PeterJ

What a great discussion. Some really good thoughts. It was exactly an analysis of this problem that led me to the idea of 'nonduality'. I'd go along with JSG as far as he goes, but the universe becomes paradoxical if we stop there. Melhuish's book 'The Paradoxical Universe' uses this kind of model, and Priest and Routley' 'dialethism', and Chalmers' 'naturalistic dualism, so it is in good company. But... The Professor's of Samual Butler's 'Erewhon' conclude (from memory), 'The mean is illogical, but it is better than the absurdity of the extremes'. We are approaching Middle Way Buddhism. One more step would be required on order to overcome the dualism that still inflicts the theory, which is not yet a full solution for the existence/non-existence or Something/Nothing dilemma. This would be to recognise that the distinction we make between these two extremes, existence and non-existence, is conceptual, not ontological. That is, in epistemology dualism would be required for anything to seem to exist, for otherwise what would observe what? But logic suggests that in ontology the universe must be a unity, where 'unity' would have a very particluar and difficult to grasp meaning. This what Hegel concluded anyway. This is how Buddhism solves metaphysical dilemmas, and also Kant. It is the perennial philosophy. Hegel has a word, which I've forgotten, to describe this process of reduction by which in logic we reduce the world to a unity. Kant calls this phenomenon 'the proper subject for rational psychology'. Once we hypothesise this unification of all phenomena, and thus the purely conceptual nature of all distinctions 'out there' in the world, or 'in here' in our minds, we have Nagarjuna's 'theory of emptiness', the philosophical foundation of Middle Way Buddhism, aka 'nonduality'. This explains the first term in the phrase 'advaita Vedanta', which translates as 'not-two'. It would not be 'One'. Otherwise we would have to question whether dualism or monism is true, or why it 'exists'. This would not be the meaning of 'unity' in this context. This is also the reason why mysticism is know for its 'doctrine of the mean'. On this view nothing really exists and nothing ever really happens. Or not in the way we usually think it does. Much as science and logic suggest. And as Heraclitus proposed. Zeno tried to prove that motion is impossible in order to show that our worldview is paradoxical. An analysis of motion of things in time and space suggests that things are not what we think they are. The logic doesn't work. This was in support of his master Parmenides proposal that there must be one phenomenon that never changes, and this must be the basis for everything else. If we call modifiers properties, then this phenomenon would have all properties and no properties. As Carl Jung explains online somewhere. And George Spencer Brown in his 'Laws of Form'. And Francis Bradley in his essay 'Appearance and Reality' And Paul Davies in his book 'The Mind of God', in aroundabout way. This is the cutting edge of philosophy. Perhaps.

"The Abrahamic God is the Devil, plain and simple. " This sort of remark belongs in the pub. It would be impossible to discuss these issues sensibly using this sort of approach. Moderators on a philosophy forum would be down on this like a ton of bricks. Do I believe in God? I wish there was simple answer to this. But it's a subtle one, and obviously most people here already know unambiguosly whether He does, so my opinion hardly matters. I will absent myself from this 'philosophy' forum and spend more time in the science section.

Just for clarity, this is exactly the sort of thing I mean. Nonsense stated as fact. No argument or evidence. I'll shut up about it now.

Hmm. Are you sure you can conceive of it as concept?

As pertaining to rigour. Even on public philosophy forums people usually understand that it is unrigorous to make statements that can be falsified, or at best cannot be proven. Usually there are a plenty of philosophers about so posters who do this are in a minority and will have regular reminders. But here they seem to be in the majority, with the consequence that it is impossible to distinguish between an authoritative statement backed up with evidence and argument and a completely daft one plucked from thin air. Many sentences begin 'The truth is as follows...', when they should begin 'It seems possible to me that...'. When they begin 'The truth is as follows...' the writer must be able to prove it or provide an argument from evidence or axioms. You don't see physcists talking about physics in the way people here talk about philosophy and religion. Maybe it's just me. Some people aoppear to think that doing philosophy is like doing astrology, while I feel it should be like doing mathematics and is not a matter of opinion.

Interesting question. I believe that the answer is yes. It is possible to define an indefinable phenomenon, and one that might actually be more than an hypothesis. I'm aware that this statement appears to be paradoxical. Everything we can describe, and everything we know, is describable and known because we can distinguish it from it from other things. We can describe it as this or that, big or small, fast or slow, transcendent or immanent, real or unreal, manifest or unmanifest, temporal or atemporal, wave or particle, extended or unextended and so forth. Kant points out that the intellect depends on these contradictory and complementary pairs of distinctions in order to operate, thus in order to describe, and (to cut a long story short) it would follow that the at the very point of origin of the intellect there must be a phenomenon that is not an instance of a category. He calls this the 'proper subject for rational psychology'. On the same reasoning he concludes that the universe as a whole must originate in such a phenomenon. This is a phenomenon that in an everyday sense cannot be described. It must remain an undefined term by definition. You will see why if you try to imagine a phenomenon defined as being in no case ever this or that. It is unimaginable. Our intellect has no way of getting any purchase on it. It would be invisible to physics. We might describe it as not an instance of a category, and this seems to be a description, and it allows us to agree what we are talking about. But speaking rigorously this phenomenon is an instance of a category, as it is a member of the category of phenomenon that are not an instance of a category. Such a phenomenon must be described by the use of paradox and contradiction. This is a comprehensible description of it, in that it identifies it and tells us something about it, and yet it is paradoxical and self-contradictory. Any non-paradoxical description of this phenomenon would have to be false. ('True words seem paradoxical' - Lao-tsu). We can treat it as an hypothetical or real phenonema but either way it would have to be indescribable in a real sense. By definition it would have all properties and no properties, be neither small nor large, hard or soft, timeless or eternal, transcendent or immanent, personal or impersonal, and so on for all the categories of the intellect. It would be both and neither and yet not both or neither. Ordinary language and logic cannot handle it. We have defined it as such. Might such a phenomenon actually exist? If it is not an instance of a category then the answer must be yes and no. At best there would be two possible points of view, neither of which would be fully adequate. Exist/not-exist is a categorical distinction and ex hypothesis and by defintion we cannot apply it to this phenomenon. Re the topic, this could be called Nothing, but only if we add that to the intellect it would have two aspects and must also be called Something. If it is a real phenomenon then a state of Nothingness, as a Nihilist would mean it, would have no location in the possibility space of Reality, and yes would be the answer to the OP's question, or no, depending on how we look at it. At any rate, it's very confusing talking about something that cannot be described.

My apologies. I succumbed to irritability. It was a childish response. I'd vote for much tighter moderation here.

Oh yes. I forgot you. Double-handed then.

Oh hell. Immortal. You have no idea what I'm talking about and have made it very clear that you don't want to know. Please direct your criticisms at someone who deserves them, and not wildly mischaracterise my view in order to object to it. It's called a straw man argument and it wastes everybody's time. I'm completely bored with with your failure to engage with anyone's views except your own. You post above is complete waste of words. If you have an objection to my view please make it. I'm not responding to posts like the above which seem to be aimed at someone who lives only in your fantasies. You may single-handedly drive me from this forum with the way you confuse the issues so badly and then inflict that confusion on the discussion.

