Reality, Theory, God

[Moontanman]

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.

 

 

I'll adress your assertion, it's a strawman, we do not automatically dismiss the claims for knowledge of anyone, all that is required is that they demonstrate the knowledge. If you were to come to me and say "I met a guy who says he can show gods power is real and there for god is real" I'd say can you show me? and if you said yes and proceeded to repeat gods name three times spin around twice and pray for 30 seconds and make a coffee cup hover 4 feet off the ground for 30 seconds not only would I have to admit some sort of real knowledge had passed between you and the guy who showed you that display of gods power and how to get god to allow it I guarantee you'd have researchers crawling in and our of your rectum studying this phenomena and even if we had to admit that it was not due to any effect we could measure in any way it works and it works every time so it would be knowledge and as long as we couldn't figure out the how and why behind you it could label it supernatural knowledge, if it only worked if you prayed to a paticular god you could label it religious knowledge but you tell me that some guy told you that god had told him what the universe was like before it existed but he can't demonstrate it, get god to show everyone else or substantiat his claims in any way then it becomes just something some guy claims to be true, it is not knowledge.

 

Really really really believing something is not knowledge....

 

So far no one has come forward with any knowledge that can be said to come from God or the supernatural, simple as that.... as far as absolute truth, there are no absolute truths.

 

Would you say that falling out of an airplane with no parachute or other rescue device at 25,000 feet means you will die is an absolute truth?

 

If you say yes, you'd be wrong....

[PeterJ]

I'll adress your assertion, it's a strawman, we do not automatically dismiss the claims for knowledge of anyone, all that is required is that they demonstrate the knowledge. If you were to come to me and say "I met a guy who says he can show gods power is real and there for god is real" I'd say can you show me? and if you said yes and proceeded to repeat gods name three times spin around twice and pray for 30 seconds and make a coffee cup hover 4 feet off the ground for 30 seconds not only would I have to admit some sort of real knowledge had passed between you and the guy who showed you that display of gods power and how to get god to allow it I guarantee you'd have researchers crawling in and our of your rectum studying this phenomena and even if we had to admit that it was not due to any effect we could measure in any way it works and it works every time so it would be knowledge and as long as we couldn't figure out the how and why behind you it could label it supernatural knowledge, if it only worked if you prayed to a paticular god you could label it religious knowledge but you tell me that some guy told you that god had told him what the universe was like before it existed but he can't demonstrate it, get god to show everyone else or substantiat his claims in any way then it becomes just something some guy claims to be true, it is not knowledge.

 

Really really really believing something is not knowledge....

 

So far no one has come forward with any knowledge that can be said to come from God or the supernatural, simple as that.... as far as absolute truth, there are no absolute truths.

 

Would you say that falling out of an airplane with no parachute or other rescue device at 25,000 feet means you will die is an absolute truth?

 

If you say yes, you'd be wrong....

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.

Edited December 12, 2011 by PeterJ

[Moontanman]

I hope you don't think any of this is relevant to me.

 

Of course not, how could anyone like me have anything relevant to say to someone as uber intelligent as you....

 

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.

 

I am a rationalist, I the only thing I believe in is using empirical evidence, reliable data, logic, and rational thought to guide my own actions and thoughts.

 

I am highly skeptical, of your idea of absolute truth in particular, how about naming an absolute truth so I can, in my own small way, understand what you mean by absolute truth.

 

As for being a philosopher, I am sure you are correct, you seem to be quite sure of your own ability to define reality with the absolute knowledge you are in possession of so it must be true... makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside to know you know what I am, how I think, and why I think what I think. So comforting to know you have hope....

[mooeypoo]

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.

 

Wait, what? Skepticism means being skeptical, which means there are no "absolutes" (since those are things we are not skeptical of).

 

Non squitor.

 

Maybe it's time you take a step back from forcing your own definition of skepticism on us and instead talk business. What is this "ultimate truth" you so cheerfully refer to that we rationalist non-skeptic-skeptics deny?

 

I don't want your definition of skepticism in the answer, I want the ultimate truth you speak of, and the undeniable facts that support it to such extent that no one can possibly be skeptical of it.

 

~mooey

 

[Phi for All]

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.

I think I get it now. You're claiming that there has to be ultimate truth that people CAN know. But you often seem to present this as "We, or even religion, MAY already know an ultimate truth, so we have to realize the possibility in order to remain skeptics". This is not skepticism as I see it.

 

The rest of us are defining skepticism as the dictionary defines it, that we suspend judgement on whether something can be absolutely "TRUE", in favor of uncertainty, or accepting the best available explanation to work with.

[PeterJ]

Of course not, how could anyone like me have anything relevant to say to someone as uber intelligent as you....

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.

 

I am a rationalist, I the only thing I believe in is using empirical evidence, reliable data, logic, and rational thought to guide my own actions and thoughts.

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.

 

I am highly skeptical, of your idea of absolute truth in particular, how about naming an absolute truth so I can, in my own small way, understand what you mean by absolute truth.

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 think I get it now. You're claiming that there has to be ultimate truth that people CAN know.

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.

 

But you often seem to present this as "We, or even religion, MAY already know an ultimate truth, so we have to realize the possibility in order to remain skeptics". This is not skepticism as I see it.

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.

 

The rest of us are defining skepticism as the dictionary defines it, that we suspend judgement on whether something can be absolutely "TRUE", in favor of uncertainty, or accepting the best available explanation to work with.

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?

Edited December 13, 2011 by PeterJ

[Moontanman]

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.

 

If you feel that I have violated the rules in this discussion I suggest you click the little yellow flag at the bottom left of the screen.

 

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.

 

In the question is there an absolute truth, I have to say in the absence of any evidence of such truth the default position is there are no absolute truths. Not there is an absolute truth but we do not know it.

 

For instance, I am an atheist, this does not mean i positively assert there is no god, it's just in the complete absence of evidence the default position is there are no gods. Not there is a god but he is undetectable in any way.

 

 

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.

 

No doubt, i understand your reluctance to do so, it would make any positive assertion of god untenable

 

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.

 

We might be able to discuss some of this because while I don't believe in god religion is quite real...

 

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.

 

I really expected better than this, while true that various mystics have claimed various things and i have no doubt some portion of them asserted something to this effect but why would it be considered an absolute truth? That's nonsensical...

 

 

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.

 

Please provide some evidence the universe is an unity.

 

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.

 

So being unable to prove a negative means the positive must be true?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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.

 

No, the default position is there are no absolute truths.

 

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.

 

Yes, as I pointed out earlier it would indeed make the concept of god difficult to defend but not 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?

 

Quite the opposite, i think you were trying to set us up to admit to absolute truths so you could use that to assert the existence of god...

[tar]

PeterJ,

 

What?

 

Ok, you know what you mean, but I have no clue.

 

These circular logic things are stupid in my estimation. If you have a logical sequence that leads to a contradiction, my rule is...YOU DID SOMETHING WRONG.

 

If you are going to talk about true and false things, you have to know what you mean when you say it. If you change meanings in midstream, that is your fault, not mine.

 

If the universe is a unity, then there is nothing different to consider. So there is nothing to point to, and nobody to do the pointing. I am pointing this out. So logically the universe is not a unity. Not anymore. At least not at this time. Not at this place. And not as far as I am concerned.

 

If you have anything "different" to say, then the unity is disproved. Absolutely.

 

Tar logic says.

 

Regards, TAR2

 

I can make a positive metaphysical claim, and its truth depends on whether or not that which I refer to in the claim is true. If there is meaning behind my claim, then there is something I am refering to. If I am refering to it, and you know what I am refering to, where is there an issue that the thing exists for you and me.

 

Let's say I make you a promise. It is a positive metaphysical claim I am making. It is true and it exists. I can either keep it or break it, but the promise exists, and is true.

 

No Earthly clue what you are talking about, when you say that it is already been proven by metaphysics that no positive metaphysical claim can be made. What could that MEAN? Its already a gosh darn contradiction. Its already WRONG.

 

Say something that means something to somebody. Just because you can't do it, doesn't mean it can't be done.

[PeterJ]

If you feel that I have violated the rules in this discussion I suggest you click the little yellow flag at the bottom left of the screen.

I may do that. At the moment I just think you've broken the rules of sanity.

 

[

In the question is there an absolute truth, I have to say in the absence of any evidence of such truth the default position is there are no absolute truths. Not there is an absolute truth but we do not know it.

