Metaphysics is Not 'Beyond Physics'

So what's really going on?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Skepdick
Posts: 1469
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Metaphysics is Not 'Beyond Physics'

Post by Skepdick » Mon Jun 24, 2019 1:36 pm

PeteJ wrote:
Mon Jun 24, 2019 12:40 pm
The idea that physics studies Reality contradicts its definition. It has nothing to say about the nature of Reality other than that it includes the appearance of subjects and objects. It doesn't even study space-time in depth, a topic dictionaries usually list as metaphysical.
That's why you shouldn't trust dictionaries. They don't get updated very often.

Computer Scientists study space-time.
* Time complexity
* Space complexity
* Space-Time tradeoff

There is even a thread about it

And then we have computational physics to unify mathematics, physics and computation!

Heyyy! A Monist coincidence?

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

Re: Metaphysics is Not 'Beyond Physics'

Post by PeteJ » Wed Jun 26, 2019 4:42 pm

Skepdick wrote:
Mon Jun 24, 2019 1:36 pm
That's why you shouldn't trust dictionaries. They don't get updated very often.
They're still worth reading.

Skepdick
Posts: 1469
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Metaphysics is Not 'Beyond Physics'

Post by Skepdick » Wed Jun 26, 2019 4:44 pm

PeteJ wrote:
Wed Jun 26, 2019 4:42 pm
They're still worth reading.
Of course. So is Hustler.

Depending on your objective.

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

Re: Metaphysics is Not 'Beyond Physics'

Post by PeteJ » Thu Jun 27, 2019 1:02 pm

Skepdick wrote:
Wed Jun 26, 2019 4:44 pm
PeteJ wrote:
Wed Jun 26, 2019 4:42 pm
They're still worth reading.
Of course. So is Hustler.

Depending on your objective.
The sensible thing to do would be to ignore your posts. But I'm intrigued. What brings you ta a philosophy forum?

Skepdick
Posts: 1469
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Metaphysics is Not 'Beyond Physics'

Post by Skepdick » Thu Jun 27, 2019 1:07 pm

PeteJ wrote:
Thu Jun 27, 2019 1:02 pm
The sensible thing to do would be to ignore your posts. But I'm intrigued. What brings you ta a philosophy forum?
Recursion. Applying philosophical methods to philosophy (which is in-line with my recursive/computational metaphysic).

Self-defeating hilarity ensues.

I am also intrigued. If the dictionary tells us about metaphysics, what is there left to talk about?

User avatar
bahman
Posts: 2305
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: Metaphysics is Not 'Beyond Physics'

Post by bahman » Thu Jun 27, 2019 7:19 pm

PeteJ wrote:
Mon Jun 24, 2019 12:40 pm
Skepdick wrote:
Mon Jun 24, 2019 11:49 am
Close your eyes! Imagine things. Imagine a unicorn. Imagine something nobody has ever imagined before!
Remember your fondest childhood memories. Remember that delicious meal you had last week.

That's Metaphysics. That's "The Construct".
What a strange idea. The dictionary is the place to discover what metaphysics is. Why do you think it is anything other than what the dictionary says it is?

Bahman sums up the situation when he notes that if physics is a field of study which describes reality then there is no room left for metaphysics. Physics studies a small part of Reality, the part that appears to our physical senses. This is why we have something called philosophy. The idea that physics studies Reality contradicts its definition. It has nothing to say about the nature of Reality other than that it includes the appearance of subjects and objects. It doesn't even study space-time in depth, a topic dictionaries usually list as metaphysical.
I don't know anything which exists and does not appear to my physical senses and instruments. Something which exist and does not appear to our physical senses and instruments. What it could be? I don't think if one can provide an argument in favor or against it's existence.
Last edited by bahman on Fri Jun 28, 2019 2:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 574
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Metaphysics is Not 'Beyond Physics'

Post by RCSaunders » Thu Jun 27, 2019 7:47 pm

bahman wrote:
Thu Jun 27, 2019 7:19 pm
I don't know anything which exists and does not appear to my physical senses and instruments. Something which exist and does not appear to our physical senses and instruments. What it could be? I don't if one can provide an argument in favor or against it's existence.
I agree that no entity exists that cannot be perceived directly or with instruments, but there are three attributes of organisms, life, consciousness, and human minds, that cannot be directly perceived, because they are not physical attributes.

From the article "Ultimate Reality" on this forum:
Reality is all there is, the way it is, whether or not anyone is conscious of or knows the nature of that reality. There are two aspects of reality that make it knowable. The first aspect that makes reality knowable is the physical nature of reality which is all that can be directly perceived, that is, seen, heard, tasted, smelled, and felt. It is physical attributes that are perceived. The second aspect of reality that makes it knowable are those attributes of reality that make perception of it possible, life, consciousness, and the unique consciousness of the human mind.

These three attributes of reality are in addition to the physical attributes in that very small number of entities called organisms. Life, consciousness, and human minds do not exist independently of the organisms they are the life, consciousness, or minds of. These attributes exist only in physical entities (organisms), but they are not physical attributes because they cannot be directly perceived (seen, heard, tasted, smelled, or felt). They are perfectly natural attributes (not supernatural) just as the physical attributes are, and do not conflict in any way with the physical attributes.

[Though we cannot directly perceive our life, or consciousness, or even our minds, we know we are conscious because we are. We know it in the same way we know we can see, not by seeing our seeing (or hearing, feeling, smelling or tasting it), but by seeing.]

User avatar
bahman
Posts: 2305
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: Metaphysics is Not 'Beyond Physics'

Post by bahman » Fri Jun 28, 2019 2:48 pm

RCSaunders wrote:
Thu Jun 27, 2019 7:47 pm
bahman wrote:
Thu Jun 27, 2019 7:19 pm
I don't know anything which exists and does not appear to my physical senses and instruments. Something which exist and does not appear to our physical senses and instruments. What it could be? I don't if one can provide an argument in favor or against it's existence.
I agree that no entity exists that cannot be perceived directly or with instruments, but there are three attributes of organisms, life, consciousness, and human minds, that cannot be directly perceived, because they are not physical attributes.

From the article "Ultimate Reality" on this forum:
Reality is all there is, the way it is, whether or not anyone is conscious of or knows the nature of that reality. There are two aspects of reality that make it knowable. The first aspect that makes reality knowable is the physical nature of reality which is all that can be directly perceived, that is, seen, heard, tasted, smelled, and felt. It is physical attributes that are perceived. The second aspect of reality that makes it knowable are those attributes of reality that make perception of it possible, life, consciousness, and the unique consciousness of the human mind.

These three attributes of reality are in addition to the physical attributes in that very small number of entities called organisms. Life, consciousness, and human minds do not exist independently of the organisms they are the life, consciousness, or minds of. These attributes exist only in physical entities (organisms), but they are not physical attributes because they cannot be directly perceived (seen, heard, tasted, smelled, or felt). They are perfectly natural attributes (not supernatural) just as the physical attributes are, and do not conflict in any way with the physical attributes.

[Though we cannot directly perceive our life, or consciousness, or even our minds, we know we are conscious because we are. We know it in the same way we know we can see, not by seeing our seeing (or hearing, feeling, smelling or tasting it), but by seeing.]
I agree.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests