if there's anything that all philosopers can agree on

[PeteJ]

It seems that Scepdick and Advocate have invented a new kind of philosophy. In this new philosophy we must ignore the facts and assume all philosophers are crazy except these two.

How a person can study philosophy for more than a day and not realise that all positive metaphysical theories fail in logic is a mystery to me. It is the entire problem of philosophy. I blame our education system.

I would recommend reading a book or two on metaphysics.

If you want to keep arguing then you would need to provide an example of a decidable metaphysical question, or an example of a phiiosopher who has decided one or name a philosopher who has argued one is decidable. Good luck with that.

As there seems to be some confusion - A metaphysical question asks about the true or fundamental nature of Reality. All such questions are undecidable in dialectical logic and this is well-known fact.

I see no need to argue further. The information is in the public domain. Kant puts it as - All selective conclusions about the world as a whole are undecidable. Bradley puts it as - metaphysics does not produce a positive result. Nagarjuna puts it as - All positive metaphysical positions are logically indefensible. Good luck gainsaying this result. Nobody else ever has.

I can't imagine why anyone would want to argue this point,

[Skepdick]

It seems that Scepdick and Advocate have invented a new kind of philosophy. In this new philosophy we must ignore the facts and assume all philosophers are crazy except these two.

That's EXACTLY how scientific progress works.

And that's EXACTLY how Planck's principle manifests.

I am not telling you to ignore the facts. I am telling you to account for ALL of them. In particular - all the new facts that emerged after you were educated.. err, I mean brainwashed.

A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.

— Max Planck, Scientific autobiography, 1950, p. 33, 97

How a person can study philosophy for more than a day and not realise that all positive metaphysical theories fail in logic is a mystery to me. It is the entire problem of philosophy. I blame our education system.

How philosophers can study philosophy for millenia and not realise that logic IS metaphysics is a mystery to me.

I would recommend reading a book or two on metaphysics.

Youi've read all the books. How come you don't understand that metaphysics IS logic?

If you want to keep arguing then you would need to provide an example of a decidable metaphysical question, or an example of a phiiosopher who has decided one or name a philosopher who has argued one is decidable. Good luck with that.

Example of a decidable metaphysical question: Are metaphysical questions undecidable?
The philosopher PeteJ decided that the answer is "yes".

Got any harder challenges?

As there seems to be some confusion - A metaphysical question asks about the true or fundamental nature of Reality.

Precisely! And those questions are decidable. Let me show you....

The fundament nature of Reality is that it's Real <------ DECISION.
The fundamental nature of Reality is that it's a Computer simulation <----DECISION.

How am I deciding the fundamental nature of reality if it's "undecidable"?

All such questions are undecidable in dialectical logic and this is well-known fact.

Special pleading! That the questions are undecidable in dialectical logic doesn't imply that the questions are undecidable in ALL logics.
Dialectical logic is prone to communication/transmission errors!

If your arbitrarily-chosen logic renders important issues undecidable, I suggest you throw it away and get another logic.

In a logic with three or more interlocutors, problems become decidable through consensus - that's how democracy works!!!

I see no need to argue further. The information is in the public domain.

You don't even understand what information is.

Information is precisely THAT which answers well-formed yes/no questions!

The absence of information is what leads to undecidability.

Kant puts it as - All selective conclusions about the world as a whole are undecidable.

That's an equivocation. To select is to decide.

Bradley puts it as - metaphysics does not produce a positive result. Nagarjuna puts it as - All positive metaphysical positions are logically indefensible. Good luck gainsaying this result. Nobody else ever has.

I just did it. And I am not going to defend it.

I can't imagine why anyone would want to argue this point,

Because your view is not true.

[PeteJ]

Bradley puts it as - metaphysics does not produce a positive result. Nagarjuna puts it as - All positive metaphysical positions are logically indefensible. Good luck gainsaying this result. Nobody else ever has.

I just did it. And I am not going to defend it.

Of course you're not. Your view is indefensible,

I must admit I've become rather fascinated by this exchange. Perhaps we should go right back to the beginning.

Please give just one example of a metaphysical problem that is decidable.

If you can do this then you will become famous. You will have falsified the perennial philosophy and made fools of ten thousand western philosophers.

No need for a long post. One sentence will do.

[Skepdick]

Of course you're not. Your view is indefensible,

It's only indefensible in dialectic logic. I strongly suggest you use another logic.

Please give just one example of a metaphysical problem that is decidable.

Allow me to ask a rather rude question. Have you been diagnosed with any mental disabilities? Short term amnesia perhaps?

You keep asking me for examples, I keep giving you examples.... and then you ask again as if you've forgotten that I just did.

No need for a long post. One sentence will do.

Ok.... Stand by and pay attention....

This is the metaphysical question that is decidable..... Are you ready? OK...3..2..1

Metaphysical question: Is it decidable that Metaphysical problems are undecidable?
Decision: YES.

