Solving metaphysics

Tell us a little about yourself.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Advocate
Posts: 28
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:27 am

Re: Solving metaphysics

Post by Advocate » Tue Sep 12, 2017 6:53 pm

Harbal wrote:
Tue Sep 12, 2017 6:20 pm
I bet you can't solve metaphysics, Hex.
Well, first it would be nice if anyone would actually engage with the questions about what that would mean, before trying to knock down what they've not yet heard.

RickLewis
Posts: 452
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:07 am
Location: London
Contact:

Re: Solving metaphysics

Post by RickLewis » Tue Sep 12, 2017 6:55 pm

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?
No, I wouldn't. If it met all of these criteria, it would be a very impressive interpretation of the world, but the possibility would remain that another, even more impressive interpretation would be devised at some later date which was even better than yours. Therefore it couldn't be said that yours had solved metaphysics in the sense of clearing up all its mysteries so nobody bothered with it any more.

Another criterion, even more stringent than those you described, would be if this new world view could make surprising but testable predictions which turned out to be right. I realise that this is setting the bar very high - presumably not even the various metaphysical systems of the philosophical giants of the past could claim to have achieved this. But isn't that the point - that you was to achieve something they have not?

Advocate
Posts: 28
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:27 am

Re: Solving metaphysics

Post by Advocate » Tue Sep 12, 2017 7:07 pm

RickLewis wrote:
Tue Sep 12, 2017 6:55 pm
No, I wouldn't. If it met all of these criteria, it would be a very impressive interpretation of the world, but the possibility would remain that another, even more impressive interpretation would be devised at some later date which was even better than yours. Therefore it couldn't be said that yours had solved metaphysics in the sense of clearing up all its mysteries so nobody bothered with it any more.

Another criterion, even more stringent than those you described, would be if this new world view could make surprising but testable predictions which turned out to be right. I realise that this is setting the bar very high - presumably not even the various metaphysical systems of the philosophical giants of the past could claim to have achieved this. But isn't that the point - that you was to achieve something they have not?
Thanks for the rational, engagable reply.

There will always be the possibility, indeed the probability, indeed the extreme probability bordering on certainty, that the answer is far from complete, but..

The answer need not be complete in that sense, it needs only to be complete in the sense of being true within the human bubble for all human intents and purposes based on the best understanding(s) available today. And in the future, the "correct" understanding need not be overthrown, particularly since it must be subjective to human experience. It may simply be built upon. Decartes already produced a kernel of philosophy which cannot be overthrown in that context, in our context.

I don't understand why you believe metaphysics can be predictive rather than descriptive. In fact, i would contend that all human knowledge can only be descriptive. Reality Is, and is primary.

Let's say The Answer admits of no compromise to the current limits of human understanding, is logically necessary, and is complete as far as it claims to extend. Would that be necessary and sufficient? What if it did indeed 'clear up all the mysteries so no one (need) bother with it any more'?

ken
Posts: 2075
Joined: Mon May 09, 2016 4:14 am

Re: Solving metaphysics

Post by ken » Tue Sep 12, 2017 8:42 pm

Advocate wrote:
Tue Sep 12, 2017 6:53 pm
Harbal wrote:
Tue Sep 12, 2017 6:20 pm
I bet you can't solve metaphysics, Hex.
Well, first it would be nice if anyone would actually engage with the questions about what that would mean,
From what I saw harbal, very nicely, engaged WITH your questions about what that would mean by summing your questions up just nicely: So what you're asking is, if someone came up with the answer to everything would it answer everything?

Then harbal, as I saw it, just as nicely engaged BY answering the question: Well I suppose potentially it could, otherwise it wouldn't be the answer to everything.

From what I saw, it was a very nice engagement.
Advocate wrote:
Tue Sep 12, 2017 6:53 pm
before trying to knock down what they've not yet heard.
I do NOT see harbal trying to knock down any thing here. A question was just being directed at and asked to ANOTHER person, which had nothing to do with you, and what you have not yet said.

User avatar
Harbal
Posts: 3885
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2013 10:03 pm
Location: Yorkshire
Contact:

Re: Solving metaphysics

Post by Harbal » Tue Sep 12, 2017 8:46 pm

Cheers, ken. :wink:

uwot
Posts: 3622
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: Solving metaphysics

Post by uwot » Tue Sep 12, 2017 8:59 pm

Advocate wrote:
Tue Sep 12, 2017 6:51 pm
...i'm explicitly trying to elicit ideas about what it would mean before i rise to the challenge.
Well, if you meet the challenge, it would mean you are very clever.
Advocate wrote:
Tue Sep 12, 2017 6:51 pm
I'm fully aware of how may people claim to have solved this or that but are found wanting, perfectly aware that the true and correct answer will receive more scrutiny than any other, and so forth.
It's only by trying to break something that you discover how strong it is.
Advocate wrote:
Tue Sep 12, 2017 6:51 pm
I'm also unaware of whether you're waiting in the wings to challenge me in the positive or negative sense.
What's the difference? More to the point; why does it matter?

ken
Posts: 2075
Joined: Mon May 09, 2016 4:14 am

Re: Solving metaphysics

Post by ken » Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:06 pm

Advocate wrote:
Tue Sep 12, 2017 6:51 pm
uwot wrote:
Tue Sep 12, 2017 4:06 pm
From what I gather, you believe you have such a set of axioms. Well, the stage is yours; there's a bit of murmuring in the crowd, but this is your moment. Whaddya got?
No, i'm explicitly trying to elicit ideas about what it would mean before i rise to the challenge.

I'm fully aware of how may people claim to have solved this or that but are found wanting, perfectly aware that the true and correct answer will receive more scrutiny than any other, and so forth. I'm also unaware of whether you're waiting in the wings to challenge me in the positive or negative sense.
I think it is pretty obvious which sense most adult human beings are waiting for and will try and do, but do not let that deter you at all.

If you have, what you are talking about, then there is nothing to challenge anyway. There may, however, be some things that might just need clarifying, for some.
Advocate wrote:
Tue Sep 12, 2017 6:51 pm
But for your edification, The nature of existence, the meaning of life, the mind/body problem, the nature of math and logic, are all simple. Everything's simple when you look at it from the correct perspective.
I agree with this wholeheartedly.
Advocate wrote:
Tue Sep 12, 2017 6:51 pm
I require no special knowledge other than semantic distinctions in specific cases. I admit nothing "supernatural". There's no mystical insight. All the normal objections cannot apply as it's part of my particular world view to rest only on what must be and what cannot be. I can explain epistemology sufficiently to lay the foundation for ontology and metaphysics, or vice versa, whatever.
That is great if you can explain ALL of this already. That will save me having to do it. I am just in the learning process of how to express ALL-THERE-IS correctly and succinctly, and seeming have been forever. So, hopefully, you can explain ALL-THERE-IS soon enough, then I can stop having to come here in this forum to learn.

ken
Posts: 2075
Joined: Mon May 09, 2016 4:14 am

Re: Solving metaphysics

Post by ken » Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:28 pm

Advocate wrote:
Tue Sep 12, 2017 7:07 pm
RickLewis wrote:
Tue Sep 12, 2017 6:55 pm
No, I wouldn't. If it met all of these criteria, it would be a very impressive interpretation of the world, but the possibility would remain that another, even more impressive interpretation would be devised at some later date which was even better than yours. Therefore it couldn't be said that yours had solved metaphysics in the sense of clearing up all its mysteries so nobody bothered with it any more.

Another criterion, even more stringent than those you described, would be if this new world view could make surprising but testable predictions which turned out to be right. I realise that this is setting the bar very high - presumably not even the various metaphysical systems of the philosophical giants of the past could claim to have achieved this. But isn't that the point - that you was to achieve something they have not?
Thanks for the rational, engagable reply.

There will always be the possibility, indeed the probability, indeed the extreme probability bordering on certainty, that the answer is far from complete, but..

The answer need not be complete in that sense, it needs only to be complete in the sense of being true within the human bubble for all human intents and purposes based on the best understanding(s) available today. And in the future, the "correct" understanding need not be overthrown, particularly since it must be subjective to human experience. It may simply be built upon.
But are you still able to admit that your "correct" view and/or understanding may still be wrong and incorrect and thus could be overthrown? Especially since you have not provided it yet.

Advocate wrote:
Tue Sep 12, 2017 7:07 pm
Decartes already produced a kernel of philosophy which cannot be overthrown in that context, in our context.

I don't understand why you believe metaphysics can be predictive rather than descriptive. In fact, i would contend that all human knowledge can only be descriptive. Reality Is, and is primary.

