Metaphysics as an Error

[jamest]

you must first demonstrate that science can make claims about the supra-empirical, or that metaphysics is actually explained by the empirical itself, whichever fits your fancy.

Actually, there are certain aspects of QM which may allude to a metaphysical reality. For instance, it is arguable that the phenomenon of quantum nonlocality, or entanglement, pertains to an indivisible and essentially spaceless reality, which of course is at odds with what is apparent. But since such claims are essentially reason-dependent and cannot be empirically verified (for obvious reasons), it is clear that the current methodology of science prevents it from making such claims as these. In other words, it would have to be a philosopher that made such claims.

What is not obvious, is the kind of logic a sceptic such as yourself might employ to reject such a claim. Unless it's your philosophy to just willy nilly reject everything.

[Luis Dias]

you must first demonstrate that science can make claims about the supra-empirical, or that metaphysics is actually explained by the empirical itself, whichever fits your fancy.

Actually, there are certain aspects of QM which may allude to a metaphysical reality. For instance, it is arguable that the phenomenon of quantum nonlocality, or entanglement, pertains to an indivisible and essentially spaceless reality, which of course is at odds with what is apparent.

You have a queer definition of "apparent", since "apparently", non locality "appears" to be the case, thus it's not at "odds" with the "apparent" state of affairs.

IOW, observations are not at odds with observations.

Get it?

But since such claims are essentially reason-dependent and cannot be empirically verified (for obvious reasons), it is clear that the current methodology of science prevents it from making such claims as these. In other words, it would have to be a philosopher that made such claims.

Yes, because philo-gazers have "Special sauce" that enables them to utter things that scientists "Can't" say. The sheer snobbish and arrogance within this line of thought completely escapes those philo-gazers who draw the frontiers to what they can or cannot say, by "thought" alone.

They are exactly akin to the theologians. What was it said about theology? "The infinite amount of nonsense one can say about nothing"?

What is not obvious, is the kind of logic a sceptic such as yourself might employ to reject such a claim. Unless it's your philosophy to just willy nilly reject everything.[/quote]

[jamest]

you must first demonstrate that science can make claims about the supra-empirical, or that metaphysics is actually explained by the empirical itself, whichever fits your fancy.

Actually, there are certain aspects of QM which may allude to a metaphysical reality. For instance, it is arguable that the phenomenon of quantum nonlocality, or entanglement, pertains to an indivisible and essentially spaceless reality, which of course is at odds with what is apparent.

You have a queer definition of "apparent", since "apparently", non locality "appears" to be the case, thus it's not at "odds" with the "apparent" state of affairs.

IOW, observations are not at odds with observations.

Get it?

Clearly, a reality that is indivisible and spaceless is at odds with what seems apparent from our senses - a world divided by space.

But since such claims are essentially reason-dependent and cannot be empirically verified (for obvious reasons), it is clear that the current methodology of science prevents it from making such claims as these. In other words, it would have to be a philosopher that made such claims.

Yes, because philo-gazers have "Special sauce" that enables them to utter things that scientists "Can't" say. The sheer snobbish and arrogance within this line of thought completely escapes those philo-gazers who draw the frontiers to what they can or cannot say, by "thought" alone.

You're being silly and difficult for the sake of it. If a methodology demands verification via observation and indivisibility cannot be verified with observation, then it can only be verified by reason (philosophy) - which isn't necessarily limited to verifying facts via observation.

[Luis Dias]

Clearly, a reality that is indivisible and spaceless is at odds with what seems apparent from our senses - a world divided by space.

Define "senses". Do they include microscopes? Particle accelerators? Dual slit experiments?

You are confusing empiricism with "I can't see it without my glasses, it doesn't exist" kindof epistemology, which is just ignorance anyway.

Appearances include dual slit experiments too. Didn't you know?

You're being silly and difficult for the sake of it. If a methodology demands verification via observation and indivisibility cannot be verified with observation, then it can only be verified by reason (philosophy)

WRONG conclusion. If it cannot be verified via observation, it's considered a SILLY UTTERANCE and dismissed as such. It's nothing but obfuscating material. What do you even mean by "indivisible"? Do you even understand the meaning of your words? Or are you talking poetry?

...which isn't necessarily limited to verifying facts via observation.

If you can't verify or falsify it, it doesn't interest me. It may interest to the ones that like to play word games. Myself, I prefer chess.

[RebeccaSmick]

What would be the advantage of adopting a Pyrrhonian view?

[Luis Dias]

What would be the advantage of adopting a Pyrrhonian view?

You'd deprive yourself of uttering things you cannot possibly know to be the case.

IOW, it's an exercise of parsimony, humility and reason.

[RebeccaSmick]

RebeccaSmick"What would be the advantage of adopting a Pyrrhonian view?

You'd deprive yourself of uttering things you cannot possibly know to be the case.

That includes quite a bit of 'things' doesn't it?

IOW, it's an exercise of parsimony, humility and reason.

