PeterJ

Why the niggly comment? Have you not read my posts? I've reported a number of claims here. My point is that they are NOT my claims, I am reporting what is said in the specialist literature. I do not claim any special knowledge. When we say that water is H2O this is not usually something we know ourselves but something that has been established by other people. I learnt it from a book, not from studying water molecules. There would be no point at all me claiming some special knowledge, especially here. I could be just making it up or having acid fantasies. Yes. Your guess or intuition would be correct. Thus Socrates is said to have considered philosophy as a process of remembering. Mysticism is about discovering what we know already but have not yet consciously realised. Hence over the entrance to the Oracle at Delphi were engraved the words 'Know Thyself'. The method is in part one of 'apperception', mind's perception of itself. But this doesn't answer your question. Not sure how best to answer it. The most seeemingly unlikely claim might be that it is possible for you, while you are alive and have a body supporting consciousness, to realise the state that preceeded your birth and that will succeed your death. Sometimes this is called 'knowing your face before you were born'. This is what allowed Schroedinger, who did make personal knowledge claims, and who is rigorous at all times in his writings, to state without proviso that we have no loss of awareness to fear. This is not 'life after death', and nor is it 'you' who will survive, and nor will our bodies be resurrected on the 'day of judgement', and nor would there be a God who judges us. It is the claim that all phenomena have the same source, with the consequence that we can know it. Indeed, we would already 'be' this phenomenon, and would realise this if we looked through the telescope. A realisation of this leads the people who claim to have explored themselves this deeply to state that all positive metaphysical positions are false. This is the claim that all scientific and philosophical theories which embody such a position are false. It is a claim made by the also ever-rigorous Lao tsu when he states 'True words seem paradoxical'. These words could only be true if all distinctions are in an ultimate sense illusory. Thus the central claim of mysticism is consistent with the main finding of metaphysics, which is that all the positions allowed in the 'western' tradition of metaphysics are logically indefensible. This is a little unfair on our tradition, since Kant, Hegel and others who are considered to be members of it would allow Lao Tsu's position. But they are usually considered mavericks and ignored, and most peope in this tradition see metaphysics as a waste of time. When Carnap dismisses metaphysical questions as meaningless this would be because all the positions he considers are logically indefensible. Thus the Taoist worldview would entail the adoption of a neutral metaphysical position. This is the only position that cannot be refuted in the dialectic and I believe it is the correct one. But I do not know, and do not claim to know that it is correct. For me it is a matter of logic, and logic does not produce certain knowledge unless it is tautological. I could claim to have had experiences that give me conviction, but such a claim would be meaningless here. Is this the sort of thing you mean? I'd be happy to make one claim for myself, and this is that there is only one metaphysical position that is not logically absurd and it is Lao Tsu's. This can be proved in logic so would not require any priveleged access to knowledge.

Ho ho. So the claims are testable then. That'll be news to a lot of people here. Perhaps you couild name just one single claim that has been tested and falsified. No? I thought not. I'm not sure what to answer to this. I am making no claims to knowledge here. Or only to a knowledge of the literature.

Um. I'm afraid I can't quite disentangle the question. Could you clarify it a bit?

Respect to you Immortal. Many would prefer not to know anything about it before making their mind up. This is considered a rational way to make decisions. Erm. Not quite. The claim is that there is no 'thing-in-itself'. Phenonomena would be 'empty'. The truth cannot be shown anymore than consciousness can be shown and for not unconnected reasons. For some here the argument would run - we are unable to demonstrate our consiousness, ergo we are not conscious. Crazy. But this argument has been made in 'scientific' consciousness studies. If we want to research the plausibility of mysticism without actually doing it then we would have to start with what we can know about it by scholarship. This is quite a lot, and certainly enough to allow an informed decision as to whether the more 'esoteric' claims are plausible. Look forward to talking more about all this after Christmas.

Really? I'd rather decide for myself. Buddhism is clear. Nothing really exists. This is a doctrinal statement and is supposed to be statement of fact. Gods are not excepted. I suspect that we are disagreeing only because are not distinguishing between a conventional and an ultimate viewpoint. From an ultimate viewpoint Gods do not exist. Mysticism might be correctly seen as the search for God, clearly for many people it is, but according to the sages what we find is ourself. This is all there is. If we want to call ourself 'God' that is fine. It is a perennial claim of those who go far enough, almost a defining one, but we might as well call ourself 'Tao'. This would be the classical God of Christianity, as described in Keith Ward's 'God: A Guide for the Perplexed'. This God would not exist or not-exist. He would be beyond all that. He would lie 'beyond the coincidence of contradictories', as one Christian mystics whose name I forget right now famously puts it. Would you agree with this? We agree. Hmm. Solipsism is unfalsifiable. We wouldn't even be able to test whether the machine is conscious, never mind whether we're dreaming it. Well, I'd rather say that if there's a discrepancy it must be me whose faking it, but no matter. I do not second guess the scriptures. Luckily I have never discovered such a discrepancy. The Dalai Lama is clear, 'Anything that contradicts logic or experience should be abandoned'. For Buddhism the two would go hand in hand. Ah. My apologies. I misjudged where you are coming from. It may surprise you to learn that I also believe this. We might disagree about the meaning of the word 'divine', but would probably agree on 'grace'. Maybe we disagree about whether we can earn it or have to sit around hoping. But as Nicklaus said, 'the more I practice the luckier I get' Thanks but it's okay. I read a bit more and it's not quite my thing. Nothing wrong with it but not quite aimed at me. I suppose I have been keen to say that I am an atheist here because I assumed it needed saying without any ambiguity for any credibility. For many people God is a person who created the universe intentionally, interferes in the laws of nature, lives somewhere 'out there' or 'over there' and must be worshipped blindly as opposed to admired and aspired to. I would not want to be associated with that idea. But there is a more subtle idea of God that makes sense to me. This would be the God of Schroedinger, Schopenhauer and the Upanishads. I have no problem with this God and won't argue with you about His importance. But I will not mention him on a science forum any more than I have to. I now don't think we disagree all that much, and I'd like to try to persuade you that we needn't disagree at all. But I need to do other things and if you reply there might be a delay of a day or two before I get back to you. But I will when I can. Cheers.

