 11:53 am

Belinda wrote:
Tue May 14, 2019 11:27 am
Study of what we can know , epistemology, fits closely with both artificial intelligence science, and modern biology.
If everything can be thought of as a process one needs to ask only these two question:

* Is "learning" the process of "acquiring knowledge"?
* How does "learning" work?

Belinda
Posts: 2869
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Metaphysics is Not 'Beyond Physics'

Post by Belinda » Tue May 14, 2019 7:20 pm

Univalence, I have asked myself those questions.

PeteJ
Posts: 205
Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2015 1:15 pm

Re: Metaphysics is Not 'Beyond Physics'

Post by PeteJ » Tue Jun 04, 2019 11:41 am

Oh boy, metaphysics sure is a mess in academia.

PeteJ
Posts: 205
Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2015 1:15 pm

Re: Metaphysics is Not 'Beyond Physics'

Post by PeteJ » Tue Jun 04, 2019 11:46 am

Speakpigeon wrote:
Mon May 13, 2019 10:30 am
I guess bad metaphysics is very easy and good metaphysics is very hard. I think all thinking involves some metaphysics. So, if your thinking is good, then it must be that you're a good metaphysician.
EB
YES!! The Ideal reasoner should have no great intellectual pro0blem with metaphysics, just a conceptual one.

The problem is that in metaphysics we need to be more careful with our thinking than in most other situations. Most people abuse the laws of logic in a way that causes chaos in metaphysics. They tend to see metaphysical dilemmas as cases of A/not-A, and of course this makes them not just undecidable but intractable.

Belinda
Posts: 2869
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Metaphysics is Not 'Beyond Physics'

Post by Belinda » Tue Jun 04, 2019 12:35 pm

Logic is a separate branch of philosophy from metaphysics.

PeteJ
Posts: 205
Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2015 1:15 pm

Re: Metaphysics is Not 'Beyond Physics'

Post by PeteJ » Tue Jun 04, 2019 12:58 pm

It is possible to study logic and avoid metaphysics but not the other way around. Metaphysics is a science of logic.

Belinda
Posts: 2869
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Metaphysics is Not 'Beyond Physics'

Post by Belinda » Tue Jun 04, 2019 2:00 pm

PeteJ wrote:
Tue Jun 04, 2019 12:58 pm
It is possible to study logic and avoid metaphysics but not the other way around. Metaphysics is a science of logic.
I suppose that when your write logic you mean what I'd call reason

PeteJ
Posts: 205
Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2015 1:15 pm

Re: Metaphysics is Not 'Beyond Physics'

Post by PeteJ » Tue Jun 04, 2019 2:03 pm

Belinda wrote:
Tue Jun 04, 2019 2:00 pm
I suppose that when your write logic you mean what I'd call reason
No, that's not it. I'm with Hegel on this one and see metaphysics as a science of logic. I take reason for granted.

Belinda
Posts: 2869
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Metaphysics is Not 'Beyond Physics'

Post by Belinda » Tue Jun 04, 2019 2:23 pm

PeteJ wrote:
Tue Jun 04, 2019 2:03 pm
Belinda wrote:
Tue Jun 04, 2019 2:00 pm
I suppose that when your write logic you mean what I'd call reason
No, that's not it. I'm with Hegel on this one and see metaphysics as a science of logic. I take reason for granted.
Well, I just don't get it. I see metaphysics as thought experiments and hypotheses.

Univalence
Posts: 492
Joined: Sun May 12, 2019 6:28 pm

Re: Metaphysics is Not 'Beyond Physics'

Post by Univalence » Tue Jun 04, 2019 2:25 pm

Belinda wrote:
Tue Jun 04, 2019 12:35 pm
Logic is a separate branch of philosophy from metaphysics.
You can take the (seemingly) opposing viewpoints of Quine and Dummett and end up with the same conclusions.

Logic is metaphysics

Metacognition is metalogic. It's recursive. Computation.

a.k.a reason. a.k.a thought. a.k.a monism with internal locus of control.

Different language - same thing.
Belinda wrote:
Tue Jun 04, 2019 2:23 pm
Well, I just don't get it. I see metaphysics as thought experiments and hypotheses.
The purpose of which is one and the same. Computing consequences given a set of premises.

PeteJ
Posts: 205
Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2015 1:15 pm

Re: Metaphysics is Not 'Beyond Physics'

Post by PeteJ » Tue Jun 04, 2019 6:28 pm

Belinda wrote:
Tue Jun 04, 2019 2:23 pm
Well, I just don't get it. I see metaphysics as thought experiments and hypotheses.
You're not wrong, but logic and reason is required to sort the good hypotheses and theories from those that are unworkable.

When you conclude the universe is not a rectangle you're using logic to do metaphysics. When Kant concludes that all selective conclusions about the world-as-a-whole are undecidable he's using logic in much the same way but getting more technical about it.

Reason and logic are inseparable so metaphysics is impossible without a study of the way we think and the logic we use.

Some 'metaphysical' writing is fanciful or poetic and pays little attention to logic, the 'metaphysical' poets for instance, and much writing about metaphysical topics in academic philosophy pays no attention to it, most noticeably in philosophy of mind, but the study of metaphysical questions has be a process of logical analysis akin to mathematics. Otherwise we are not using our reason.

This is why metaphysics is so disliked by religious and scientific dogmatists, who generally prefer to believe it is all a matter of opinion.

Univalence
Posts: 492
Joined: Sun May 12, 2019 6:28 pm

Re: Metaphysics is Not 'Beyond Physics'

Post by Univalence » Thu Jun 06, 2019 8:55 am

PeteJ wrote:
Tue Jun 04, 2019 6:28 pm
You're not wrong, but logic and reason is required to sort the good hypotheses and theories from those that are unworkable.
Logic and reason are necessary-but-insufficient.

Sorting things into two categories (such as "workable" and "unworkable") is called binary classification.

In theory - all you need is a classification rule and a machine that can follow the instructions.

You could say that every theory is workable until evidence to the contrary; OR you could say that every theory is unworkable until evidence to the contrary.

Either way you need a rule. Where do rules come from?

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest