Metaphysics — local knowledge

So what's really going on?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Post Reply
Pattern-chaser
Posts: 79
Joined: Mon Aug 29, 2022 11:58 am

Metaphysics — local knowledge

Post by Pattern-chaser »

This is a sort of "What is metaphysics" topic, but not aimed at any kind of 'absolute' definition (which may not even be possible; I'm not sure). As a newbie here whose favourite part of philosophy is metaphysics, I want to find out how things are understood here, in the metaphysics community within this forum. What is the prevalent view here?

I'll start: Metaphysics, in everyday language, is vague, and maybe means something akin to "magical" or "mystical". The word is rarely used in everyday parlance anyway.

In philosophy forums, the practical and pragmatic view of metaphysics is that it describes those aspects of philosophy that are 'unscientific', in that they exist outside the scope or purview of science. [N.B. This offers no insult to metaphysics or to science; it's just a factual distinction.] I tend toward the conclusion that this pragmatic definition is probably the most useful one we have? [Even though moral/ethical philosophy lies outside of science too, but may not be part of metaphysics.]

I have always found metaphysical topics to hold the most interest. Others, of course, disagree. But I hope those who do disagree don't troll the threads here to prevent their discussion, as sometimes happens on other forums. 🤔
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6657
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: Metaphysics — local knowledge

Post by Iwannaplato »

Often I see metaphysics as meaning stuff outside of science that might not be true and probably isn't.
I don't think that's correct - not based on my beliefs in this or that entity, but rather because I think metaphysics is more of less wikipedia's summation
Metaphysics is the branch of philosophy that studies the fundamental nature of reality, the first principles of being, identity and change, space and time, causality, necessity, and possibility.[1] It includes questions about the nature of consciousness and the relationship between mind and matter, between substance and attribute, and between potentiality and actuality.[2] The word "metaphysics" comes from two Greek words that, together, literally mean "after or behind or among [the study of] the natural". It has been suggested that the term might have been coined by a first century CE editor who assembled various small selections of Aristotle's works into the treatise we now know by the name Metaphysics (μετὰ τὰ φυσικά, meta ta physika, lit. 'after the Physics ', another of Aristotle's works).[3]

Metaphysics studies questions related to what it is for something to exist and what types of existence there are. Metaphysics seeks to answer, in an abstract and fully general manner, the questions of:[4]

What there is
What it is like
Which means that ontology comes under metaphysics. It also means that, for example, physicists are dealing with metaphysics. And given the former (ontology) someone who is a materialist/physicalist is taking a metaphysical stand.

This can be seen as nearly blasphemy to some people, as if this means that if physicists are trying to answer metaphysical questions or use models that deal with metaphysics, then we have to accept ghosts and demons and so on. I don't see why it would entail that at all.

But that said, I think one need not get hung op on that definitional issue. If someone puts a specific topic outside metaphysics and I think it is in metaphysics, we can just agree to disagree on the categorization and focus on the phenomenon, entity, ontological issue, etc. And I think one should resist the use of 'that's metaphysics' as a conversation stopper.
A little more Wikipedia...
Topics of metaphysical investigation include existence, objects and their properties, space and time, cause and effect, and possibility. Metaphysics is considered one of the four main branches of philosophy, along with epistemology, logic, and ethics.[5]
If you go to Stanford's Encyclopedia of Philosophy the entry admits out front that it is not easy to say what Metaphysics covers.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/metaphysics/#Sub
And while this presents a metaphysics that seems even more abstract than Wiki, I think it would be hard to say Einsteins thinking and theories are not to some degree metaphysical. Which neither undermines his theories not does it justify some other hypothesis or theory that can also be termed metaphysical. It just means that his theories are dealing with the fundamental portions of existence.

Meta is a tricky prefix. If it necessarily means something like beyond or transcending the natural, then we might have to take a lot of ontology out of there. If it means something more like dealing with fundamental non-specific ontological issues or entailing specific theories about this though in specific cases - like ghosts, or telepathy - then it would include all of ontology.

Which also brings up for me issues around the word supernatural (super being the meta). Often things get dismissed based on deductive arguments using the word supernatural. LIke if it isn't nature then it can't exist. Ghosts are posited supernatual entities, supernatural entity is a kind of oxymoron, so they don't exist, because an entity must exist. But, hey, ghosts are posited, by those who do, as real entities. They don't have to be categorized as supernatural and they are really, to most believers. They are natural. (and since there seem to be so many triggers around these topics, just becuase they are positing a natural entity does not mean they are correct. my main point is that it's a kind detour non-argument to work with the category and dismiss the existence of an entity based on the category the skeptic assigns to it)
bobmax
Posts: 596
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2022 7:38 am

Re: Metaphysics — local knowledge

Post by bobmax »

Metaphysics is the look beyond existence.

And since existence is the same being there, metaphysics scrutinizes what is not "being there" but founds it.

Since what is sought cannot be there, metaphysics consists in facing the Nothing.
And in this impetus, metaphysics can only count on its own faith in the Truth.

Whenever this faith falters, because the temptation to fix an answer is great, the metaphysics risks failing by becoming superstition.
uwot
Posts: 6093
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: Metaphysics — local knowledge

Post by uwot »

Pattern-chaser wrote: Sat Sep 03, 2022 2:21 pmThis is a sort of "What is metaphysics" topic, but not aimed at any kind of 'absolute' definition (which may not even be possible; I'm not sure). As a newbie here whose favourite part of philosophy is metaphysics, I want to find out how things are understood here, in the metaphysics community within this forum. What is the prevalent view here?
Well, it is the nature of philosophy that there isn't a prevalent view, and that is certainly true on this forum. A simple rule of thumb is that anything that can be measured is physics, or more generally science, and anything that can't be measured is beyond physics. That's not to say that things which can't be measured can't be included in scientific theories. My go to example is general relativity - the field equations are extremely accurate; they account for and predict what happens very well. The model on which they are based, a stretchy fabric of spacetime, can't be measured directly; it is only from the behaviour of massive objects that you can infer a stretchy fabric, but you can equally infer that god sends his angels to push everything together and the measurements would be exactly the same.
Pattern-chaser wrote: Sat Sep 03, 2022 2:21 pmI'll start: Metaphysics, in everyday language, is vague, and maybe means something akin to "magical" or "mystical".
The human imagination is a very creative thing and any number of metaphysical hypotheses can account for the same phenomena. It's all good fun until some headbanger comes along and insists that their pet theory is the correct one. There's a few of those here.
Pattern-chaser
Posts: 79
Joined: Mon Aug 29, 2022 11:58 am

Re: Metaphysics — local knowledge

Post by Pattern-chaser »

Iwannaplato wrote: Sat Sep 03, 2022 2:43 pm Often I see metaphysics as meaning stuff outside of science that might not be true and probably isn't.
I don't think that's correct - not based on my beliefs in this or that entity, but rather because I think metaphysics is more of less wikipedia's summation
...
I think the vast majority of subjects treated by metaphysics cannot, and are not, shown to be "true", or "false", because there is insufficient justification (of any sort, not just 'evidence') to reach any conclusion(s). But, just because the 'truth' is difficult or impossible to reach, doesn't mean that these things "might not be true and probably aren't", it only means that their 'truth' cannot be verified (or falsified), which isn't the same thing, I don't think? This seems especially true when we consider that your "probably" is wishful thinking, as there is no way to assess probabilities when there are no statistical methods or techniques with which to do so.
Pattern-chaser
Posts: 79
Joined: Mon Aug 29, 2022 11:58 am

Re: Metaphysics — local knowledge

Post by Pattern-chaser »

Pattern-chaser wrote: Sat Sep 03, 2022 2:21 pm In philosophy forums, the practical and pragmatic view of metaphysics is that it describes those aspects of philosophy that are 'unscientific', in that they exist outside the scope or purview of science. [N.B. This offers no insult to metaphysics or to science; it's just a factual distinction.] I tend toward the conclusion that this pragmatic definition is probably the most useful one we have? [Even though moral/ethical philosophy lies outside of science too, but may not be part of metaphysics.]
Thanks, everyone, for all the replies! Taken together, I think they strengthen my case for defining "metaphysics" according to what it is applied to, rather than defining the word itself. We can do the latter, of course, as some of you have, in previous posts. But it takes a lot of complicated and confusing words to do so, when just saying "Metaphysics addresses ideas and problems that are 'unscientific', i.e. outside the purview of science" seems a lot easier and simpler. And it gets us most of the way to where we want to be anyway! 😉
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6657
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: Metaphysics — local knowledge

Post by Iwannaplato »

Pattern-chaser wrote: Sun Sep 04, 2022 2:58 pm
Iwannaplato wrote: Sat Sep 03, 2022 2:43 pm Often I see metaphysics as meaning stuff outside of science that might not be true and probably isn't.
I don't think that's correct - not based on my beliefs in this or that entity, but rather because I think metaphysics is more of less wikipedia's summation
...
I think the vast majority of subjects treated by metaphysics cannot, and are not, shown to be "true", or "false", because there is insufficient justification (of any sort, not just 'evidence') to reach any conclusion(s). But, just because the 'truth' is difficult or impossible to reach, doesn't mean that these things "might not be true and probably aren't", it only means that their 'truth' cannot be verified (or falsified), which isn't the same thing, I don't think? This seems especially true when we consider that your "probably" is wishful thinking, as there is no way to assess probabilities when there are no statistical methods or techniques with which to do so.
I was referring to what most people think metaphysics means. I don't think it means that. Though as I say later it is complicated.
Could you give me some examples of what you consider metaphysical ideas (or entities)? I see no reason why many of the things considered metaphysical could not be later verified. But it does depend on what one means by these terms.
Advocate
Posts: 3470
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:27 am
Contact:

Re: Metaphysics — local knowledge

Post by Advocate »

Metaphysics is all of the deepest "what is the nature of?" questions;
time, space, energy, matter, self, consciousness, infinity, paradox, science, truth, etc. I've found about 40.
Pattern-chaser
Posts: 79
Joined: Mon Aug 29, 2022 11:58 am

Re: Metaphysics — local knowledge

Post by Pattern-chaser »

Iwannaplato wrote: Sat Sep 03, 2022 2:43 pm Often I see metaphysics as meaning stuff outside of science that might not be true and probably isn't.
I don't think that's correct - not based on my beliefs in this or that entity, but rather because I think metaphysics is more of less wikipedia's summation
...
Pattern-chaser wrote: Sun Sep 04, 2022 2:58 pm I think the vast majority of subjects treated by metaphysics cannot, and are not, shown to be "true", or "false", because there is insufficient justification (of any sort, not just 'evidence') to reach any conclusion(s). But, just because the 'truth' is difficult or impossible to reach, doesn't mean that these things "might not be true and probably aren't", it only means that their 'truth' cannot be verified (or falsified), which isn't the same thing, I don't think? This seems especially true when we consider that your "probably" is wishful thinking, as there is no way to assess probabilities when there are no statistical methods or techniques with which to do so.
Iwannaplato wrote: Sun Sep 04, 2022 4:15 pm I was referring to what most people think metaphysics means. I don't think it means that.
Yes, I got that. I should've made that clearer; sorry! 😉 I was expanding on the point you made, not challenging it.


Iwannaplato wrote: Sun Sep 04, 2022 4:15 pm Could you give me some examples of what you consider metaphysical ideas (or entities)?
The stereotypical examples are: 'does God exist?' and 'could we be brains-in-vats?' There are many other examples, of course.


Iwannaplato wrote: Sun Sep 04, 2022 4:15 pm I see no reason why many of the things considered metaphysical could not be later verified. But it does depend on what one means by these terms.
Many metaphysical subjects cannot be verified, or falsified, because there is too little (empirical) evidence — often there is no evidence at all. Without this evidence, there can be no analysis or other serious consideration, and therefore no justified conclusion(s) can be reached. In such cases, speculation is all we have, and the benefit, if any, of discussing such matters is in the journey. And often that 'journey' is worthwhile, because of the interesting (and speculative, mostly) ideas it generates, IME and IMO.
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6657
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: Metaphysics — local knowledge

Post by Iwannaplato »

Pattern-chaser wrote: Mon Sep 05, 2022 11:37 am Yes, I got that. I should've made that clearer; sorry! 😉 I was expanding on the point you made, not challenging it.
No worries.
The stereotypical examples are: 'does God exist?' and 'could we be brains-in-vats?' There are many other examples, of course.
It seems to me that we can't rule out either of those being determined to be true at some point by science. Brain in a vat scenarios are often talked about these days in terms of simulations. Science could discover glitches. We could end up in communication with the programmers. We might develop simulated technology that nonetheless can figure out this is a simulation. The programmers might be able to stop this or they might not. They might be looking forward to that moment. Who knows? If there is a deity, this deity might also be demonstrable. Perhaps nto, perhaps. I can't see how it could be ruled out. I have the same attitude to the possible existence of most supernatural entities (those that get classes as such). That we cannot rule out that one day these can be demonstrated to be the case. Perhaps some already have good evidence to support them, but the paradigmatic conflict is too great, now, for acceptance within the greater scientific community.

Many metaphysical subjects cannot be verified, or falsified, because there is too little (empirical) evidence
Now. But I see no reason to assume that there is a categorical difference. IOW saying these things cannot be known/verified via science—
often there is no evidence at all.
Which was the status of many things that scienific consensus now considers real.

I am not arguing that now we have evidence such that scientists should acknowledge all these metaphysical entities or truths. I am saying that it seems to me caution is necessary when putting things is a category such as
"Metaphysics addresses ideas and problems that are 'unscientific', i.e. outside the purview of science"
I don't know what an unscientific idea is. Pretty much any hypothesis lacks evidence until it does.

You could categorize many things as not currently supported by scientific consesnsus. But saying that something is outside the purview of science seems to me an ontological claim that itself lacks evidence.

Without this evidence, there can be no analysis or other serious consideration, and therefore no justified conclusion(s) can be reached.
In the communal conclusions are reached via science. But one can certainly give serious consideration to things that are experienced, especially if you are the experiencer and you have contact with others who have similar experiences. It can be quite rational to believe things that cannot be demonstrated to others and also that cannot be studied in the kinds of controlled experiments science requires.

It was rational for certain people in Africa to believe that elephants could communicate over long distances. They did not know the way elephants might be able to do this and they were pretty much making a kind of they are telepathic claim. On the other hand they noted the behavior of elephants and deduced correctly it should be added that they were communicating. Long, long after these rational conclusions the mode of communication could be found and science caught up to the rational conclusions of people who had long observed elephants. It also needed some changes in technology to confirm.

Rogue waves are another example, where individuals and crews experienced something that did not fit with then current scientific models. So, their experiences, to some degree communal between sailors, and their conclusions were dismissed, despite being quite rational conclusions based on phenomena that were then hard to demonstrate to others. Technology changes, first with cameras on bridges and then with satellites and, lo, they were real, and explanations for their existence were then found.

So, rational people have drawn rational conclusions about all sorts of things, but paradigmatic and technological limitations prevented scientists and certainly scientific consensus from confirming. But, as I am arguing, this does not mean that all rational conclusions must necessarily be verified by science. And especially people with similar experiences can have rational discussions and do analyses.

I mean, think of the very odd scientific taboo around considering animals as something other than mechanical entities. Up into the 70s you could still damage your careet by talking about animal consciousness, intentions, reactions, goals, emotions, experience. And of course there was no way to demonstrate that anmals were experiencers. Pet owners, indigenous people, animal trainers all knew that animals were conscious experiencers with emotional lives, etc. Their paradigms did not get in the way of the obvious. And of course indigenous people knew that animals were conscious hundreds to thousands of years before science finally got around to acknowledging the obvious. I have wondered if the increasing numbers of women scientists were a contributing factor in this shift.

