Metaphysics as an Error

[Surendra Darathy]

On our side is parsimony and wit!

Brevity is the soul of parsimony; levity is the soul of wit. Tautology is the soul of tautology.

I hope at least somebody gets 'round to noting the thematic unity in the post I made just prior to this one, linking the flux notions of Heraclitus to the nonsense of the woo-heads' "eternal undivided moment of pure experience".

[SpeedOfSound]

QED its a wrap. Right?

Don't use big words until you learn to argue with logic and reason. It's embarrassing. You apparently have not understood a thing in my recent posts.

There is a difference between 'dont understand' and 'dont agree with.'

Would be cool if you answered my questions here: http://www.rationalia.com/forum/viewtop ... 44#p376844 I really want to know where you want to go with the math thing.

I'm willing to concede that math and Brane theory could be called META physics. If you like. It kind of extends the range of physics a bit but what the hell.

So using math and Penrose's theories Justify jamest's three E's. Show me the reasoning and try to make it really connect formally.

E (where E = empirical world).

Now, there are only three possible metaphysics to associate with E:

(i) E is the totality of all that is.
(ii) E is reducible to something else (S) that is different to E. That is, S is the essence of E.
(iii) E is not the totality of all that is, so that S different to E also exists.

Regarding 'causality', logic can generate truisms for each scenario:

(i) Causality exists within E. That is, if E is the totality of all that is, then the constituent parts of E must be interacting with an order commensurate with that understood by science.
(ii) E has been caused by S (which might be a plural, at this juncture). This must be the case, because if E does not exist, except as an appearance reducible to S, there must be a reason (cause) for E.
(iii) Causality exists within E (see (i) for explanation). Alternatively, S is effecting/causing the order discerned within E.

[Kenny Login]

Ah, sure. And Astronomy studies things that have been studied in Astrology in the past. Chemistry studies things that were studied in Alchemy. This doesn't mean that "Astrology" or "Alchemy" is still an interesting field of study nowadays.

Let's call it a closed field. Or, IOW, a way of dealing with questions that is obsolete.

Well, that would be nice to believe. Unfortunately though that way of dealing with questions hasn't been consigned to the historical dustbin just yet. Studies of consciousness should tell you that metaphysical issues are very much alive in empirical study. It might not be to your personal taste, but that's another matter.

Neuroscience, albeit still far from "important" answers (although having interesting answers all the way and all the years), seems to me as far more powerful a tool than navel-gazing. I'd say, the difference between a nuclear engineer and a medieval druid.

That's a crude distinction. You're talking about nuclear scientists and medieval druids as if there were no intermediaries. Were we all scrabbling around in the mud banging rocks together before MRI scans were invented? (btw I mentioned cog sci, not neuroscience).

(btw I didn't talk about 'intolerable' positivists. I said positivists find metaphysical issues 'intolerable'.)

It means exactly the same thing.

Come on Luis, I hope you can see the difference both in normal language and logical terms. I hope.

[SpeedOfSound]

...

I think it was something that you said that inspired my new bumper sticker.

Yes I know my car is mostly empty space
but you're not a fucking neutrino
so get off my ASS!!

[Matthew Shute]

On our side is parsimony and wit!

Brevity is the soul of parsimony; levity is the soul of wit. Tautology is the soul of tautology.

Nyarlathotep is the soul of chaos. Betcha didn't know that! The soul of uproar is bellowing children.

I hope at least somebody gets 'round to noting the thematic unity in the post I made just prior to this one, linking the flux notions of Heraclitus to the nonsense of the woo-heads' "eternal undivided moment of pure experience".

Noted!

[Surendra Darathy]

Unfortunately though that way of dealing with questions hasn't been consigned to the historical dustbin just yet.

I'm not entirely sure what the formal name of this fallacy is. It has to do with the feeble argument that if at least one other person in the world copycats a fallacy, then it isn't a fallacy. So I guess it's "Argumentum ad populam" for you, Kenny. Read Kuhn's "The structure of scientific revolutions" and get back to us.

You seem to have more going on upstairs than should justify clinging to a feeble emotional plea like this one. Please say it ain't so.

Studies of consciousness should tell you that metaphysical issues are very much alive in empirical study.

I mentioned cog sci, not neuroscience

Wrong. Anyone with a metaphysical axe to grind may engage in unbridled speculation. Surely "cog sci" is not just a feeble re-branding of "metaphysics"! A maxim of computing is "Garbage in, garbage out". Furthermore, there are people so enamoured of duplicating concert-hall sound with a digital CD and good electronics that they seem to have forgotten about a term called "lossy compression". Want to go around applying informatics to cognition? Don't forget to bring information theory with you.

I find your lack of precision disturbing.

[Kenny Login]

Unfortunately though that way of dealing with questions hasn't been consigned to the historical dustbin just yet.

I'm not entirely sure what the formal name of this fallacy is. It has to do with the feeble argument that if at least one other person in the world copycats a fallacy, then it isn't a fallacy. So I guess it's "Argumentum ad populam" for you, Kenny.

Ah, it could well be. If it is, it's a fallacy being repeated in most empirical programmes. If you're not happy with it, then by all means come up with a 'purified' empiricism, whatever that would look like. I'd be very interested to see.

Wrong. Anyone with a metaphysical axe to grind may engage in unbridled speculation. Surely "cog sci" is not just a feeble re-branding of "metaphysics"!

I doubt it too. Are we actually agreeing on something?

I find your lack of precision disturbing.

Don't be disturbed. You might be relying too heavily on precision as an ideal. Just relax and breathe, all is well.

[Surendra Darathy]

Unfortunately though that way of dealing with questions hasn't been consigned to the historical dustbin just yet.

I'm not entirely sure what the formal name of this fallacy is. It has to do with the feeble argument that if at least one other person in the world copycats a fallacy, then it isn't a fallacy. So I guess it's "Argumentum ad populam" for you, Kenny.

Ah, it could well be. If it is, it's a fallacy being repeated in most empirical programmes. If you're not happy with it, then by all means come up with a 'purified' empiricism, whatever that would look like. I'd be very interested to see.

Scientists plainly separate the presentation of their data from their interpretations of it. They also present their statistical methodology, so that readers can conclude for themselves whether the presenters are doing more than simply "massaging" their data. When the data reduction is not presented clearly, as with, say, statistical summaries of purported studies of paranormal phenomena, one can easily conclude that the presenters are charlatans.

It is also plainly visible when an article contains only interpretation and no data. If you want to wibble about the definition of "data", then go ahead and wibble. It's all the same to me.

I think your statement about "most empirical programmes" is blatant prevarication. That is to say, in that statement you are talking out of your arse. If you don't understand the difference between persisting in yammering about metaphysical wibbles, and discussing data sets that have been presented with measures of their quality, well, then you don't.

Don't be disturbed. You might be relying too heavily on precision as an ideal. Just relax and breathe, all is well.

Well, for some people, passive-aggression is an ideal. Don't imagine it cannot be detected. "All is well"? That sounds vaguely Anglican to me. The "relax and breathe" part is more Unitarian-Universalist, but let's not quibble. It reduces overall serenity.

Luis will like the following, at least as apropós of serenity:

Águas de Março

"É pau, é pedra,
é o fim do caminho
É um resto de toco,
é um pouco sozinho

É um caco de vidro,
é a vida, é o sol
É a noite, é a morte,
é o laço, é o anzol

É peroba do campo,
é o nó da madeira
Caingá candeia,
é o matita-pereira

É madeira de vento,
tombo da ribanceira
É o mistério profundo,
é o queira ou não queira

É o vento ventando,
é o fim da ladeira
É a viga, é o vão,
festa da cumeeira

É a chuva chovendo,
é conversa ribeira
Das águas de março,
é o fim da canseira

É o pé, é o chão,
é a marcha estradeira
Passarinho na mão,
pedra de atiradeira

É uma ave no céu,
é uma ave no chão
É um regato, é uma fonte,
é um pedaço de pão

É o fundo do poço,
é o fim do caminho
No rosto o desgosto,
é um pouco sozinho

É um estrepe, é um prego,
é uma ponta, é um ponto
É um pingo pingando,
é uma conta, é um conto

É um peixe, é um gesto,
é uma prata brilhando
É a luz da manhã,
é o tijolo chegando

É a lenha, é o dia,
é o fim da picada
É a garrafa de cana,
o estilhaço na estrada

É o projeto da casa,
é o corpo na cama
É o carro enguiçado,
é a lama, é a lama

É um passo, é uma ponte,
é um sapo, é uma rã
É um resto de mato,
na luz da manhã

São as águas de março
fechando o verão
É a promessa de vida
no teu coração

É uma cobra, é um pau,
é João, é José
É um espinho na mão,
é um corte no pé

São as águas de março
fechando o verão
É a promessa de vida
no teu coração

É pau, é pedra,
é o fim do caminho
É um resto de toco,
é um pouco sozinho

É um passo, é uma ponte,
é um sapo, é uma rã
É um belo horizonte,
é uma febre terçã

São as águas de março
fechando o verão
É a promessa de vida
no teu coração"

[Luis Dias]

Tom Jobin and all the Bossanova style are all very dear to me, Surendra!

Ah joy!

[Little Idiot]

PS: Godel means that:

If an axiomatic system can be proven to be consistent and complete from within itself, then it is inconsistent.

I.e., any quest to search "absolute truth" is destroyed by this proved theorem.

Or the search is conducted without a formal symbolic language, which is all the theorem of Godel actually concerns, as you well know - assuming you know about the theorem.

Simply put Godels incompleteness theorem does not prevent the absolute truth from existing, nor being found, nor being stated. It does prevent the statement of absolute truth (not the existence there-of) if and only if a single formal language is used.
For example, a combination of two or more fully formal languages could state absolute truth without contradicion of Godel. Not that I am saying this is the case, just that Godel does not prevent iy, as you seem to wrongly suggest.

[Surendra Darathy]

For example, a combination of two or more fully formal languages could state absolute truth without contradicion of Godel.

Well, Gödel was not stating propositions in modal logic, as you seem inclined, and Pannenberg, too. So all your effort is wasted, unless you want to do a dissertation on how modal logic is not dependent on its own axioms.

Bring on the Yablo Conceivability! Hey, would Yablo me?

Simply put Godels incompleteness theorem does not prevent the absolute truth from existing

You seem mainly concerned in possible statements, rather than in making any unqualified and unwibbled statements. You want absolutes? Don't fucking wibble about them! This will involve Pannenberg's failed approach of declaring the existence of anything that is not impossible. The wibbler sidles up to "non-impossibility" with a shit-eating grin ("non-impossibility is not the same as "possibility", since the wibbler is much more confident of something that is "not impossible" than of something that is only "possible"). The shit-eating grin sidling approach is "non-contradiction". On the other hand, there is evidence.

Or the search is conducted without a formal symbolic language

This is the technique of reaching down one's pants and finding one's pudenda! Brilliant, yet still empirical!

[Little Idiot]

For example, a combination of two or more fully formal languages could state absolute truth without contradicion of Godel.

Well, Gödel was not stating propositions in modal logic, as you seem inclined, and Pannenberg, too. So all your effort is wasted, unless you want to do a dissertation on how modal logic is not dependent on its own axioms.

Bring on the Yablo Conceivability! Hey, would Yablo me?

Simply put Godels incompleteness theorem does not prevent the absolute truth from existing

You seem mainly concerned in possible statements, rather than in making any unqualified and unwibbled statements. You want absolutes? Don't fucking wibble about them! This will involve Pannenberg's failed approach of declaring the existence of anything that is not impossible. The wibbler sidles up to "non-impossibility" with a shit-eating grin ("non-impossibility is not the same as "possibility", since the wibbler is much more confident of something that is "not impossible" than of something that is only "possible"). The shit-eating grin sidling approach is "non-contradiction". On the other hand, there is evidence.

I am simply showing that Godel does not mean that absolute truth is impossible.
I mention using two formal languages simply to show how limited in scope the theorem actually is. Even the using formal language, which is all it applies to we could state absolute truth.
I am not here attepting to produce absolute truth, thats not Luis' point. He wrongly states Godel prevents a statement of absolute truth.

You want a positive statement about absolute truth?
I know that what ever I say you will dismiss as woo BS etc, so I set it out semi formally for you and say dismiss this if you can do so properly;

(T1)
P1 If there is absolute truth, it must not change, or it is not absolute.
P2 Everything in time changes
C1 Absolute truth is not in time.

(T2)
P3 Emperical method is concerned only with observations made in space and time
P4 Observations made in space and time can only concern objects of space and time
C2 Emperical method can not aquire absolute truth.

(T3)
P5 (T2) only applies to emperical method
P6 Other methods of knowing exist
C3 Absolute truth may be obtainable by other methods or a synthesis of methods.

This can be stated informally as
Absolute truth is unchanging, and therefore is not in time, nor the space-time world. Therefore emperical method concerned only with observations made in space and time will never be able to aquire absolute truth.
This does not imply absolute truth is impossible for all methods of knowing, only that it is impossible for emperical method to reach it. Other methods or a synthesis of methods may reach absolute truth.

Or the search is conducted without a formal symbolic language

This is the technique of reaching down one's pants and finding one's pudenda! Brilliant, yet still empirical!

Rubbish, Godel does not apply to normal language. We can simply use normal language, or technical language neither of which is a formal symbolic language, and thus neither normal or technical language is touched by Godel.
Some who dont understand Godel say 'ah you cant have absolute truth because of Godel' which is simply wrong. Do you agree with me or not?

[Surendra Darathy]

Some who dont understand Godel say 'ah you cant have absolute truth because of Godel' which is simply wrong. Do you agree with me or not?

I've eliminated almost all of your wasted effort, Little Idiot. You cannot have absolute truth because you cannot state it.

Look at your bullshit:

P1 If there is absolute truth, it must not change, or it is not absolute.
P2 Everything in time changes
C1 Absolute truth is not in time.

You've only stated that the unchanging does not change. This is not an achievement. Did you think you would not meet intelligent individuals online?

Look, LI: I like Yorkshiremen, if only as a prejudice based on the fact that Lawrence's character of Mellors spoke like a Yorkshireman. But please, don't try to do wordplay with me.

[Luis Dias]

Some who dont understand Godel say 'ah you cant have absolute truth because of Godel' which is simply wrong. Do you agree with me or not?

I've eliminated almost all of your wasted effort, Little Idiot. You cannot have absolute truth because you cannot state it.

AHhh thanks for clarity!

Is Absolute Truth a statement or not! Of course it "IS, since it is a "Truth".

Godel shows us how such a statement is impossible to do without contradiction.

Therefore, either contradiction is allowed or AT doesn't exist.

If contradiction is allowed, such statement becomes meaningless.

Fucking QED.

[Luis Dias]

And wTF is "Emperical"?!?

It's not a typo, for sure, LI has repeated this word for ages, so it must be a new fucking word.

Aw fuck. I must get some coffee.