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.

 

 

For instance, I am an atheist. This does not mean i positively assert there is no god, it's just in the complete absence of evidence the default position is there are no gods. Not there is a god but he is undetectable in any way.

I think you ought to read up what atheism means.

 

We might be able to discuss some of this because while I don't believe in god religion is quite real...

Of course we can discuss it. Or we could if you did not make it impossible. That's why I here. Sicerely regret joining now. I thought it was serious science site.

 

I really expected better than this, while true that various mystics have claimed various things and i have no doubt some portion of them asserted something to this effect but why would it be considered an absolute truth? That's nonsensical...

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.

 

So being unable to prove a negative means the positive must be true?

Not in my sytem of logic.

 

No, the default position is there are no absolute truths.

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.

 

Yes, as I pointed out earlier it would indeed make the concept of god difficult to defend but not religion.

If there is no certain knowledge then God can be defended on the basis of faith, but mysticism would be nonsense.

 

Quite the opposite, i think you were trying to set us up to admit to absolute truths so you could use that to assert the existence of god...

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.

 

PeterJ,

 

What?

 

Ok, you know what you mean, but I have no clue.

 

These circular logic things are stupid in my estimation. If you have a logical sequence that leads to a contradiction, my rule is...YOU DID SOMETHING WRONG.

That's my rule also. Its the most basic rule for philosophical logic.

 

If you are going to talk about true and false things, you have to know what you mean when you say it. If you change meanings in midstream, that is your fault, not mine.

Quite so.

 

If the universe is a unity, then there is nothing different to consider. So there is nothing to point to, and nobody to do the pointing. I am pointing this out. So logically the universe is not a unity. Not anymore. At least not at this time. Not at this place. And not as far as I am concerned.

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.

 

If you have anything "different" to say, then the unity is disproved. Absolutely.

I think you need to examine what a unity is.

 

I can make a metaphysical claim, and its truth depends on whether or not that which I refer to in the claim is true. If there is meaning behind my claim, then there is something I am refering to. If I am refering to it, and you know what I am refering to, where is there an issue that the thing exists for you and me.

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'.

 

Let's say I make you a promise. It is a positive metaphysical claim I am making.

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.

 

No Earthly clue what you are talking about, when you say that it is already been proven by metaphysics that no positive metaphysical claim can be made. What could that MEAN? Its already a gosh darn contradiction. Its already WRONG.

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.

 

Say something that means something to somebody. Just because you can't do it, doesn't mean it can't be done.

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.

Edited December 13, 2011 by PeterJ

[doG]

I think you ought to read up what atheism means.

Back at you. Atheist literally means not-theist. Anyone that is not theist is atheist. All that's required is a lack of belief in deities.

[tar]

PeterJ,

 

I am a fan of Kant. But I am still reading him and trying to figure out what he means.

 

I do not need to, nor should I, believe anybody's determination, till I know what it means. At that point, I can see what is meant figuratively, and what is meant literally.

 

You talk about pink unicorns, and we all know what you are talking about. That means they exist in exactly the senses we are considering them.

 

You say unity is that without parts. I have plenty of evidence of parts. Things inside, things outside. Relationships in time, relationships in space. If I cannot agree with your premise, why would any conclusion you draw from it make any sense to me. If you wish to prove something to me. Start with something we agree on.

 

Let's say unity got lonely... so forgot it was alone. So things are different now. And are exactly as they appear.

 

Regards, TAR2

 

I will retain the right to look at things from my point of view, because it is the only one I have.

[immortal]

PeterJ,

 

You just can not walk away like that in the middle of a debate by making a few claims, its quite common while debating that the other person can not easily percieve your views, misunderstandings do creep out, it can be easily cleared out by simply asking "I didn't got you there would you mind explaining it".

 

The problem here is many of us have firm belief in science, Science considers something has metaphysics when the theory can neither be proved nor disproved, i.e when it can not be falsified through predictions and observations. I think your definition of Metaphysics is different, you are defining it differently and that is where most of the confusion is creeping in. It is better to define our terminology first and then start a sound debate, otherwise as you said its all pointless.

 

If this is the case why physics which works on predictions and on observations to prove a theory has to compile evidences to prove a metaphysical claim (universe is an uinty), I just don't see it why. It is just irrelevant to the integrity of physics. It doesn't change anything of what we know.

 

But it is not the only possible knowledge that can be known by humans, there are other ways too, but no one here is convinced about it and they are not interested in it. They are not quite open to it and why would they believe in it if all the phenomena in the universe can be clearly explained by consistent theories and models why do we need an unity of the universe. Scientists are reductionists, they reduce every phenomena into the empirical world and provide a consistent explanation to it based on the observations. So all they are asking is why do we need a thing called unity, what purpose is it serve in our model of the world.

 

A possible view to hold would be, "is the universe an unity", well I really don't know.

 

 

Moontanman,

 

Please provide an evidence for the unity of the universe.

 

Even a Mystic will not be able to show or give evidence for that, its not something which you'll find it in a pdf document peer-reviewed by a journal. If you ask a Mystic you would probably say you are subjected to the constraints of space and time, just live your life, if you're lucky then nature itself will allow you to be free from the forces of space and time then you'll know what unity is. There is no particular method or a technique adopted to observe the unity of the universe. That knowledge has to come all by itself.

Edited December 13, 2011 by immortal

[PeterJ]

Immortal - I'll respond because you did not just throw wild objections at me.

 

PeterJ,

You just can not walk away like that in the middle of a debate by making a few claims, its quite common while debating that the other person can not easily percieve your views, misunderstandings do creep out, it can be easily cleared out by simply asking "I didn't got you there would you mind explaining it".

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.

 

The problem here is many of us have firm belief in science,

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.

 

Science considers something has metaphysics when the theory can neither be proved nor disproved, i.e when it can not be falsified through predictions and observations.

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.

 

I think your definition of Metaphysics is different, you are defining it differently and that is where most of the confusion is creeping in. It is better to define our terminology first and then start a sound debate, otherwise as you said its all pointless.

Yes. I did not expect to having this discussion, so did no groundwork. Is the above definition okay as far as it goes?

 

If this is the case why physics which works on predictions and on observations to prove a theory has to compile evidences to prove a metaphysical claim (universe is an uinty), I just don't see it why. It is just irrelevant to the integrity of physics. It doesn't change anything of what we know.

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.

 

But it is not the only possible knowledge that can be known by humans, there are other ways too, but no one here is convinced about it and they are not interested in it.

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.

 

They are not quite open to it and why would they believe in it if all the phenomena in the universe can be clearly explained by consistent theories and models why do we need an unity of the universe.

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.

 

Scientists are reductionists, they reduce every phenomena into the empirical world and provide a consistent explanation to it based on the observations. So all they are asking is why do we need a thing called unity, what purpose is it serve in our model of the world.

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.

 

A possible view to hold would be, "is the universe an unity", well I really don't know.

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.

 

Even a Mystic will not be able to show or give evidence for that, its not something which you'll find it in a pdf document peer-reviewed by a journal.

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'.

 

If you ask a Mystic you would probably say you are subjected to the constraints of space and time, just live your life, if you're lucky then nature itself will allow you to be free from the forces of space and time then you'll know what unity is.

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.

 

There is no particular method or a technique adopted to observe the unity of the universe. That knowledge has to come all by itself.

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.

Edited December 13, 2011 by PeterJ

[Moontanman]

I may do that. At the moment I just think you've broken the rules of sanity.

 

Little yellow triangle at the left hand bottom of the screen....

 

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 don't "know" there are no absolute truths, i am simply going to the default stance in the total lack of evidence.

 

 

 

I think you ought to read up what atheism means.

 

It's the lack of a belief in god or gods, nothing more or less.

 

 

Please proveide some evidence that you give a damn what evidence there is.

 

i am always willing to change my stance in the face of empirical evidence, you have not provided anything even close to evidence

 

 

Not in my sytem of logic.

 

That is what you appear to be asserting.

 

 

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.

 

I go with the evidence, if some one were to tell me that I would require positive evidence of his assertion.

 

 

If there is no certain knowledge then God can be defended on the basis of faith, but mysticism would be nonsense.

 

Both god and mysticism lack evidence of their reality

 

 

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.

 

You can state you are anything you want.

 

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.

 

So we won't let you change the rules to your benefit so you'll take you ball and go home.