Thanks. By the way, just spotted what you said about the Isha Upanishad (missed it when I 'quoted' your post.) It is not outer awareness, It is not inner awareness, Nor is it a suspension of awareness. It is not knowing, It is not unknowing, Nor is it knowingness itself. It can neither be seen nor understood, It cannot be given boundaries, It is ineffable and beyond thought. It is indefinable. It is known only through becoming it. Just so you know, if anything I say contradicts this then I have made an accidental mistake. I have no intention of defending the naive views of Chuck Meisner. Just read that page. Seemed okay to me. I'll read some more since I don't know him.

That's fine. I wasn't suggesting you were saying anything daft. Not sure about the light, but your interpretation of physics and metaphysics is clearly the most common one. I hold a different view, since I believe few people really study Aristotle's 'laws of thought', and therefore see parodoxes where there are none. Big topic though and probably not one for here. I supect you'd see Kant antinomies as dilemmas, where I would see them as trilemmas. Both views are common. I'd agree with Kant that the solution is compatibilism, but not of the kind he recommends. I feel that this question, of whether metaphysical questions are dilemmas or trilemmas, is one of the most important in philosophy and possibly also theoretical physics. But that's just me. No I did not say that. I mentioned European mystcism. I didn't mean to suggest that it's the only kind. That would be obviously daft. All mysticism has the same doctrine. It would utterly implausible if this were not the case. There is only one mysticism according to those who pursue it. I think you could read my posts more carefully. I'm not making the arguments you seem to be reading into them. Do you think I just toss a coin for my views? I think the 'Principle of Charity' is a useful method for avoiding unnecessary arguments. Okay. I'll check him out. I suspect you may be interpreting the term 'God' to mean what Dawkins means. Yes, I appreciate that. But if you think mysticism is theism then this is a misunderstanding. Honest. Sure there is talk of God, but it's the sort of talk that gets one into trouble with theists. How many dogmatic Christians admire 'The Mystical Theology' of the pseudo-Dionysius, or even know of it? How well is it promoted within the Church? I think they'd rather bury it, even though it's full of the G-word. Yes, This is why I suggested we concentrate on the implications of this phenomenon, and do not try to understand it directly. It would be impossible except in direct experience. You'll know that Lao tsu says that we cannot speak about the 'Tao that is eternal', but also says that we must speak about it. That is, we must do the best we can. If I ever say something that is inconsistent with the Upanishads I'll retract it immediately. Yes. I agree that it is beyond logic. In fact logic can prove that it is beyond logic, as Kant, Hegel, Nagajuna and Bradley demonstrate. It is also beyond explanation. But this would not change anything I've said here. My view is strictly orthodox, and I have gone to great lengths to ensure that it is. What I'm suggesting is that the reason why you find the world paradoxical is because you rule out one possible solution. Once it is ruled out everyone finds the world paradoxical. Thus the two millenia of mayhem in metaphysics. It is true that many writers on mysticism find the logic of their own view paradoxical once translated into classical logic, and by our usual application of the laws for the dialectic it is. But I believe we misuse those laws, (and have made the case successfully enough for one academic panel). A phenomenon beyond all distinction cannot give rise to contradictions by definition and ex hypothesis. It is noteworthy that Lao tsu says 'true words seem paradoxical', not that they are. This is your view. Fair enough. It is not my view, my experience or my view of mysticism. It is not just that it would be repeatable, it would be livable on a moment to moment basis 24/7. You're free to be scepetical, but not to characterise mysticism as sharing your view. If it shared your view it wouldn't exist. Well, okay, but I could have said the same. I'd like to just chat, but I'm gong to argue if you claim things for mysticism which are demonstrably not true. This is not fair. It means you think I'm defending a view of the issues which you know is absurd. Actually I'm not defending that view at all. My view also. Except that there is no way to test their claim. Not that there's no evidence at all, but in the end we cannot know about other people's knowledge. Anway, it makes no difference to me whether they are or are not what they claim, or even whether I believe then or not. I feel no need to believe or disbelieve them. Still, the claimant was a famous genius, and his friend is Wei Wu Wei the famous writer on advaita vedanta, so I wouldn't dismiss their claims out of hand. They do at least demonstrate their supposed knowledge in their writings, and we are free to judge. C.S Peirce was good on these topics and it's a shame he isn't better known. I'll go check out that link. Immortal - My google reader struggles with that text and I cannot find page 17. Could you summarise it, or clarify which bit I should be reading? It doesn't seem likely I'm going to disagree with anything he says but you never know. But I did spot this... "The three works which compliment one another ..... prove how an individual can rise from the lower to the higher and even to the highest by sadhana, by sheer will and by solemn detirmination." This seems very clear.

I see your objection. But I see no reason why there should not be a one to one mapping between physics and metaphysics. It would be weird if there wasn't, and there no evidence that it isn't. The Popper thing is debatable. Depends whether one includes mental phenomena as 'empirical'. To me I'm sticking to Popper's rules, to you I'm not. This is not true. Mysticism is the death of gods. That';s why so many of its proponents have been executed by the intitutional Churches. Many have been crucified, which is a little ironic. Until recently it was very dangerous to speak about mysticism anywhere in Europe. This is why a lot of the European liteterure is written in code. I'm afraid I cannot follow that. Buddhism and Taoism share a common worldview. Thus Lao tsu says 'true words seem paradoxical', and Nagarjuna proves that this is true. Two different approaches, but the same underlying worldview. Brown is quite explicit, his 'calculus of indications' is intended as a representation of the cosmological scheme of Buddhism and Taoism, and of the universe as it actually is. I have this from the horse's mouth. Hmm. The whole point of the practice is to repeat them. This is what it's all about. I'm fine if you think mysticism is nonsense. But not on the basis of not understanding it. There are many Buddhas in the world, if Buddhists are to be believed. Spencer Brown claims to be one, and so does his friend Terence Grey. Sure. I meant to stay away, but felt obliged to reply. Utter lunacy. What would be the point of coding the messages? This is not a religious claim but something akin to abduction by aliens.

I agree. But it doesn't happen that way in real life. Professional philosophy these days is quite a narrow rut. Sorry. I am prone to lecturing, and not necessarily well. Bad habit. It was supposed to be helpful. I tend to be blunt because then it's easy for people to spot mistakes and put me right, but I expect it can seem arrogant. At any rate, to me it seems a mistake to suppose that philosophers examine all the evidence. Mostly its still footnotes to Plato.

As you know from elsewhere, Owl, I am open minded about these things. All of what you say here I can agree with. I also see consciousness stuidies as the future, with physics playing its essential part. But that's just a hope. The thing is that what you say here would make no difference to what Swansont and other have been repeatedly saying remarkably patiently. Physics is not ontology. They are not usually in the same building. Physics as commonly defined has no responsibility to think about ontology. For an individual physicist it would be a different matter. An individual physicist is just a person. It would be strange if a person did not apply their specialist knowledge to questions of ontology, and probably impossible to avoid doing it, and I bet every single one of them does it all the time and are really interested in it, But when they do this they are not doing physics. They are straying into ontology. A theory in physics, as I understand it, does not have to say a word about ontology. This is one of its defining features. If you're into consciousness studies then you'll know all about Behaviorism, a theory for which consciousness is a black box. I think it would be correct to say that for physics the universe is a black box. David Chalmers has proposed a theory called 'naturalistic dualism' for which it would be a black box. All that matters to physics is how it behaves. If a phenomenon does not behave then it does not exist. It is not the job of physics to ask what the word 'it' actually stands for. I strongly agree with you that we should be working to create a theory that covers both physics and ontology. It never occured to me to try and do anything less. But you seem to be asking the physicists here to redefine physics just because you'd prefer it that way. How could they agree to this? It is not a reasonable demand. If a scientific theory is wonderful in physics but ridiculous in ontology then this would be a philosophical problem, not a scientific one. Whether it should be this way is a matter of opinion, but that's how it is. It only causes problems for very deep theories. Like it or not, the physicists do physics, the philosophers do philosophy, the psychologist do ... and there is no name for the department responsible for comparing all the results. We don't have to agree with you about how to define physics in order to discuss the ontological implications of SR. It may not even matter whether the earth changes shape or not, since I can't see what difference it would make to the argument between idealism and realism. Whether a thing changes shape depending on the relative velocity of the observer, or only appears to do so, does not seem to bear on the question of whether it's real or not. But there are so many variations of these two 'isms' that I may have missed your point.

I'm a fan of Popper. Have I said something he would disagree with? Yes. I've already mentioned a few of the theories for which the universe would be paradoxical. I prefer to believe it obeys the laws of reason such that metaphysics and physics would be non-paradoxical and mutually consistent, but there is no logical argument that can defeat your speculation. The theory that the universe is paradoxical would be unfalsifiable and untestable in physics, and logic can prove nothing about reality. Our opinions are not quite the point though. The point is that mystcism does not claim that the universe is paradoxical. I prefer to see them being complementary, and would agree that mixing them together would not really be possible. They are defined as different things. I also agree that nmany books on the relation between them are bullshit. Indeed, according to the literature of mysticism a great deal of religion is bullshit. Didn't Popper say that the test of a good theory is that it is self-evident? The claim of Buddhism and similar traditions is that it is possible for you to explore your own consciousness to the point where the unity of the universe becomes self-evident to you. So self-evident, in fact, that it ceases to be a theory. This may not be true, of course, but I'm very sure that you have no idea whether it's true or not. Among physicists Davies speculates that it might be true, and Schroedinger is adamant that it is, but then they both consider religion and physics to be relevant to each other. Unfortunately, if we follow your research programme we'll never know. I'd say it is not important where an idea comes from, just whether it's any good. Yes, it is certainly not common. That is why I suggested we examine its ramifications rather than get bogged down in the thing itself. It would be inconceivable, being prior to conception, so we cannot understand it in any real sense by the use of our intellect. Although I do not agree with all of Kant, he is good on this topic. He argues that the universe must be grounded in a phenomenon that is not an instance of a category. It is therefore beyond thought. But we can still think about it. You must speak for yourself here. Sure, a complete undersanding cannot come through logic alone, but most philosophers who try have no difficulty with deriving its implications,. Many are quite obvious. George Spencer Brown has even described the logic of this idea as a mathematical calculus. He might be worth googling. He developed his logic as part of his work designing switching circuits for a railway company. He used the idea that the universe is a unity to solve Russell's paradox. Russell praised his book 'Laws of Form', in whcih he describes the cosmological scheme of Taoism and Buddhism, and you can't get any more anti-mystical than Russell. I'm sorry, but this is so obviously not true that I don't know what to say. If you are right then about fifty million or more people are wasting their time right now, and will do so again tomorrow, and over the centuries the number would be uncountable. Instead the bookshops are overflowing with books about the methodology in all languages and from all over the planet, and not one of them says that there is no method for acquiring knowledge. These people do not believe it is best to sit around waiting for lightening bolts. Many of the methods are easy to try and easy to explain. The problem is that induction is not absolute knowledge. One apple may one day fall up. So, the method would be just the same for the Buddhist or for anyone else with the same goal. No assertion should be believed before it is tested, although we might take it on faith until we can test it, as long it makes sense. You may be surprised to learn that this instruction appears repeatedly in the Buddhist sutras and right across the literature. What can be tested in physics or logic is tested in physics or logic, what cannot be tested in the third-person can be tested in other ways. <BR><BR>But I must stop. I feel that I'm doing little more here than muddling the issues and creating opposition to things I'm not saying. The plan was to start a separate thread to discuss some of these things once I was properly prepared, but I fell into this discussion by accident. I'm not at all ready to attempt to get to the nitty-gritty of my questions and suggestions. So, I'll drop out here and come back with a more organised approach later, lists of propositions and blunt statements and stuff rather than all these words, just as soon as I have time. Thanks to everyone for not actually lynching me. It's been very helpful to see the various objections and criticisms my ideas are likely to meet. Btw, I mentioned a Book called 'Quantum Questions' by Ken Wilbur earlier. If anyone wants to read what the quantum pioneers has to say about the physcis/religion/mysticism issue it is a good collection of extracts. See you later.