Let's say The Answer admits of no compromise to the current limits of human understanding, is logically necessary, and is complete as far as it claims to extend. Would that be necessary and sufficient? What if it did indeed 'clear up all the mysteries so no one (need) bother with it any more'?
But there are NO mysteries left. They have ALL already been cleared up and solved. The only thing left now is to find the ones who are truly interested in gaining this understanding, and waiting for their inquisitiveness. If that does not work, then I suggest learning how to express this view succinctly enough so that there is nothing to dispute nor challenge, or if you already have the ability to write correctly and succinctly, which will leave no doubt at all in any one, then I would suggest proceed now and plant that seed in every one.

Advocate
Posts: 28
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:27 am

Re: Solving metaphysics

Post by Advocate » Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:45 pm

ken wrote:
Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:06 pm
That is great if you can explain ALL of this already. That will save me having to do it. I am just in the learning process of how to express ALL-THERE-IS correctly and succinctly, and seeming have been forever. So, hopefully, you can explain ALL-THERE-IS soon enough, then I can stop having to come here in this forum to learn.
In simpler terms, everything is patterns. Which leads directly to the distinction between stuff and things (outside or inside the human bubble).. and etc. If you want a very quick and dirty beta version it's at tiny.cc/ontology

Impenitent
Posts: 1840
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 2:04 pm

Re: Solving metaphysics

Post by Impenitent » Tue Sep 12, 2017 10:35 pm

metaphysics.

that which comes after the physics.

solved.

-Imp

uwot
Posts: 3622
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: Solving metaphysics

Post by uwot » Tue Sep 12, 2017 10:49 pm

Advocate wrote:The "real" world is that which we sense. That's what the word means. If there is some other level of reality outside physical embodiment we cannot test it. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1DFO ... F7k1w/edit
Well I suppose you can solve a problem by pretending it doesn't exist; but the whole point of metaphysics (at least in this context) is to give an account of the cause of the "real" phenomenal world which we sense.

ken
Posts: 2075
Joined: Mon May 09, 2016 4:14 am

Re: Solving metaphysics

Post by ken » Tue Sep 12, 2017 11:13 pm

Advocate wrote:
Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:45 pm
ken wrote:
Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:06 pm
That is great if you can explain ALL of this already. That will save me having to do it. I am just in the learning process of how to express ALL-THERE-IS correctly and succinctly, and seeming have been forever. So, hopefully, you can explain ALL-THERE-IS soon enough, then I can stop having to come here in this forum to learn.
In simpler terms, everything is patterns.
What do mean by everything is patterns?

To Me, everything is everything, and, patterns are patterns. There possibly could be a pattern to or of everything, and/or everything could be in a pattern but I do not understand what you mean here.
Advocate wrote:
Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:45 pm
Which leads directly to the distinction between stuff and things (outside or inside the human bubble).. and etc.
What distinction do you make between stuff and things.
Advocate wrote:
Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:45 pm
If you want a very quick and dirty beta version it's at tiny.cc/ontology
I prefer to hear your words on here.

Advocate
Posts: 28
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:27 am

Re: Solving metaphysics

Post by Advocate » Wed Sep 13, 2017 12:04 am

uwot wrote:
Tue Sep 12, 2017 10:49 pm
Well I suppose you can solve a problem by pretending it doesn't exist; but the whole point of metaphysics (at least in this context) is to give an account of the cause of the "real" phenomenal world which we sense.
I have no idea how you can get that i'm pretending some problem doesn't exist. The key point here is that we exist in a bubble of limited phenomenology and comprehension. The word "real" is often used to indicate something outside that bubble, which is impossible to connect to human experience or know anything about, by definition. Since it's not a possible attribute of reality to exist beyond our bubble *for any human purpose*, the word must mean only that which is within the bubble. Likewise for Truth.

Advocate
Posts: 28
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:27 am

Re: Solving metaphysics

Post by Advocate » 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). Everything before it is sensed and/or defined is stuff, undifferentiated from anything else in the entirety of existence. When we perceive a pattern and give it distinctiveness toward some purpose, then it's a thing. We don't create Reality but we create Our reality by literally defining it into existence.

uwot
Posts: 3622
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: Solving metaphysics

Post by uwot » Wed Sep 13, 2017 12:27 am

Advocate wrote:
Wed Sep 13, 2017 12:04 am
I have no idea how you can get that i'm pretending some problem doesn't exist. The key point here is that we exist in a bubble of limited phenomenology and comprehension. The word "real" is often used to indicate something outside that bubble, which is impossible to connect to human experience or know anything about, by definition. Since it's not a possible attribute of reality to exist beyond our bubble *for any human purpose*, the word must mean only that which is within the bubble. Likewise for Truth.
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.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests