Metaphysics as an Error

[Luis Dias]

I tell ya dude, data cannot be about nothing.

Yup. Data are about getting out of town before the next hurricane. Maps tell you where the active faults are. Don't want to risk not living through the next earthquake? Move a little farther from the fault zone. Duck hunters set out decoys because decoys are empirical to natural-born ducks.

Data are about the relation between putting your hand on a hot stove and burning your hand. Causality or correlation? I'll tell you which one merits less wibbling.

In other words (since jamest does not seem to read "subtlenessness" very well), data is always about something, something empirical. IOW, data is always about other data. We collect the data that tells us that our sun is as round as a ball. That it is warmer than the fire we produce, and how much so. That there is a room with more moisture than the other. That there are other people, instead of there being no people.

And there was something about "all that exists is data". Again with the metaphysics. It's impressive the amount of silliness from the other side.

[Comte de Saint-Germain]

Hello - I am new to the site so hope I'm not intruding too much.

data has to be about something. It is a language that describes something. You know, a scientist doesn't just observe statistics and formulae - these are the things that he constructs in an attempt to describe the order apparent within this 'thing'.

I very much agree with this.

Everyone does metaphysics. The idea of doing it as a formal exercise may be unpalatable to some, but it's unavoidable.

Not in this thread, but in another thread, Luis Dias brought up the issue of string theory. No to bring it up again, since I think it was adequately dealt with at the time, but I made a final comment about scientists and how they treat science when they are 'doing it'. Scientists don't claim in their journals and in their papers that they are approaching some absolute truth or that they have arrived at some absolute truth. No, they talk about empirical measures, reliability, validity, and about future research, research directions and what is needed to explore concepts and the possibilities of empirical data.

When laymen talk about "John exists, I've seen him, it's the truth", they are using these terms in ways that are pretty much non-metaphysical. and they are more colloquial ways of saying 'John is a living person who I have seen and where my claims are testable research will validate them'. It's possible to 'rewrite' them in non-metaphysical sounding language without any problem.

There are, shortly put, two points to be made. One, it's questionable whether common-day language is used to describe metaphysical states, rather than that people use language that has metaphysical connotations for non-metaphysical events. In other words, like above, they use common language that might sound metaphysical, but when examined really isn't. Second, we are talking about average people. Average people believe in God, and if they don't, they may include 'God-damn' in their everyday language. That doesn't mean we should therewith take it seriously.

I don't need metaphysics either to live or to know, and although I have no problem with anyone joining the discussion - the more the merrier - I do have a problem with what Luis has diagnosed, the idea that I'm 'secretly' metaphysical.

[Kenny Login]

Hi Saint Germain, I agree with most of what you say, although I'm not sure what a non-metaphysical event or an average person is. Surely what we talk about does not exhaust all of what we do, how we think, and the things we experience? Sometimes we are not the best witnesses of ourselves.

I'm intrigued as to what you think makes a 'metaphysician' as opposed to - as you say - someone who does not need metaphysics to live or to know?

"Everyone believes in God, the atheists are just in deniiaaaaal"

You might be right! But in this context, do you think metaphysics is something you can avoid? That would be unusual, no?

[Comte de Saint-Germain]

Hi Saint Germain, I agree with most of what you say, although I'm not sure what a non-metaphysical event or an average person is. Surely what we talk about does not exhaust all of what we do, how we think, and the things we experience? Sometimes we are not the best witnesses of ourselves.

You have never in your life needed God. No one has ever needed God. At the most, people have needed the illusion of God. The same goes for metaphysics.

I'm intrigued as to what you think makes a 'metaphysician' as opposed to - as you say - someone who does not need metaphysics to live or to know?

Ah, you know this. You've been into a bar and this person with no experience or credentials in philosophy begins - when he is drunk - talking about 'what being is'. Then, he is being a metaphysician. He's talking out of his ass.

"Everyone believes in God, the atheists are just in deniiaaaaal"

You might be right! But in this context, do you think metaphysics is something you can avoid? That would be unusual, no?

I don't see why it can't be avoided.

[jamest]

Notwithstanding everything I've already said on this matter, what gets me about this "all is empirical data" malarkey, is that if it were true, then one should experience no more than he correctly knows or understands. That somehow, Einstein's actual vison of the world was much richer than my own, or that I should see a different and more complex world, now, than I did when I was just a small boy. In fact, if we take this stance to its extreme, one cannot help but conclude that new-borns are blind to everything, because they don't understand jack. But I know for a fact that 'the world' was just as vivid a place when I was a small boy, as it is now. Back then, when I knew little, I still experienced everything that there was to experience, regardless of whether I understood it. Back then, understanding came after most experiences, not before them. That is, being ignorant isn't a locked door to experience.

Indeed, one should consider that science is progressive too. Acquiring data comes after, not before, experiencing that which we seek to explain and understand. But that 'thing' was/is there, nevertheless, prior to our understanding of it.

There was probably a time when humanity stared upwards into the night sky and saw angels and Gods where now we see stars. The 'thing' that induced these different constructs of understanding has not changed - it's always been there, more-or-less the same throughout. All that changes is the mental constructs that humanity devises as a means of making sense of that thing. We don't see anything more than our forebears, and they knew very little. Consequently, it cannot be true that the world is reducible to empirical data. What must be true, is that empirical data is reducible to our mental representations of whatever is, and always has been, set before us all.

[SpeedOfSound]

Notwithstanding everything I've already said on this matter, what gets me about this "all is empirical data" malarkey, is that if it were true, then one should experience no more than he correctly knows or understands. That somehow, Einstein's actual vison of the world was much richer than my own, or that I should see a different and more complex world, now, than I did when I was just a small boy. In fact, if we take this stance to its extreme, one cannot help but conclude that new-borns are blind to everything, because they don't understand jack. But I know for a fact that 'the world' was just as vivid a place when I was a small boy, as it is now. Back then, when I knew little, I still experienced everything that there was to experience, regardless of whether I understood it. Back then, understanding came after most experiences, not before them. That is, being ignorant isn't a locked door to experience.

Indeed, one should consider that science is progressive too. Acquiring data comes after, not before, experiencing that which we seek to explain and understand. But that 'thing' was/is there, nevertheless, prior to our understanding of it.

There was probably a time when humanity stared upwards into the night sky and saw angels and Gods where now we see stars. The 'thing' that induced these different constructs of understanding has not changed - it's always been there, more-or-less the same throughout. All that changes is the mental constructs that humanity devises as a means of making sense of that thing. We don't see anything more than our forebears, and they knew very little. Consequently, it cannot be true that the world is reducible to empirical data. What must be true, is that empirical data is reducible to our mental representations of whatever is, and always has been, set before us all.

Bah! It's all data. Probably Stuff and Stuff-not in some geometry of infinite dimension. Just folded up to look good, like balloon animals.

When you were born you had only the barest of consciousness. Your qualia were probably at lot like that gray pablum they feed you. It was the data then that makes you experience the data now. Never more.

[Comte de Saint-Germain]

Notwithstanding everything I've already said on this matter, what gets me about this "all is empirical data" malarkey,

Correct usage of all:

I just bought a new pack of twinkies, and you at them all up!

Incorrect usage of all:

You just ate all the twinkies in existence.


That's not so hard, is it?

[jamest]

Bah! It's all data. Probably Stuff and Stuff-not in some geometry of infinite dimension. Just folded up to look good, like balloon animals.

When you were born you had only the barest of consciousness. Your qualia were probably at lot like that gray pablum they feed you. It was the data then that makes you experience the data now. Never more.

Have you ever opened the pages of a really technical book, say, about quantum mathematics? You will see those words and numbers regardless of whether they mean anything to you. But the thing is, you won't see anything more within those pages if you gradually learn the meaning of the text. You'll just understand more. That is, the qualitative image of the pages remains fixed - its your understanding that is subject to change.

Likewise, a child's vision of the world can be compared to your vision of the book. The qualitative image remains fixed, whilst its understanding forever grows.

[SpeedOfSound]

Bah! It's all data. Probably Stuff and Stuff-not in some geometry of infinite dimension. Just folded up to look good, like balloon animals.

When you were born you had only the barest of consciousness. Your qualia were probably at lot like that gray pablum they feed you. It was the data then that makes you experience the data now. Never more.

