Metaphysics as an Error

[Azathoth]

[Surendra Darathy]

The same way as how we distinguish dream from waking; by comparison.

Comparison of what? How do you tell dream from waking?

Contrast and compare: Death and waking. Death and dreaming. The differences should tell you something, because the differences between dreaming and waking are much smaller than the differences of either of those from death.

Death is the trace of the absent presence. Or it is the trace of the presence of absence, or the absence of presence. It's the impossibility of possibility.

[Kenny Login]

No one wants to touch jamest's argument. I quit reading after the ii.

The only thing that is a "faux pas" is to refer to a "personal empirical programme". It is like referring to a square circle. All it does is bend semantics instead of spoons.

I think it's understandable that no one committed to positivism really wants to touch the 'i' with a barge pole. Hard materialists jump through hoops to sidestep the juicy bits and hope no one notices. It's easy to dismiss things as 'word salad' in favour of truth statements derived from a formalised language, but everyone indulges in a bit of word salad when it happens to suit them.

[Luis Dias]

I think it's understandable that no one committed to positivism really wants to touch the 'i' with a barge pole. Hard materialists jump through hoops to sidestep the juicy bits and hope no one notices. It's easy to dismiss things as 'word salad' in favour of truth statements derived from a formalised language, but everyone indulges in a bit of word salad when it happens to suit them.

I'm still waiting for a good argument. You guys are boring me....

[Kenny Login]

The problem I see there is that our knowledge is not founded on the "something", it is founded on empirical data. We know nothing of the "something" except the data. "radiation" is a model of empirical data - physics. How do you go from physics to metaphysics, other than by cutting yourself off from the empirical basis of knowledge and just inventing stories?

I wasn't asking what the "thing" is, I was asking what basis you could have to say anything about the "thing in itself", or "absolute truth of it"?

Hi Graham, the question of what the 'thing in itself' is is only an oddity if metaphysics is assumed to be an esoteric discipline entirely divorced from the empirical, and one based mostly on beard stroking. Not saying that this is your view, but as a caricature it's pretty commonplace. I think your statement "we know nothing of the 'something' except the data" is an interesting one.

Empirical knowledge runs into problems when the data isn't easily digested. Then I think metaphysics becomes like the proverbial elephant in the room.

[Little Idiot]

LI, suppose I claim 'Gravity is an unchanging fundamental force', then conclude 'Gravity is timeless', have I said anything worth saying?

If you prove gravity is a force, that would be a start.
Oh but thats one pet mystery of mine and physics in general, WTF is gravity...DERAIL halt!

I'm not making that claim, merely using it as an example of why your "absolute truth" claim is useless. Your own response should guide you. First "prove absolute truth exists" and show how you can say anything meaningful about it.

How would you distinguish "absolute truth" from "absolute nonsense"?

How about :
D1 Absolute truth is ineffable
...

The same way as how we distinguish dream from waking; by comparison.

Comparison of what? How do you tell dream from waking?

When awake, you compare the dream and waking state, but in the dream you think the dream is real because the waking world is not there to compare.
Easy.

[Luis Dias]

The problem I see there is that our knowledge is not founded on the "something", it is founded on empirical data. We know nothing of the "something" except the data. "radiation" is a model of empirical data - physics. How do you go from physics to metaphysics, other than by cutting yourself off from the empirical basis of knowledge and just inventing stories?

I wasn't asking what the "thing" is, I was asking what basis you could have to say anything about the "thing in itself", or "absolute truth of it"?

Hi Graham, the question of what the 'thing in itself' is is only an oddity if metaphysics is assumed to be an esoteric discipline entirely divorced from the empirical, and one based mostly on beard stroking.

I always assume what I conclude previously.... that's kinda of my Modus Operandi. Metaphysicians do it the other way around...

Not saying that this is your view, but as a caricature it's pretty commonplace. I think your statement "we know nothing of the 'something' except the data" is an interesting one.

Yes, it's called "information theory". Look it up.

Empirical knowledge runs into problems when the data isn't easily digested. Then I think metaphysics becomes like the proverbial elephant in the room.

Give some examples, justify this assertion. Handwaving assertions like that is considered trolling in this thread so you know...

[Little Idiot]

The same way as how we distinguish dream from waking; by comparison.

Comparison of what? How do you tell dream from waking?

Ah, I see we are approaching a definition of "knowledge" that is not much different from the definition of "information" in information theory. Comparison is the hobgoblin of universal minds. They have nothing to compare themselves to, and so have nothing to know.

There is a big cipher at the center of mentalism because mentalism is a circle that consists only of its center. This is also known as a "degenerate condition".