Sorry to reprint all of this it, but I thought it deserved it. We should send it to the Guardian letters page. Not that I agree about the washing water. These are teaching stories. I agree that generating some common understanding is a vital issue. But I see the issue a little differently. It is scientists who command the respect of the public at the moment, with philosophers trailing somewhere behind. These are the people who should be doing what you suggest. But most just won't take any serious interest in the topic. I have done my best to convert the central or most widespread religious doctrine into something like a language that scientists might accept but have failed so far. I came here to experiment some more. My conclusion after a few years of experimenting is that it's all about temperament, not science and philosophy, or even reason and rationality. I have followed one debate on consciousness for two years on philforums, a professional philosophy site, and in all that time not seen one reference to the explanation given in the Abidhama literature, or in yoga psychology, or even in Kant and Hegel. It's like they live in some distant world with no bookshops. One sage says that once we have a right understanding of religion we will read the scriptures and say 'oh yes, that's what I think'. I would say that this is the crucial test. When it begins to seem to us that all the sages are saying much the same thing then we are on the right track. This is a coherence theory of interpretation. I think the time is nearly here when a true understanding of religion will begin to break out in academia and professional science. There are many signs, and a few people in the trade are sensing the same groundswell. The problem of consciousness may prove to be the catalyst, being both a scientific and philosophical problem, as well as forcing us to examine the nature of our own consciousness. The longer no progress is made on this problem the more likely it is that researchers will try to understand out the perennial solution offered in the wisdom traditions. But for a concensus capable of supporting a body to promote such an understanding we would have to be able to point to scientific evidence and philosophical arguments. Appeals to textual authority would be unfair and innefective. And the whole thing wiould be pointless unless this evidence and argument was provided in such a way as to encourage people to actually take up the practice, because no amount of evidence and argument can prove what can only be discovered by actually taking the journey. This is why (immortal) I disagree with your cavalier approach to science and philosophy. They are on your side, but this is no help to you if you dismiss metaphysics as useless and appeal only to faith and scriptures. A body promoting religious understanding (of which there are many) might talk about the benefits of faith, but it should be possible to asses the merits of a religious doctrine without having to have any faith in it. If this is not possible then no common understanding will ever be reached in the academic community. Of course it is possible to make such an assessment without faith or appeals to authority, and sticking to science,philosophy, psychology etc, but how to do it is very difficult to explain unless people will sit still for long enough. But why should they sit still when they already think they know it is all nonsense? .

Saddened? Suicidal more like. But this is an unusual forum in my experience, and no good for deriving general conclusions about the human race. It seems relevant that for the esoteric interpretation of the Christian cross, (and perhaps for Valentines gnosticsm, but I'm not quite sure about that) the horizontal would represent the world of time and space, and the upright would be the unchanging reality that is ever present in the moment. In this way the imagery of the crucifixion story is allowed to make some sense. Plotinus has it as a hypersphere, in his Enneads, with the world of time and space as the extended surface, and the changless world of our deepest being as the center point, sizeless, and immediately connected to every point on the surface. Immortal old friend - For a good book on the Christian God I'd recomment Keith Ward's 'God - A Guide for the Perplexed'. It is straightforward and very good.

Thank you for that, but I do know what scientific realism is. Did you think I could form my views, such as they are, without knowing this? You may understand scientific realism okay, but your understanding of the nondual cosmology is woeful, and all you do is keep making this blindingly obvious. That's fine, but not when you spend all your time objecting to it rather than trying to understand it. I will not reply again and will unsubscribe from this thread. Thank you for another daft discussion.

Your point being...? If pigs could fly that would falsify my view as well. I really can't see what you're trying to achieve by this sort of meaningless remark.

Yes. I have said this many times. It's a problem that afflicts all philosophical and scientific theories. Abduction produces a 'best' theory, not a 'true' one. Abduction is defined by Peirce as 'inference to the best explanation'. What we get from metaphysics, or from the use of our reason, is a decision on which is the best explanation, not on which is the true one. Evidence please. Nobody has ever proposed a different one. Have you ever seen a different explanation as to why metaphysical questions are undecidable? There is only one other that I know and its called dialethism, for which the universe would be paradoxical and incomprehensible. This appears to be the only other option. McGinn's 'mysterianism' is in effect equivalent. If you have another one then you should publish.

Okay Immortal - We're wasting our time. Clearly you have no interest in any of this stuff. If you think your comment about turning water into wine is relevant here then I apologise for the fact that my posts are incomprehensible to you. Oh Hell, I suppose I should have just replied. I have answered this before. Just because logic cannot establish truth does not mean it is useless. Scientific theories are also not true or false, just better or worse, useful and not useful and so forth. We don't say physics is pointless because of this. That would be daft. As a theoretical concept I know exactly what it is. Whether I know it as a phenomenon is my business. So no, don't send me your dead plants. And please stop accusing me of lying. I have never pretended to know anything. I am a philosopher, not a monk. Under your nose, as I've been saying for page after page. You can't. They do. No. it demonstrates that you cannot understand what they are talking about. Yes. I know this is your view. This is why our discussion is a complete waste of time. You never think to provide any argument. You seem to be living in some alternative reality. Have you ever tried to understand metaphysics, or examined how it is done? I'd recommend it. Of course not. Some people refuse to even think about it. If we had tested the cosmology of Newton and found it to be correct, then we would have scientifically falsified Buddhist doctrine. This doctrine is therefore testable in the sciences. It is tested very day in the sciences. The only reason we don't notice this this is that it always passes. It makes predictions for time and space, phenomenology, consciousness studies and goodness knows what else. Of course logic alone is insufficient to test any theory of reality. It's a necessary condition for such a theory that it be logically coherent, but not a sufficient one. This is not a criticism of anything, just a fact. Observation alone is not enough either, which is why solipsism is unfalsifiable and why scientific theories are not true or false. To finally test a world-theory is not about plausibility but about knowledge. Knowing that a theory is plausible, or that it works, is not the same as knowing it is true. True knowledge is identical with its object, according to Aristotle, and is not found in calculations or observations. This does not make calculations and observations useless, of course not, it just places a limit on what we can learn from them. This is not a philosophical or scientific problem, it's just the way it is. It is also telling that the theory you so despise predicts this unfalsifiability, and would be falsified if solipsism were ever to be falsified. It also predicts all aother traditional philosophical problems, as I have explained a few times. If physics, given its current world-view, did not break down at the BB then this view would also be falsified. If time and space were found to be fundamental it would also be falsified. Etc etc. There's masses of evidence, even before the evidence of experience. I know you can't see it, but fortunately this does not make it go away.

Me too, if we're talking about the philosophy of science. I also think it is up to scientists to say what is necessary for science. Having said that, in order to do so in a meaningful way they would have to do some philosophy of science. I suspect he would not have entirely dismissed phil. of science as useless, but is commenting on the current state of it. Do you have any quotes from him about philosophy proper or metaphysics?

Try meditation. It's the only way to know. But it can be established as a plausible theory in logic. Meditation includes intellectual analysis, but also goes beyond it. If you don't know what is meant by 'unity', then why do you argue that I'm wrong about this? 'Unity' would be a synonym for what the Upanishads call a 'whole' or 'perfection'. It is relevant that 'Yoga' derives from the term for 'to yoke' or 'to unify'. I'm happy to talk about this, but maybe this thread is not the right place. Very true. It is testable in logic if (iff) it is testable in logic. Even then that would not establish whether it is true. Logic may well establish that it is plausible, however, and we can do no better for scientific theories. Who says nobody understands anyway? I do to a fair extent. I've just been sent an excellent book by Don Salmon - Yoga psychology and the Transformation of Consciousness (Paragon Books 2007). It's completely excellent. He certainly understands. Thousands of people understand. I could write a vast book list, and that's only people who have written books. That's because you do not understand what I have been proposing. If you ask the right questions your database may expand. I know what I'm talking about, even if my communication skills are dodgy and I am plagued by impatience. Of course there is experimental data. What do you think mysticism is all about? It is simply experimental philosophy. Do you think that people like Don Salmon, the writers of the Upanishads, Lao-tsu, the Buddha and their like have no exprimental data? That would make them some of the greatest liars in history. But anyone can go and check their claims empirically. It is not 'transcendental realism', which is a mightily confusing phrase. 'Objective idealism' is better, but again a little misleading. 'Nondualism' is one technical term. In metaphysics I like 'metaphysical neutralism', because it is not at all misleading. But I can agree in a way. Metaphysics can prove that all world-views but this one are logically indefensible, and it can prove that this one is defensible, but it cannot prove it is true or bring much understanding of it. This is the eternal complaint of the sages against metaphysics, most notably made by the Buddha. But I think it makes sense to test the theory before commiting to the experimental practice, unless one is so full of faith one does not feel the need, and for this metaphysics is indespensible, as is physics. The internet is also very useful. Most people would want to know that a doctrine is consistent with the results of physics and metaphysics before considering spending much time checking it empirically. This one makes predictions and they can be tested, and I would say more about its predictions were it not that every time I try to talk to physicists about them they explode in indignation, so I'm having trouble establishing which are most interesting and how far they can be tested. But things are changing. More and more I see researchers in physics and philosophy taking an interest in this other view. Tends to be at the forefront of the field we see this interest emerging though, and I reckon we need another two generations before things really start to change.

Okay. This does not alter what I said. Quite so. I'm afraid the question baffles me. Perhaps the questionner is not a native english speaker. It is not a question of belief, but of common and accepted usage of terms. The wonderful wikipedia discusses logic as a 'science of logic', so you'd better go argue with them as well. Personally I find that philosophers understand science a lot better than scientists understand philosophy. But I suppose two wrongs don't make a right. No it doesn not. It answers why physics encompasses chemistry.Btw, I am not discussing philosophy of science. Sorry, I must have missed your definition. It is tautological to say that a theory is not scientific because it cannot be scientifically tested. To make this meaningful you would have to define 'scientifically tested' in such a way as to exclude logical analysis. Many metaphyscial theories are testable in physics. If they are not, then physics must be defined as being unable to decide between materialism and idealism. What chance do we have of a fundamental theory in this case? Show me a fundamental scientific theory that is not metaphysical. Show me a metaphysical theory that is scientific nonsense. How would we show that a metaphysical theory is scientific nonsense if we are unable to test it scientifically? The idea makes no sense. Oh c'mon. Feynam was baffled by the scientific data and says so very publicly in those same lectures. How can he start pontificating about this? I dare say he is able to show that many philosophical theories are rubbish. So can I. So can you. So what? He does not say that philosophy approaches the real world in the wrong way, he says that some do. I'd rather quote Schroedinger, who is on my side. If Wikipedia can call logic a science than metaphysics can be called a science. since it is simply logic applied to a specific area of knowledge. Okay, your preferred defintion of science would exclude metaphysics, and I can see why someone might hold this view. I could accept that definition. But the other view is also valid, and cannot just be dismissed. It is a question of how we want to define the words. Both definitions are in widespread use, one by which metaphysics would be a science and one by which it would not. But I would rather go back to the issue I suggested we discussed in the previous post. You did not give an answer so I can't tell quite what your objection is to my view. It's not good saying that a theory is unscientific if it cannot be scientifically tested until you have defined what you mean by scientifically tested. Otherwise the statement does not mean anything. Can you not see that there are various ways of looking at this depending on how we define science, and that there is an ongoing debate within science about how this should be done, and no reason for anyone to simply accept your view?

Do you not think that every metaphysical theory relies to some extent on observations, and every scientific theory relies to some extent on logic? I cannot think of one that does not rely on both. But if there are any then your objection would apply to it. Likewise, a scientific theory based on observation alone, if such a thing were possible, would be unreliable. But it cannot be a coincidence that metaphysical theories that rely mainly on logic never contradict scientific theories that rely mainly on observations. It suggests that both methods are reliable, used properly.

Thanks or mentioning this. I'm having this argument elsewhere. At least Wiki is my side. They have equivalent methods for deciding theories, and they seem to be equally reliable. We can test a theory empirically or by using logic. We do not have to build a rocket with a blunt front end and test it to know that it is not a good idea. It's horses for courses. There is no evidence that the results of metaphysics are any less certain than those of science, As most of the latter rely on induction the reverse in probably more true. There's always more than one way of looking at things. I see what you mean about the sum being greater than its parts. Because they are parts they are partial. But this is not yet the sum. As well as the study of observational data and of the reuslts of logical analysis there is the study of direct experience. Only the three together would be the sum, and thus able to produce a theory of the whole.

The figure represents your point of view and not mine. It has nothing explicit to say about whether metaphysics is meta-scientific or can be be called a science. Post 19 asks why anyone would want to call metaphysics a science, which is what I thought we were discusing. I'm happy with most of its meanings. I meant it in a sense that is common not only among scientists but also us idiots who aren't. But 'analytical' in the sense of 'analytic philosophy' is not what I meant, nor most of its mathematical senses. Nor did I mean it in the sense that musicians and musicologists would mean it, or TV news pundits. Perhaps we could discuss what would disqualify a logically systematic metaphysical theory from being a scientific theory.

Good idea. But surely you don't mean 'meta-science'. If so, why not call it meta-physics? Okay, foundation might be the wrong word. At present physics does not have one. It should be the foundation, but it cannot be until metapysicians get their act together. I just meant 'analysis' in the everyday sense, as in just thinking about stuff but in a systematic and purposeful way. It would be analysis which justifies induction. It would analysis that refutes materialism etc etc. Okay. The point is just that definitions of 'science' can vary, and widely enough that an argument can be made for metaphysics as a science. After all, it makes predictions for physics. But no matter. I'm sure we'd agree once we'd agreed a definition.

If the framework is not scientific then it can't be a science, I'd say. But what do you mean by a scientific framework? This needs defining. I personally do not care whether metaphysics is called a science or not. I believe that by some definitions it may be called it a science of logic, but it would all depend on how we do it. It is not often a science of logic in reality, more like a muddle of opinions. The Blackwell Guide to Metaphysics actually criticisizes scientists for expecting it to be systematic and have a procedure for decision-making, accusing those scientists who expct this of metaphysics of 'scientism'. But that's a very weird view imho, and I would say profoundly unscientific and unreasonable to boot. I suppose I like the idea that it is a science because can be systematic, can have a clear decision-making procedure and solid standards for testing theories in logic. I would say that metaphysics is the ultimate test of any scientific theory. First and foremost such theories must not give rise to logical contradictions. Also, if we can call consciousness studies scientific then all bets are off. I'm not alone in suggesting this use of the term renders it pretty meaningless. As for sociology being a science, don't get me going. But maybe this is OT. To get back OT, the simple question for me is whether physcis can have a fundamental theory without venturing into metaphysics, and to me this appears to be impossible by the definition of both disciplines. The whole point of these definitions is to place fundamental theories in metaphysics, and their unfolding consequences for the observable and third-person testable world in physics. To put it another way, any fundamental theory will have implications for metaphysics. As someone said earlier, physics does not deal with the world as a whole but must be partial. This is not a value judgement, just a divison a labour.

Science never did separate from philosophy. They are inseperable. But it's a small point. For Hegel and me it's a science of logic, but we'd have to sit down and clarify exactly what we mean by science to decide, and it doesn't really matter. Still, as metaphysics is prior to physics, then on your view we can say that physics rests on non-scientific foundations, and I don't think you would be happy with that idea. I suppose we could call it all natural philosophy. EDIT: It's interesting though. I just checked that link you gave to a definition and to my mind it would cover philosophy (or philosophy done in a certain way). 'Analysis' would be the key word. But I'm happy to call metaphysics a discipline and have done with it. EDIT 2: Extract from that article - "The definition of science given here differs with the 'official' definitions given by the Science Council and the American Physical Society (APS), and with the definitions given in scientific and philosophical textbooks."

Just to be clear - I expect I'm using just the same definition you would use.