Have you ever opened the pages of a really technical book, say, about quantum mathematics? You will see those words and numbers regardless of whether they mean anything to you. But the thing is, you won't see anything more within those pages if you gradually learn the meaning of the text. You'll just understand more. That is, the qualitative image of the pages remains fixed - its your understanding that is subject to change.

Likewise, a child's vision of the world can be compared to your vision of the book. The qualitative image remains fixed, whilst its understanding forever grows.

I'm afraid there is no evidence for your theory.

[Luis Dias]

That is, the qualitative image of the pages remains fixed - its your understanding that is subject to change.

The problem with your assertions is that there are always terms that you simply cannot substantiate, justify. You always assume the conclusion.

In this sentence, you assume a priori that the "image of the pages" has a characteristic named "qualitative". This is bad philosophy, for "image" is an empirical concept, and thus inequivocally trapped to the observer. "Qualitative" begs the question, who's qualifying it?

Imagine that I see a bunch of black dots in a wall. I do not make any sense of it. But a chinese friend of mine recognizes a chinese word out of it. What happened here? What is the "qualitative image" of the black dots?

You are in search of Meaning with a big M, but you'll only find a very deep black well. As you said, "it's turtles all the way down".

[jamest]

Bah! It's all data. Probably Stuff and Stuff-not in some geometry of infinite dimension. Just folded up to look good, like balloon animals.

When you were born you had only the barest of consciousness. Your qualia were probably at lot like that gray pablum they feed you. It was the data then that makes you experience the data now. Never more.

Have you ever opened the pages of a really technical book, say, about quantum mathematics? You will see those words and numbers regardless of whether they mean anything to you. But the thing is, you won't see anything more within those pages if you gradually learn the meaning of the text. You'll just understand more. That is, the qualitative image of the pages remains fixed - its your understanding that is subject to change.

Likewise, a child's vision of the world can be compared to your vision of the book. The qualitative image remains fixed, whilst its understanding forever grows.

I'm afraid there is no evidence for your theory.

Then get your own evidence:

1) Read a technical page from a book about quantum mathematics.
2) Then, write down everything you see on that page.
3) Afterwards, spend a week or two analysing the content of that page and try to improve your understanding of it.
4) Then, again write down what you see on the page.
5) Finally, compare the two written pages that you have produced and see if there is more content on the latter, than the former.

... Therein will be your evidence. You will see nothing extra with increased understanding.

[SpeedOfSound]

Bah! It's all data. Probably Stuff and Stuff-not in some geometry of infinite dimension. Just folded up to look good, like balloon animals.

When you were born you had only the barest of consciousness. Your qualia were probably at lot like that gray pablum they feed you. It was the data then that makes you experience the data now. Never more.

Have you ever opened the pages of a really technical book, say, about quantum mathematics? You will see those words and numbers regardless of whether they mean anything to you. But the thing is, you won't see anything more within those pages if you gradually learn the meaning of the text. You'll just understand more. That is, the qualitative image of the pages remains fixed - its your understanding that is subject to change.

Likewise, a child's vision of the world can be compared to your vision of the book. The qualitative image remains fixed, whilst its understanding forever grows.

I'm afraid there is no evidence for your theory.

Then get your own evidence:

1) Read a technical page from a book about quantum mathematics.
2) Then, write down everything you see on that page.
3) Afterwards, spend a week or two analysing the content of that page and try to improve your understanding of it.
4) Then, again write down what you see on the page.
5) Finally, compare the two written pages that you have produced and see if there is more content on the latter, than the former.

... Therein will be your evidence. You will see nothing extra with increased understanding.

You got the wrong test subject. Have a newborn do this.

[jamest]

Imagine that I see a bunch of black dots in a wall. I do not make any sense of it. But a chinese friend of mine recognizes a chinese word out of it. What happened here? What is the "qualitative image" of the black dots?

You know what I'm getting at, whether or not you like my choice of words. That is, you won't see anything more than you did before, once you come to understand the meaning of those dots.

Perhaps see my previous post to SOS for emphasis.

[jamest]

You got the wrong test subject. Have a newborn do this.

The point is lost on you. That point being that increased understanding won't change what you are looking at regardless of your age. What applies to the book applies to 'the world'.

[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.