Metaphysics as an Error

[SpeedOfSound]

the argument here is not about whether or not you can imagine greater realities or get misty eyed about human endeavors to find them. The argument is that you can not find any evidence or basis in argument from which to embark upon the adventure.

But here again we are faced with the crux of the issue! For I do have evidence/basis from which to embark upon the adventure: the empirical realm!

Repeatedly, I have said that this is the basis of my own metaphysic.

Yeah, but what IS it?

That squire, is the conclusion to my metaphysic, not the basis of it.

Ah. Still working on the basis I see. Nice to have the second story of the house built before the first.

[Little Idiot]

So why has it taken so long? Wht do you still refuse to demonstrate it?
Just demonstrate it already!
Or admit that you can not.
The constant refusal to answer a simple question is not helpful to any potential exchange of ideas.

You should be familiar with my style of playing chess by now. I like to take a day or two to survey all the possibles. Maybe watch some other players to see what they do.

So. In the easy one that you say you used as bait and Todo solved, you accepted the category example as empirical basis without tearing off into a criticism based on infinite testing? You accepted the standard empirical intuition as sufficient?

I saved the infinite testing for the 'real question', and refered to it several times when I was asking asking asking the question. Just to avoid having to argue about it afterwards, I pointed to it in advance; I think were all familiar with the problem of induction.

[Comte de Saint-Germain]

I am a member of the Integer tribe. We only eat fish and we only eat fish served as integral wholes. We have a law that for every fish we bring home we must give one to the tribal elders. I caught only five fish and when I divided them into two piles the piles could not be made even. One was always higher than the other. Throwing away the sacred integral fish is a sin punishable by non-integral bisection.

I pondered this odd problem and along came Bill with two piles of three fish each and the piles were even. I killed Bill (not a crime here if he has fish) and added his 6 to my five hoping that his evenness would be a distributive property.

It was not. I still had an odd fish. Along came Bill 2 with the same problem as I. Five fish and two uneven piles. We threw our lot together and started to divide the fish into one pile for he, one for me. and one for Thee.

Fuckall!! Three uneven piles. But I also noticed that my pile had shrunk significantly with the merger. So I Killed Bill 2 and set out to make piles. Sweet Fucking Jesus it was successful. Two wrongs do indeed make a right and now I also knew why there was not another sequel.

On further analysis in the coming days I noticed that it was always the last fish that made the difference. I named it the odd fish and later on the tribe got to calling all uneven piles odd. (not my idea). Some of them even used this empirical result as a basis for a new thing called Math and pulled something called Induction out of their asses to turn it into something none of us can recognize.

The formula worked so well that we adopted it as a religious ultimate truth though some idiots are still trying to convince us that there is a different reality somewhere in the integers beyond where it fails but they seem to have no evidence or basis for this assertion.

[Little Idiot]

I am a member of the Integer tribe. We only eat fish and we only eat fish served as integral wholes. We have a law that for every fish we bring home we must give one to the tribal elders. I caught only five fish and when I divided them into two piles the piles could not be made even. One was always higher than the other. Throwing away the sacred integral fish is a sin punishable by non-integral bisection.

I pondered this odd problem and along came Bill with two piles of three fish each and the piles were even. I killed Bill (not a crime here if he has fish) and added his 6 to my five hoping that his evenness would be a distributive property.

It was not. I still had an odd fish. Along came Bill 2 with the same problem as I. Five fish and two uneven piles. We threw our lot together and started to divide the fish into one pile for he, one for me. and one for Thee.

Fuckall!! Three uneven piles. But I also noticed that my pile had shrunk significantly with the merger. So I Killed Bill 2 and set out to make piles. Sweet Fucking Jesus it was successful. Two wrongs do indeed make a right and now I also knew why there was not another sequel.

On further analysis in the coming days I noticed that it was always the last fish that made the difference. I named it the odd fish and later on the tribe got to calling all uneven piles odd. (not my idea). Some of them even used this empirical result as a basis for a new thing called Math and pulled something called Induction out of their asses to turn it into something none of us can recognize.

The formula worked so well that we adopted it as a religious ultimate truth though some idiots are still trying to convince us that there is a different reality somewhere in the integers beyond where it fails but they seem to have no evidence or basis for this assertion.

