PeterJ

Let us suppose tha Materialism is true. We then have to suppose that the universe emerged from Something or Nothing. If it's the former, then there can be no scientific explanation for its existence, and indeed no cause or reason for it. If it is the latter, then the universe is paradoxical in that it contains true contradictions. This is why most philosophers reject Materialism. We don't have to reject it, but it will always remain a metaphysical conjecture and not a scientific theory. It is untestable in physics. According to metaphysical analysis the probability of it being true is precisely zero.

Okay. Thanks.

ypoaDs - I'm interested in this speed of light thing. Could you say a bit more about why we cannot measure it's velocity?

Moontanman - I've tried to help but the task is beyond me. Just a read a book for goodness sake.

Moontanman - You have an incorrect understanding of metaphysics. I think maybe you're beginning to realise this. . Metaphysics is the study of first principles or 'world as a whole'. It's principle method for decision-making is Aristotle's dialectic. The laws of logic are used to eliminate theories that give rise to contradictions in order to leave only those that do not. This is the method recommended by Sherlock Holmes for weeding out from a list of suspects those who could not have committed the crime. At its best this will be a completely rigorous process very similar to mathematics, and the two disciplines share many of the same problems. It may be called a 'science of logic'. It does not endorse religion.in a blanket fashion. It renders a great many religious beliefs absurd and endorses others. Either way, its methods are disinterested. One needs a very cold heart and a mathematician's rigour to do metaphysics. You will not see many people who hold dogmatic but unsupported views doing much of it. We do not see the original subject of this thread going near it, and many religiously-minded people fear it more than physics. It's all about refuting theories, and that may include many of our own. Perhaps your hatred of religion is getting the better of your honesty as a researcher. It doesn not take much research to establish that the gaps you speak of will never go away unless we use metaphysics.to close them.

It is simply a fact. Ask any senior physicist. It is not unfounded but inevitable. It is the exact reason why metaphysics was invented, to isolate all those problem that in principle cannot be answered by the observational scientific method. This has nothing to do with acquiring more data or becoming more clever. The situation will be the same ten thousand years from now, just as is was ten thousand years ago. . It is not something we need to argue about. It's just a matter of comparing the definitions for metaphysics and physics. Or just consider their methods. There is no method by which we could prove that Materialism is true even if it was. All we can do is demonstrate its absurdity in metaphysics. After all, if the methods of the natural sciences could delve all the way down to fundamentals and leave no gaps, then metaphysics would be entirely redundant. There would have been no point in naming. it.

Is is exactly a 'god of gaps' argument, except that it is not an argument for God. if we do not do metaphysics then we end up with gaps all over the place. The gaps are the issues on which physics cannot address the fundamentals and metaphysics has to take over. The list of assertions is not contentious. These are matters that lie beyond the scientific method. Metaphysics is defined as dealing with time and space, origins, absolutes, fundamentals etc. If you ask how big the universe is you are doing metaphysics. I'm not clear as to the detailsl of the 'background-dependence' problem, but if it is the question of whether spacetime is fundamental then it is is a metaphysical problem. Physics stops short of this level of profundity. One might say it stops short of reality. It is phenomenology, not ontology. . This was not my decision, it was how we decided to divide up knowledge between physics and metaphysics. I take no notice of the divide and couldn't care less about it. But somewhere along the line a useful division of university building into faculties has become a barrier to seeing the bigger picture. I do care about this. I believe that physicists should do metaphysics because their no-nonsense attiitude might massively improve the discipline. Also, I do not believe that mainstream western philsophy has yet comes to terms with Einstein, let alone what we've learnt since, and like to think that physicists would do a better job. It seems to me that best of the physicists among those who venture into metaphysics, people like Schrodinger, Bohm, Eddington, Heisenberg and so forth, do it much better than most professional philosophers.

My thoughts are a bit confused on this because it is debatable what would count as a prediction. It's something I'm still exploring. Metaphysics predicts, one might say, that without metaphysics a fundamental theory of anything is impossible. It predicts that physics will never be able to answer questions about the size of the universe, its origin, the nature of time and space, consciousness, the origin of the laws of physics and many other things. Whether these are scientific predictions I'm not sure but they are predictions for science, or for the limits of the intrasubjective method. The issue is complicated by the tendency of scientists to shun metaphysics while adopting metaphysical views, for instance Materialism, Dualism, Atheism etc. Most, for instance, reject Solipsism and Scepticism. Almost all reject nondualism. This is bit like saying physics is rubbish but relativity is true. We can't have it both ways. Either we respect the discipline or we are stuck with mere opinion. . . Sorry, a bit of a woolly post.

There's plenty of good books on consciousness and Wittgenstein. Let's stick to the topic. If we get into qualia and phenomenology all will be lost. Consciousness was an example of a problem, not an issue here.

Yes. It's not a well-defined term even in consciousnes studies. But I'm sure you know what I mean. The problem of consciousness has a vast literature. And after all, I could ask what you mean by 'define' and 'factual'. . .

Yes, that's a good objection. What we have found is that it is impossible to find any scientific data which would contradict the claim of metaphysics that all selective conclusions about the universe are undecidable, or, equivalently, that all extreme views are logically absurd. Whether this is a scientific issue may be a matter of definitions. But we see many people here asking about the beginning of the universe, its size, the beginning of time, the nature of space, the origin of consciousness etc., so the results of metaphysics are at least of interest to scientists. A case in point. If we were to solve the problem of consiousness by showing that it arises from matter then we would have falsified a result of metaphysics, This allows us to predict that this is not the solution, and that showing that it is would be impossible. What we have learnt over the centuries is that science cannot gainsay logic. It might not have turned out this way.

My apologies to the Egyptions. And to the writers of the Upanishads and Lao Tsu et al. The Greeks weren't even in the car for much of the journey. . I can agree with a lot of what you say, but I'm much more optimistic. I believe that metaphysics is a lot easier to do than most people think it is. It's just that they usually do not believe their own results, or cannot find an interpretation. It's a doddle compared to physics. It's just more frightening. What do you mean when you say 'the ancient metaphysics was lost at Babel'? I'm wondering if there's more to the story than I remember. I'm interested because I see metaphysics as exactly and precisely the attempt to build a tower to Heaven, and as causing exactly the same problems as the original, which I assume was metaphorical. . .

Yes. It's a funny thing. All this massive increase in knowledge over the centuries, and not one piece of data contradicts the results of metaphysics obtained by the early Greeks. A remarkable testament ot the power and relevance of logic. Or just thinking straight. .

Why won't you look? I don't think we should be describing enlightenment unless we know what it is, and this would require enlightenment. Otherwise we might do better to quote people who can speak from knowledge. It cannot be demonstrated, so it;s no good asking fo a proof that someone is or is not enlightened. But careful observation of people who are well down the path to it is usually very revealing. What we see is an unusual degree of equinimity, compassion, humour, confidence, tolerance, egolessness, optimism and an absence of fear of death. My guess is that it is not correct to say 'it is attained as knoweldge is absorbed'. True in a way, perhaps, but in Zen there is no attainment, and knowledge is discarded in order to clear the mind and gain a knowledge of how we know things in the first place. No scriptures required. But Zen is a very minimal approach. We are travelling beyond the conceptual mind, so ordinary knowledge would be neither here nor there at the limit.

My mistake. I picked up on your comment 'You don't have to have what we call "philosophy" to understand science', while I'm not so sure. Seems to me you;re right, it's nearly always semantics and language at issue. We are the descendents of the Tower fo Babel fiasco. Pause for applause. . I see it as a gross underestimation of what we've learnt so far, but maybe it's both.in a way.

Sorry Proximity - I wasnt; actually annoyed, just hamming it up. I saw why you said what you did. I think it would be a mistake for any scientifically-minded person to approach philosophy by starting with ethics. Many people are never seen again, or emerge half-crazed and talking gibberish. I would start where Paul Davies starts in his book on metaphysics, with the Something-Nothing problem, and for the same reason, which is that it is difficult to say that it is irrelevant to science, and even if it is it remains of great interest to most scientists. It is simple to state, and there are no details to confuse us. Because this is now metaphyscis, where everything is connected to everything else, the solution to this should tell us something about ethics.

Oh bloody hell. I try to be conciliatory and I'm marched off into a private meeting to explain myself. . Who cares what Swansont started out by saying? I agree that he seemed to be saying what you thought he was saying. And like you I thought it was completely daft. But maybe we were both wrong and he was trying to say something else. It's what he's saying now that matters. He is asking what philosophy can do for science over and above what it has already done or is now doing for it. If it is nothing, then there is no point in scientists doing philosophy, or it wouldn't be part of the day job. It would be a waste of the tax payers money. If it is something, then what? It's a good question, But I would prefer it became the start of a new thread. In that thread I would disagree with Cladking and suggest that metaphysics is necessary to an understanding of Nature, and thus also the natural sciences. This is not a matter of debate. Either it can be demonstrated or it is a matter of conjecture.

Fair point Swansont. I did suggest that we dropped the original debate, which is hardly worth arguing about and never was, and move on in order to address your question here, which is much more interesting, but people didn't seem to want to do this. Perhaps it would be best dealt with in a new thread so there's not so much baggage to carry. iNow - Off topic, but I was not aware that the problem of altruism had been solved in biology. What was the solution? Is is testable?

I don't;think that's it exactly. Or not for me anyway. It's the idea that we can make sense of physics, or even do it, without doing some metaphysics that I find so odd. Feynman was mentioned earlier, and I think he might be someone who would have disagreed with my view. But then, he found Nature incomprehensible, which we could, if we want, see as a problem caused by a failure to do metaphysics. Only a good metaphysician could know whether metaphysics is useless to science. Another relevant example that comes to mind is altruism. This is considered a problem in evolutionary biology. Yet is is a metaphyscial problem, and it has a metaphysical solution (as given by Schopenhauer et al). So why is it a problem in biology? Because often people think that metaphysics has nothing to do with biology. Altruism thus becomes incomprehensible for the sake of maintaining a line in the sand. Perhaps the whole of Nature is incomprehensible when we do this. How can we know either way without doing some metaphysics?

I find it odd that Cladkings excellent post was passed by without comment. Sorry you feel this way about metaphysics, Tripolation. Presumably you have failed to make any sense of it. You're not alone. But you shouldn't assume it would be impossible to do so just for that reason. It cannot be denied that philosophers in western academia have not often made much progress with it, but this is not the fault of metaphysics.

I've given up. But good luck ydoaPs. I expect you're the best scientist here, and probably the best philosopher as well. Maybe someone could post a quotion from a decent scientist opposing your view. Or maybe not. I wouldn't be able to do it.

I would vote for this pointless thread to be closed. Indeed. I'd vote for 'philosophy' here to be moved to 'religion', or even 'the lounge', since it detracts from the rather good science section. Do I really have to go back to basics and explain that physics excludes the study of fundamentals and absolutes? This why we invented metaphysics in the first place, to free physics from the need to deal with such things. This is high school stuff. The clue is in the name.

Ho ho. Stranger and stranger. Pardon me for agreeing with you. I have answered every sensible question I've been asked.

Yes. Your summary seems correct to me. I've been assuming that everybody here is up to speed with what physics is, but maybe it needed saying. It seems there's not even enough point in doing metaphysics to the point of being able to formulate a sensible argument against it. I can only suggest you look a little deeper than a Wiki article. My research into the way people think about these things has benefited greatly from this discussion, albeit that it has left me rather depressed. I will continue to agree with most scientists and just agree to disagree with the rest. Okay. Metaphysics is pointless. No hope for a fundamental theory then. Shame.

Metaphysics solves problems in metaphysics, and I would rather say it sheds light on problems in science. . It sheds light on all problems that involve fundamentals or absolutes. 'Fundamental physics' is metaphysics. If it isn't, then it isn't fundamental. By definition physics can never have a fundamental theory of anything. So if we want to ask how big the universe is, whether it had a beginning, whether it is truly real, whether it is actually or only apparently extended in spacetime, the origin of the laws of physics etc., and all such profound questions, then we must do metaphysics for an answer. A favourite example would the 'hard' problem of consciousness, a solution for which can be found in metaphysics. The scientific answer, according to some (Chalmers, McGinn et al) , would be to assume that it is intractable and give up on it. This is because they assume metaphysics is a waste of time and not worth bothering with. 'Cutting off our nose to spite our face' is how my gran would have put it. The simple truth is that metaphysics does not endorse any positive metaphyscial position. If we do not know this, and do not apply it as a constraint on our scientific theories, then we are likely to end up proposing logically absurd theories. I cannot believe any decent scientist would want to do this. Or we could take nonlocality. By the usual naive wysiwyg scientific view this is a baffling and impossible pheneomenon. A study of metaphysics shows that this is because we are making metaphysical assumptions about the reality of distance that can be reduced to absurdity. .