Metaphysics as an Error

[the PC apeman]

It is a clear fact that the changing nature of empirical data must be founded upon 'something' to which this data relates.

Maybe, maybe not. I don't know. You don't know. But what is the... Oh nevermind.

[Little Idiot]

Empirical data is forever changing - being revised. As I said earlier, angels and Gods have now become stars. Yet the same image (which we call 'the sky') was beheld by both sets of 'data constructors' (humans).
Future generations will have significantly different opinions of the world than we do now. How can there be, then, 'nothing' upon which that data is formulated?

The argument for the existence of 'nothing' but empirical data, is not even close to being a sensible opinion. It is a clear fact that the changing nature of empirical data must be founded upon 'something' to which this data relates.

Hang on, arent they supposed to say there is a physical world out there? Suggesting there is nothing but data seems to destroy a fundamental position of theirs!

[jamest]

Empirical data is forever changing - being revised. As I said earlier, angels and Gods have now become stars. Yet the same image (which we call 'the sky') was beheld by both sets of 'data constructors' (humans).
Future generations will have significantly different opinions of the world than we do now. How can there be, then, 'nothing' upon which that data is formulated?

The argument for the existence of 'nothing' but empirical data, is not even close to being a sensible opinion. It is a clear fact that the changing nature of empirical data must be founded upon 'something' to which this data relates.

Hang on, arent they supposed to say there is a physical world out there? Suggesting there is nothing but data seems to destroy a fundamental position of theirs!

No, technically, that's what materialists are supposed to say. A relativist isn't supposed to say anything, lest he unveil an ontology. It's all numbers, and they're neither "in here" or "out there". I know, it's fuggin ridiculous.

[jamest]

It is a clear fact that the changing nature of empirical data must be founded upon 'something' to which this data relates.

Maybe, maybe not. I don't know. You don't know. But what is the... Oh nevermind.

Man, if reason's not good enough for you, then give up on philosophy.

[Little Idiot]

Empirical data is forever changing - being revised. As I said earlier, angels and Gods have now become stars. Yet the same image (which we call 'the sky') was beheld by both sets of 'data constructors' (humans).
Future generations will have significantly different opinions of the world than we do now. How can there be, then, 'nothing' upon which that data is formulated?

The argument for the existence of 'nothing' but empirical data, is not even close to being a sensible opinion. It is a clear fact that the changing nature of empirical data must be founded upon 'something' to which this data relates.

Hang on, arent they supposed to say there is a physical world out there? Suggesting there is nothing but data seems to destroy a fundamental position of theirs!

No, technically, that's what materialists are supposed to say. A relativist isn't supposed to say anything, lest he unveil an ontology. It's all numbers, and they're neither "in here" or "out there". I know, it's fuggin ridiculous.

Thats funny

what do you think of this as 'our' position at the moment;

I have suggested, and demonstrated that mathematical knowledge does not depend upon the empirical. You say ‘who are you to say this’ or ‘argument from ignorance’ Here is an oxford mathematician saying, (as mathematicians do) that the universe operates with great precision according to laws of math, and these laws have an existence not dependent the physical existence – not as some of you would suggest maths operates according to empirical laws, which is the other way round!

The state of play, as suggested by the A-team is
Either
1. The empirical is defined as applying to all that is real, including but not necessarily limited to the physical world. In which case we have demonstrated how metaphysics can be conducted within this empirical definition.

Or

2. The empirical is defined as applying only to the physical world. In which case we have demonstrated mathematical knowledge can be independent of the empirical and hence the error in the argument ‘the empirical is all we’ve got’ thereby freeing metaphysics (like maths) of the chains of empiricism. We have demonstrated how metaphysics can be conducted within this empirical definition.

[jamest]

what do you think of this as 'our' position at the moment;

I have suggested, and demonstrated that mathematical knowledge does not depend upon the empirical. You say ‘who are you to say this’ or ‘argument from ignorance’ Here is an oxford mathematician saying, (as mathematicians do) that the universe operates with great precision according to laws of math, and these laws have an existence not dependent the physical existence – not as some of you would suggest maths operates according to empirical laws, which is the other way round!

The state of play, as suggested by the A-team is
Either
1. The empirical is defined as applying to all that is real, including but not necessarily limited to the physical world. In which case we have demonstrated how metaphysics can be conducted within this empirical definition.

Or

2. The empirical is defined as applying only to the physical world. In which case we have demonstrated mathematical knowledge can be independent of the empirical and hence the error in the argument ‘the empirical is all we’ve got’ thereby freeing metaphysics (like maths) of the chains of empiricism. We have demonstrated how metaphysics can be conducted within this empirical definition.

I'm with you on the math - I even made a post about certain mathematical concepts being known to us that cannot be seen to exist amongst the emiprical, such as infinity & nothing. But you're doing a better job on that road than myself, so I leave that stage to you.

