What is meta-metaphysics?

[cladking]

Metaphysics is the basis of science.  It is the meaning of science and every experiment.

Meta-metaphysics is simply language.  Science is founded in metaphysics and metaphysics in language.   

 

Since we each think, learn, understand, and communicate with language it is foundational to science.   

Until we understand this the concept of consciousness will always elude us.  The knowledge and meaning of science will elude us.  And if I am right, a unified field theory will elude us.   

 

[Eise]

1 hour ago, cladking said:

Metaphysics is the basis of science.  It is the meaning of science and every experiment.

Meta-metaphysics is simply language.  Science is founded in metaphysics and metaphysics in language.   

 

Since we each think, learn, understand, and communicate with language it is foundational to science.   

Until we understand this the concept of consciousness will always elude us.  The knowledge and meaning of science will elude us.  And if I am right, a unified field theory will elude us.   

 

There are two ways to answer the question of the OP:

- try to find the definition in a dictionary, with google (i.e. the thread was more or less ready with the posting of Curious layman), Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, etc

- ask a philosopher

Everything else is based on vague ideas, personal convictions, ideology etc.

[cladking]

7 hours ago, Eise said:

 

Everything else is based on vague ideas, personal convictions, ideology etc.

You believe some abstraction lies at the root of metaphysics but this can't be true because we each have different ideas and even different definitions for words.  "Abstractions" don't exist in the real world and even numbers are abstractions.  

We know what "metaphysics" is.  So what is beyond "metaphysics?   Someone can claim it is some abstraction like "consciousness" or "God" but the only thing that is real and palpable that lies beyond metaphysics are the very words we each must use to understand, think about, or communicate ideas about  metaphysics.  It is the words we use to define what it is and how even these words have slightly different meanings to every thinker, speaker, and listener.    

If we hardly agree on why science works or on the means by which the process of science works then what is the meaning of science at all?   

Perhaps the problem here is as often the case that we are talking about different definitions for "metaphysics".  There is no "magic" and no abstraction that makes science work.  It is a mere tool that works because the real world, that which is palpable, discloses itself in well crafted experiment.   Experiment certainly isn't magic either.  We must use words to speak of this tool and why it works.   Somebody needed words to invent the tool.   Before that somebody invented the words.  

[Eise]

30 minutes ago, cladking said:

You believe some abstraction lies at the root of metaphysics

It was just one of many examples mentioned in Curious' definition, nothing more.

30 minutes ago, cladking said:

We know what "metaphysics" is. 

I think you don't.

30 minutes ago, cladking said:

f we hardly agree on why science works or on the means by which the process of science works then what is the meaning of science at all?   

The question why science works is another one than the question if science works. The latter we know. Otherwise you would technically not be capable to participate in this forum. So the meaning, in 'a first order approximation' is that we can use its results by creating new technologies.

30 minutes ago, cladking said:

Perhaps the problem here is as often the case that we are talking about different definitions for "metaphysics". 

So why did you say that 'we know what metaphysics is'? 

30 minutes ago, cladking said:

There is no "magic" and no abstraction that makes science work.

Science does no work with abstractions? Wow... 

 

Edited December 3, 2019 by Eise

[dimreepr]

34 minutes ago, cladking said:

Before that somebody invented the words.

Plato suggests we already knew the words.

do you'? 

[Strange]

1 hour ago, cladking said:

You believe some abstraction lies at the root of metaphysics but this can't be true because we each have different ideas and even different definitions for words.  "Abstractions" don't exist in the real world and even numbers are abstractions.  

That is not logical. We may each have different ideas and different definitions for words, and even use different abstractions. Abstractions have the same level of "existence" as ideas, words and meanings. These are all constructs of the mind.

1 hour ago, cladking said:

We know what "metaphysics" is. 

Do we? I'm not sure everyone does.

1 hour ago, cladking said:

So what is beyond "metaphysics?   Someone can claim it is some abstraction like "consciousness" or "God"

Citation needed.

1 hour ago, cladking said:

the only thing that is real and palpable that lies beyond metaphysics are the very words we each must use to understand, think about, or communicate ideas about  metaphysics.

Words are not "real and palpable" (you cannot touch them, for example). They are signs (audible, written, or conveyed in some other form) which we assign meaning to on an arbitrary basis.

1 hour ago, cladking said:

If we hardly agree on why science works or on the means by which the process of science works then what is the meaning of science at all? 

I think we do largely understand and agree on the process and why it works. And even if we didn't, we know it does work.

I'm not sure what you mean by "the meaning of science" - it is an exercise in knowledge gathering which may or may not bring practical benefits.

1 hour ago, cladking said:

There is no "magic" and no abstraction that makes science work.  It is a mere tool that works because the real world, that which is palpable, discloses itself in well crafted experiment.   Experiment certainly isn't magic either. 

Who said there was any magic involved? That seems to be a bizarre strawman argument

[cladking]

21 hours ago, Strange said:

We may each have different ideas and different definitions for words, and even use different abstractions. Abstractions have the same level of "existence" as ideas, words and meanings. These are all constructs of the mind.

 

Yes.  Exactly.

Words and abstractions have no real existence.  They are to help us think and communicate.  

But I would maintain that "ideas" are a product of the brain that are "real".  Ideas are a product of consciousness which can underlie the invention of hypothesis, experiment formation, and invention.   They can be made manifest in the concrete world while mere words can be immaterial and irrelevant to all of reality.  You can say the sun goes down art 4:22 today but the world will still be turning just before and just after it "does". 