Reason is a poor tool according to Jerome. Parsimony is good.

Pyrrho is reputed to have been a man of remarkable calmness and humility, and
evidently it was thought by his admirers that these qualities arose from his refusal
to commit himself to dogmatic claims.

Now, remarkable calmness and humility could be attributes worth striving for,
but is this what's been shown in the comments here in this thread and over at
the RDF thread?

[RebeccaSmick]

Jerome I'm not sure that you gave proper credit for this when you said it over at RDF in one of your postings.
I don't even know if it needs to be credited, but just in case.

Whitmanesque: "Do I contradict myself? Very well then I contradict myself, (I am large, I contain multitudes)."

[Luis Dias]

RebeccaSmick"What would be the advantage of adopting a Pyrrhonian view?

You'd deprive yourself of uttering things you cannot possibly know to be the case.

That includes quite a bit of 'things' doesn't it?

YES! And ain't that grand!

IOW, it's an exercise of parsimony, humility and reason.

Reason is a poor tool according to Jerome. Parsimony is good.

Jerôme disagrees with you there. All I have ever heard him say is, it's not a perfect tool (thus not capable of finding "TRUTH").

Pyrrho is reputed to have been a man of remarkable calmness and humility, and evidently it was thought by his admirers that these qualities arose from his refusal to commit himself to dogmatic claims.

Now, remarkable calmness and humility could be attributes worth striving for, but is this what's been shown in the comments here in this thread and over at the RDF thread?

There's a difference between being calm and humble in what concerns to matters of fact, and be calm and humble when confronted with idiotic, unjustifiable, and eternally present, never-ending metaphysical diatribes, specially when argued with strawmans, promises to "siege the castle of science" (seriously), red herrings, clear misrepresentations, etc., etc.

Anyways, we are here mainly for entertainment purposes. And jamest and LI are frustrating to deal with.

[Comte de Saint-Germain]

There's nothing about non-locality that implies metaphysics or the possibility of metaphysics. Non-locality is simply a method of accounting for data. The fundamental problem of data, and the fundamental limitations thereof stand. Even when we are talking about rather elementary processes, that doesn't mean that they somehow transcend empiricism.
When the multiverse becomes falsifiable, it's no longer metaphysics.

[logical bob]

This idea that avoiding metaphysics is a metaphysical position seems akin to saying atheism is a religion or ignoring the board a strategy in chess.

[Luis Dias]

This idea that avoiding metaphysics is a metaphysical position seems akin to saying atheism is a religion or ignoring the board a strategy in chess.

Exactly. Intelligent people get it in no time.

[Surendra Darathy]

We just need NE now, and that other guy with the dodgy tash.

Who, me?

I'm clean-shaven, at the moment, alas. It's nice to see everything as it should be, with Jerôme on the left and you on the right:



Or, perhaps:

I was going to ask if I missed anything, but it appears it is all over except for the jiggery-pokery.

Hail and well-met, all old school chums! Now to catch up the thread. I'm skimming.

[Surendra Darathy]

This idea that avoiding metaphysics is a metaphysical position seems akin to saying atheism is a religion or ignoring the board a strategy in chess.

Exactly. Intelligent people get it in no time.

Hey, I caught that business about the move of the knight. He moves one square adjacent and then one square diagonally.

Now back to avoiding metaphysics. There's also a thread about female ejaculation, and whether it tastes good or feels good on the skin, and how large a damp spot it might make. For those who really wish to avoid metaphysics, try "meatphysics".

[jamest]

There's nothing about non-locality that implies metaphysics or the possibility of metaphysics. Non-locality is simply a method of accounting for data.

But that data infers that the essence of what we are observing is indivisible/spaceless. Clearly, this is at-odds with the notion of 'a world of things' that are separated/divisible by space, as per our observations of that realm.

The fundamental problem of data, and the fundamental limitations thereof stand. Even when we are talking about rather elementary processes, that doesn't mean that they somehow transcend empiricism.

But if data presents itself to reason that must logically render the realm of observation as indivisible/spaceless - as it so clearly does in the case of nonlocality/entanglement - then that data DOES transcend the notion that 'every thing' is separated... by concepts such as space & time, or space-time.

You asked for a theory in science that might point to a metaphysic/reality beyond that which is perceived/observed. The fact is that that which is perceived IS divisible/separated. Whereas, that which can be discerned, via the scientific knowledge imparted to us - ('nonlocality'), is not.

... That is, current [QM] science is at-odds with the actual existence of a divided and separated reality. That is, current science hints at a unified and indivisible reality, regardless of what seems apparent: a divisible realm full of different entities.

As I've said, 'science' itself cannot say these things, because of a self-imposed limiting methodology that requires observational verification. In other words, science is metaphysically impotent. And if anybody requires to know what scientific results mean with regards 'reality', then it is clear that such an individual would have to transcend this requirement for observational verification. That is, such an individual would have to turn his back upon science, at this juncture.