There is nothing comparable to timeless, by its very nature as non-dual there is no second thing. Comparison is very good in the world of things, but such dualistic concepts are useless in the contemplation of timeless - oh you dont do contemplation, do you?

[Surendra Darathy]

There is nothing comparable to timeless, by its very nature as non-dual there is no second thing. Comparison is very good in the world of things, but such dualistic concepts are useless in the contemplation of timeless - oh you dont do contemplation, do you?

Contemplation? Oh. You mean "navel gazing". Time passes quickly when you're having fun.

by its very nature as non-dual there is no second thing

Just so you know, hand-waving ex recto assertions are regarded as trolling in this thread. All you've done there is to construct a feeble tautology between "non-dual" and "no second thing".

What the fuck is it that makes you think that wordplay is such a simple business after solving differential equations? The key to entertaining wordplay is to be adept with words.

When awake, you compare the dream and waking state, but in the dream you think the dream is real because the waking world is not there to compare.

Why do you think the dream world is available in the waking state but not the reverse? This says something rather significant about the waking state, and I think you are making an arbitrary (or ex recto) assertion based on prejudices you hold but which are not shared by others. Both are states of the brain.

Since neuroscientists have a more sophisticated model than this, you appear to be talking out of your arse again.

[Little Idiot]

...

I have dealt with your objection.
I showed how I dont define it as timeless, I define it as changeless IF it exists, and how I use if-then logic to show it is timeless, if it exists.

Now you still need to defend against my point above, we were doing metaphysics, gaining knowledge, and proving that metaphysics can be done by doing it.

still QED

FFS! what "knowledge" is gained by defining X as changeless then concluding that X is timeless?? It says nothing about X! You are merely pissing around with definitions of changeless = timeless.

FFS why are you pretending not to recognize one of the basic lodical arguments?
If a is a P and all P's are Q then a is Q
If absolute truth is changeless, and all changeless things are timeless the absolute truth is timeless.

This is valid logic.

[Luis Dias]

...

I have dealt with your objection.
I showed how I dont define it as timeless, I define it as changeless IF it exists, and how I use if-then logic to show it is timeless, if it exists.

Now you still need to defend against my point above, we were doing metaphysics, gaining knowledge, and proving that metaphysics can be done by doing it.

still QED

FFS! what "knowledge" is gained by defining X as changeless then concluding that X is timeless?? It says nothing about X! You are merely pissing around with definitions of changeless = timeless.

FFS why are you pretending not to recognize one of the basic lodical arguments?
If a is a P and all P's are Q then a is Q
If absolute truth is changeless, and all changeless things are timeless the absolute truth is timeless.

This is valid logic.

If P=Q, then Q=P. METAPHYSICS IS DARFORE TRUE!!!!111!!ONE!!!ELEVEN!!11!1!! (orgasm)

[Surendra Darathy]

FFS why are you pretending not to recognize one of the basic lodical arguments?
If a is a P and all P's are Q then a is Q
If absolute truth is changeless, and all changeless things are timeless the absolute truth is timeless.

This is valid logic.

If P=Q, then Q=P. METAPHYSICS IS DARFORE TRUE!!!!111!!ONE!!!ELEVEN!!11!1!! (orgasm)

[Little Idiot]

No, you simply defined "Absolute Truth" to be "Timeless".

You can remove "Absolute truth" from your informal syllogism and it makes as much tautological sense. Something unchanging can be described as "timeless".

What you seem to think you have shown is that "Absolute Truth" is unchanging, but you haven't. You have said nothing meaningful about "absolute truth".

As I just said to SD,
The point that absolute truth can not change, therefore is changeless, therefore is timeless - as you say same as anything else which is changeless - is the very starting point from which we go on.

However, can you give any examples of these 'other' things that dont change, and therefore qualify as changeless and timeless?

If not, we may be forced to agree this is a unique property of absolute truth, no?

Both I and Graham see exactly what your problem is, Little Idiot. Your understanding of the differences between premises, conclusions, and definitions is apparently hopelessly bollixed.

You've defined absolute truth as changeless.

You need premises and definitions about truth, and about existence, even if only to compare that which exists to that which doesn't exist.

Off we go, then.

Defn: Absolute: "unchanging, permanent, indelible, constant, etc."
Defn: Statement: "an expression in a written or spoken language"

P1: The property of existence for a true statement is that it has been stated
P2: Truth must be stated in natural language.
P3: Natural language is not unchanging.
C: Absolute truth cannot be stated in natural language.

We could go on by defining metaphysics in such a way as that it consists of absolute truths, and so on.

Mine was a hypothetical, remember.
So, I dont think this point applies to my version.

You lack understanding that hypotheticals are not available to you until you already have some axioms. I don't see the point of making axioms conditional. It fails as a technique of formal logic, but your logic is informal, i.e., nonsense.

Axioms are defined as statements assumed to be true. If you don't want to be guilty of a fallacy, don't set up your conclusion as one of your axioms.

Edit: Complete elision about definitions and premises.

As I am not claiming to be presenting a formal logic argument, I do not need to present axioms used in formal logic.
Just because 'you dont see the point' of starting with a conditional is poor grounds on which to say it is an unreasonable start, in fact I have shown it is a very reasonable start.
I am using a synthesis of reason and logic.

It is reasonable to start with a conditional, so I may. It is logical to progress by 'informal logic' as long as the presented arguments are reasonable and the conclusions follow from the premise then the process is ligitamate.

If I say a is a swan, all swans are birds, therefore a is a bird, this is what we refer to as informal logic. It remains true if a exists or if a is a fictional entity in a story, or an imagination in my mind.
This is exactly what I am doing, with a= absolute truth, swan = changeless, bird = timeless.

I suggest absolute truth needs to be changeless because if it is not, then it is not absolute and therefore the condition of not changing is essential to being 'absolute' truth. Therefore it is a reasonable statement.

It logically follows from the argument that it is timeless, because the argument adds information (that all changeless are timeless) just like all swans are birds
.
I start with an if, because I am not asserting the existence of absolute truth.It is reasonable to examine the properties of the hypothetical truth under consideration.

But being hypothetical does not stop me moving my understanding of absolute truth forward, as long as I take clear and reasonable steps i.e. gaining knowledge of the essential requirements of the currently hypothetical absolute truth is possible. And enquirng into (and finding out about) absolute truth is metaphysics, by any definition of metaphysics.

You can talk about axioms as much as you like, but I have demonstrated an increasing understanding of what absolute truth must be like if it is real. I have shown you metaphysics, and you have been involved in it.

I have done so in a self-consistent way, without self contradiction, in a reasonable way. I have done so without introducing anything not reasonable, and without introducing new definitions or words. I have used no methods which are not instantly recognizable as standard logical steps, and have begun to exchange and develop an understanding of absolute truth beyond emperical method. I have demonstrated to you the start of metaphysics, and have pulled nothing from my ass, I have used clear and reasonable steps at each stage.

Now which part of this can you find fault with?

[Little Idiot]

LI, suppose I claim 'Gravity is an unchanging fundamental force', then conclude 'Gravity is timeless', have I said anything worth saying?

If you prove gravity is a force, that would be a start.
Oh but thats one pet mystery of mine and physics in general, WTF is gravity...DERAIL halt!

I'm not making that claim, merely using it as an example of why your "absolute truth" claim is useless. Your own response should guide you. First "prove absolute truth exists" and show how you can say anything meaningful about it.

How would you distinguish "absolute truth" from "absolute nonsense"?

How about :
D1 Absolute truth is ineffable
...

recall I did say what it would be like without proving its existence. Thats why I started with 'if'

Logic allows if then statements.

If T is changeless, and all changeless things are timeless, then T is timeless. This is allowed in logic. And it is allowed regardless of having to prove the T is real, or exists.

Yes, yes, yes,
IF X is changeless THEN X is timeless,
but can you show that "Absolute Truth" is changeless/timeless? You haven't do so yet. All you have done is define it to be so.

Reason shows us that if absolute truth exists it must be beyond the very possibility of changing, because if it changes it is not absolute. This is why it is changeless, because it must be beyond change to be absolute.

[Little Idiot]

...

I have dealt with your objection.
I showed how I dont define it as timeless, I define it as changeless IF it exists, and how I use if-then logic to show it is timeless, if it exists.

Now you still need to defend against my point above, we were doing metaphysics, gaining knowledge, and proving that metaphysics can be done by doing it.

still QED

FFS! what "knowledge" is gained by defining X as changeless then concluding that X is timeless?? It says nothing about X! You are merely pissing around with definitions of changeless = timeless.

FFS why are you pretending not to recognize one of the basic lodical arguments?
If a is a P and all P's are Q then a is Q
If absolute truth is changeless, and all changeless things are timeless the absolute truth is timeless.

This is valid logic.

If P=Q, then Q=P. METAPHYSICS IS DARFORE TRUE!!!!111!!ONE!!!ELEVEN!!11!1!! (orgasm)

Obviously you guys are focussing on the one point where it is timeless, but there is also the other points - empericalism can not aquire or reach absoluute truch but other methods (or synthesis of methods) may be able to do so.

So your parody misses 2 out of the 3 things I have established.
Any one of which by the way is enough to prove metaphysics is possible, and the proof is by demonstration. Enquiry into the absolute truth, and making statements about the absolute truth is metaphysics.