Metaphysics as an Error

[Surendra Darathy]

So how do wibblers address the ontology of "radiation"? In one experiment, "radiation" is a "wave", and in another "radiation" is a "particle". People who need "radiation" to have an "essence" (I mean, there's a word, radiation, it's a noun, and anything nounish must carry with it some essencenesss.) For example, the "essence" of anything "unicorny" is "mythicalness".

[Luis Dias]

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.

You have to show us where this contradiction exists.

Hint: not with metaphysics. With empirical evidence.

[Surendra Darathy]

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.

James, I already noted that "radiation" is a symbol that refers to a feature of a "model" in physics. A model is a mathematical description summarizing some data. It's already been noted that you are raping philosophy of science, here.

You're not holding anyone's feet in the fire, James. All you've managed to this point is writing a bunch of incoherent, utterly naive crap into an internet forum.

[SpeedOfSound]

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.

The whole point of the thread is showing you that there is nothing that we can tell you about what we are standing on.

[Kenny Login]

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

Why not? They are inextricably linked.

the exercise of metaphysics is drivel, nonsense, empty of content, meaningless, void of useful data, etc.

You may decide it's drivel as a formal exercise, but I am unclear how anyone can say it does not inform - in rather significant ways - all those means with which you gather data. Even those means with which you decide whether data is 'useful' or not.

Could you expand?

[Surendra Darathy]

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.

Do you wish to assert that a "model" has a metaphysical aspect? I think this is where you wish to go. Does it force us toward an ontological position, or does the model simply summarize some data? Perhaps you want to use a phrase from the philosophy of science, such as "theory-ladenness of observation" to show that you've ever read anything about it in your life.

Does a model really force us to make observations in a certain way? If so, how do we account for the fact that eventually a set of new observations yields a new theory, as in the transition from classical to relativistic and quantum physics. Even so, the observations are still empirical.

Look up "ultraviolet catastrophe", James, so you can make it appear as if you've ever read anything about it in your life. Try and convince us that you've ever "read something", instead of wibbling that others are implying that there is a "something" behind the term "radiation". The physicists don't say what it is. They make empirical experimental measurements, and fit the data into various "models".

Classical physics isn't "gone". We still use it to make course corrections for spacecraft on their way to the outer planets. The spacecraft assist in making observations of planets, without getting into what a planet "really-o, truly-o" is in its "ultimate essence". Some planets are rocky, and some planets are gassy and icy, and the difference has a lot to do with how far from the "sun" they are, and how much mass they have, and some other stuff you seem not to have read about.

Why don't you read about that, James? As opposed, say, to pouring your one-note samba on metaphysics into an internet forum which, in order to join, you don't have to show you've ever learnt a goddam thing in your life.

[Surendra Darathy]

You may decide it's drivel as a formal exercise, but I am unclear how anyone can say it does not inform - in rather significant ways - all those means with which you gather data. Even those means with which you decide whether data is 'useful' or not.

You, too, Kenny. You can join a forum merely in order to quote someone's post, and respond by saying "I agree with that".

"Useful" is an engineering term without much definition outside that field. Lots of people say they find religion "useful" when what they mean by it is "comforting". Yet, I've never seen the top of anyone's head peel off in a fit of existential angst alone. You have to use a medium caliber handgun really to get the top of your head to peel off properly.

In your post here, you are using a word "inform" without indicating how you think anyone would pass the "information" along. If you think that metaphysics "informs" us, why don't you explain how you think it does so. Or, you can, as I point out, stay in the peanut gallery proclaiming how much you agree with those defending metaphysics, as if this was a footie match and you were among the spectators, yelling "Bolton!"

[jamest]

Kenny, try not to let them get you down. It's just their way to be rude like that - you get used to it after several years. Alternatively, you could just agree with everything that they say, and then they'll like you.

[Surendra Darathy]

Do I now have a grounds upon which I can begin my metaphysic?

Daß ich erkenne, was die Welt
Im Innersten zusammenhält,
Schau alle Wirkenskraft und Samen,
Und tu nicht mehr in Worten kramen.

Da steh ich nun, ich armer Tor! Und bin so klug als wie zuvor...

[SpeedOfSound]

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

Why not? They are inextricably linked.

the exercise of metaphysics is drivel, nonsense, empty of content, meaningless, void of useful data, etc.

You may decide it's drivel as a formal exercise, but I am unclear how anyone can say it does not inform - in rather significant ways - all those means with which you gather data. Even those means with which you decide whether data is 'useful' or not.

Could you expand?

You are probably equating metaphysics to some world-view that we hold. It is arguable that we all have one of those. My position on this is that a worldview has to be taken at face value. Metaphysics would endeavor to find something deeper or essential that could be believed in with considerably more fervor and certainty.

As an example I have an idea of what exists and what does not. It's a working idea that really works. But I do not think that there is such a thing as 'existence' at any deeper level. That is not to say that some mind imagined all of this. That idea would suffer even more troubling symptoms and is just another misguided effort in finding essence.

[Surendra Darathy]

As an example I have an idea of what exists and what does not.

So your "world view" requires an aspect of "operationalism". That is not metaphysics, of course.

When a world view sustains one more than operationally, we call it an "ideology". It's a pit of vipers, and we never hear about what constitutes "more". It is "something". "Something beyond". It's woo.

It's only operational to kill the Buddha if you meet him on the road. Just a means of getting farther down the road. It's not about the sort of knife work we do here, but (as here) involves no real bloodshed.

Quitting thumbsucking starts with taking one's thumb out of one's mouth.

[Kenny Login]

You are probably equating metaphysics to some world-view that we hold. It is arguable that we all have one of those. My position on this is that a worldview has to be taken at face value. Metaphysics would endeavor to find something deeper or essential that could be believed in with considerably more fervor and certainty.

Yes, that's roughly what I was getting at (although personally speaking, I don't think you have to take worldviews at face value).

Mr Darathy - the 'useful' was Luis Dias' choice of phrase, not mine.

On the whole, it's not possible to observe - either individually or as part of an empirical programme - without working on very strong assumptions that events can't be the cause of other events in the past, that there is necessarily a subjective/objective divide, that something fictional can't interact with something factual, and so on. Would you agree?

Unless you consider that it's possible to directly perceive, unencumbered by any of these assumptions. Which might turn out to be a very interesting discussion.

[Kenny Login]

Kenny, try not to let them get you down. It's just their way to be rude like that - you get used to it after several years. Alternatively, you could just agree with everything that they say, and then they'll like you.

Thanks. I agree with everything that everyone says so there shouldn't be a problem ;-)

[Luis Dias]

Boltooooon!

[Luis Dias]

On the whole, it's not possible to observe - either individually or as part of an empirical programme - without working on very strong assumptions that events can't be the cause of other events in the past

Assumptions are good, and apparently, unavoidable. What's bad is dogmatism. Such as, oh I don't know, the inability to time-travel to the past. Just because you deem it to be impossible does not make it so. Let's make some experiments about it, shall we?

, that there is necessarily a subjective/objective divide, that something fictional can't interact with something factual, and so on. Would you agree?

It rather depends upon the definition of "objective" and "factual" vs "fictional". What is the difference between the last two, and what is your definition of the first?

Unless you consider that it's possible to directly perceive, unencumbered by any of these assumptions. Which might turn out to be a very interesting discussion.

What do you mean by "directly perceive"? You perceive and there are mechanisms to perceive even better. If anything, this shows that perception depends upon lots of other things than just opening your eyes. Blind people that get surgery to be able to see report that they continue as blind as before, although they also report that they do see a lot of stuff, colors and light. If directed, they can "see" as well as we can. But they don't. That's because they lack something in their brain. Wanna try to guess what it is?