I watched a documentary on recent results from Cern last night, first signs of the Higgs particle and neutrinos travelling at surprising speeds. Fascinating stuff. Did I understand correctly that mass is the result of objects travelling through the Higgs field? Okay. Now I'll try to find a testable prediction for physics. I'll forget religion. In metaphysics the worldview of mysticism would translate into a neutral metaphysical position, so it is only the predictions made by this metaphysical theory that we need consider. This position or theory states that all partial descriptions of the universe are false. Iow, any claim that the universe is this or that would be false. This means that all physical theories grounded in or implying that it is would be false. This is almost a testable prediction, but the problem is that physics does not make direct claims about the universe, that being the job of metaphysics. Nevertheless, the claims that we are discussing may be useful, since they would bear on our intepretation of physical theories. So, for example, we could ask whether the idea that for an ultimate view the universe is not extended might help us interpret nonlocal effects. It would do away with need for anything like the Wheeler-Feynman absorber theory, which has never seemed plausible to me. But perhaps it is still not quite a testable prediction. What about the claim that there is no substance or 'essence' at the heart of matter? This does seem to be testable, and it appears to have been thoroughly tested. What do you think? Philosophy also reaches this conclusion, but I can see that a claim that there is an absence of something is not easy to test. For other predictions I might have to ask some questions. Could someone give me a quick explanation of the background dependence problem? I'm not sure whether it is a mathematical/theoretical problem or an actual problem with our understanding of spacetime. Hmm. Brain seems to have died. I'll wait to see what is said about this one while trying to get it going again. Hmm. Good question. I'm sorry but I cannot track it down. It's possible that it is not a quote but a summation by a commentator, in which case the quote marks are not his, but I suspect I took it from the Critique and did not keep the reference. There's no doubt this was his view, it's the basis of his entire metaphysic, but I should be able to find the words. I need to find them anyway so I'll keep looking. They're here somewhere. I apologise for using quote marks and then not having the reference to hand. Bear with me.

That seems like a sensible approach to me. I will do this. But please note that I'm not stating that this or that idea can be tested, I'm exploring which claims might be testable. I'll give the claims, you can figure out whether they're testable. I am making no knowledge claims myself. just clarifying what these claims might be. I don't understand all of this but it seems that your intuition would allow the possibility of the world being more or less as the dotrine of mysticism proposes. Although not quite. Comments like that of the Imam quoted earlier do not come from metaphysics. All of us here can work out in metaphysics that the universe must be a unity, since all other views give rise to contradictions. Here I know that it is possible to work this out because I did, and only later did I discover that my view coincided with that of Lao tsu and the Buddha. (To my complete astonishment). Up until then I thought all religion was rubbish. But this is relative knowledge. I would bever state that the universe is this way or that way since it is not knoweldge, just a result of logical analysis. The Imam speaks from knowledge (or that is the claim), not from mental calculations or sensual evidence. A few details. The idea of an immortal soul is not found in mysticism. In fact it is denied. The idea is sometimes explained by reference to the waves on an ocean. It may seem to the waves that they are discrete individuals, but each is a temporary disturbance on the surface and will quickly fall back to be absorbed into the whole. Nor would you have to be 'big enough' or 'old enough' to know that 'the universe is enfolded within you'. And nor would one have to belong to any defined religion. Lao tsu speaks of a phenomeon prior to space and time. How does he know this? His answer is that he looks inside himself and sees. This would not require being big or old. In principle you could acquire the same knowledge later today. In practice it is highly unlikely since it usually takes time and work, but it is important that someone like Lao tsu or Imam Ali is not seen as having priveledged access to knowledge. They would have the same access as me and you. Someone earlier said they were looking into Kant. He is very useful in this context. He concludes that the basis of our psychology must be a phenomenon that is not an instance of a category, and called this 'the proper subject for rational psychology'. He also concludes that the universe as a whole must be rooted in a phenomena that is not an instance of a category. This is the claim that the universe is a unity. (A unity is not an instance of a category). It is not a knowledge claim, but his reasoning provides a useful introduction to the issues. Following on from him, Hegel goes a step further and states that world must be a unity. Note to moderator...I'll shut up whenever I'm told. The discussion may be getting too far from home. I'm just trying to get to some claims that might make sense in physics, but under the circumstances providing some background seems important.

We've talked about 'absolute' and 'certain' knowledge here, and depending on how we use the words they could be the same thing or different. For me they would have an equivalent meaning. Certain knowledge would be that which we cannot be in error about. When Descartes went searching for it he struggled, but in the end decided that 'I think' was a near as he could get. Not everyone would agree that this is certain, but that doesn't matter. The real point is that in order for it to be absolute or certain, knowledge must be part of our identity. That is the significance of his axiom. We must own knowledge completely or we cannot be sure of it. This is what Aristotle meant by saying 'true knowledge is identical with its object'. This is not a claim to such knowledge, it is just the logic of the situation. No other form of knowledge can be certain. Of course, this is precisely the kind of knowledge that science often ignores since it can only ever be studied in the form of first-person reports by anyone other than the person with the knowledge. This causes a lot of trouble in consciousness studies. You could swear blind to me that you are in pain, but there's no scientific argument you could make that would force me to believe you. I can never know with certainty the state of your consiousness or even that you have one. This is no criticism of physics. It is just that physics defines itself as the study of inter-subjective knowledge. To be scientific, in the sense that physicists usually use the word, it would not be necessary to suppose there is no other kind of knowledge than this, even if we prefer to do so, but the study of it would not be part of the day job. Really it is only in modern scientific consciousness studies that all the issues can come together and be viewed as a whole. The issue of knowledge, of what we can know and what we cannot, how we know, how we can ever know that we know that we know and so on, is central to the whole debate. Debates in consiousness studies are wonderfully free-ranging since it encompasses all the sciences. Here Aristotle's view would be orthodox. If there is such a thing a true knowledge then it is identical with its object. This is called 'knowledge by identity'. You might object that in this case there could be only one phenomena about which we can have certain knowledge, and this would be is ourselves, and so we can never hope to know anything about the universe. But then, Imam Ali, the first Shia Imam, writes, 'Why do you believe yourself to be puny creatures, when within you the entire universe is enfolded'. So there you have it. Please do not blame me for what mysticism claims. For the mystic the universe is a unity, and so self-knowledge can, as it grows, become knowledge of the whole universe. This is explained in the Tao Teh Ching, which I believe many scientists find interesting. It would be true, however, that true knowledge could only be of one thing. Nobody could have it for us. This is the logic of the situation, as I see it, hastily sketched. Note that nothing in it forces us to believe there is such a thing as certain knowledge. I think the best way to untangle all this is to simply examine your own case. Is there anything that you know with complete certainty? If so, then there's your answer. If not, then you do not know that absolute knowledge is impossible you just think it probably is. Thinking such knowledge is probably impossible would not be strong grounds for abanding the theory of knowledge that is orthodox in western philosophy, by which such knowledge would be possible. I don't think certain knowledge would require that our knowledge is perfect and complete. That would be the omnsiscience of the Buddha. But again, in a way you are probably right. But only at the limit. If you do not know for certain that you are aware then I would be very surprised. Yes, I do see what you're getting at. I really do. The thing is, you cannot assume that you have certain knowledge. The idea does not make sense. All you would have is an assumption and you would know that's all it is. For certain knowledge either you have it or you don't, and if you have it then you cannot be sceptical. This is simply the logic of the situation. Of course you have every right to remain sceptical about Aristotle's true knowledge, as long as you are quite sure you do not have any, but this is not the same thing as denying the possibility of it. Probably all serious philosophers are highly sceptical people, for that is why they take the subject up, but few would agree that true knowledge is impossible. Aristotle's view on most things remains fairly orthodox in our philosophy since he was so thorough in his calculations. Oh no, please don't get at me for skipping posts. All this is interesting, and I'd like to keep going with the discussion now it's moving on, but remember I'm answering four posts for every one of yours and I have to watch every word like a hawk to avoid a catastrophe. Your position as stated here does not seem at all inconsistent to me. Only when scepticism becomes a knowledge claim (viz. that true knowledge is impossible) would it become inconsistent. The most sensible position to take, I would say. (Although my comments in the previous post might cause you to doubt that you have no such knowledge).

Immortal - I'll respond because you did not just throw wild objections at me. yes. I agree. I did not want to walk away, but seemed to be left no other choice. You gave me a choice by posting some reasonable points. There's been a shortage of them. Yes, I understand that. I would qualify this by saying that you mean natural science, since for many people metaphysics, psychology and even mystical practice would be sciences. I also have a firm belief in science, but I wouldn't expect you to belive that. At any rate, I can say that I am not arguing with even one result of physics. I'm a fan of physics, and am especially attracted to string theory. Metaphysics is the use of logic, usually the dialectic as formalised by Aristotle, to arrive at good theories by the use of abduction, inference to the best explanation. By eliminating theories that give rise to contradictions we zero in on those that don't. It's Sherlock Holmes' favoured method. A metaphysical theory may or may not be testable in physics, at least to some degree, since it would have to agree with our observations. Physics may ignore metaphysics, but metaphysics takes physics seriously and (in theory at least) does not produce theories that would contradict it. Whether my own preferred metaphysical scheme is testable in physics is soemthing I'm not sure about, as I say, and it may be a matter of opinion to do with definitions and other technicalities. But it would not be exactly correct to say that metaphysical theories cannot be proved or disproved. We prove or disprove them all the time, that is what metaphysics is for. But these are logical proofs, and I agree that usually they cannot be falsified or proved in physics. However, I do believe there are exceptions to this rule. Materialism, for example, is certainly testable to some extent. Yes. I did not expect to having this discussion, so did no groundwork. Is the above definition okay as far as it goes? I think that may be true. But do we not want to know more? Physics is barred from having a fundamental theory if we take your view, and that seems a high price to pay for pulling up the drawbridge on ideas from other areas of study and knoweldge. There is no evidence yet that the universe disobeys the logical laws opf metaphysics, and until there is it seems worth making use of it. The fact that Berkelian Idealism is logically absurd suggests to me that it is not true, and I feel no need to check the data from physics. My view, or my prediction if you like, would be that the only circumstance in which physics and metaphyscis could disagree would be if the the universe is paradoxical in some way. I don't think it is. I use physics and metaphysics side by side, and being interested in the big issues find each pretty useless on its own. I am a fan of Paul Davies in particular, who explores many of the issues that we have been discussing here. Yes, I gathered that. What about what Aristotle calls 'true knowledge', or Kant's 'non-inuitive immediate knowledge'. Do scientists have no interest in epistemology? If not, then anything I say here is likely to be dead boring. My prediction is that a fundamental theory is an impossible object unless the universe is a unity. All the data from physics points towards it being a unity. Nonlocal effects are almost a clincher. Maybe I should note that the view I am endorsing was dramatically inconsistent with the Newtonian universe, but is spot on for QM. This is exactly the question I'd like to explore. I think it would provide a solution for many riddles of physics, the background-dependence problem, nonlocal effects, observer effects and so forth. But that's getting ahead of things. We don't have to hold a view to investigate it. I'm not suggesting you change any of your views, just to treat other views with the respect you'd normally give to any putative theory or idea. If it doesn't work then you can dismiss it instantly and permanently and so will I. Exactly. Whether or not there is certain knoweldge one certainly could not acquire it second-hand. As Zen master Hongzhi comments, 'we cannot borrow knowledge'. They might say this to me if I were very lazy and a hopeless student. Otherwise they would encourage me to get on with the job. But we don't have to speculate what they would say, it's all there in the literature. In a way this would be true. But only at the limit. There are a host of well known techniques for this purpose and, for an illustration, almost the entire collection of Buddhist sutras is devoted to the teaching of the method. Mysticism is a method that produces a doctrine, just as physics is a method that produces theories. But the idea is not to observe. By definition a unity cannot be observed, no more than happiness or space. Observations are 'theory-laden' and can be defeated by solipsism, and can never be certain knowledge in a real sense. An axiom of unity would state that the observer-observed distinction is emergent. I could just add that I would not expect anyone here to grasp the meaning of 'unity'. It took me many years to get a handle on it and I'm still working on it. But it is quite easy to derive its implications for metaphysics, and these can be discussed without worrying about what is meant by the term 'unity' or 'unicity'. If we stick to the metaphysical implications then we ought to be able to cross-check these with physics without having to discuss religion directly.