Definitions and axioms   are reasonably well defined in science so "metaphysics" isn't so much an issue.  But we do tend to forget that there is some individual variation in understanding these terms and much more variation in model formation.   We believe there is a tendency for those who build the most realistic models to be more likely to devise good hypothesis and experiment but this is hardly a certainty in the last half century.   I simply believe this might no longer be true because we've reached a point that our models are overly dependent on perspective.  It is this perspective which is a product of language (the way we think and communicate) that is meta metaphysics.  Rather than seeing reality our models are increasingly dependent on the perspective of the "builder".  The model is the perspective of the builder.  

There are numerous ways to deal with this but it requires a recognition of the problem to even begin.  

22 hours ago, Strange said:

 

Words are not "real and palpable" (you cannot touch them, for example). They are signs (audible, written, or conveyed in some other form) which we assign meaning to on an arbitrary basis.

 

I should have used the word "idea".   I meant words in the sense of a "thought".

All life uses ideas to maintain its existence.   Whether it is fleeing a predator or looking for a place to build a nest an individual can invent an idea that will save its life or assure the continuation of its genes in its offspring.  

22 hours ago, Strange said:

 

I think we do largely understand and agree on the process and why it works. And even if we didn't, we know it does work.

 

I'd certainly agree most scientists are in reasonably close agreement.  I don't think this applies well to laymen.

[studiot]

5 minutes ago, cladking said:

Words and abstractions have no real existence.  They are to help us think and communicate.  

I agree with the second sentence, but not the first.
However detailed discussion of these points would be off topic here.

6 minutes ago, cladking said:

But I would maintain that "ideas" are a product of the brain that are "real".  Ideas are a product of consciousness which can underlie the invention of hypothesis, experiment formation, and invention.   They can be made manifest in the concrete world while mere words can be immaterial and irrelevant to all of reality.  You can say the sun goes down art 4:22 today but the world will still be turning just before and just after it "does". 

I agree with the proposition here, it is a good one.
But I cannot see the connection to the example given at the end of the paragraph.

Nor can I see any connection to the OP subject.

8 minutes ago, cladking said:

Definitions and axioms   are reasonably well defined in science so "metaphysics" isn't so much an issue.  But we do tend to forget that there is some individual variation in understanding these terms and much more variation in model formation.   We believe there is a tendency for those who build the most realistic models to be more likely to devise good hypothesis and experiment but this is hardly a certainty in the last half century.   I simply believe this might no longer be true because we've reached a point that our models are overly dependent on perspective.  It is this perspective which is a product of language (the way we think and communicate) that is meta metaphysics.  Rather than seeing reality our models are increasingly dependent on the perspective of the "builder".  The model is the perspective of the builder.  

Again I agree with the sentiments expressed at the beginning and end of the paragraph;

but not the conclusions about builders of models or the meaning of meta metaphysics.

In particular the meaning must hinge substantially on the meaning attributed to the prefix 'meta', as I previously indicated.

 

 

On 12/3/2019 at 2:27 PM, cladking said:

We know what "metaphysics" is.  So what is beyond "metaphysics?

This implies you consider the prefix to mean beyond, which although I dispute as a populist myth.

Please explain to me how the noun 'metacentre' is beyond anything, or the adjective 'metastable' is beyond anything ?

[cladking]

22 hours ago, Strange said:

 

Who said there was any magic involved? 

Eise referred to "vague ideas" and I know no other words to describe the subject than i am using.   If anyone has other ideas about metaphysics and metametaphysics then I'm all ears. 

I believe we must assume NOTHING in reality is "magical" or we would get bogged down in lines of research that are dead-ends or not reproducible.    This even applies to all things for which we lack even a working definition like "consciousness" and our ability to communicate ideas through language.   We tend to assume others take our meaning on all things but this is never the case.   Every sentence is deconstructed differently by every individual.  

[dimreepr]

14 minutes ago, cladking said:

Words and abstractions have no real existence.  They are to help us think and communicate.  

But I would maintain that "ideas" are a product of the brain that are "real".

Whats the difference?

[cladking]

1 minute ago, studiot said:

I agree with the second sentence, but not the first.
However detailed discussion of these points would be off topic here.

 

How can words be off topic in a discussion about meta metaphysics?  

 

I suppose to the degree words affect actions in other people they are "real".  

2 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Whats the difference?

Words are deconstructed.  Ideas are not... ...at least until they are communicated in words.  

 

[dimreepr]

1 minute ago, cladking said:

How can words be off topic in a discussion about meta metaphysics?

metaphysics is a sentence.

[cladking]

Quote

Nor can I see any connection to the OP subject. -Studiot

Metaphysics is expressed in words and models.   Anything beyond metaphysics necessarily must consider these words and models as well as their meanings and perspectives.  

[studiot]

52 minutes ago, cladking said:

Anything beyond metaphysics

 

So why did you not read my previous post before you replied to it?

 

1 hour ago, studiot said:

On 12/3/2019 at 2:27 PM, cladking said:

We know what "metaphysics" is.  So what is beyond "metaphysics?

This implies you consider the prefix to mean beyond, which although I dispute as a populist myth.

Please explain to me how the noun 'metacentre' is beyond anything, or the adjective 'metastable' is beyond anything ?