Solving metaphysics

[consilience]

I believe that a top down solution is possible. What is most important is to have a repeatable process that will allow the "solution" to evolve as more and more requirements become known, e.g. the "quantum eraser" experiments suggest that it is possible to change the past. I find this highly significant. Twenty years ago, however, the experiments had not been performed. Therefore if a solution existed twenty years ago it would need to be updated to explain the "quantum eraser" experiments.

I would also suggest that the solution would require the efforts of a number of individuals; just deciding on what questions/problems it would need to address would have to be done by a groups. At the very least the solution would need to explain whether or not free will exists, and how it works if it does exist, and the solution would need to explain quantum mechanics.

[SpheresOfBalance]

I believe that a top down solution is possible. What is most important is to have a repeatable process that will allow the "solution" to evolve as more and more requirements become known, e.g. the "quantum eraser" experiments suggest that it is possible to change the past.
You've got to be kidding me. That is, that you believe that it could in fact be possible. It does sound like something they could work into a Star Trek movie though!

I find this highly significant. Twenty years ago, however, the experiments had not been performed. Therefore if a solution existed twenty years ago it would need to be updated to explain the "quantum eraser" experiments.

I would also suggest that the solution would require the efforts of a number of individuals; just deciding on what questions/problems it would need to address would have to be done by a groups. At the very least the solution would need to explain whether or not free will exists, and how it works if it does exist, and the solution would need to explain quantum mechanics.

[consilience]

Do you accept the principle of sufficient reason?

If you do then you should agree in principle that metaphysics can be solved. (I didn't say that it would be easy.)

[Advocate]

Indeed, but sufficient reason to what end? I have yet to find a "sufficient reason" to address one set of questions or axioms, or whatever, over another. I have yet to find more than a couple of people who can intelligently discuss what it would mean to solve metaphysics in more than a sound bite.

[ken]

Indeed, but sufficient reason to what end? I have yet to find a "sufficient reason" to address one set of questions or axioms, or whatever, over another. I have yet to find more than a couple of people who can intelligently discuss what it would mean to solve metaphysics in more than a sound bite.

What it would mean, to Me, to solve metaphysics is that it would lead to a much more fulfilling and satisfying life for ALL people.

What would it mean to solve metaphysics for you?

Do you think/know/believe you can or have solved metaphysics?

Why do you think you need a "sufficient reason" to address one set of questions, axioms, or whatever, over another?

If you say you have solved metaphysics, then you do not need a sufficient reason to start any where. Start wherever you like. I am pretty sure showing metaphysics solved would not matter where it started as it would ALL end up at the same place.

[ken]

I believe that a top down solution is possible. What is most important is to have a repeatable process that will allow the "solution" to evolve as more and more requirements become known, e.g. the "quantum eraser" experiments suggest that it is possible to change the past. I find this highly significant. Twenty years ago, however, the experiments had not been performed. Therefore if a solution existed twenty years ago it would need to be updated to explain the "quantum eraser" experiments.

I would also suggest that the solution would require the efforts of a number of individuals; just deciding on what questions/problems it would need to address would have to be done by a groups. At the very least the solution would need to explain whether or not free will exists, and how it works if it does exist, and the solution would need to explain quantum mechanics.

Free will co-exists equally with determinism. Just like creationism co-exists equally with evolution, and just like nature co-exists equally with nurture, et cetera, et cetera.

If you are free to choose, from the choices you have, then free will exists. Unfortunately, however, you are only free to choose from what thoughts that have already been pre-gained. This choice is limited by the knowledge that you already have, and, choosing from those already pre-determined thoughts determines what will happen in the future.

What needs to be explained exactly in regards to quantum mechanics? Quantum mechanics already co-exists equally with relativity, and like every thing else ALL fit in perfectly together to form One big and true picture of Life, Itself.

[ken]

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?

It sounds like it would, BUT I would have to see it to see if it does or not.

[Advocate]

It sounds like it would, BUT I would have to see it to see if it does or not.

I've posted some rudimentary stuff in another post, so, are these criteria necessary and sufficient or do you think they should be tweaked? Normally i've found that when someone is wrong it's because they're low-res. I don't want to leave out anything crucial to the understanding of what it would mean to solve it, once and for all.

[ken]

It sounds like it would, BUT I would have to see it to see if it does or not.

I've posted some rudimentary stuff in another post, so, are these criteria necessary and sufficient or do you think they should be tweaked?

Am I supposed to look for this other post or would you like to help Me out by pointing Me to where the other post is?

Normally i've found that when someone is wrong it's because they're low-res. I don't want to leave out anything crucial to the understanding of what it would mean to solve it, once and for all.

Is your purpose for being here in this forum;
1. To express only what it would mean to solve metaphysics?
2. To express the solution of metaphysics?
3. Some thing else?

If it is 1, then I would not worry to much. There is nothing really crucial about understanding what it means TO YOU to solve metaphysics. There could be as many different perspectives to what it means to solve metaphysics as there are human beings who can think about this. But if you want to speak for all of us, then I guess you would not want to leave anything out.

If it is 2, then until you express the actual solution we are unable to tell you if it needs tweaking or not.

If it is 3, then what is it?

[Advocate]

Am I supposed to look for this other post or would you like to help Me out by pointing Me to where the other post is?

It's in the metaphysics section. My purpose there is to express it. My purpose here is to figure out how to express it, roughly.

[SpheresOfBalance]

Do you accept the principle of sufficient reason?

If you do then you should agree in principle that metaphysics can be solved. (I didn't say that it would be easy.)

If you were talking to me then I apologize for not being clear, I was referring to the 'quantum eraser' as being something that should be included in a Star episode, as it surely sounds like a fiction to me.