This is a very entertaining story SoS, so I agree with Comte de Saint-Germain

Obviously the whole thing misses the point of the question which is a general proof.
This story shows only how 5 is odd, 5+3+3 is odd and 5+6+5 is even.

I am suprised that the planet sized intellect has not shown any proof yet, and I conclude with my mere human intellect that no such proof will be forthcoming form the J-team.

So I will finish the discussion by providing the proof, which does not require emperical method. This will prove my point that there are other ways of gaining knowledge beyond the emperical, and specifically prove the error of the statement made by SD and others that 'the emperical is all we have got'

The understanding of any even plus any odd is always odd is trivial. Proof of this is almost trivial, but not trivial.
Here is one such proof

Let n be any whole number.
Then 2n is always even because 2n/2 = n which is a whole number. The definition of ‘even’ is met.
And 2n+1 is always odd because (2n+1)/2 = 2n/2 + ½ = n + 1/2 . The definition of ‘odd’ is met.

Therefore any odd plus any even is given by
(2n) + (2n + 1)
But since (2n + 2n + 1)/2 = (4n +1)/2 = 2n + ½ the definition of odd is met.
Therefore proving that any odd plus any even will always be odd.

This is true for any odd and any even number, and does not require any empirical input at all. Therefore proving my original point that the statement ‘empirical is all we have got’ is wrong.

EDIT bold highlights on my point, by request of the planet sized intellect.

[Comte de Saint-Germain]

This is a very entertaining story SoS, so I agree with Comte de Saint-Germain

Obviously the whole thing misses the point of the question which is a general proof.
This story shows only how 5 is odd, 5+3+3 is odd and 5+6+5 is even.

The story is funny because it addresses a general proof as being utterly useless. More importantly, your question is absolutely irrelevant to this thread. This thread is not some dedication to empiricism. I have always maintained that I accept both argument or evidence for metaphysics - not only empirical evidence. Your suggestion that we somehow reject mathematics as being important or interesting is silly.

I am suprised that the planet sized intellect has not shown any proof yet, and I conclude with my mere human intellect that no such proof will be forthcoming form the J-team.

In a way, we may assume that odd plus even is always odd, until we encounter an example where it is not. Mathematics allows induction only because it is tautological. Empiricism is not tautological, hence 'proofs' are impossible there.

So I will finish the discussion by providing the proof, which does not require emperical method. This will prove my point that there are other ways of gaining knowledge beyond the emperical, and specifically prove the error of the statement made by SD and others that 'the emperical is all we have got'

The understanding of any even plus any odd is always odd is trivial. Proof of this is almost trivial, but not trivial.
Here is one such proof

Let n be (0.5 or) any whole number.
Then 2n is always even because 2n/2 = n which is a whole number. The definition of ‘even’ is met.
And 2n+1 is always odd because (2n+1)/2 = 2n/2 + ½ = n + 1/2 . The definition of ‘odd’ is met.

Therefore any odd plus any even is given by
(2n) + (2n + 1)
But since (2n + 2n + 1)/2 = (4n +1)/2 = 2n + ½ the definition of odd is met.
Therefore proving that any odd plus any even will always be odd.

This is true for any odd and any even number, and does not require any empirical input at all. Therefore proving my original point that the statement ‘empirical is all we have got’ is wrong.

Wow. That's so impressive. I could not have done - oh wait, everyone could do that. What's your point?

[Little Idiot]

Having proved above at least one other way of knowing, having proved in an earlier post here to Luis that the conclusion we should only talk about the physical world is unreliable (paraphrase of proof below) I have dismissed the argument that metaphysics must meet the criteria of empirical method to be knowledge.

That, Sir, is my point in this post. The point in the previous post was stated in the post - I will did edit to highlight it for those unable to read.

P1) we only know about the physical world by empirical investigation of the physical world

P2) We do not know that the physical world exhausts the entire reality

C1) We may not reliably assert that only the empirical can be a valid indicator of reality.

P3) Without a reliable indicator no reliable conclusions can be reached

P4) "we should only talk about the physical world we do have knowledge of by empirical method" is a conclusion reached without a reliable indicator

C2) " we should only talk about the physical world we do have knowledge of by empirical method" is an unreliable conclusion.

[jamest]

You're missing the point. The point is that metaphysics can actually be employed to discuss the essence/reality/definition of the empirical realm - and by doing so, has not transgressed the boundaries of that realm.

The 'actual' essence or reality of the empirical realm is beyond the boundaries of the content of that 'realm'. That is to say, since it has nothing to do with empirical data, it is beyond empirical data.

I do understand your point that metaphysics is beyond empirical data (scientific facts). But you seemingly fail to understand that this data is a product of observing something.
It's not just data we are privy to though. That data is our statistical understanding of something.

The 'empirical realm' is a realm from which we pluck empirical data, but it is NOT this empirical data. This should be obvious as we continue to observe 'whatever' in the hope of producing more and more data. We observe 'the world' and then data is deduced from the order apparently inherent within it. There has to something upon which that data is based.
The very basis upon which metaphysics is possible, is that there is this 'something' to discuss.

I've already proved that other facts can be known in relation to this realm that do not come from observation. I did this in my post about "the three E's", which showed that there were three possible metaphysical scenarios in relation to it (E). I also went on to discuss 'causality' - and your response was commensurate with identity theory (materialism - about the brain being the cause of seeing causality) - and not functionalism, as you wrongly claimed.

So, the basis of metaphysics is the realm of the empirical, but not empirical data. Can we be clear on that?

[Little Idiot]

You're missing the point. The point is that metaphysics can actually be employed to discuss the essence/reality/definition of the empirical realm - and by doing so, has not transgressed the boundaries of that realm.

The 'actual' essence or reality of the empirical realm is beyond the boundaries of the content of that 'realm'. That is to say, since it has nothing to do with empirical data, it is beyond empirical data.

I do understand your point that metaphysics is beyond empirical data (scientific facts). But you seemingly fail to understand that this data is a product of observing something.
It's not just data we are privy to though. That data is our statistical understanding of something.

The 'empirical realm' is a realm from which we pluck empirical data, but it is NOT this empirical data. This should be obvious as we continue to observe 'whatever' in the hope of producing more and more data. We observe 'the world' and then data is deduced from the order apparently inherent within it. There has to something upon which that data is based.
The very basis upon which metaphysics is possible, is that there is this 'something' to discuss.

I've already proved that other facts can be known in relation to this realm that do not come from observation. I did this in my post about "the three E's", which showed that there were three possible metaphysical scenarios in relation to it (E). I also went on to discuss 'causality' - and your response was commensurate with identity theory (materialism - about the brain being the cause of seeing causality) - and not functionalism, as you wrongly claimed.

So, the basis of metaphysics is the realm of the empirical, but not empirical data. Can we be clear on that?

Some of us can, not sure about others though

[jamest]

Some of us can, not sure about others though

It should be called 'pulling teeth', not metaphysics.

[Little Idiot]

This is a very entertaining story SoS, so I agree with Comte de Saint-Germain

Obviously the whole thing misses the point of the question which is a general proof.
This story shows only how 5 is odd, 5+3+3 is odd and 5+6+5 is even.

The story is funny because it addresses a general proof as being utterly useless. More importantly, your question is absolutely irrelevant to this thread. This thread is not some dedication to empiricism. I have always maintained that I accept both argument or evidence for metaphysics - not only empirical evidence. Your suggestion that we somehow reject mathematics as being important or interesting is silly.

My point is not that math is silly. My point is that the simple example can not be DEMONSTRATED (as distinct to proved) by emperical method for all odd and even numbers without infinite trials.
While proof and thus demonstration is simple, as I proved. Therefore this is a method of gaining knowledge in addition to emperical.
I only said that about 10 times already ...

I am suprised that the planet sized intellect has not shown any proof yet, and I conclude with my mere human intellect that no such proof will be forthcoming form the J-team.

In a way, we may assume that odd plus even is always odd, until we encounter an example where it is not. Mathematics allows induction only because it is tautological. Empiricism is not tautological, hence 'proofs' are impossible there.

My proof sidesteps the problem of induction, which your sad offering here does not. I asked for demonstration, not proof.

[SpeedOfSound]

Obviously the whole thing misses the point of the question which is a general proof.
This story shows only how 5 is odd, 5+3+3 is odd and 5+6+5 is even.

...
So I will finish the discussion by providing the proof, which does not require emperical method.

