Timeline for Is metaphysics justified in its conclusions?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
26 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 3, 2019 at 20:03 | comment | added | The victorious truther | I just realized you put a false dichotomy in your post along the lines of the fact that I wouldn't entirely view all metaphysics as useless or incomprehensible given the highly metaphysical elements of modern day science. | |
| Oct 7, 2019 at 4:52 | comment | added | The victorious truther | Still, we could go ahead anyways. | |
| Oct 5, 2019 at 11:21 | comment | added | user20253 | @JustinOrosz - I'm happy to chat but find the chat system is not conducive to good discussions. This would be one reason for my dropping out. . | |
| Oct 4, 2019 at 22:49 | comment | added | The victorious truther | Perhaps we could move to chat and discuss further. | |
| Oct 4, 2019 at 9:33 | comment | added | user20253 | @JustinOrosz - Weyl speaks of the 'legato' of the space-time continuum and the 'staccato' of the 'arithmetical' continuum, and of the impossibility of reconciling the two even with the calculus. I share your view that this issue is usually pushed under the rug and avoided. On the page I linked there's an essay on this topic. . . . . | |
| Oct 3, 2019 at 18:13 | comment | added | The victorious truther | I have considered the idea of a modern revival of zenos arrow paradox of motion as not being solved by calculus. It doesn't mesh with my intuition that time, a dynamic entity, could be made up of dimensionless or length-less points of time like the real number line. Zeno's achilles paradox I feel was 'solved' by calculus as as it seemed to be a misunderstanding of limits but the arrow paradox truly possess some intriguing philosophical consequences or questions that have been kind of brushed under the rug. | |
| Oct 3, 2019 at 11:37 | comment | added | user20253 | @JustinOrosz - Whoa. I did not suggest nothing exists. That would be daft. The claim would be that nothing exists in the way we usually think it does, having only a dependent or contingent existence. This is is deep stuff and I cannot summarise it here any better than I could quantum mechanics. I posted a link. If you examine our usual notion of time and space you'll see it is paradoxical, thus motion and change also. The problem and solution is well-discussed by Hermann Weyl in his writings if you're after a mathematical exegesis of the issue. Maybe we could move to chat. . . | |
| Oct 2, 2019 at 22:58 | comment | added | The victorious truther | How do you support the conclusion that consciousness is fundamental? | |
| Oct 2, 2019 at 22:57 | comment | added | The victorious truther | To say "nothing" exists is rather self contradictory because clearly something does or are you claiming some extreme instrumentalist perspective to philosophical metaphysics which would mean treating the entities a metaphysician may postulate as non-existent? | |
| Oct 2, 2019 at 22:55 | comment | added | The victorious truther | Further, Peter, how do you connect this idea of thinking of time and space as conceptual to theories like special or general relativity which happen to have popular philosophical interpretations of supporting a substantival space? You say its conceptual so does space depend on the relation between objects then as a relationist would claim or are you further making a different conclusion? | |
| Oct 2, 2019 at 10:19 | history | edited | user20253 | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 446 characters in body
|
| Oct 2, 2019 at 10:11 | comment | added | user20253 | @JustinOrosz - PS. As you've shouted at me to post a link, and as I intend to absent myself from SE quite soon, I've added a link to a selection of essays at the end of the answer. | |
| Oct 2, 2019 at 10:07 | comment | added | user20253 | @JustinOrosz - I feel the responsibility for looking into this is with philosophers who want to know about it, and for to explain would take a week. The clue is that all positive metaphysical theores would be false. From this the rest follows. For instance, time and space would be conceptual, any and all forms of dualism would be false, God would not really exist, and indeed nothing would really exist. Non-locality would be explained by the metaphysical unreality of extension, consciousness would be explained as being fundamental. . | |
| Oct 2, 2019 at 5:14 | comment | added | The victorious truther | Further, what is this metametaphysical perspective supposed to mean for how we treat or understand science, physics, or reality in general? Please give me an example of an application of your "metaphysics" to either solving a problem in metaphysics, slash scientific discourse, or how it changes it. Give me a concrete example. Like whether god exists, or what it means to say abstract exist and in what way, are we to be substantivalist or relationist with respect to spacetime, etc. | |
| Oct 2, 2019 at 5:10 | comment | added | The victorious truther | JUST POST THE DANG LINK.Your not giving a link to porn or highly suggestive conspiracy nonsense. . . just give it. | |
| Oct 1, 2019 at 10:53 | history | edited | user20253 | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 777 characters in body
|
| Oct 1, 2019 at 10:44 | comment | added | user20253 | @JustinOrosz - I would also note that nobody has raised an objection as yet. | |
| Oct 1, 2019 at 10:43 | comment | added | user20253 | @JustinOrosz - You're right, I was preaching. I was pointing out that posts like Frank's are written from a limited viewpoint, from which metaphysics is incomprehensible. To understand whether metaphysical conclusions are 'justified' (which I take to mean interpretable), one would need to study the view I mention, which is justifoed by the analytical conclusions.of metaphysics. If we stick to academic metaphysics then the conclusions of metaphysics are not understood and lead only to a lot a lot of head-scratching. Perhaps I could have more helpful. I may add an edit. | |
| Sep 30, 2019 at 20:56 | comment | added | The victorious truther | Link Frank Hubeny's post, that one presented a different view point relevant to me, relevant to the nature of metaphysics and I loved the discussion we had latter. | |
| Sep 30, 2019 at 20:55 | comment | added | The victorious truther | Please go and post a link but I hope you will actually consider presenting something about the relation of metaphysics to reality, Or science. I don't hold onto buddhism or the kind you are preaching so this post does nothing for me in that regime. Are you saying metaphysics does tell us something about reality distinct from the sciences, is it restricted to basically being existential literature, a little bit more information. | |
| Sep 30, 2019 at 20:50 | comment | added | The victorious truther | Thank you for basically preaching (Sarcasm if you didn't know). | |
| Sep 27, 2019 at 12:13 | comment | added | user20253 | @jobermark - i won't argue since I don't understand your point, but at least it's feedback. . | |
| Sep 26, 2019 at 19:50 | comment | added | user9166 | It is very strange that someone who constantly references nondual approaches insists on approaching them from a forced false dichotomy. | |
| Sep 26, 2019 at 19:45 | comment | added | user9166 | "We have two choices" --- neither one of which I consider reasonable. (However often you tell me what I think, I do not consider metaphysics useless. Keep saying it and it will continue to be false.) That means we have more than two choices. Abiding contradiction in a different way than dismissing all the problems is a third way, so your argument hinges on a false statement. Ergo the downvote. | |
| Sep 26, 2019 at 15:26 | comment | added | user20253 | If you're going to downvote then please give a reason if you have time. So far nobody has disagreed with anything said here. I firmly believe that what is said is correct and downvotes don't tell me anything about possible objections. | |
| Sep 25, 2019 at 18:07 | history | answered | user20253 | CC BY-SA 4.0 |