Solving metaphysics

Tell us a little about yourself.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Advocate
Posts: 65
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:27 am

Re: Solving metaphysics

Post by Advocate » Sat Dec 14, 2019 4:43 am

Age wrote:
Sat Dec 14, 2019 4:04 am
I would say personal ethics and personal politics are contingent upon personal individual priorities or views, for one's self and/or a select few. While, ethics and politics, themselves, are contingent upon one collective priority and view, for Everyone.

The former is not necessarily of any significant importance at all. The latter being regarded as very highly important for ALL.
Meaning = priority x salience
Ethics = meaning x scale

Age
Posts: 4543
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Solving metaphysics

Post by Age » Sat Dec 14, 2019 5:09 am

Advocate wrote:
Sat Dec 14, 2019 4:43 am
Age wrote:
Sat Dec 14, 2019 4:04 am
I would say personal ethics and personal politics are contingent upon personal individual priorities or views, for one's self and/or a select few. While, ethics and politics, themselves, are contingent upon one collective priority and view, for Everyone.

The former is not necessarily of any significant importance at all. The latter being regarded as very highly important for ALL.
Meaning = priority x salience
Ethics = meaning x scale
Meaning = understanding the definition and/or intention behind a word or saying.
Ethics = understanding what is actually right and wrong.

Now what I wrote here could be completely and utterly WRONG, but I am not the one who is implying that they have solved 'metaphysics' (whatever that actually means). I just replied to what you said, with what I would say.

Since September 12, 2017 I have been waiting patiently for you to explain further and elaborate on;
If someone developed a world view which was internally and externally consistent, logically necessary in every respect, used common English for most purposes, could be explained at any level of detail, was perfectly compatible with the best understandings of science, and which answers the vast majority of questions in ontology, epistemology, and metaphysics,.

So, will you explain further and/or elaborate on this now, or do I need to wait another couple of years of so?

Maybe you are waiting for some thing from me before you begin. Is there any thing you want from me first?

nothing
Posts: 537
Joined: Mon Oct 14, 2019 9:32 pm

Re: Solving metaphysics

Post by nothing » Tue Dec 17, 2019 5:22 pm

If someone developed a world view which was internally and externally consistent, logically necessary in every respect, used common English for most purposes, could be explained at any level of detail, was perfectly compatible with the best understandings of science, and which answers the vast majority of questions in ontology, epistemology, and metaphysics, would you say that had "solved" the latter?
I'll try.

Image
internally and externally consistent
Five components maps both physically (ie. legs/arms/head) and metaphysically (ie. knowledge/ignorance/will).
logically necessary in every respect
Aside from the need to reject Aristotelian logic:

A =/= A (incomplete)
A = *A
____________________
*variability: permits bi-directional (viz. in/out) (e)motion(s) (+/-)
therefor
*A = +A and/or -A

This allows the centrifugal/centripetal (expanding/contracting) motion(s) needed
for breathing as *A is assumed to be any theoretical being with an active will.
used common English for most purposes
By establishing two poles viz.
all-knowing and all-belief-based-ignorance (√-A and √+A)
along with the two primordial/universal modalities of (+)all (alpha) and (-)not (omega)
a logical tautology emerges - (will) TO KNOW ALL THUS: NOT TO BELIEVE (certainly tends towards all-knowing)
whereas TO BELIEVE ALL THUS: NOT TO KNOW tends towards any/all-belief-based ignorance(s) causing suffering/death.
could be explained at any level of detail
The geometry seen here:

Image

is the same vesica piscis form Genesis 1:1 describes:

ii. eth ha'shema'yim = (essence of) heavens (above, one circle)
i. B'resh'yith bara eloh'yim = ∞ (bestowal/reception ad infinitum)
iii. v'eth ha'aretz = (essence of) earth (below, other circle)

thus satisfies any/all possible Biblical context(s) modeled by Genesis.
was perfectly compatible with the best understandings of science
Discarding the book of Genesis as not real science,
satisfies basic centrifugal/centripetal (-A/+A) forces viz. magnetic and dielectric field modalities (ie. electromagnetism)
and describes the real geometry of a basic torus field (ie. same structure as the universe).
and which answers the vast majority of questions in ontology, epistemology, and metaphysics,
This view undermines the "believer vs. unbeliever" conflict entirely (as designed) such to cease suffering/death, and satisfies any practical non-belief-based 'Christ':

(*A) I am
(+A/-A) the Alpha and the Omega
(√-A/√+A) the Beginning and the End

The two root(s) reduce/resolve into the two Edenic trees of Living (√-A) and of Knowledge of Good and Evil (√+A).

The problem can thus easily be framed with a simple dot-in-circle example:
dot = root of ignorance √+A
circle = root of knowledge √-A
wherein *A is any circle between these, its modalities +A and -A indicating towards/away
which can approach the circle from any of 360 degrees (ie. "eat from any tree except one").
Last edited by nothing on Thu Jan 02, 2020 10:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
bahman
Posts: 3094
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: Solving metaphysics

Post by bahman » Thu Dec 19, 2019 12:04 am

Advocate wrote:
Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:37 am
If someone developed a world view which was internally and externally consistent, logically necessary in every respect, used common English for most purposes, could be explained at any level of detail, was perfectly compatible with the best understandings of science, and which answers the vast majority of questions in ontology, epistemology, and metaphysics, would you say that had "solved" the latter?
There is no such thing as metaphysics since there is no under reality.

Advocate
Posts: 65
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:27 am

Re: Solving metaphysics

Post by Advocate » Thu Dec 19, 2019 2:57 am

bahman wrote:
Thu Dec 19, 2019 12:04 am
There is no such thing as metaphysics since there is no under reality.
Reality-to-us is a metaphorical overlay of "reality" as it's typically understood, as such:
universal taxonomy - ontology of reality (small).png
universal taxonomy - ontology of reality (small).png (77.78 KiB) Viewed 5129 times

User avatar
bahman
Posts: 3094
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: Solving metaphysics

Post by bahman » Thu Dec 19, 2019 10:41 pm

Advocate wrote:
Thu Dec 19, 2019 2:57 am
bahman wrote:
Thu Dec 19, 2019 12:04 am
There is no such thing as metaphysics since there is no under reality.
Reality-to-us is a metaphorical overlay of "reality" as it's typically understood, as such:
universal taxonomy - ontology of reality (small).png
What appears is also a part of reality. The reality is that we are minds interacting with each other through the material, what we experience.

tapaticmadness
Posts: 346
Joined: Tue Jan 21, 2020 3:05 am
Contact:

Re: Solving metaphysics

Post by tapaticmadness » Wed Feb 12, 2020 2:53 am

Advocate wrote:
Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:37 am
If someone developed a world view which was internally and externally consistent, logically necessary in every respect, used common English for most purposes, could be explained at any level of detail, was perfectly compatible with the best understandings of science, and which answers the vast majority of questions in ontology, epistemology, and metaphysics, would you say that had "solved" the latter?
What you have described is a rationalist’s dream. All poetry, all romantic madness, all inspired enthusiasm are gone. Engineer-heads would love it. it is serious and it is good commonsense. It is the thinking of a proper member of civil society. It is the way of one who takes care of his property and his family. He probably has a good job, an outstanding reputation among his peers; he has a nice house, a quality car, but his kids are on drugs, because their father is uptight and boring. No thanks.

Advocate
Posts: 65
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:27 am

Re: Solving metaphysics

Post by Advocate » Wed Feb 12, 2020 3:23 am

Nay, not gone at all, simply put in it's proper place. All the "spiritual" side of things - desires, opinions, prorities, are equally as real as empirical phenomenon but cannot me measured directly. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ ... p=drivesdk We can have our cake and eat it too in that sense. In fact, one version of the same metaphysics is called Poetic Naturalism. The spiritual and the material are co-equal in importance. We won't progress without unreasoned desire but we cannot progress without reason as a prerequisite for effective action.

tapaticmadness
Posts: 346
Joined: Tue Jan 21, 2020 3:05 am
Contact:

Re: Solving metaphysics

Post by tapaticmadness » Wed Feb 12, 2020 5:19 am

Advocate wrote:
Wed Feb 12, 2020 3:23 am
Nay, not gone at all, simply put in it's proper place. All the "spiritual" side of things - desires, opinions, prorities, are equally as real as empirical phenomenon but cannot me measured directly. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ ... p=drivesdk We can have our cake and eat it too in that sense. In fact, one version of the same metaphysics is called Poetic Naturalism. The spiritual and the material are co-equal in importance. We won't progress without unreasoned desire but we cannot progress without reason as a prerequisite for effective action.
I think it is interesting that you are using the words "empirical phenomenon" is a way that many others are using it on this forum. You seem to contrast it with "subjective" things like desire, opinion and such. To me those last things are also empirical. I suppose I should explain that I don't believe there is a subjective realm separate from the objective. It's all objective. Desire and pain and opinions and dreams are objective things, albeit of a different sort. That is my New Realism shining through,

BTW, where are you? It is now 10:05 AM here in Kathmandu, Nepal. And I am watching the election returns from New Hampshire. I'm for Buttigieg.

tapaticmadness
Posts: 346
Joined: Tue Jan 21, 2020 3:05 am
Contact:

Re: Solving metaphysics

Post by tapaticmadness » Wed Feb 12, 2020 10:07 am

Advocate wrote:
Wed Feb 12, 2020 3:23 am
Nay, not gone at all, simply put in it's proper place. All the "spiritual" side of things - desires, opinions, prorities, are equally as real as empirical phenomenon but cannot me measured directly. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ ... p=drivesdk We can have our cake and eat it too in that sense. In fact, one version of the same metaphysics is called Poetic Naturalism. The spiritual and the material are co-equal in importance. We won't progress without unreasoned desire but we cannot progress without reason as a prerequisite for effective action.
For me, philosophy/metaphysics/ontology is analysis, logical analysis. One takes an ordinary object apart into its constituent ontological parts. One ends up with a collection of abstractions. Bare particulars, universals, various nexus, quantifiers, sets, etc.. What are these abstractions? Are the mental concepts? Or are the real things external to the mind? A realist will say that they are real things external to the mind. A conceptualist will say they are concepts. I am a realist, an extreme realist.

Next we have to analyze a thought, say “this is red and round”. There is the thought and there is the fact that the thought is of. The fact consists of one bare particular, two universals (red and roundness) and the nexus of exemplification “is” The thought is a bare particular exemplifying the simple thought ‘this is red and round’. Facts are complex. And thoughts are simple, i.e. no ontological parts. A thought is a universal, which can be exemplified by many minds. Moreover a thought is OF a fact. That word “of” is likewise an existent. It is the nexus of intentionality. So far we have two nexus: exemplification and intentionality. Actually more analysis can be done. Redness exemplifies the universal Color and roundness exemplifies Shape. The universal named Color is ontologically different from red and Shape is ontologically different from roundness.

So now back to the original statement that philosophy is analysis or the search for ultimate, simple ontological things. So I make a so-called psychological shift of set and the world of ordinary objects disappears and I see complex facts. The world consist of facts and fact are composed of simple things. I contemplate that marvelous structure. And I know that even when I am not looking at it those simple ontological things are still there. They are not mere concepts in my mind.

Advocate
Posts: 65
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:27 am

Re: Solving metaphysics

Post by Advocate » Fri Mar 27, 2020 11:04 pm

>For me, philosophy/metaphysics/ontology is analysis, logical analysis. One takes an ordinary object apart into its constituent ontological parts. One ends up with a collection of abstractions. Bare particulars, universals, various nexus, quantifiers, sets, etc.. What are these abstractions? Are the mental concepts? Or are the real things external to the mind? A realist will say that they are real things external to the mind. A conceptualist will say they are concepts. I am a realist, an extreme realist.

Each "thing" is a bespoke set of attributes and boundary conditions used to parse the world into manipulable parts. How they fit together is a set of universal, low-level relationships (more or less, higher or lower, richer or poorer) and there is a geometric/spacial map of those relationships possible in every case. If those things can be agreed upon, which only assumes a minimum level of mental/material coherence and compatibility of perspective, all of which have material/physical correlates which can be agreed upon) then any question can be asked and answered. Those things are both real and concept. We use the concepts which represent the real to conceptualise how to manipulate the real. All languages are descriptive and that includes ineffable thought.

Advocate
Posts: 65
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:27 am

Re: Solving metaphysics

Post by Advocate » Fri Mar 27, 2020 11:06 pm

>I think it is interesting that you are using the words "empirical phenomenon" is a way that many others are using it on this forum. You seem to contrast it with "subjective" things like desire, opinion and such. To me those last things are also empirical. I suppose I should explain that I don't believe there is a subjective realm separate from the objective. It's all objective. Desire and pain and opinions and dreams are objective things, albeit of a different sort. That is my New Realism shining through,

The "subjective" is equally real but not sensable or measurable directly. We can only know the truth of them through their interpreted effects. Sensation is a more direct measurement and we call that extra precision "material" or "real", depending on the level of resolution of the conversation.

User avatar
pilgrim1917
Posts: 26
Joined: Sun Mar 08, 2020 7:50 am
Location: Wisconsin USA

Re: Solving metaphysics

Post by pilgrim1917 » Mon Apr 13, 2020 7:07 pm

I would wonder why metaphysics needed to be solved? Like suggesting the need to solve baseball.

Advocate
Posts: 65
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:27 am

Re: Solving metaphysics

Post by Advocate » Mon Apr 13, 2020 7:48 pm

pilgrim1917 wrote:
Mon Apr 13, 2020 7:07 pm
I would wonder why metaphysics needed to be solved? Like suggesting the need to solve baseball.
The solution to any complex problem is a simplified metaphor or set of maxims that best leads to actionable certainty. It's the ultimate in pragmatism - an understanding that allows for concrete decision-making with maximum certainty of sufficiency. It's the bedrock understanding of the link between our metaphorical experience and material reality. It's no less than the most certain we can get about the most important knowledge in the universe.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest