Solving metaphysics

Tell us a little about yourself.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

consilience
Posts: 2
Joined: Fri Sep 22, 2017 10:37 am

Re: Solving metaphysics

Post by consilience » Fri Sep 22, 2017 8:37 pm

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.

User avatar
SpheresOfBalance
Posts: 5423
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2011 4:27 pm
Location: On a Star Dust Metamorphosis

Re: Solving metaphysics

Post by SpheresOfBalance » Fri Sep 22, 2017 10:30 pm

consilience wrote:
Fri Sep 22, 2017 8:37 pm
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
Posts: 2
Joined: Fri Sep 22, 2017 10:37 am

Re: Solving metaphysics

Post by consilience » Sat Sep 23, 2017 3:48 pm

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
Posts: 53
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:27 am

Re: Solving metaphysics

Post by Advocate » Sat Sep 23, 2017 3:49 pm

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

Re: Solving metaphysics

Post by ken » Sun Sep 24, 2017 2:29 pm

Advocate wrote:
Sat Sep 23, 2017 3:49 pm
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
Posts: 2075
Joined: Mon May 09, 2016 4:14 am

Re: Solving metaphysics

Post by ken » Sun Sep 24, 2017 2:38 pm

consilience wrote:
Fri Sep 22, 2017 8:37 pm
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
Posts: 2075
Joined: Mon May 09, 2016 4:14 am

Re: Solving metaphysics

Post by ken » Sun Sep 24, 2017 2:40 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?
It sounds like it would, BUT I would have to see it to see if it does or not.

Advocate
Posts: 53
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:27 am

Re: Solving metaphysics

Post by Advocate » Sun Sep 24, 2017 4:29 pm

ken wrote:
Sun Sep 24, 2017 2:40 pm
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
Posts: 2075
Joined: Mon May 09, 2016 4:14 am

Re: Solving metaphysics

Post by ken » Sun Sep 24, 2017 11:44 pm

Advocate wrote:
Sun Sep 24, 2017 4:29 pm
ken wrote:
Sun Sep 24, 2017 2:40 pm
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?
Advocate wrote:
Sun Sep 24, 2017 4:29 pm
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
Posts: 53
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:27 am

Re: Solving metaphysics

Post by Advocate » Mon Sep 25, 2017 1:55 am

ken wrote:
Sun Sep 24, 2017 11:44 pm
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.

User avatar
SpheresOfBalance
Posts: 5423
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2011 4:27 pm
Location: On a Star Dust Metamorphosis

Re: Solving metaphysics

Post by SpheresOfBalance » Mon Sep 25, 2017 9:56 am

consilience wrote:
Sat Sep 23, 2017 3:48 pm
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.

Advocate
Posts: 53
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:27 am

Re: Solving metaphysics

Post by Advocate » Fri Dec 13, 2019 3:47 pm

Arising_uk wrote:
Wed Sep 20, 2017 10:16 pm
Advocate wrote:You're saying ethics is a necessary part of metaphysics?
No, I'm saying that in my opinion what you have described is nearly a philosophy of which a part concerns itself with a metaphysic but to be a full philosophy it'll need an ethic.
I divide philosophy into truth wisdom (epistemology and metaphysics - what is) and practical wisdom (ethics, politics - what we can do to get what we want). Everything in truth wisdom is non-contingent (within the bounds of human sensation and cognition) and everything in practical wisdom is contingent. Specifically, ethics = meaning x scope and meaning = priority x salience. In other words, our priorities determine what is ethical, in accord with the proper scale of relevance.

If the purpose of philosophy qua philosophy is to understand the world, that makes practical wisdom merely an application of it. If the purpose of philosophy is to live a good life, then truth wisdom is meta-philosophy.

Skepdick
Posts: 3225
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Solving metaphysics

Post by Skepdick » Fri Dec 13, 2019 4:42 pm

Advocate wrote:
Fri Dec 13, 2019 3:47 pm
If the purpose of philosophy qua philosophy is to understand the world, that makes practical wisdom merely an application of it. If the purpose of philosophy is to live a good life, then truth wisdom is meta-philosophy.
The two need not be divided. The purpose of philosophy could be in understanding how to live a good life given the world that we are given.

Knowing how to live a good life is practical wisdom.

Advocate
Posts: 53
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:27 am

Re: Solving metaphysics

Post by Advocate » Sat Dec 14, 2019 2:20 am

For practical reasons they must be divided. Epistemology and metaphysics are only contingent upon the entire human scale of understanding while ethics and politics are contingent upon individual priorities.

Age
Posts: 4101
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Solving metaphysics

Post by Age » Sat Dec 14, 2019 4:04 am

Advocate wrote:
Sat Dec 14, 2019 2:20 am
For practical reasons they must be divided. Epistemology and metaphysics are only contingent upon the entire human scale of understanding while ethics and politics are contingent upon individual priorities.
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.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest