Only premises that are descriptions of physical things or the behavior of observable things can be tested, though — Janus

That's not true, logic is tested by consistency. That 4+5 equals 9 is tested by 9-5=4, etc..

The premise that the truth of premises can be tested only by observation is itself based on observation of how we test premises. — Janus

Obviously you don't actually know how premises are tested, so your premise is false. It's like you saw 20 black squirrels, and no other squirrels, so you claim as a true premise, "all squirrels are black".

You have actually given a very good example of how "observation" itself is very deceptive as the basis for validating premises. Without very good (immaterial) rules as to how one might derive a valid premise from observations, observations very often mislead us.

Moral premises are judged against standards of compassion, social harmony and against how we feel about things — Janus

Your missing the point. No amount of observations of compassion, social harmony, and such things, will justify the claim that we ought to support such things. Moral premises concern what ought, and ought not, be done. That people act in a specific way, and they say "this is good", does not justify the claim that what they say is good, is what ought to be done.

But quantum theory and particle physics is consistent with chemical theory, and chemical theory is consistent with geology, cosmology and biology. I see them as just being different domains or levels of description and explanation. — Janus

What happened to "premises can be tested only by observation"? The example of "quarks" described earlier, is clear evidence that the Standard Model is not supported by observation. So now you make appeals to consistency? That a quantity of energy moves from one place to another, in the form of a wave, and also in the form of a particle, is an example of inconsistency. So quantum theory is supported neither by observation nor consistency. It is supported only by its capacity to predict.

I don't associated the idea of the 'world soul' with Aristotle in particular, but definitely with the idea of 'animating principle'. — Wayfarer

The point (derived from Plato) which Aristotle demonstrates very well, is why the soul is necessarily prior to the material living body. Any living body is organized. Such a body is necessarily organized from the very first moment of its existence. Organization requires a cause. Therefore the thing which causes the living body to be organized (the soul) is necessarily prior to the body.

Then, in his metaphysics, Aristotle carries this principle further, to all physical existence in general. Since the very essence of physical existence, is to be in some way organized, then all physical existence must be organized from the very first moment of its existence. And since organization requires a cause, that cause must be prior to physical existence.

The modern trend in metaphysics is to posit some initial condition of absolute disorganization, from which organization emerged. This idea is what is demonstrated by Aristotle's cosmological argument to incoherent and unintelligible. But it has reemerged in modern metaphysics as a result of physicalist bias impairing the cognitive capacity of human beings.

Quarks have mass. I do remember reading that the mass of the quarks making up larger subatomic particles; i.e. protons, neutrons, and mesons; add up to less than the mass of the particle itself. — T Clark

I agree that quarks have some mass, but it's relatively small. The majority of the mass in a proton or neutron is accounted for by the energy of the gluons which are supposed to hold the quarks together. The problem is that individual, separated quarks, cannot actually be observed.

The problem is that individual, separated quarks, cannot actually be observed. — Metaphysician Undercover

I understand the concern. I think it's not just that they cannot be observed, it is my understanding that they can not exist independently. From the point of view of @Gnomon's point, I'm not sure that it matters.

The point (derived from Plato) which Aristotle demonstrates very well, is why the soul is necessarily prior to the material living body. — Metaphysician Undercover

:ok:

I understand the concern. I think it's not just that they cannot be observed, it is my understanding that they can not exist independently. From the point of view of Gnomon's point, I'm not sure that it matters. — T Clark

The point is mainly directed at Janus, and anyone else, who argues that the theories employed in modern science have been "tested", or proven by observation. What constitutes 'proof by observation' seems to have lost all credibility in modern science.

Take the famous Michelson-Morley type experiments for example. What these experiments prove is that certain postulated relations between mass and the proposed ether of light transmission, are incorrect. What is commonly cited as "proven" by these experiments, is that there is no ether. You ought to be able to see that logically, the inability to properly represent the existence of something in hypotheses, is not proof that the thing is not real. In this case, what is demonstrated is that "ether" has not been adequately described (defined).

This is the big problem with the metaphysics of 'observation is the foundation of knowledge'. It doesn't account for the fact that in knowledge observation, as proof, is posterior to hypothesis. Therefore the usefulness of observation as a means of proving hypotheses, is limited by the formulation of the hypothesis.

To really understand the nature of knowledge therefore, we need to grasp the method by which hypotheses are produced. Focusing on observation as the source of knowledge, is to account for the a posteriori while remaining ignorant of the a priori. And to deny the reality of the a priori simply demonstrates this ignorance.

I still don't grok your alternative method of "negative metaphysics", nor the assertion of "Impossiblism" or "immanentism". So, I'll reply by comparing my worldview to the -isms below. I don't expect it will change your mind or attitude, but it may help you to see where I'm coming from, instead of the -isms you try to pin on me. Although this clash of -isms does sometimes sound like a doctrinal religious dispute, that is not my intention. :smile:


Holism and FreeWill, versus Reductionism and Fatalism
When you accused me of being a woo-mongering New Age nut-case*1, I began to realize that a significant difference in our worldviews might be characterized as Reductionism vs Holism. You may not be aware that the man who wrote the book on the modern concept of Holism was in no sense a New Ager. Instead, he was a South African general, statesman, naturalist, and philosopher. His 1926 book, Holism and Evolution, was a treatise on the philosophy of Western Science, which he saw had veered so far toward a reductive perspective that it couldn't see the forest for the trees. My worldview is not New Ageism*2, but it is a form of scientific Holism or Systems Theory. :nerd:

Holism and Evolution :
The holistic approach to life has had such a far-reaching impact in the world that most people assume it grew out of some Far Eastern practice.
___review of book by Jan Smuts
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00VISSWR6/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1

Another divergence in our philosophy is between Determinism, narrowly defined, and FreeWill, as the ability to choose based on rational evidence rather than on fatalistic necessity. But Determinism is a belief and a premise, not an objective fact. And Determinists typically assume a linear chain of physical causes only. Yet they ignore the influence of feedback loops in the human mind, which become the non-physical causes we call "beliefs". The behavior of lower animals might be caused by external influences only. But the human mind is able to interrupt the flow of physical causation with feedback loops that insert new links in the chain (creative ideas). When those new links are perceived as different from our beliefs and preconceptions, the mind begins to look for a way to get back on course. Which is what we call "Reasoning". :cool:

Feedback Loops :
The human brain is a negative feedback loop system. This means that whenever there is a difference between what a person experiences in reality that is different from the ideal set point established by this person’s brain, an urge to behave to correct the situation is created by the brain.
https://www.funderstanding.com/brain/brain-biology-a-negative-feedback-loop-system/

Every Effect has a Cause, but not all causes come from the environment. When faced with an incongruency, humans are able to "leap" to a conclusion that seems reasonable, in light of our prior beliefs of what ought to be true. So, what seems reasonable is not just pure Logic, but also depends on (determined by) any prejudices, premises, and presumptions in our belief system. And those beliefs are not in any sense physical objects. Instead, they are meta-physical causes of our mental behavior. You might say that beliefs are indirect causes of behavior, because they result from feedback loops in the chain of incoming information. Those information loops add to the complexity of a simple linear cause & effect system. But out of the apparent chaos comes the novel (butterfly) effect that we call "Free Will".

Philosophers don't usually do physical work with their hands, but with their minds. They do non-physical (meta-physical) work with their cognitive faculties. But Reductive thinkers assume that Mind = Brain, because they focus on the parts (neurons) instead of the whole system. Mind is not a mass of concrete neurons, it is instead the abstract Function of the whole body as a complex system. Like a computer, the Brain seldom makes logical errors, but the Mind often gets side-tracked into irrational beliefs. Unfortunately, some of those non-physical concepts (e.g. Qualia) may be what you think of as Essentialism. But, actually it is merely Synthetic thinking as contrasted with Analytic thinking. And the synthesis is Mental instead of Physical, so it is knowable only by exchanging Ideas or Memes. The exchange is via a physical Medium, but the media is not the Message.

Holistic (synthetic) thinking is a common characteristic of New Age philosophies. But in practice, they also include particular inherited beliefs, such as those in Eastern religions. Such woo-ish notions as Wandering Souls, and Weaponized Chi*3, are not inherent to Holism. But Reductionists tend to lump them together with the Holistic worldview. So, for clarity, I will sometimes refer to my personal paradigm of Science as "Systems Theory", in hopes of losing the mystical baggage. :pray: :halo:

Systems theory is an interdisciplinary study of systems as they relate to one another within a larger, more complex system. The key concept of systems theory, regardless of which discipline it's being applied to, is that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.
https://www.onlinemswprograms.com/social-work/theories/systems-theory-social-work/

Holism as an idea or philosophical concept is diametrically opposed to atomism. Where the atomist believes that any whole can be broken down or analyzed into its separate parts and the relationships between them, the holist maintains that the whole is primary and often greater than the sum of its parts.
http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/glossary/holism.html
Note -- you might say that Holism multiplies the parts

PS__Science is expected to be Analytical, but Philosophy is supposed to be Synthetical.

*1 I was not offended, because I have come to expect expectoration during a philosophical exchange of spittle.
*2 Not that there is anything wrong with New Ageism as a personal worldview. Only as a coercive religion would it impose woo on you.
*3 The notion of "throwing Chi" like a flame thrower is not characteristic of Eastern Religions, but of SuperHero movies.

Ludwig van Bertalanffy : GENERAL SYSTEMS THEORY

:up:

What constitutes 'proof by observation' seems to have lost all credibility in modern science. — Metaphysician Undercover

The crisis, as Ellis and Silk tell it, is the wildly speculative nature of modern physics theories, which they say reflects a dangerous departure from the scientific method. Many of today’s theorists — chief among them the proponents of string theory and the multiverse hypothesis — appear convinced of their ideas on the grounds that they are beautiful or logically compelling, despite the impossibility of testing them. Ellis and Silk accused these theorists of “moving the goalposts” of science and blurring the line between physics and pseudoscience. “The imprimatur of science should be awarded only to a theory that is testable,” Ellis and Silk wrote, thereby disqualifying most of the leading theories of the past 40 years. “Only then can we defend science from attack — Quanta Magazine, A Fight for the Soul of Science

My only complaint has been your confusing misuse of the word "metaphysics." As for your ideas themselves, I don't have strong feelings either way. — T Clark

As Wayfarer noted, I explicitly differentiate between the common definitions, and my peculiar information-based usage of that traditional philosophical term. Philosophers often coin new words for novel or technical concepts. If you don't accept my proffered concept, that's on you. But, If I am not making my meaning clear, I guess the fault is on me, for trying to add some novelty to the worn-out phrases of philosophy. :joke:

↪180 Proof
I still don't grok your alternative method of "negative metaphysics" ... — Gnomon

As the links in my previous posts show I've addressed (my conception of) negative metaphysics – proposes eliminating necessarily unreal Xs as an alternative in contrast to positing categorical (e.g. Platonic) constructs of necessarily real "essences", "universals", etc – in our exchanges quite a few times over the last couple of years. But that's okay; I've only made brief (socratic) sketches and not laid out a proper treatise as you've done, Gnomon, especially via your blog. Anyway, you're familiar with negative theology, aren't you? Well, my negative ontology (aka "immanentism") is more or less the same but applied to reality (in general) rather than just to g/G (in particular).

So now you make appeals to consistency? — Metaphysician Undercover

I wasn't making an appeal to consistency, although obviously consistency is important to any rational thought; I was merely pointing out that the various domains of inquiry in modern science form a consistent whole.

That doesn't mean that theories in the various domains are not tested by observation. How else do you think they could be tested? The theory that mountain formation and continental drift are caused by tectonic plate movement cannot be tested by simply examining whether it is logically valid.

I wasn't making an appeal to consistency, although obviously consistency is important to any rational thought; I was merely pointing out that the various domains of inquiry in modern science form a consistent whole. — Janus

The various domains of science actually do not form a consistent whole. There is significant inconsistency between principles employed from one field to the next, and the same words are not always defined consistently from one to another. There isn't even consistency as to which fields qualify as "science" and which do not. For insistence, google the phrase "is mathematics a science", and you'll see evidence of disagreement.

That doesn't mean that theories in the various domains are not tested by observation. How else do you think they could be tested? — Janus

I think theories in the domain of "science" are tested by observation. But that doesn't mean observation is the only way to test premises. In mathematics for example, axioms are tested by consistency. That's why we generally do not class mathematics as a science.

However, many people seem content to blur the boundaries of "science". This is probably because science has a very good reputation. So if you can pass something off as "science" which really isn't science, and you don't get exposed, it will make you look like you know more than you really do

So, anyway - Metaphysical questions cannot be addressed with yes or no answers. They’re not issues of right or wrong, what matters is usefulness. — T Clark

I say, think of metaphysics as an "Other" that confronts the inquirer with as much vigor as anything else. It is the ideatum that exceeds the idea; the desideratum that exceeds the desire. Metaphysics has a long history, so I say put this down altogether, and put down the epistemology texts as well. All one can reasonably say about the world must be grounded in the bare encounter, and not in the long discursive arguments, and the insight one seeks in metaphysics is not augmentative, but pure. It begins, I claim, with the reduction from knowledge claims that clutter and dialectically collide, to the clarity of the structure of the encounter itself.
The beginning of "good" metaphysics (as opposed to bad metaphysics, as when we talk about God's omniscience and the like) lies in the simplicity of the pure encounter, the "presence" of the world as presence. Alas, this seems to be something very difficult to do, that is, to understand with this kind of clarity, for when one tries to adjust the perceptual Archimedean point, if you will, mundane analyses assert themselves by default. This is what stands in the way of really addressing metaphysics.

As Wayfarer noted, I explicitly differentiate between the common definitions, and my peculiar information-based usage of that traditional philosophical term. — Gnomon

In my response to the post from Wayfarer you reference, I acknowledged that you were good about stating what you meant by "meta-physics." I had also acknowledged it in a previous response. I think it was a response to one of your posts. I always make a big deal about defining your terms and I appreciate that you did so.

Philosophers often coin new words for novel or technical concepts. — Gnomon

That's true. Sometime you and I can have a discussion about why I think that is an unnecessary and disruptive practice.

If you don't accept my proffered concept, that's on you. — Gnomon

I don't reject your concept. I object to your use of "metaphysical" or "meta-physical" to name it. If I might paraphrase a wonderful statement from @Cartuna from a different discussion:

It's my duty, as a scientist philosopher, being loyal to the imperative of the Sciences Philosophy, to correct you. Others may take your false image of reality misuse of language for granted...The Truth must be told...

I say, think of metaphysics as an "Other" that confronts the inquirer with as much vigor as anything else. It is the ideatum that exceeds the idea; the desideratum that exceeds the desire. Metaphysics has a long history, so I say put this down altogether, and put down the epistemology texts as well. All one can reasonably say about the world must be grounded in the bare encounter, and not in the long discursive arguments, and the insight one seeks in metaphysics is not augmentative, but pure. It begins, I claim, with the reduction from knowledge claims that clutter and dialectically collide, to the clarity of the structure of the encounter itself.

The beginning of "good" metaphysics (as opposed to bad metaphysics, as when we talk about God's omniscience and the like) lies in the simplicity of the pure encounter, the "presence" of the world as presence. Alas, this seems to be something very difficult to do, that is, to understand with this kind of clarity, for when one tries to adjust the perceptual Archimedean point, if you will, mundane analyses assert themselves by default. This is what stands in the way of really addressing metaphysics. — Constance

Other people have expressed many different opinions about metaphysics throughout this fairly long thread. For me, your statement expresses a metaphysical position and, therefore, is neither true nor false. I can see that it might be a valuable way to see things. I sometimes call myself a pragmatist. Your understanding seems like a pragmatic way to approach the subject.