I may do that. At the moment I just think you've broken the rules of sanity. [ So, How do you know that there are no absolute truths? Yes, that's right, you don''t. It is just some belief of yours. Please prove it or stop waving your arms about. It would not be possible to demonstrate that there are absolute truths, so your position is idiotic. The rational position is to be agnostic. If you can't see that then I can't help. I think you ought to read up what atheism means. If you listened occasionally I'd explain. As it is all have time for is replying to your objections. Please provide some evidence the universe is an unity. Please proveide some evidence that you give a damn what evidence there is. Not in my sytem of logic. Oh man. Please think about this. I can't keep repeating myself. Are you not sceptical when someone tells you there are no certain truths? If not, then you have abandoned scepticism for a fixed belief. If there is no certain knowledge then God can be defended on the basis of faith, but mysticism would be nonsense. Clearly you are a not even trying to hold a conversation with me and just want to cause trouble. Three or four times I have stated that I am an atheist and my life would be much easier for me if you read my posts. You are living an a fanstasy, since obviously I am not the person you think I am. I have concluded my discussion with Phi and don't need this hassle so won't bother responding to you again here. I was hoping to explore the implications of some of the claims of religion with people here, and this is why I joined, but clearly such a discussion would be impossible. I wrote my Fellowship dissertation on this topic and am used to discussing it sensibly. This discussion is simply pointless. It seems that philosophy is not relevant to science for at least some people. Anyway, congratulations. I know when I'm beat, so I'll unsubscribe from this thread. Okay. I'll do one more to be polite. That's my rule also. Its the most basic rule for philosophical logic. Quite so. The idea is not easy to understand, and it would be best to understand it a bit before dismissing it. If the universe is a unity then it would look exactly as it does. It would require a double-aspect theory of information along the lines of Chalmer's 'naturalistic dualism', or maybe the ideas of Wheeler and Bohr. Schroedinger would be spot on. I think you need to examine what a unity is. Yes, it would have a kind of existence. This is obvious. But it would not exist in the way we usually think it does. It would have no 'essence' and would not exist 'from its own side'. You might make the claim that unicorns exist, and we'd both know what you are referring to, but this would not prove that they exist, and nor would it clarify what we mean by 'exist'. A promise is not a metaphysical position. Kant calls a positive metaphysical position a 'selective conclusion'. He writes 'All selective conclusions about the world as a whole are undecidable'. So I'm not alone in reaching this conclusion. Indeed, it is common knowledge in philosophy and few people disagree. It's been known since before Plato. The claim can be made, but it will be logically indefensible. That is, it will give rise to contradictions. Try checking out Priest and Routley's 'Dialethism', or Melhuish's 'paradoxical universe'. These are theories designed to solve the problem that metaphysics does not produce a positive result. Or try reading just about any philosopher. The failure of metaphysics to produce a positive result is ancient news and I did not expect to have to argue for it. It has even been proved (Bradley, Nagarjuna et al). Maybe I should have given more explanation, but I have been kept busy meeting all sorts of stange objections. I'd be happy to talk more about this, but definitely not here. No, I think it can't be done. In fact I think the evidence is plain to see. You don't ask me what I mean by 'unity', you just say the idea is wrong. Now you say you don't understand it. How am I supposed to deal with this? Anway, I'll go away and leave you in peace.