Isn't it odd that with all the possible maths in the math universe that this one is in the wiki? Math got it's start with fish and pyramids not metaphysics. Integers, odds, and evens are all grounded in the consistent nature of the PW and our brain interface to it. Our brain allows us abstractions and math is a fine example of both empirical roots and the nature of abstraction.

But with metaphysics you have abstracted yourself out of the bucket. Math has not done that. It has these proofs and foundational principles. It would be as useless as metaphysics had it not.

But I find even these proofs suspect. But they divide fish so I wont bother them with my suspicious mind. Your philo-syphilis does not divide fish for me so I will bother it.

Jamest with his three E's used the idea of internal and external to abstract himself out of sensibility. Just because these ideas work in PW with buckets of fish does not mean that you can extract them willy-nilly and expect us to bow to them. Mostly I am suspicious because I know how we get such ideas and how the brain makes copies of DNA out of them. I also know how the brain gets deluded by it's ability to abstract and creates silly worlds where fish wont cut.

All I ask is that you start to look carefully at the source of your illusion of foundations in these common words.

Bring me some truly meta physics from out of this world and not just some dressed up version that simply left the earth from which it was forged.

[Little Idiot]

Some of us can, not sure about others though

It should be called 'pulling teeth', not metaphysics.

Patience will prevail.

Along with plenty of laughs at the stuff the J-team come up with

[jamest]

I know how we get such ideas and how the brain makes copies of DNA out of them. I also know how the brain gets deluded by it's ability to abstract and creates silly worlds where fish wont cut.

All I ask is that you start to look carefully at the source of your illusion of foundations in these common words.

I'm sorry, but these claims cannot be made, except as a materialist - in which case, they are irrelevant to the discussion, as you cannot negate metaphysics with a metaphysic (I need that in my sig, don't I?).

[Little Idiot]

Obviously the whole thing misses the point of the question which is a general proof.
This story shows only how 5 is odd, 5+3+3 is odd and 5+6+5 is even.

...
So I will finish the discussion by providing the proof, which does not require emperical method.

Isn't it odd that with all the possible maths in the math universe that this one is in the wiki?

pure chance, I didnt look up maths in wiki, doesnt matter to the validity of my point in any case.

Math got it's start with fish and pyramids not metaphysics. Integers, odds, and evens are all grounded in the consistent nature of the PW and our brain interface to it. Our brain allows us abstractions and math is a fine example of both empirical roots and the nature of abstraction.

But with metaphysics you have abstracted yourself out of the bucket. Math has not done that. It has these proofs and foundational principles. It would be as useless as metaphysics had it not.

But I find even these proofs suspect. But they divide fish so I wont bother them with my suspicious mind. Your philo-syphilis does not divide fish for me so I will bother it.

Jamest with his three E's used the idea of internal and external to abstract himself out of sensibility. Just because these ideas work in PW with buckets of fish does not mean that you can extract them willy-nilly and expect us to bow to them. Mostly I am suspicious because I know how we get such ideas and how the brain makes copies of DNA out of them. I also know how the brain gets deluded by it's ability to abstract and creates silly worlds where fish wont cut.

All I ask is that you start to look carefully at the source of your illusion of foundations in these common words.

Bring me some truly meta physics from out of this world and not just some dressed up version that simply left the earth from which it was forged.

But metaphysics is not the end of the trail, its a step on the way, a tool of the trade.
Its real purpose is to understand the world, and specifically to understand our position in the world, our life in the world, how to apply the abstract to our life.
IN ORDER TO LIVE WELL AND FULLY IN THE WORLD not to be abstracted from the world.


BTW; ATM if we present metaphysics here, it will be mocked on the false basis of needing to meet emperical criteria or some other half truth.
Before doing real metaphysics, apparently we need to establish that it can be done; doing it doesnt show it can be done .

[Little Idiot]

I know how we get such ideas and how the brain makes copies of DNA out of them. I also know how the brain gets deluded by it's ability to abstract and creates silly worlds where fish wont cut.

All I ask is that you start to look carefully at the source of your illusion of foundations in these common words.

I'm sorry, but these claims cannot be made, except as a materialist - in which case, they are irrelevant to the discussion, as you cannot negate metaphysics with a metaphysic (I need that in my sig, don't I?).

Yes, you do