[swansont]

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.

 

!

Moderator Note

As has been pointed out, if you wish to report a post because you think a rule has been broken, you click on the yellow triangle. What you don't do is try and address this yourself. Quality of argument is not, in general, a matter of rules violations.

 

There seems to have been a step or two away from civility — by several participants — in recent exchanges. Everyone needs to take a step back and a deep breath and limit commentary to the subject matter and refrain from personal comments.

[Phi for All]

I'm saying that we cannot rule out the possibility of absolute knowledge, since we cannot have absolute knowledge that absolute knowledge is impossible.

Let's define this term, "absolute knowledge". Are you talking about knowing everything about everything, or are you talking about knowing the Truth about a specific subject?

 

"Ruling out possibilities" and "absolute knowledge" seem to be the problem here. Neither one are truly skeptical concepts. They require you to assume your knowledge is perfect and complete.

 

To me, skepticism says that I don't need to have absolute knowledge at all. It may exist but as soon as you assume you have it, you're no longer being skeptical.

[mooeypoo]

I don't rules out the possibility of absolute knowledge, but I don't believe it's a strong option.

 

The fact I keep the possibility of there being some "ultimate truth" open doesn't mean I can't also maintain the idea that it's unlikely, and therefore not believe in it.

 

If stronger evidence is put forth for the existence of such ultimate truth, I am willing to change my mind. Until that happens, I believe it's unlikely.

 

This is consistent with being skeptical. I'm skeptical of ultimate truth and find it unlikely.

 

You seem to claim that it's inconsistent, and I'm not sure I see why.

Also, you skipped both times that I raised the same issue. Please answer this point; skepticism is doubting things, I'm not sure I see how it's consistent with having an absolute truth that is undoubtedly true.

 

~mooey

[PeterJ]

Let's define this term, "absolute knowledge". Are you talking about knowing everything about everything, or are you talking about knowing the Truth about a specific subject?

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.

 

"Ruling out possibilities" and "absolute knowledge" seem to be the problem here. Neither one are truly skeptical concepts. They require you to assume your knowledge is perfect and complete.

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.

 

To me, skepticism says that I don't need to have absolute knowledge at all. It may exist but as soon as you assume you have it, you're no longer being skeptical.

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.

 

I don't rules out the possibility of absolute knowledge, but I don't believe it's a strong option.

 

The fact I keep the possibility of there being some "ultimate truth" open doesn't mean I can't also maintain the idea that it's unlikely, and therefore not believe in it.

 

If stronger evidence is put forth for the existence of such ultimate truth, I am willing to change my mind. Until that happens, I believe it's unlikely.

 

This is consistent with being skeptical. I'm skeptical of ultimate truth and find it unlikely.

 

You seem to claim that it's inconsistent, and I'm not sure I see why.

Also, you skipped both times that I raised the same issue. Please answer this point; skepticism is doubting things, I'm not sure I see how it's consistent with having an absolute truth that is undoubtedly true.

 

~mooey

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).

Edited December 13, 2011 by PeterJ

[mooeypoo]

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).

 

Agreed.

 

One small caviat, however: I am aware, constantly, that nothing is absolute. That is, I am skeptical of everything, as a humanist, a rationalist, a physicist and a skeptic. However, for practical issues, there is a difference between skepticism of different claims. That is, I am more skeptical of unsubstantiated claims about, say, the Yetti's existence, than I am about, say, String Theory. The reason is clear - one has zero substantiation, the other has very very advanced substantiation, even if not a completely full one.

 

So, in practical terms, while I am being skeptical of things, I don't always walk around stating "that's not certain!". If a claim is substantiated with evidence, I consider it Nowtrue enough to be true for now, until further evidence is presented to make us adjust it. There are not 'definitive' claims, but you can't walk around stating *nothing* is certain at all, since that would be moot. The wall in front of me might be 99% space (from the space between nucleus to electron) but that doesn't mean I need to walk around doubting the existence or firmness of the wall and bang my head on it repeatedly.

 

Skepticism is great, and hsould be applied as much as possible, but we should really separate between what is philosophically valid and what is valid in practical terms. We can't jump on anyone who says "X is true" as "axiomatic" when the statement is made in practical terms.

