Metaphysics as an Error

[Surendra Darathy]

A certain bandwidth of WHAT?

It already has a name, James: radiation. People use words to communicate with one another. Wibblers apparently don't find that process very interesting.

Did somebody invent the wheel, or did the discovery come from seeing a round rock empirically roll down a hill? If you sit around all day asking "What is the essence of a hill?" and you only come up with "hillness", anyone wanting a set of wheels is going to get bored with you in a "fugging" hurry. C'mon, James: the word is "fucking". You can say it here.

[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' alone is not good enough for you, then give up on philosophy navel-gazing.

The only tool we have that has the potential for doing metaphysics, is reason. 'Observation' is useless in this venture.

[GrahamH]

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' alone is not good enough for you, then give up on philosophy navel-gazing.

The only tool we have that has the potential for doing metaphysics, is reason. 'Observation' is useless in this venture.

Did somebody want to "do metaphysics" with "observation"?

[Little Idiot]

Thats not what I said; I said the laws which the behaviour follow existed before the atoms which follow the rules existed - the rules can exist without any atoms to follow them, dont you think?

How do you know that?

Same as the rules of the road. A thirty mile limit might exist, but there doesn't have to be a car there for that limit to be present.

Rules of the road are statutes, which are not like "laws of physics".

The rules of physics are mans attempt to describe the rules whiich the universe follows - before we knew of relativity, QM or Newtonian mechanics, the universe was busy doing what it does regardless of our understanding of it.

The rules of math exist with or without a physical universe to follow them. We may use the rules of maths to describe the universe but the rules will remain as they are if there is no universe. In the clip Penrose, like other mathematicians talks about this.

He talks of the three; physical, mental, mathematical as each having existence, and the paradoxical description of 'part of each one contains the whole of the others' so some of us could say its all physical, some could say its all mental, others could say its all mathematical; but actually all exist in some interconnected way he does not go into beyond this.

[SpeedOfSound]

I swear that somehow we have got the idealists arguing the other side this morning.

[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.

Man, if reason' alone is not good enough for you, then give up on philosophy navel-gazing.

The only tool we have that has the potential for doing metaphysics, is reason. 'Observation' is useless in this venture.

Well there you go, metaphysics = navel-gazing. /thread

[jamest]

A certain bandwidth of WHAT?

It already has a name, James: radiation.

So, 'radiation' exists distinctly to the empirical data conceived by us? Is this your position too?

Two fish with one net. Lovely.

People use words to communicate with one another. Wibblers apparently don't find that process very interesting.

Then wafflers don't understand that wibblers have the edge.

From a position of saying that there was nothing other than conceived empirical data - and therefore, nothing upon which to ground a metaphysic - we now have an acknowledgement of something other than conceived empirical data. You have handed me my grounds, on a plate. Shall we move on, then?

[SpeedOfSound]

Essencenessness Essence of essence? E^2?
Essencenessless ??? Hmmm.
Essencenesslessness.....

my brain feels funny.

[jamest]

The only tool we have that has the potential for doing metaphysics, is reason. 'Observation' is useless in this venture.

Well there you go, metaphysics = navel-gazing. /thread

What did you think metaphysics entailed, other than the employment of reason? Did you really think that a telescope was required?

[the PC apeman]

The only tool we have that has the potential for doing metaphysics, is reason. 'Observation' is useless in this venture.

Well there you go, metaphysics = navel-gazing. /thread

What did you think metaphysics entailed, other than the employment of reason? Did you really think that a telescope was required?

Don't be silly. I've known what metaphysics was all along. Glad you're up to speed now.

[Surendra Darathy]

before we knew of relativity, QM or Newtonian mechanics, the universe was busy doing what it does regardless of our understanding of it.

You cribbed this from BrianMan! Or else he cribbed it from you! Relativity in action!

What did you think metaphysics entailed, other than the employment of reason?

