Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Jun 25, 2017 - 11:37am PT
|
"There is in the universe an order to which all material, energy and force must be obedient."
Hey that's my idea, rule mechanics, aka ordinate mechanics, gleaned from science, and my phrasing. You copycat!!
"obedient to" physics, chemistry and biology...
http://www.supertopo.com/forumsearch.php?ftr=obedient
In turn, I got it from E.O. Wilson, some 20 years ago.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Jun 25, 2017 - 11:59am PT
|
What is it and where did it come from?
Certainly not God Jehovah (aka the God of Abraham) in any literal sense - as thousands of theologians and religious leaders tried to palm off, as an idea or truth-claim, often to great success unfortunately, to our millions of ancestors.
Times are changing. New perspectives now.
You want to call Mother Nature, or Grandma Nature, "God"? Or this Order you speak of "God"? Fine. Just be clear to distinguish this new-age, modernity-inspired God from that old iron-age God (that was jealous, that smited infidels, that intervened in biology, etc) - in the interest of clarity, better understanding, best practices, and greater life wisdom.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Jun 25, 2017 - 12:10pm PT
|
Could anyone imagine getting a degree nowadays - that is, today, in the 21st century - in theist philosophy? -hfcs
Yikes! Your cluelessness is epic. There is no such thing as "theist philosophy." -mv1
And what's this speak to? ANS Progress. Cultural evolution. Changing times. Thank goodness.
There certainly used to be theist(ic) philosophy or religious philosophy or Christian philosophy 100-300 years ago. Just as there was astrology, theology and Christian seminary.
You should know as well as I do: Philos and religion, otherwise philos and theism and theology, were (joyously and happily) in bed with each other for centuries before, and right up to, the modern age.
How's that saying go? I think academic philos fits it perfectly: it made its bed, now it must lie in it.
I could just as easily had phrased the question... Could anyone (raised and educated in 21st century science and school of life studies) imagine getting a degree nowadays in Christian seminary or Christian theology?
Let's remember: just one generation ago, we had the first lady of the united states consulting astrology charts and astrologers for clues to her future. This should indicate the state of mentation (mental activity) just a short time ago in our species development.
Thank goodness, the vast majority in the higher edu demographics have reached a point in their development where they see these "fields" of study, more or less like astrology or witchcraft, as irrelevant.
|
|
StahlBro
Trad climber
San Diego, CA
|
|
|
Jun 25, 2017 - 12:58pm PT
|
"In ordinary life, we are not aware of the unity of all things, but divide the world into separate objects and events. This division is useful and necessary to cope with our everyday environment, but it is not a fundamental feature of reality. It is an abstraction devised by our discriminating and categorizing intellect. To believe that our abstract concepts of separate 'things' and 'events' are realities of nature is an illusion."
Fritjof Capra
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Jun 25, 2017 - 01:01pm PT
|
"...not a fundamental feature of reality. It is an abstraction devised by our discriminating and categorizing intellect. To believe that our abstract concepts of separate 'things' and 'events' are realities of nature is an illusion."
Capra I don't think won't be convincing to the gazelle just tackled and about to be eaten by a lion.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Jun 25, 2017 - 01:57pm PT
|
yes, because you seem to go to great lengths to make your point, trying to stuff what goes on in physics into some philosophical framework which apparently does not fit it.
I'm not "stuffing" physics into a "box." Physics IS an empirical enterprise, and that, flatly, DOES have various implications regarding what it in principle can and cannot accomplish.
You are trying to "slip through a wormhole" and thereby avoid the implications, which is why I'm having to be "relentless" in saying, "There's no wormhole you can employ to escape the implications."
Please provide the Mayan (or references) calculations of the Sun rise/set and Moon rise/set tables. It would be interesting to see if they could have predicted, even in principle, the event that I predicted for that time and place.
That's a ridiculous demand, and you know it. As soon as I say, "They predicted with a 'high' degree of accuracy the orbits of a number of planets, solar and lunar eclipses, and new moons," you'll say, "Ah, but see, they couldn't have predicted with the ACCURACY I did the exact moment the moon would rise."
I'll say, "True, but YOU are the one constantly moving the target regarding the expected degree of accuracy. And the FACT is that they would have been 'close,' maybe not to the minute or second, but this was over 1,100 years before Newton."
You make this claim, but it is all words, from a science point-of-view its about the ability to make the calculation and test that calculation against what actually happens.
And my point has been that as you gain in accuracy, you necessarily abandon a set of metaphysics. Newton's mechanized universe had no need for the Mayan metaphysics, and he achieved a much greater level of accuracy. Einstein abandoned the Newtonian metaphysics, and he achieved a much greater level of accuracy than did Newton (even regarding sub-light-speed permutations, such as the orbit of Mercury).
You keep emphasizing the "results" and "greater accuracy," but my point is that this is NEVER achieved without abandoning all or significant parts of a given theory's metaphysics.
You can dance around the fact all you want, but the fact remains: EVERY theory carries with it metaphysical implications (whether science wants to own those or not), and THOSE are the claims about "the way the universe REALLY is." THOSE are the big-picture "truth-seeking" claims that matter most to the population that is supporting the scientific method. And, whether science owns them or not, science MAKES such claims without justification.
Newton's universe is NOT how "the universe REALLY is." And, I predict that physics will find that neither is Einstein's. And that's the point: Physics (science in general) is not doing metaphysics in the sense of telling us the REAL "furniture of the universe."
Science deals in models and "fictional entities" that can come or go as science progresses. And, perhaps you'd even be happy at this point to agree with that statement. It certainly doesn't impinge upon your idea of what science's role is and what its accomplishments rest upon!
So, yes, if you're happy to accept that science is NOT telling us "how the universe REALLY is," then I'm happy to concede the argument.
Of course, the implication, then, is that physics has no role in telling us about God or the lack thereof. The most physics can say is, "We have a fairly complete model of how the universe appears to work to us now, and in that model there is not need for the metaphysical entity most people think of as 'God.'"
Cast in such careful terms, I would instantly agree!
But THAT was not the subject of the argument. And THAT throws the doors WIDE for theists to agree with not only that statement but to say, "Yeah, and all that said, we have very good reasons to think that science is NEVER going to have a complete model including reference to a wide range of phenomena that will forever be firmly in the realm of the 'non-natural.'"
But if you can use the Mayan calendar to calculate it, please do so, and show your math. Failure to do so pretty much renders your argument incorrect.
LOL... I think not. Or, at least, for you to say that pretty much indicates that you're just not willing to grapple with the main point I keep making.
As far as appropriating Newton's theory of gravity into the "modern" theory of Einstein (now over 100 years old), this is something that is done in physics, and it certainly involves changing the "meaning" of Newton's description.
Now we're getting somewhere. This is a point you didn't seem willing to grant several iterations ago. And it is the primary point I've been trying to make: THIS is what I mean by "metaphysical falsification." Flatly, the universe as we know understand it is NOT Newton's mechanistic, instantaneous action-at-a-distance universe.
However, Newton's space-time is actually a modern construction, one that was built to show the differences between the two theories and the implications of our notions of space-time. I do not believe that Newton actually had a well defined notion of it in the modern sense.
Hence the quote you've kept emphasizing. I get that. But it's not the point. The point is that Newton's theory DID have metaphysical implications, whether he was claiming them or not! And the same is true today: Your theories HAVE metaphysical implications, whether you own them or not. Of course, some well-known physicists totally own these implication in the popular books they write. And on threads just like these, people read this material and, like HFCS and CF (among others here), harp endlessly on the metaphysical implications, using pejorative terms and essentially calling theists idiots.
People like me get tired of being told that we're ignorant and idiots, because, flatly we're not. I'll be the FIRST to agree that most religionists are ignorant and even idiots. I've dealt with my share of their pathetic, shallow thinking in many contexts. But that's the HUMAN condition, not isolated to theists! As I've said, people that read the popular physics literature and then stridently say things like, "Physics has pretty much proved that there's not God," and other such tripe. Such "thinkers" are in the SAME BOAT intellectually as the "idiot theists" they decry.
I have not come across any of it in his writing (but I'm also not a historian). What you are holding up as Newton's "metaphysical" assumptions about space-time are pure speculation on your part, and you should acknowledge them as so. Or reference Newton.
Wait. So NOW your bar I must get over is to show that NEWTON understood all of the implications of his theory? That's ridiculous.
There's no debating what the implications were. I've listed some of them, and you have quite apparently agreed. You've flatly agreed that Einstein changed the meanings of some key terms, and that's (whether YOU recognize it or not) entirely giving the game away.
The universe is NOT Newton's universe. Period. Regardless of how you may "use" his theory in this or that context. We do NOT live in a Newtonian universe.
Interestingly, while space-time were subjects of "metaphysical" investigation in Greek philosophy, the implications of Einstein's theory brought them firmly into "physics," how does that happen? This has nothing to do with a philosophical argument and everything to do with Einstein's ability to calculate, to make predictions, and have those predictions tested. Successful tests very much strengthened the case for General Relativity, or perhaps in the twisted logic of the PoS, it was the "non-falsfied" status of the theory.
I really don't understand your point here. You seem to be admitting that metaphysical implications were introduced with GR, but that (finally) science was able to do it well. Something like, "Finally, with the advent of Einstein's much greater capacity to calculate, physics really can do metaphysics."
If that's what you're saying, then, again, you keep missing the point, which is that, whether or not science recognizes its metaphysical implications, ALL scientific theories HAVE them! Philosophy of science has LONG recognized them. Science HAS been "doing philosophy" all along, just very badly (particular to the extent that it, apparently, was not aware that it was doing it).
And if you think that now, post-Einstein, science CAN now do "really good" metaphysics, I can only say that we have exactly zero historical reason to believe that's true. Moreover, the ENTIRE history of science, without exception, has been one long train of falsifications, and it necessarily always will be. That's because science CAN never "confirm" anything, and the truth of theories is always underdetermined by the experimental observations. So, science, in-principle, cannot tell us "how the universe REALLY is," which means that science cannot, in-principle, be doing metaphysics. Einstein didn't change what science IS or what it DOES.
Mach, who tread similar ground, though philosophically, is essentially unknown to physics, except in the historic association with Einstein. If there were a "metaphysics" that pointed to modern relativity, someone had to translate that into physics, had to make a physical theory of it, and philosophy certainly was no guide.
I guess that's true, given your ultra-narrow definition of what "philosophy" is. But that's just another dig at "philosophy" rather than a useful argument against the fact that sciences is NOT telling us "how the universe REALLY is."
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Jun 25, 2017 - 02:02pm PT
|
they see these "fields" of study, more or less like astrology or witchcraft, as irrelevant.
And that impinges upon contemporary analytical philosophy, how?
If you're saying, "Philosophy used to be entirely theistic," I'd respond, "Really??? When and where?"
It's true that IN EUROPE, during the Middle Ages, philosophy was "theistic," but if you think that its only analysis was "theistic" in nature, you are misinformed. And that was a subset of all the philosophy that was being done around the world.
The same points could be made about science during the same eras. Does the fact that science has that same history invalid the entire history of science or somehow impinge upon the current practice of science?
I really don't get what useful, true, and relevant point you think you're making.
|
|
Mark Force
Trad climber
Ashland, Oregon
|
|
|
Jun 25, 2017 - 02:26pm PT
|
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Jun 25, 2017 - 02:30pm PT
|
"Physics has pretty much proved that there's not God,"
I haven't said that, all I've said is that I don't see the need to invoke a God to understand the universe. You can take that as a personal statement, it isn't intended to represent the thoughts of all physicists.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Jun 25, 2017 - 02:39pm PT
|
I can totally understand why you reject this, but if "truth" has any meaning at all, "predictive usage" is a means of determining it.
Unfortunately, such a concept absolutely demolishes your philosophical beliefs.
NO! Again you help yourself to the very point under contention! You are so inured in your empiricism that you honestly DO believe (without, by the way, ANY scientific evidence) that empirical knowledge is the ONLY knowledge there can be. But that's a PHILOSOPHICAL position, not a scientific one. If Hume demonstrated anything, he demonstrated that you CANNOT believe as you do ON empirical grounds!
So, seriously, if there are ANY beliefs that are "demolished" by your own scientism they are yours. I'm guessing that you have not read Hume in any depth. After all, that's just "useless philosophizing." But the problem you face in such discussions is that you are DOING philosophy! You are just doing it very badly, because you do not have the background in the implications of the concepts you are just helping yourself to.
If you want to be an empiricist about "truth." Fine! More power to you. But you then should be aware of what "truth" actually does mean under your model. You can't escape the implications. Or, at the very least, you CANNOT just blithely foist them off on people who know better.
Another problem with your idea is that you are not actually defining "truth" at all with it. Your phrase "predictive usage" IMPLIES "truth" rather than defines it. For you to even recognize "as true" a particular prediction MEANS that you have an independent "meter" for "truth" rather than defines what "truth" is. Thus, you ARE employing some OTHER metric for what the "truth" predicate means.
I could go into what it necessarily is for you, but that's a tangent, and these discussions are already WAY too lengthy for these forum posts.
But I DO appreciate your engagement, and I would give you a hug, as DMT suggest. Seriously. These are important topics, and we are BOTH arguing with verve. I appreciate your end of the discussion, Ed!
I'm not going to discuss the rest of your post, because, given the above facts, it rests upon faulty assumptions.
I will say, however, that your idea that science makes progress and philosophy doesn't is ridiculous for two reasons:
1) Science always "progresses" but not toward anything.
2) Philosophy does make progress and is forever spinning off entire academic departments devoted to further refining and investigating the subjects upon which is has made adequate progress. "Ph.D." is not just a historical throwback; it still, today, indicates the fact that academic research is grounded in the philosophical method.
You do make a couple of ending points that are worth addressing....
As for metaphysics, it's a non-issue. However, let's say that A), B) and C) provide equivalent results at the precision of all of our tests, then we could not rule any of the physical theories out, they are all equivalent in their predictive power.
I find it fascinating that you (finally) agree with me about the underdetermination of theories by facts. However, that you say "metaphysics is a non-issue" is the most fascinating part. I conclude that you still don't grasp what I mean by that term.
For our purposes, "metaphysics" means: "the study of the way reality REALLY is." And I would think that this would be the MOST important aspect of what you think science (particularly physics) is doing!
If not, then, great! we're on the same page! But if you DO think that physics is doing metaphysics, then that is the KEY aspect of our debate, not some non-issue!
As a scientist, I'm interested in understanding the universe, and "prediction" and "experimental/observational testing" are the ways I go about it. That way I do not become attached to ideas that are wrong, as demonstrated by their failure to predict.
And here you seemingly (pretty clearly) indicate that you DO think that you are engaged in metaphysics. You just believe that physics is the ONLY productive way in which to do it.
My arguments have been directed at making two major points:
1) Science cannot in-principle be doing metaphysics.
2) Science lacks the "machinery" to even be a truth-seeking enterprise.
Obviously, you'll continue to fight both of those points. But you'll do so PHILOSOPHICALLY.
I'm not the one calling this "truth" you are, and you like setting me up as a strawman philosopher, but we are all clear that I am not a philosopher.
And, again, I'm confused. In one paragraph you sure seem to be saying that you believe that physics is the ONLY productive way to do metaphysics. Yet in this paragraph you seem to be saying that you don't think that physics is doing metaphysics (as I've clearly defined it).
The terms matter! Either science IS telling us the way the universe REALLY is, or it's not. You believe one or the other. I THINK (but am not sure) that you think the former rather than the latter. If I'm correct about that, then you are simply mistaken, but it's a PHILOSOPHICAL discussion about why you are mistaken.
Unfortunately for you, then, you really need more education in philosophy of science, because you keep helping yourself to ideas that imply other ideas that you would immediately disown.
So, I for one (and I believe I could speak for John on this point) are NOT trying to "strawman" you! I take you seriously and respect you, Ed!
But when you DO do philosophy, you ARE doing it badly as a result of the fact that you are not widely-read regarding the subjects you want to argue. I do NOT say that with even the slightest pejorative content or intent. If I tried to immerse myself in physics discussions that you have your mind completely around, it would be LAUGHABLE! For one thing, I simply don't have at my disposal that level of mathematical acumen. And I certainly don't understand the nuances that people at your level take for granted.
But, when you are doing philosophy of science here on this forum, you are in a similar position. Unlike what most people (clearly the people here) believe, contemporary analytical philosophy is HIGHLY technical, very, very rigorous, and has its own nuances and "common language" that make it difficult to penetrate.
I'm sure that you have at times felt frustrated that you couldn't explain to THIS audience the things you wanted to, because you knew that you could never cast the matter both rigorously and make it accessible. I have felt that same frustration. Thus, it can feel like you are being "strawmanned" simply because you CANNOT explain without insisting that the audience also read 10,000 pages on a small part of the subject as you have.
I get that, Ed! But I'm trying to convey that, while you are, I'm sure, a stellar physicist, when arguing philosophy of science points, you are not seeing the implications of what you are suggesting.
You and Largo seem to convey on me that title... it's an interesting rhetorical tactic.
I hope I've explained: It's not a "tactic." If you are going to do philosophy, then philosophers are going to rise to that challenge. And you ARE helping yourself to all sorts of concepts that you're either not entitled to or that actually undermine other concepts that you also hold dear.
I'm being serious about this point: The BEST thing that physicists could say is something like, "Screw this philosophizing! We'll just keep making progress, and you'll all enjoy the benefits! THAT'S what we do, and I really don't care what philosophical implications our work has, because, you know, SCREW philosophy."
And I'll say, "Yayyyy! Right on! I LOVE physics and any engineering that emerges from it! Keep making the 'progress' you are making! If you need to THINK that you are doing metaphysics in order to be so motivated, then, yes, keep on thinking that. Keep doing what you do!"
Meanwhile, I'll know that you are NOT doing metaphysics. And because of that, I'll have independent reason to "assert," or "suggest," or (gasp) "believe" that there are non-natural aspects of reality that science will NEVER touch upon, and that the attributes of those phenomena tell us something about what has been widely called "God." And that perspective of mine will be a FAR cry from "blind faith." (I can't speak to the basis of the "faith" of others).
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Jun 25, 2017 - 02:42pm PT
|
I don't see the need to invoke a God to understand the universe.
That's fine, Ed. Where things go astray is when others "derive" from such statements that:
theist = idiot
science = "there IS no God"
physics = "PROOF that there is no God"
And so on.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Jun 25, 2017 - 02:43pm PT
|
The point is that Newton's theory DID have metaphysical implications, whether he was claiming them or not! And the same is true today: Your theories HAVE metaphysical implications, whether you own them or not.
as far as I know, philosophers are not sure that there is metaphysics. So I guess you could interpret anything anyone says as a metaphysical statement.
What's the point? You are going to decide on the validity of some physical statement in terms of its metaphysical interpretation? Good luck with that.
There are a number of competing theories regarding what physics may come next to explain those things we are sure are incomplete in the current theories.
However, the current theories provide a sound way to predict the behavior of the universe within the precision of what we can presently measure. When we measure better, we might actually find variance at that level, and then study it and explain it.
If those calculations provide a precise description of how the universe works, it would seem that the "truth" of how the universe works is an antiquated question. What we know now works, and what we will know in the future will explain why that is so.
I understand that that point of view doesn't have a very interesting metaphysical implication, but I'm not interested in metaphysics, I'm interested in physics.
as for the Mayans, they couldn't have done the similar calculation even in their own location, their lunar calendar was not up to the task. I don't know about their metaphysics, it seems to have been based on the birth and death of the universe on a 63My cycle, if they had picked 63By cycle we could align it with physical cosmology predictions.
On the other hand, there are interesting speculation in modern cosmology that would make the universe eternal (just not our part of it). This would be another problematic issue for your metaphysics, not so for physics, which has gone back and forth regarding this issue as long as physical cosmology has existed. It depends on observation, data, and our theory, all of which change.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Jun 25, 2017 - 02:58pm PT
|
Again you help yourself to the very point under contention! You are so inured in your empiricism that you honestly DO believe (without, by the way, ANY scientific evidence) that empirical knowledge is the ONLY knowledge there can be.
I don't believe that, it is a commitment that I have made, my choice. And I am totally open to the test of the end of empiricism.
One could rightly ask the question that if the complex instrumentation and facilities required to "experience" the Higgs Boson is the only way to do it, who could verify the results, independently of the team that did. We did have at least two teams that did, independently verify the result, but that leaves the rest of us out in the cold, reading the NYTimes and trying to glean information reported from "the front."
One could rightly ask of physics beyond the Planck Scale, which sets a limit of our knowledge, at least as far as we know now.
There are many issues regarding empiricism, if you want to be philosophical (which you do) but in practice our science (and you can catalog it as "empirical") has been the most successful method for increasing our knowledge of the physical universe, it has provided a solid foundation on which to build the many technologies we enjoy today. No other methodology has come close to matching it.
If it cannot make "metaphysical statements" it is not a loss. Those important parts of metaphysics seem to be incorporated into physics.
The SEP doesn't help matters,
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/metaphysics/
'"It is not easy to say what metaphysics is. Ancient and Medieval philosophers might have said that metaphysics was, like chemistry or astrology, to be defined by its subject matter: metaphysics was the “science” that studied “being as such” or “the first causes of things” or “things that do not change”. It is no longer possible to define metaphysics that way, for two reasons. First, a philosopher who denied the existence of those things that had once been seen as constituting the subject-matter of metaphysics—first causes or unchanging things—would now be considered to be making thereby a metaphysical assertion. Second, there are many philosophical problems that are now considered to be metaphysical problems (or at least partly metaphysical problems) that are in no way related to first causes or unchanging things—the problem of free will, for example, or the problem of the mental and the physical.'
I presume a philosopher wrote that...
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Jun 25, 2017 - 03:26pm PT
|
as far as I know, philosophers are not sure that there is metaphysics. So I guess you could interpret anything anyone says as a metaphysical statement.
Please let me know how you arrive at that notion. Metaphysics is one of the four primary branches of philosophy. And even radical skepticism makes a metaphysical claim: Ontology consists of the empty set. Or some such statement.
Beyond such radical skepticism, the set of ontological commitments is going to be more or less "large." And physics HAS its own set of ontological commitments.
It's really ridiculous to say that anything anyone says is a metaphysical statement. But it IS true that many things people say have metaphysical implications (saying something about their ontological commitments).
What's the point? You are going to decide on the validity of some physical statement in terms of its metaphysical interpretation? Good luck with that.
I'm honestly becoming surprised that you are arguing this way. I am CLEARLY not putting the logical order the way you are stating it.
What I have been arguing is that every physical theory HAS metaphysical implications. When one theory replaces another as a "working model," the ontological commitments of physics changes.
Frankly, the universe IS NOT Newtonian. It DOES NOT have the "forces" and "effects" (and for the reasons) that Newton's theory said it did. That's a whole set of metaphysical implications that went out the window post-Einstein.
If those calculations provide a precise description of how the universe works, it would seem that the "truth" of how the universe works is an antiquated question. What we know now works, and what we will know in the future will explain why that is so.
And, just when I think we're making progress, you pitch off the cliff like this. I'm really surprised. You are simply DETERMINED to conflate pragmatism with truth, even given the clear-cut evidence that "what works" in physics is NOT the same as "the way the universe really is."
If you cling to this conflation, then I really don't think that there's any point in continuing this discussion. The only "good" I guess I'll have to think came out of it is that for REASONABLE minds, it clearly cannot be the case that "what works" is THE SAME as "the way the universe really is."
I understand that that point of view doesn't have a very interesting metaphysical implication, but I'm not interested in metaphysics, I'm interested in physics.
And THAT is precisely where I think that physicists OUGHT to reside! The problem is that too many of you then proceed to make very strident metaphysical claims, telling us ALL about "how the universe REALLY is." And THAT you simply are not entitled to do.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Jun 25, 2017 - 03:37pm PT
|
There are many issues regarding empiricism, if you want to be philosophical (which you do) but in practice our science (and you can catalog it as "empirical") has been the most successful method for increasing our knowledge of the physical universe, it has provided a solid foundation on which to build the many technologies we enjoy today. No other methodology has come close to matching it.
Again and again and again, you repeat the same conflation: "what works" = "true".
You can repeat it as often as you care to, and it is NOT TRUE.
For you to even recognize what "works," PRESUMES some independent notion of what "true" means. So, you cannot legitimately "define" what is "true" BY appealing to "what works."
Physics is NOT doing genuine metaphysics. It has not "subsumed" metaphysics (or "the important parts") in the slightest! It cannot in-principle do metaphysics, because it cannot in principle DERIVE from "what seems to work at present" the actual truth of "what the universe REALLY is."
As I said before, keep believing (and even arguing, if it makes you feel better) that physics IS doing metaphysics in the only "important" way. I WANT physicist to believe whatever they need to in order to stay motivated to do what they do.
But you are NOT (and in principle cannot be) telling us what "the universe is REALLY all about." Whatever forces and entities you presently believe "really" exist are merely "fictional entities" in a "working model" that does (at present) appear to "work." But there are an infinite number of other "working models" that would have entirely different ontological commitments, and you have NO purely empirical reason to prefer yours over any of those others. You guys settle on one "guess," and you play it until it is falsified. By then, another "better" guess has emerged, and you move over to that one. But that one has very different ontological commitments.
You seamlessly move from one set of ontological commitments to another, never tumbling to the fact that you have abandoned (or radically "refined") sweeping claims about "how the universe REALLY is" for another set of just as sweeping claims.
I'll just end with: The universe IS NOT a Newtonian universe. The universe DOES NOT have the entities and forces (unless you're going to be ambiguous in your meanings) that Newton's theory implied "really" existed.
But, again, just keep thinking that you're doing the only "important" metaphysics. Just understand that non-idiots don't buy it, and we have VERY good reasons for not buying it.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Jun 25, 2017 - 03:38pm PT
|
Ed...you are feeding the beast.
Well, you have surely showed up without any food in your pocket. LOL
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Jun 25, 2017 - 03:46pm PT
|
Alrighty, I think we've looped the loop often enough at this point. I've got better things to do than circumnavigate the loop again.
Now y'all can return to your regularly-scheduled "theist = idiot" echo chamber.
|
|
Bob D'A
Trad climber
Taos, NM
|
|
|
Jun 25, 2017 - 03:51pm PT
|
"Ed...you are feeding the beast.
Well, you have surely showed up without any food in your pocket. LOL"
Maybe because I don't feel the need to justify anything to him. Sadly you do, he could less what you are writing, he just wants to argue till he wears you out.
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
|
Jun 25, 2017 - 04:54pm PT
|
What can get pretty muddled in these conversations is the words, "understanding," and what we are trying, or NOT trying to understand.
Science looks at what we perceive as physical reality and seeks to "understand" the causal (define it as you will) and mechanistic relations between discrete things and forces to the extent that they can predict what X or Y will do, or where it will be at T1. The means by which they conduct their business is held to be "observer-independent," or objective. That is, WHAT they measure and so forth is what it is outside of consciousness and any subjective taint. It is not only objective in this sense, but it also bears no trace element whatsoever of subjectivity or consciousness itself. A scientific description is, by definition, solely objective. The objective picture of reality gives a remarkably accurate picture of that strata of reality that is syntactic, that is, having to do with structure. The mechanics of physical reality.
All of these discussions of consciousness and God and values and knowing and so forth are not discussions about syntax, but semantics, the realm of consciousness and value and so forth. And every schoolboy knows that syntax and semantics are not selfsame, and that semantics do not create or source syntax, and vica versa.
So it's curious that people would reference physics - a field built on observer (experiential, semantic) independent analysis - in a conversation about consciousness, God, or any other phenomenon that objective analysis is designed to exclude.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!