If memory serves me right, you are one philosopher who decided on the above.

Do you want me to give you another one..... here goes. Don't miss it. 3..2..1.

Metaphysical question: Is there a Reality?
Decision: YES.

If memory serves me right, you are the one philosopher who decided on the above too.

[Advocate]

[quote=PeteJ post_id=475592 time=1602777592 user_id=11479]
Please give just one example of a metaphysical problem that is decidable.
[/quote]

All of them. For example, What is the nature of reality? or Why is there something rather than nothing? or Is apriori knowledge possible?

However, not being part of this particular arm of this particular argument, perhaps you have a different idea of "decide" than i. I can only answer them logically and consistently.

[henry quirk]

no

Where's your evidence for that? What do you mean by "no"?

no is the answer to your question

my evidence: this forum, for starters

hell, just this thread is evidence

[Skepdick]

Where's your evidence for that? What do you mean by "no"?

no is the answer to your question

my evidence: this forum, for starters

hell, just this thread is evidence

Any hint of approaching agreement triggers panic in philosophers - it puts job security at risk.

So they default to a predictable set of tactics to manufacture disagreement and dissent.

Given the current political climate (tendency towards separatism), this is actually harmful...

[PeteJ]

Of course you're not. Your view is indefensible,

It's only indefensible in dialectic logic. I strongly suggest you use another logic.

Do you not know that metaphysics is all about dialectical logic? I find this difficult to believe.

This is the metaphysical question that is decidable..... Are you ready? OK...3..2..1

I've been ready for long time.

Metaphysical question: Is it decidable that Metaphysical problems are undecidable?
Decision: YES.

If memory serves me right, you are one philosopher who decided on the above.

I'm still ready. It's like getting blood from a stone. The question you ask here is not the a metaphysical question in the usual sense, but you are spot on correct here. It is demonstrable that metaphysical questions are undecidable. If this is your view why are you arguing with me?

Do you want me to give you another one..... here goes. Don't miss it. 3..2..1.

I'm still ready and waiting patiently.

Metaphysical question: Is there a Reality?
Decision: YES.

If memory serves me right, you are the one philosopher who decided on the above too.

You would have to define 'Reality'. Your definition will make a big difference to the meaning of this question.

I would have chosen Mind-Matter, Internalism-Externalism, Freewil-Determinism, Something-Nothing, Materialism-Idealism, Theism-Atheism or another of the usual suspects. Your strange example might work, but it'll depend on your definitions.

[PeteJ]

Please give just one example of a metaphysical problem that is decidable.

All of them. For example, What is the nature of reality? or Why is there something rather than nothing? or Is apriori knowledge possible?

However, not being part of this particular arm of this particular argument, perhaps you have a different idea of "decide" than i. I can only answer them logically and consistently.

Do you not know that the Something-Nothing problem is undecidable? This is because all positive theories are demonstrably absurd.

The 'nature of reality' question is phrased so as not to require a decision. The knowledge question is undecidable.

I see here no example of a decidable metaphysical problem. You'll haveto try harder to prove Kant wrong and be the first to do it.

[PeteJ]

Please give just one example of a metaphysical problem that is decidable.

All of them. For example, What is the nature of reality? or Why is there something rather than nothing? or Is apriori knowledge possible?

However, not being part of this particular arm of this particular argument, perhaps you have a different idea of "decide" than i. I can only answer them logically and consistently.

Do you not know that the Something-Nothing problem is undecidable? This is because all positive theories are demonstrably absurd.

The 'nature of reality' question is phrased so as not to require a decision. The knowledge question is undecidable. I see here no example of a decidable metaphysical problem. You'll have to try harder to prove Kant wrong and be the first to do it.

If you follow the link given here the third essay down (with Nagarjuna in the title) will give my view at length. This is the blog of Bernardo Kastrup who, as a friend of non-duality teacher Rupert Spira and acqaintance of logician Graham Priest , has no trouble agreeing with what I'm saying. https://www.bernardokastrup.com/search?q=peter+jones

[Skepdick]

Do you not know that metaphysics is all about dialectical logic? I find this difficult to believe.

No it isn't. What gave you this silly idea?

Dialectical logic is used for communication - two interlocutors required.
You don't THINK in dialectical logic, do you? Nobody does unless they are schizophrenic.

But even then that doesn't matter! Dialectical logic allows for decidability.
When two people can't decide, then you do what children do - play rock-paper-scizors until somebody wins.
The person who "wins" gets to decide.

I'm still ready. It's like getting blood from a stone. The question you ask here is not the a metaphysical question in the usual sense, but you are spot on correct here.

So you are now agreeing with the exact negation of YOUR view.

Interesting.

It is demonstrable that metaphysical questions are undecidable.

I am demonstrating that they ARE decidable, because if they weren't decidable you wouldn't have said what you said.

If this is your view why are you arguing with me?

Because I am arguing for the EXACT opposite of your view.

ALL questions are metaphysical questions. The moment you ask the question "What is there?" (which is a metaphysical question).

The very first fucking answer that emerges is the obvious answer "There are questions."

So the very next metaphysical question is: "What are questions like?"

You would have to define 'Reality'. Your definition will make a big difference to the meaning of this question.

It wouldn't make any difference to the meaning of the question, because Reality is your word - you used it first (without definition), and so I assume you know what it means.

And so I turned your exact statement into a semantically-equivalent yes/no question.

If you understood the statement (and I assume you do, because you made it), then you must also understand the question.

We covered this already, did we not. Here, I'll demonstrate once more since you seem to be confused.

Positive statement: My name is Skepdick.
Equivalent question form: Is my name Skepdick? Yes.

Your strange example might work, but it'll depend on your definitions.

None are required. Q.E.D

[Advocate]

>Dialectical logic is used for communication - two interlocutors required.
You don't THINK in dialectical logic, do you? Nobody does unless they are schizophrenic.

"Dialectic logic" doesn't make any sense. Dialectic simply means debating multiple sides of an issue. That's nothing to do with logic, it's just communication.

[henry quirk]

no is the answer to your question

my evidence: this forum, for starters

hell, just this thread is evidence

Any hint of approaching agreement triggers panic in philosophers - it puts job security at risk.

So they default to a predictable set of tactics to manufacture disagreement and dissent.

Given the current political climate (tendency towards separatism), this is actually harmful...

[Advocate]

>Do you not know that the Something-Nothing problem is undecidable? This is because all positive theories are demonstrably absurd.

The answer (meaningful framework for understanding) to a question/problem can be that it is not a meaningful one, such as here. There was never nothing. Any word that references the transcendent, like never, nothing, infinite, god, etc. can only be a placeholder. Understanding the boundary of transcendence is a metaphysical answer.

Another metaphysical answer is the difference between answer and solution.

>The 'nature of reality' question is phrased so as not to require a decision. The knowledge question is undecidable. I see here no example of a decidable metaphysical problem. You'll have to try harder to prove Kant wrong and be the first to do it.

The nature of x is always a semantic question. Presuming that things exist outside our minds and purposes is unsupportable. That's a metaphysical answer.

Reality is our consensus experience. Actuality is that which is beyond our experience. Truth is perspective-based experience. Perspective is information exclusively available to one individual.

"Justified belief" is necessary and sufficient for all knowledge questions and "justified true belief" is a literally impossible definition. That's two metaphysical answers.

You can accept or dismiss these answers together or individually but together they answer, by logical extension, all questions in metaphysics and a good bit beyond that (such as metaphysics and epistemology being inseperable).

>If you follow the link given here the third essay down (with Nagarjuna in the title) will give my view at length. This is the blog of Bernardo Kastrup who, as a friend of non-duality teacher Rupert Spira and acqaintance of logician Graham Priest , has no trouble agreeing with what I'm saying. https://www.bernardokastrup.com/search?q=peter+jones

I've looked into Kant's contention but all i get is a mishmash which would require longer to understand the question than it's worth. What's the simple version? More to the point, what's Your version?

The name dropping isn't impressive nor is the agreement. Many famous people believe many stupid things, and philosophers no less than pop stars.

It's just too bad his name isn't Bernard Okastrup. Reading now...

The proof pointed toward doesn't seem to be in a third link down (why not just link the actual article?!) but in the external piece; Fundamental Verses on the Middle Way, which the article references, which i'll look into shortly.

The purpose of all knowledge, wisdom, and understanding is actionable certainty. Contradiction as logic is the exact opposite of that. To say that "We are and are-not." is a meaningful statement is itself a meaningless statement for All intents and purposes. As best i can see through all the verbosity, the entire article is meaningless. The main contention is difficult to find and certainly not stated simply enough to address in a comment in a metaphysics forum, but if you'd care to provide your own synopsis i'll be happy to refute each relevant point in turn. The idea that a plainly self-contradictory statement, as above, could be considered non-contradictary makes the entire process of communication impossible. And the article itself states "There are too many issues here to summarize."

Onward - According to one synopsis of Fundamental Verses of the Middle Way, "questioning the nature of existence in so far as it is knowable, and never allowing any margin for speculative constructions about the unknown" does not support the idea that contradiction is valid thought or anything at all about metaphysical claims. I didn't find one that shows how it "proves" anything, but already this is an infinite regress without even addressing the other two works referenced. If you'd care to prevent the proof as a set of contentions that can be addressed individually i'll jump right in.

[PeteJ]

Dear Skepdick and Advocate

I have no idea why you approach metaphysics as you do and see no purpose in it. It seems you are very determined not to understand it.

I left this forum a while back thanks to this sort of idiocy and I'm going to do so again.