You are fantasising. If there is a moderator around I'd like some help here. There seems to be nothing I can say that will stop this barrage of badly aimed criticism. As I have said, to me it seems that this is not the case. You have not seen that it is contradictory to claim to be a sceptical person, someone who would not form beliefs for no good reason, while holding the dogmatic opinion that there are no absolute truths. This is not rational or sceptical. The ideal reasoner would be sceptical and not dogmatic, and would not call a belief a truth. Please just take a deep breath. You do not know that absolute truth is impossible. That is a fact. I'm not trying to persuade you believe in anything. I'm trying to get you to see that you cannot prove that absoute truths are impossible so should be sceptical, not dogmatic. Fine. I would be very happy to discuss this with you if you are sceptical. I would not be able to disscuss religion with someone who is certain that there are no absolute truths. Nothing I could say would make any sense. Let me speak for just the religions, or that part of religion, that falls under the banner of the wisdom traditions, what we call 'Mysticism' or the 'Perennial' Philosophy. This is experimental religion. and thus where most of the knowledge claims are made. The principle claim, the claim that would be an initial axiom for mysticism's cosmological scheme if it were a theory, (as opposed to knoweldge), would be that the universe is a unity. If you consider for a moment that a unity cannot have parts.... you'll see that this is not an easy claim to understand. It may appear to be absurd or meaningless. Regardless, it is worth noting that the only universe in which such knowledge would be possible is a universe that is a unity, and so this claim is not actually self-defeating. In his 'Mind of God' Paul Davies speculates that mysticism may be a method for verifying this unity, and so it does stand up to some analysis. The ramification of this axiom of unity for metaphysics would be that all positive metaphysical positions are false. Being false, they would be logically absurd. It is not an insignificant fact, therefore, this is that most secure result of metaphysics, that all such positions are logically indefensible. This is ithe whole problem with metaphysics, that whenever we try to prove that universe is like this or like that we find that our idea does not quite make sense. This is well known and has been proved many times. It is why it metaphysics is held in such low regard by many physicists. So, what would all this mean for physics? That is what I want to know. I have plenty of ideas, but no doubt some of them are non-starters. What I can tell you is that if the universe is a unity, such that all partial fundamental theories are false, then as far as I can see physics would be exactly as it is now. The most general prediction for physics would be that it is impossible to prove that the universe is not a unity, and that there will never be a shred of evidence to suggest that it is not. Further, all theories embodying a positive metaphysical position would be false. Not necessarily utterly false, but not correct. I hope this is the beginning of an answer. I'm never quite sure where metaphysics ends and physics begins. One prediction that can be derived from an axiom of unity is that extension in time and space is a conceptual construction, such that for an ultimate view of the universe distance would be arbitrary. Is this a prediction for physics or for metaphysics? I'm not sure. There are many others but I'll stop there before trying them out because I'd be surprised if all this makes immediate sense. I'm sorry to have to say it, but no, I'm not saying that. I'm extremely grateful though that you have tried to see what I'm getting at. To be honest I'm not sure why I cannot make it clear. I'm saying that we cannot rule out the possibility of absolute knowledge, since we cannot have absolute knowledge that absolute knowledge is impossible. The idea does not make sense. Do you see what I mean? A sceptical approach to life, therefore, would entail allowing the possibility of absolute knowledge. Whether there is such a thing is another matter. Yes. Do you see why I commented in the first place? As you see it, your sceptical approach entails ruling out all knoweldge claims, not just those of religion. This seems incorrect to me. It is dogmatism. A sceptic would ask him or herself whether they know that such knowledge is impossible, and if they did not know they would remain agnostic, although perhaps leaning one way or the other. Yes, But that's not what you were doing earlier. You were claiming to know that absolute truths are impossible. The dictionary definition does not allow you to do that. It's not a big deal really, in itself. But it would have fatal consequences for religion. Anyway. Thanks. At least we seem to have clarified the issues. Do you see now that I wasn't trying to persuade you to believe anything in particular about religion?

I hope you don't think any of this is relevant to me. I thought my previous post might clear the misunderstandings but obviously not. All this stuff about God. Did you not notice that I am not a theist? If you believe that there are no absolute truths that's fine by me. Just don't claim to be a sceptic or a philosopher. By your own admission this is just your belief and not knowledge. You are claiming something you do not know is true and which according to can never be known to be true. In my view scepticism would be a more rational approach.

Okay - rhetorical, and unfair I'd say. But I'll explain again anyway. It's so simple. My comment to Phi said that scepticism does not require that we dismiss the knowledge claims of other people, since we cannot know what they know and what they don't. If we think that scepticism requires that knowledge is impossible (there is no absolute truth etc. as Phi suggested) then we have dismissed religion before even examining it. Scepticism does not require that we do this. My impression was and is that PHi thinks otherwise, so there is a discussion to be had. It is a factual matter. Why is this point just put to one side all the time? Does nobody want to address it? What do people think? Nobody has replied to my objection yet, either in support or otherwise. Every time I explain it it is ignored and we go back to challenging my beliefs about religion. They don't matter! They're not relevant and I haven't even stated them. All the other stuff is just me responding to questions and objections. I have made no 'religious' claims, just stated what religion claims since I was asked. Forget religion if you like, the discussion was about scepticism as far as I'm concerned. I'm happy to discuss religion but there's no point if we think that knowledge is impossible. Then all religion would have to be dogma and guesswork. Sometimes it is, sure, but we cannot generalize this to all religions. It would be sloppy and unrigorous.

This does not alter the fact that the consciousness of individuals is not a scientific phenomena, or not by the usual definition. There is no intersubjective means of verifying it. Oh for goodness sake. Why do always pick out the worst traits of European religion and condemn the whole enterprise? Dioing this makes it seem that you don't care enough to check the facts. Yes, what you say is correct in respect of some religious people. Quite mad some of them. But I do not find scientists much more open to having their cage rattled. Since the early 2oth century science seems to have adopted a seige mentality. Yes. I suggest we forget about our beliefs and deal with facts. Okay. Yet again. My claim is that being sceptical would not require that we dismiss the knowledge claims of religion.