My position on this particular issue is made clear by the distinction I made between seeing 'angels & Gods' as opposed to 'stars'. That is, if empirical data is all that that there is, then for some, the data that presented itself as angels & Gods was all that there was. According to the J-team, there was nothing else upon which this data is formulated. So, pray tell, why has the data changed? How do angels & Gods become stars? The answer is clear - our forebears weren't seeing the object of our scrutiny with enough clarity... and their understanding of that thing was insufficient and lacking. Likewise, our grandchildren will say similar things about some of the data that we currently conceive of.
'Data' is clearly a mental construct formulated by ourselves, reflective of something beheld by us all.

The grounding for metaphysics is established. That is, there is something for which a metaphysician to discuss, that is distinct to 'empirical data'.

[Comte de Saint-Germain]

'Data' is clearly a mental construct formulated by ourselves, reflective of something beheld by us all.

No it isn't. The data never changed. The data was always a certain bandwidth of radiation. People simply had different theories and incorporated that data differently. In recent centuries, we have learned to put the data first, and the theories later and that has worked out pretty well for us. For the last hundred years now, we've been free of metaphysics because of it.

[jamest]

'Data' is clearly a mental construct formulated by ourselves, reflective of something beheld by us all.

No it isn't. The data never changed. The data was always a certain bandwidth of radiation. People simply had different theories and incorporated that data differently. In recent centuries, we have learned to put the data first, and the theories later and that has worked out pretty well for us. For the last hundred years now, we've been free of metaphysics because of it.

A certain bandwidth of WHAT?
Is that 'thing' different to the data that we assign to it? Yes or no? Stop acting the goat.

[SpeedOfSound]

Oh My God!!

We have Li claiming to have demonstrated that mathematics is in some metaphysical realm.

Then, the best yet, jamest claiming that proof that our perceptions do not change is had by noting two examples where our perceptions definitively have changed.

Holy Shit! This must be holy shit.

[jamest]

Oh My God!!

Then, the best yet, jamest claiming that proof that our perceptions do not change is had by noting two examples where our perceptions definitively have changed.

Holy Shit! This must be holy shit.

Two examples of what? I said that our perceptions [of the data] do change, and that there must be something upon which that change is grounded. You need more coffee.

[Comte de Saint-Germain]

Why have we suddenly turned to raping philosophy of science? Just asking..

[SpeedOfSound]

Why have we suddenly turned to raping philosophy of science? Just asking..

My despair is deepening.

[SpeedOfSound]

Why have we suddenly turned to raping philosophy of science? Just asking..

I think this is what happened.

-jamest was upset about 'it's all just empirical data'
-he suggested that it's metaphysical too because our understanding changed.
-I told him that our understanding changes because our brains change
-he showed me two examples where he claims that he can show that our brains do not change because it is our understanding that changes.

So I guess he and LI are saying that metaphysics is a good thing because we have 'understanding spice' which is added to the data and LI is saying metaphysics is good because mathematics is 'pure understanding spice'


I think that about sums it.

edit: They were just doing there high fives like a couple of wild and crazy guys when you arrived.

[SpeedOfSound]

Empirical data is forever changing - being revised. As I said earlier, angels and Gods have now become stars. Yet the same image (which we call 'the sky') was beheld by both sets of 'data constructors' (humans).
Future generations will have significantly different opinions of the world than we do now. How can there be, then, 'nothing' upon which that data is formulated?

The argument for the existence of 'nothing' but empirical data, is not even close to being a sensible opinion. It is a clear fact that the changing nature of empirical data must be founded upon 'something' to which this data relates.

Hang on, arent they supposed to say there is a physical world out there? Suggesting there is nothing but data seems to destroy a fundamental position of theirs!

Just want to point out to you LI that after a year of this crap this post shows that you may have finally just got your first clue about how you have been misrepresenting the fundamental position of materialism all along.

I can understand your excitement. It reminds me of when our St. Bernard first discovered that the back door opened up into the same house as the front door.

[GrahamH]

...
I have suggested, and demonstrated that mathematical knowledge does not depend upon the empirical. You say ‘who are you to say this’ or ‘argument from ignorance’ Here is an oxford mathematician saying, (as mathematicians do) that the universe operates with great precision according to laws of math, and these laws have an existence not dependent the physical existence – not as some of you would suggest maths operates according to empirical laws, which is the other way round!...

Well, Penrose actually says mathematics is a means of describing the world. We don't think that a description of a tree is fundamental to a tree's existence, why should we think that "laws of maths" define, rather than describe, the physical world?

Do you think atoms are mathematicians?

Mathematics can be explored, but so can language. Given a descriptive tool set arising from the empirical does not suggest the tools are limited to describing things that exist.