Guest eswex Posted January 27, 2005 Posted January 27, 2005 Metaphysics is a completely different concept from pseudoscience. Pseudoscience is something that may look like science at first glance, but ends up having a problem such as not being reproducible. Metaphysics is a branch of philosophy related to natural sciences. Metaphysics is not science. However, scientists do believe in metaphysical ideas or ontologies. If they did not, their theories would mean absolutely nothing. For example, physicists must accept certain mathematical truths or axioms such as x=x or 0+x=x. These truths have nothing to do with science or experimentation, but are considered to be true. Even if physicists discover a single "theory of everything" such as string theory, this theory will assume the truth of mathematical axioms as well as other ontological ideas.
Phi for All Posted January 27, 2005 Posted January 27, 2005 Don't hold me to this, but I believe it's because many pseudoscientific posts end up using metaphysical arguments to back themselves up, and vice versa. It is not an attempt to group them together intellectually, it just saves time and arguments about where to place certain threads.
Sayonara Posted January 27, 2005 Posted January 27, 2005 Also, neither topic gets enough posts on its own to justify a devoted forum. It's not meant to suggest they are related or inter-dependent fields.
Tom Mattson Posted February 5, 2005 Posted February 5, 2005 Why is pseudoscience with metaphysics? I made the same point in the thread Spotting Pseudoscience, stuck to the top of this Forum. Also' date=' neither topic gets enough posts on its own to justify a devoted forum. It's not meant to suggest they are related or inter-dependent fields. [/quote'] But metaphysics is universally regarded by those in the field as a branch of philosophy. Any metaphysical topic would properly belong in that (already existing) Forum.
nameta9 Posted February 18, 2005 Posted February 18, 2005 Metaphysics is KING. In the end we will reach a wall in all our explanations and concepts because we will finally discover that we are within an "infinite-infinite universe" where every conceivable combination of concepts, matter, thoughts, contradictions etc. are all present. That is the only explanation for our presence here as humans. The number of quirk chances for all the combinations of elements that compose our life are so mind boggling large that in NO WAY can there ever be a physical explanation. How do you explain that on this single planet just the right amount of metals, and chemical elements and human reasoning and science etc. are present to allow us to evolve naturally to the point we are able to communicate with chips and networks etc. The complexity of our "evolution" is too great to be possibly explaines as one given case, therefore we are one case in an infinte all being present as within an "INFINITE-INFINTE UNIVERSE". Just one combination where a person started to think outside his group culture within primitive societies is extremely low. If the person didn't think outside his group culture there would have been no science!
swansont Posted February 18, 2005 Posted February 18, 2005 How do you explain that on this single planet just the right amount of metals, and chemical elements and human reasoning and science etc. are present to allow us to evolve naturally to the point we are able to communicate with chips and networks etc. Because evolution depends on environment. If it had been a different mix, evolution would have taken a different path. Gee, that wasn't so hard, was it?
Hellbender Posted February 19, 2005 Posted February 19, 2005 I will venture to agree with Phi For All. I have seen lots of pseudoscientific arguments "backed up" with pointless metaphysical arguments.
Tom Mattson Posted February 19, 2005 Posted February 19, 2005 Metaphysics is KING. Based on what standard? Metaphysics doesn't turn out any new knowledge.
nameta9 Posted February 19, 2005 Posted February 19, 2005 The infinite-infinite theory of the universe is the ultimate theory of everything. Nothing needs to be explained because every conceivable thing is present, every combination so there is no longer any need for any explanation of anything. The final grand theory of unification has been achieved. An explanation is necessary if you must figure out why a given phenomena is in a given way instead of another. But since the universe contains everything imaginable you are just looking at one particular example of a phenomena. The opposite is also true elsewhere and so are all contradictions. It is almost an aesthetical explanation of the everything. Anyways if you think it is so easy to evolve according to your old physical theories look at mars, it is a long shot to imagine it can reach a point of having color tvs present on its surface!
swansont Posted February 19, 2005 Posted February 19, 2005 The infinite-infinite theory of the universe is not a theory. Disclaimer: No actual content was deleted in the posting of this message.
Tom Mattson Posted February 20, 2005 Posted February 20, 2005 The infinite-infinite theory of the universe is the ultimate theory of everything. Nothing needs to be explained because every conceivable thing is present' date=' every combination so there is no longer any need for any explanation of anything. The final grand theory of unification has been achieved. An explanation is necessary if you must figure out why a given phenomena is in a given way instead of another. mmm-hmmmm
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now