 

GPS works, so Relativity is true. Does that mean I take relativity as axiomatic? No. I am quite certain it will be adjusted and tweaked as we go along looking for more information, as happens regularly in science. But in practical terms it is true, and I will say I am skeptical of it only when I speak philosophically.

 

People should have an open mind, but not as open as to let their brains fall out.

 

Do you see where I'm going with this?

 

 

Now, that said, I still don't quite see what knowledge claims Religion(s) are making, and how they are substantiated in science. Seeing as this is the crux of the debate, I'd like to see if we can concentrate on that point a bit. Do you have examples to give us so we can analyze them? I can think of quite a few knowledge-claims that the Old Testament is making that are outright false -- so if you can give us examples of how religion claims knowledge that is substantiated, that might help me see what you mean with that statement.

[tar]

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'.

 

PeterJ,

 

You wrote the above, and I would like to use it as an example for Mooeypoo.

 

 

Mooeypoo,

 

 

It mirrors exactly a thought I had myself, about us and the universe, or should I say about me and the universe, which I extend to include others with the same human equipment I have.

 

We are of and in the universe. Subtracting, for the lack of evidence of it, the immortal soul of TAR, from the situation, we are left with a few facts. There is no part of me, that is "other than" the universe. That is, there is nothing real about me, that is not real, and explainable or that does not have a "basis" in reality. However I am not big enough to be all of it, and not old enough, and seem, by all evidence to be only associated with one particular body/heart/brain group. That is, identity wise. There is you and there is me.

 

And as you have probably heard me mention before, we each hold in the folds and synapses and connections in our brains, an analog "model" of the universe. (this statement is rather similar, and probably "the same" statement as is made above in PeterJ's quote of Imam Ali.)

 

It can serve as an "example" of something metaphysically arrived at, by Iman Ali, that I also arrived at, using a combination of abstract thought, metaphysical logic, general musing and "feeling", and the empirical reality, reported to me by scientific inquiry and experienced by me throughout my life, and is indeed a "positive statement" about our condition that is both metaphysical, AND falsifiable.

 

The fact that two people can arrive at the same "truth" (although differently worded), says to me that it probably is not too far from the actual case.

 

If you can agree empirically with my statement, and know what I mean by it, then "if" Imam Ali, is talking about the same thing, and PeterJ would agree that Imam Ali is talking about the same thing (with stated reservations, of course), we may have an example to explore from both the metaphysical and scientific viewpoints.

 

Regards, TAR2

Edited December 14, 2011 by tar

[PeterJ]

Agreed.

 

One small caviat, however: I am aware, constantly, that nothing is absolute. That is, I am skeptical of everything, as a humanist, a rationalist, a physicist and a skeptic. However, for practical issues, there is a difference between skepticism of different claims. That is, I am more skeptical of unsubstantiated claims about, say, the Yetti's existence, than I am about, say, String Theory. The reason is clear - one has zero substantiation, the other has very very advanced substantiation, even if not a completely full one.

 

So, in practical terms, while I am being skeptical of things, I don't always walk around stating "that's not certain!". If a claim is substantiated with evidence, I consider it Nowtrue enough to be true for now, until further evidence is presented to make us adjust it. There are not 'definitive' claims, but you can't walk around stating *nothing* is certain at all, since that would be moot. The wall in front of me might be 99% space (from the space between nucleus to electron) but that doesn't mean I need to walk around doubting the existence or firmness of the wall and bang my head on it repeatedly.

 

Skepticism is great, and hsould be applied as much as possible, but we should really separate between what is philosophically valid and what is valid in practical terms. We can't jump on anyone who says "X is true" as "axiomatic" when the statement is made in practical terms.

 

GPS works, so Relativity is true. Does that mean I take relativity as axiomatic? No. I am quite certain it will be adjusted and tweaked as we go along looking for more information, as happens regularly in science. But in practical terms it is true, and I will say I am skeptical of it only when I speak philosophically.

 

People should have an open mind, but not as open as to let their brains fall out.

 

Do you see where I'm going with this?

That seems like a sensible approach to me.

 

Now, that said, I still don't quite see what knowledge claims Religion(s) are making, and how they are substantiated in science. Seeing as this is the crux of the debate, I'd like to see if we can concentrate on that point a bit. Do you have examples to give us so we can analyze them? I can think of quite a few knowledge-claims that the Old Testament is making that are outright false -- so if you can give us examples of how religion claims knowledge that is substantiated, that might help me see what you mean with that statement.

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.

 

PeterJ,

 

You wrote the above, and I would like to use it as an example for Mooeypoo.

 

 

Mooeypoo,

 

 

It mirrors exactly a thought I had myself, about us and the universe, or should I say about me and the universe, which I extend to include others with the same human equipment I have.

 

We are of and in the universe. Subtracting, for the lack of evidence of it, the immortal soul of TAR, from the situation, we are left with a few facts. There is no part of me, that is "other than" the universe. That is, there is nothing real about me, that is not real, and explainable or that does not have a "basis" in reality. However I am not big enough to be all of it, and not old enough, and seem, by all evidence to be only associated with one particular body/heart/brain group. That is, identity wise. There is you and there is me.

 

And as you have probably heard me mention before, we each hold in the folds and synapses and connections in our brains, an analog "model" of the universe. (this statement is rather similar, and probably "the same" statement as is made above in PeterJ's quote of Imam Ali.)

 

It can serve as an "example" of something metaphysically arrived at, by Iman Ali, that I also arrived at, using a combination of abstract thought, metaphysical logic, general musing and "feeling", and the empirical reality, reported to me by scientific inquiry and experienced by me throughout my life, and is indeed a "positive statement" about our condition that is both metaphysical, AND falsifiable.

 

The fact that two people can arrive at the same "truth" (although differently worded), says to me that it probably is not too far from the actual case.

 

If you can agree empirically with my statement, and know what I mean by it, then "if" Imam Ali, is talking about the same thing, and PeterJ would agree that Imam Ali is talking about the same thing (with stated reservations, of course), we may have an example to explore from both the metaphysical and scientific viewpoints.

 

Regards, TAR2

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.

[imatfaal]

.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.

 

 

Out of curiosity where is that quote from - I don't recognize the source

[PeterJ]

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.

 

Out of curiosity where is that quote from - I don't recognize the source

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.

Edited December 14, 2011 by PeterJ

[immortal]

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.

 

I was talking about the type 1 science, real hard science.

 

Type 1

 

Type 2

 

Type 3

 

Type 4

 

Type 5

 

Type 6

 

Type 7

 

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.

 

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.

 

Try to convince, Karl Popper if you want to change the scientific attitude.

 

 

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.

 

It is very much possible that the universe can be paradoxical and we might require different maps for different phenomena.

 

 

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.

 

No, it doesn't provide any solutions to physics or its models, even if it does it will not be a knowledge which you can add to the current models of physics and claim progress of science, I think you're reading too many books which view science and religion under a holistic view. I retracted from that view long time ago just because it is not how science works and what ever those scholars(not all) say mixing science and religion is just bullshit.

 

 

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.

 

 

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.

 

 

Your axiom of "Universe is an unity" is not self evident. An axiom should only be used when the thing we are stating is a common notion Euclid's Gift.

 

Unity is not a common notion by any means that's why we don't understand what you are claiming because we don't know what you think that unity is. Unity is not only beyond sense perception it is beyond logic and reason and its wrong to extract any implications from it, even logical implications, it doesn't make any sense. Its not a matter of time or of years we just can not comprehend it through logic.

 

Just having methods won't work, it is normally believed that true knowledge has to come all by itself, it may be 5 years, 10 years, 5 days or it may not come at all. It is irrespective of which ever method you adopt.

 

Science normally requires an assertion which can be tested, Say I will do a sequence of body moves and claim that after doing repeatedly for 15 days, three times in a day and after the 16th day I'll get absolute knowledge.

 

As you can see it can neither be predicted nor repeated.

[mooeypoo]

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.

Here's the problem: Knowledge claims that are substantiated must be testable.

 

Otherwise, it's baseless claims of knowledge. "Invisible unicorns exist" is a knowledge claim. Until it's substantiated, it's not really knowledge, and if it's impossible to substantiate it's not science at all.

 

If that's the case, we go back to debating religious knowledge that fit (or don't fit) science.

 

Anyways, the way to move the debate back on track is to go back to the topic, so let's talk about those knowledge claims religion(s) make?

 

~mooey