Science is skewed by paradigmatic biases, corporate funding focus and bias, technological limitations and likely other factors.

Now please don't take this as anti-science. I have been reading science in both senses for more decades then I care to mention. I love science and recognize its greatness. I also do not think it is the only way to reach quite rational and even fundamental conclusions.

In such cases, speculation is all we have, and the benefit, if any, of discussing such matters is in the journey. And often that 'journey' is worthwhile, because of the interesting (and speculative, mostly) ideas it generates, IME and IMO.
Pattern-chaser
Posts: 79
Joined: Mon Aug 29, 2022 11:58 am

Re: Metaphysics — local knowledge

Post by Pattern-chaser »

Pattern-chaser wrote: Mon Sep 05, 2022 11:37 am The stereotypical examples are: 'does God exist?' and 'could we be brains-in-vats?' There are many other examples, of course.
Iwannaplato wrote: Mon Sep 05, 2022 9:13 pm It seems to me that we can't rule out either of those being determined to be true at some point by science. Brain in a vat scenarios are often talked about these days in terms of simulations. Science could discover glitches.
The brains-in-a-vat scenario isn't a serious proposition, as far as I know, it's just an illustrative thought experiment. And the experiment assumes that the electro-bio-chemical data stream your brain receives is identical in every respect to that which you currently experience. The point is that all such scenarios are actually indistinguishable by humans. To you, and me, there really is no difference. No glitches to be detected. There is no evidence of any sort, so there can be no scientific investigation, and no conclusions can logically be reached.

Such questions are outside the purview of science.
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6657
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: Metaphysics — local knowledge

Post by Iwannaplato »

Pattern-chaser wrote: Tue Sep 06, 2022 2:21 pm The brains-in-a-vat scenario isn't a serious proposition, as far as I know, it's just an illustrative thought experiment. And the experiment assumes that the electro-bio-chemical data stream your brain receives is identical in every respect to that which you currently experience. The point is that all such scenarios are actually indistinguishable by humans. To you, and me, there really is no difference. No glitches to be detected. There is no evidence of any sort, so there can be no scientific investigation, and no conclusions can logically be reached.

Such questions are outside the purview of science.
I do understand the thought experiment aspect, but then the thought experiment is one thing. But an actual metaphysical discussion where someone believes we are in a brain in a vat scenario, now generally a simulation, someone who asserts that is the case, does have a hypothesis that could be determined, as far as we know, someday. Or better put, we cannot rule that out. Same with a deity and the same with many other issues that get classed as metaphysics either in a pejorative sense or not.

So, what is a belief held by some people that is both metaphysical AND must be outside the purview of science?

Currently, Space, Time, Causation, Free Will/Determinism are some topics in metaphysics. I cannot see how these could be ruled outside science's purview. There are also issues around mind/body and the relevant dualisms and monisms. This also does not seem outside of science's purview. Any supernatural entity could be, after changes in technology, as far as we know, be verified by science. And then also science might find another cause to the experiences attributed to those entities.

https://ndpr.nd.edu/reviews/quantum-ont ... the%20text.

https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.10 ... 0626-7_119

And it's hard for me to see Einstein's theories as not having metaphysical implications. No, stronger than that, they are, in part, metaphysical positions.

After talking about Einstein's theories in relation to metaphysics
https://iep.utm.edu/met-scie/#H4
The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy's article on...
Metaphysics of Science says....
More such fascinating questions remain. How is the (perceived) directedness of time and its irreversibility (which manifests as increase of entropy) best explained? Are space and time finite or infinite? Do they exist fundamentally and independently of the objects in them, or does their existence hinge on the existence of those objects? Quite obviously, these are questions on which scientific theories have a bearing, and Metaphysics of Science works towards solutions that are both philosophically rewarding and scientifically tenable.
IOW these are not treated as having non-overlapping subject areas'.
popeye1945
Posts: 2130
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2021 2:12 am

Re: Metaphysics — local knowledge

Post by popeye1945 »

Wonder/imagination on the wing!
Post Reply