Okay. Thanks. Now I understand where we stand. It is not so much that I misunderstood you, for there is no religion that you find plausible. but that given your views my objection wouldn't have made any sense. If you want to go on exploring what I've been getting at, then I would want to start by examining the nature of knowledge. Maybe your pessimism as to what we can know is unnecessary. Ah , if Phi is married that changes everything. I don't know why you think I'm perscuting Phi. In philosophy the idea is to sort out who is right whenever there's a disagreement, and that's called progress. Perhaps it's different on science forums. I've have actually attempted to get out of the discussion twice. Shall I stop replying to him? Why not leave me to sort things out with Phi and worry about your own objections. I'm sure Phi is capable of looking after himself. It would be easier if you reminded me what it is that I said to Phi that you didn't like. I thought we were having a reasonable if very confusing conversation. If I have bullied anyone I apologise. Phi has not yet suggested I have been bullying. I expect he assumes I'm just replying to his posts.

No, I'm not making any claims. I'm merely reporting what religion claims. I never stated that these claims were true. I said that being sceptical does not entail dismissing them as false. Oh no. Definitely not my claim. Most of the knowledge I have of religion comes out of books. What matters is that religion claims its knowledge is empirical. It make this claim to empiricism in countless books. I listed quite a few items from the list of claims a few posts back. Whether they're true is not something that can be decided on an internet forum. But look, I don't want argue about religion. My initial point was, firstly, that we cannot dismiss the knowledge claims of religion without reducing it to absurdity, and, secondly, that being a sceptical person does not entail dismissing such claims, it entails being sceptical of them. I don't think either point is controversial. My discussion with was principally about scepticism, and only by implication about religion. It's not my claim. The sages, gurus and prophets, 'enlightened' Buddhists and Taoists, Islamic, Christian and Jewish mystics, the writers of the Upanishads. Plotinus, Schopenhauer and countless others claim direct experience, with no interpetation intervening. This is what Aristotle calls 'knowledge by identity', which he concludes is the only form of true knowledge that would be possible. These people claim to go entirely beyond personal experience. Of course we don't have to believe them. What they say often seems preposterous. But whether we should believe them or not is a different conversation. What matters here is that we do not simply dismiss these claims without grounds, for then we would have abandoned scepticism for a fixed view that is unverified and unfalsifiable, and the very opposite of sceptical. I'm sure everybody here would rather people did not start dismissing scientific theories just because they are sceptical of them. Yes, I'm sorry. I'm doing my best. This is very time consuming. My objection was to something Phi said, so I made sure I replied to him.

Yep. That's my claim. Like I say, I'm not arguing here for religion. I listed the claims I did because it is claimed that they are all empirically derived. Some may also be derived from metaphysical logic. You use a restricted definition of 'empirical'. Is pain empirically verifiable? Not according to your definition. According to mine it is. Hence the disagreement. I stick by my guns. If you would answer that one simple question we'd know where we are. Until then I see no reason to change my asessment. Otherwise I'd reather leave it. I said you think it is nonsense, not that you ridicule it or call it nonsese. I;m sure you're too polite. I never supposed it did. But it would makes their claims guesswork. I'm trying very hard. You could be more helpful. I keep asking questions in order to clarify things but I don't get any answers. Which religion do you find plausible? Do you believe certain knowledge of the nature of the universe is possible (as opposed to theories)? Would your scepticism say that nobody can know the truth about the world? If I know your answers that'll help clear up any misunderstandings. Otherwise I'd rather agree to differ.

I agree, except for the bit about science rejecting subjectivity. I would also agree with Dekan that sensible discussions about religion are almost impossible. It's as if the people on both sides are allergic to each other. If we hold the view there would is no need for any argument between science and religion, then we get it in the neck from both sides almost as soon as we start speaking. Most people fear any significant change to their worldview. Religious believers are, in my experience, no worse than natural scientists at challenging their belief-systems. I found my disussion with Phi annoying because from my perspective it was mostly unnecesssary, being the result of a misunderstanding. But I can easily see why those who became annoyed with me did so, given what they thought I was saying and probably still do. But whatever the misunderstandings we did not start swearing at each other, kept it reasonably 'scientific', and some useful thoughts came out of it, and perhaps that is to our credit and made it more than waste of time. The idea that science rejects subjectivity seems not quite right. It would mean that consciousness studies is not a science, which would upset a lot of people, and while I'm not sure that physics considers it part of its job to explain observer-effects, it cannot reject observers without rejecting observations. Physics cannot explain obsevers, but it must admit that there are such things.

I think we all agree that physics and onotology are different studies. The reason they are is that the natural sciences cannot study the 'thing-in-itself'. It would not be their job and they do not have the tools. Nor do they study the reality of the universe, for the same reason. The presence or absence of a 'thing-in-itself' is undecidable for the natural sciences. This is why the Upanishads can get away with claiming that there is no such thing. Perhaps this is where we go wrong. What if there is no 'thing-in-itself'? By definition it is unobservable, so according to physics it does not exist. Here Physics, Philosophy and Mysticism are in complete agreement. Kant posited the 'thing-in-itself' as a methodological concept and not as a substance or 'thing'. Apparently. whether we test the evidence of our senses, the results of logical analysis or the actual situation first-hand we cannot establish the existence of a 'thing-in-itself'. So science cannot be an objective inquiry into the reality of the cosmos. Unless, that is, by 'science' you mean to include Metaphysics. I would definitely include Metaphysics in the list of sciences, and Mysticism also, but most people here would not consider either to be sciences, and I think you have to go with whatever definition of 'science' is most orthodox on the forum. Normally 'science' would be shorthand for 'natural science', and this would be the study of what can be observed by our physical senses. This would not include any fundamental substance or 'essence' at the heart of phenomena. Hence to a lot of people your understanding of science would seem to be competely wrong. By the definition of science I'd prefer to use it would be right, so I'm not objecting to it, just commenting. Yes, but if you are right it would make no difference to SR, (I hope I'm right to say). To say that an observer travelling a higher speeds would see a flattened Earth is not to say that the Earth would be flattened. It is to say that the observer's view of the world is affected by the speed he is travelling at. It would be an observer effect, and not the idea that Earth can have more than one shape at a time, or even any purely objective shape at all.