Philosophy Now Forum

...any questions that can be answered logically but not empirically and do not depend on perspective.

Is this definition necessary and sufficient?

Advocate wrote: ↑Wed Oct 21, 2020 6:06 pm ...any questions that can be answered logically but not empirically and do not depend on perspective.

Is this definition necessary and sufficient?

It's just wrong!

My interpretation is meta - about things - in this case physics. I think one of those Greek Philos came up with the original definition but it is shit now, but pretty good at the time.

[quote=attofishpi post_id=476541 time=1603366199 user_id=6293]
My interpretation is meta - about things - in this case physics. I think one of those Greek Philos came up with the original definition but it is shit now, but pretty good at the time.
[/quote]

That sounds like you mean constrained to the
external/material. Does your metaphysics have nothing to say about the patterns in the mind?

Advocate wrote: ↑Thu Oct 22, 2020 2:42 pm

attofishpi wrote: ↑Thu Oct 22, 2020 12:29 pm My interpretation is meta - about things - in this case physics. I think one of those Greek Philos came up with the original definition but it is shit now, but pretty good at the time.

That sounds like you mean constrained to the
external/material. Does your metaphysics have nothing to say about the patterns in the mind?

Why? Physics is about EVERYTHING. Our brains are made of atoms, and apparently is where our 'minds' reside.

Advocate wrote: ↑Wed Oct 21, 2020 6:06 pm ...any questions that can be answered logically but not empirically and do not depend on perspective.

Is this definition necessary and sufficient?

Metaphysics IS Logic

Meta-circular evaluators (a.k.a interpreters) are computational constructions.

Metalinguistic abstraction is problem-solving through creating precise, domain-specific languages.

attofishpi wrote: ↑Fri Oct 23, 2020 11:00 pm

Advocate wrote: ↑Thu Oct 22, 2020 2:42 pm

attofishpi wrote: ↑Thu Oct 22, 2020 12:29 pm My interpretation is meta - about things - in this case physics. I think one of those Greek Philos came up with the original definition but it is shit now, but pretty good at the time.

That sounds like you mean constrained to the
external/material. Does your metaphysics have nothing to say about the patterns in the mind?

Why? Physics is about EVERYTHING. Our brains are made of atoms, and apparently is where our 'minds' reside.

...further, if you are questioning whether atoms arranged in a certain way are capable of permitting qualia indeed, consciousness..personally, no I don't think it possible...I think there is something far more profound for one to think, therefore one is.

Advocate wrote: ↑Wed Oct 21, 2020 6:06 pm ...any questions that can be answered logically but not empirically and do not depend on perspective.

Is this definition necessary and sufficient?

Call it what you like, but physics is how you describe what you see happening with reference to constants and variables of your choosing. Metaphysics is what you are left with when you take the numbers away.

Advocate wrote: ↑Wed Oct 21, 2020 6:06 pm ...any questions that can be answered logically but not empirically and do not depend on perspective.

Is this definition necessary and sufficient?

I would agree. Take Plato's divided line as an example. Phenomenon below the line and illuminted by the sun can be measured and classified by science in accordance with the laws of physics.

Everything experienced above the line is verified by the experience of noesis. What exists above the line is a logical progression of ideas so rather than physics it is called metaphysics.

Advocate wrote: ↑Wed Oct 21, 2020 6:06 pm ...any questions that can be answered logically but not empirically and do not depend on perspective.

Is this definition necessary and sufficient?

Is it possible to name some thing, which is not depended upon perspective?

If yes, then what is that/are they?

Also, what questions can be answered logically, but not empirically?

Age wrote: ↑Sun Oct 25, 2020 1:19 am

Advocate wrote: ↑Wed Oct 21, 2020 6:06 pm ...any questions that can be answered logically but not empirically and do not depend on perspective.

Is this definition necessary and sufficient?

Is it possible to name some thing, which is not depended upon perspective?

If yes, then what is that/are they?

Also, what questions can be answered logically, but not empirically?

yes, infinity

-Imp

Impenitent wrote: ↑Sun Oct 25, 2020 3:51 am

Age wrote: ↑Sun Oct 25, 2020 1:19 am

Advocate wrote: ↑Wed Oct 21, 2020 6:06 pm ...any questions that can be answered logically but not empirically and do not depend on perspective.

Is this definition necessary and sufficient?

Is it possible to name some thing, which is not depended upon perspective?

If yes, then what is that/are they?

Also, what questions can be answered logically, but not empirically?

yes, infinity

Is that from your perspective?

Impenitent wrote: ↑Sun Oct 25, 2020 3:51 am -Imp

Age wrote: ↑Sun Oct 25, 2020 9:14 am

Impenitent wrote: ↑Sun Oct 25, 2020 3:51 am

Age wrote: ↑Sun Oct 25, 2020 1:19 am

Is it possible to name some thing, which is not depended upon perspective?

If yes, then what is that/are they?

Also, what questions can be answered logically, but not empirically?

yes, infinity

Is that from your perspective?

Impenitent wrote: ↑Sun Oct 25, 2020 3:51 am -Imp

nope, infinity is not empirically apprehended

-Imp

Impenitent wrote: ↑Sun Oct 25, 2020 3:47 pm infinity is not empirically apprehended

-Imp

True dat.

Impenitent wrote: ↑Sun Oct 25, 2020 3:47 pm nope, infinity is not empirically apprehended

-Imp

That entirely depends on whether you think Mathematics is empirical or not; and what you think "apprehension" entails.