General error. ""Busy work" however often synonymous with "employment", is never a happy circumstance. Employment of reason is not demonstrated by metaphysics, and so wibblers identify "metaphysics" with "employment of reason". On the other hand, science employs reason and demonstrates it by achieving radionessness.

The situation in the introductory philosophy classroom: A philosophy teaching assitant or tutor privately tearing his or her hair out having to read words upon words that demonstrate nothing but the stringing together of words with syntax and grammar. Good spelling gets extra credit.

Holmes asks for data, saying "I can't make bricks without clay." Holmes is not interested in noumenal bricks.

[jamest]

A certain bandwidth of WHAT?

It already has a name, James: radiation.

So, 'radiation' exists distinctly to the empirical data conceived by us? Is this your position too?

Two fish with one net. Lovely.

People use words to communicate with one another. Wibblers apparently don't find that process very interesting.

Then wafflers don't understand that wibblers have the edge.

From a position of saying that there was nothing other than conceived empirical data - and therefore, nothing upon which to ground a metaphysic - we now have an acknowledgement of something other than conceived empirical data. You have handed me my grounds, on a plate. Shall we move on, then?

C'mon, don't whitewash this. I want a detailed response. Do I now have a grounds upon which I can begin my metaphysic? If so, I shall explain how metaphysics can be apporached from this grounding.

And then, we can shut down the thread.

[Luis Dias]

So, 'radiation' exists distinctly to the empirical data conceived by us? Is this your position too?

Hint: radiation is a type of phenomena where "stuff" is "radiated" from a source. "Radiation" is an empirical classification of phenomena. I.e., the mere fact that we label "radiation" to a particular phenomena is data. Therefore, when we say "radiation", we are sharing data, we are not talking about something that exists "in itself" that is called "radiation".

Here's a question for you: does the orbit of the Earth "exist" metaphysically?

From a position of saying that there was nothing other than conceived empirical data

Until you clear your fucking strawmens, we won't get any further. You are still ill-conceiving our position.

NO ONE DECLARED THAT THERE WAS NOTHING other than "conceived empirical data".

Everyone in the so-called "J's team" declared that the noumena is untalkable, therefore the exercise of metaphysics is drivel, nonsense, empty of content, meaningless, void of useful data, etc.

we now have an acknowledgement of something other than conceived empirical data. You have handed me my grounds, on a plate. Shall we move on, then?

You got the burden wrong. It's not up to us to describe the non-existence of the metaphysic. It is up to you to describe how that exercise is even possible for us humans. I don't care if you are able to make us say that there are more things in life than our empirical world, I want to make you say that as far as we can tell, you can't say anything meaningful about what we have no data from.

[Surendra Darathy]

A certain bandwidth of WHAT?

It already has a name, James: radiation.

So, 'radiation' exists distinctly to the empirical data conceived by us? Is this your position too?

You propose that all nouns grant their referents "existence"? Radiation names a feature of a physical theory. Scientists are not doing metaphysics. They use words to communicate with one another, unlike wibblers.

Some nouns, like "unicorn", do not refer to things that exist. It's an interesting thing that the definition of unicorn describes it as "mythical". How is it that people decided that unicorns didn't "exist"?

[jamest]

A certain bandwidth of WHAT?

It already has a name, James: radiation.

So, 'radiation' exists distinctly to the empirical data conceived by us? Is this your position too?

You propose that all nouns grant their referents "existence"? Radiation names a feature of a physical theory. Scientists are not doing metaphysics. They use words to communicate with one another, unlike wibblers.

Some nouns, like "unicorn", do not refer to things that exist. It's an interesting thing that the definition of unicorn describes it as "mythical". How is it that people decided that unicorns didn't "exist"?

So then, contrary to what Jerome said, it is not your position that a "bandwidth of radiation" exists distinctly to conceived empirical data... and that, therefore, a "bandwidth of radiation" is also reducible to conceived empirical data?

Perhaps you lot should have a time-out and decide exactly where you all stand, right now. And when you decide, as one, let me know.