Other people have expressed many different opinions about metaphysics throughout this fairly long thread. For me, your statement expresses a metaphysical position and, therefore, is neither true nor false. I can see that it might be a valuable way to see things. I sometimes call myself a pragmatist. Your understanding seems like a pragmatic way to approach the subject. — T Clark

I don't see pragmatism entering into it. Dewey and co. would have nothing to do with this. Rorty included. No, this is an honest observation. Observe the simplest thing and proceed with philosophical inquiry. Eventually you will, as Putnam put it, end up where the words simply run out. You have to see that when you affirm anything at all, you do this through language, and if you are in Wittgenstein's court, you toss your hands up and say, oh well! failing to see the that in the simple encounter, as the words run out before your very eyes, you are literally witnessing the threshold of metaphysics. Ask yourself, where does eternity end and finitude begin? Do you think eternity is a fiction? Of course not; it is there, in the structure of the world, but most are so busy trying to bring all things to toe the line of familiar meaning making to bear on this that they never see the that the deficit is existential, not abstract. It is in the language itself. Language is the pragmatic imposition on the world. See the pragmatist theory of knowledge: to know is to have a problem solved as to what to DO with a thing. Heidegger is close by here. The trick, I am saying, lies with understanding that such a threshold is existential, IN the fabric of things. To see this one has to reduce all things to their presence.
But here, there is an earnestness in the revelation of the world: IN the perceptual event, there are actual features that are no fabricated, which demonstrate that metaphysics inherent the presence of affairs of the world themselves.

As the links in my previous posts show I've addressed (my conception of) negative metaphysics – proposes eliminating necessarily unreal Xs as an alternative in contrast to positing categorical (e.g. Platonic) constructs of necessarily real "essences", "universals", etc – in our exchanges quite a few times over the last couple of years. — 180 Proof

I got the implicit dismissive message of "negative metaphysics" : apparently it's intended to ban Metaphysics (i.e. anything non-physical) from philosophical discussion. But I still don't get a positive understanding of why you would want a gag order on Philosophy (see PS below). Since modern Science took over the role of Naturalism after the Enlightenment era, all that Philosophy has left to study is the non-physical aspects of the natural world. Namely Concepts (ideas. minds, consciousness), Essences (form, mathematical structure) and Universals (qualia), which are all "unreal Xs" in your outdated definition of Metaphysics, but are important topics in my 21st century definition of Meta-Physics. That's the study of preter-natural features of Reality, in the sense that Mind is the "more-than" of Holism. It is something in-addition-to Brain matter. So the Brain is Natural, but Mind is preter-natural (i.e Cultural).

Of course, some disingenuously try to place Mind under the heading of Physics, because it is a Function of a brain, knowable only by another Mind. That's why you can't place Consciousness or Reasoning under a microscope or create it in a Cyclotron. That's not the kind of thing that Physicists, Biologists, or Chemists study. So why would you want to negate the only remaining subject matter of philosophical investigation? (see PS below) Meta-Physics is inherently subjective, hence it is literally "un-real" in any objective sense. Aristotle tried to avoid the Ideal implications of his own metaphysics. But ironically later philosophers realized that he was in denial, because his de-idealized notion of "Form" is itself only an abstract idea about reality, not a real thing itself. Moreover, all Functions (e.g. Mind) are knowable only by rational Minds, not physical senses. (See The Trouble With Psychology below).

My Enformationism worldview is indeed Idealistic (unreal) in the sense of asserting the value of Ideas in a world of human Culture. But it is also Realistic in the sense that it does not deny the value of Material objects to denizens of Nature. Take away non-physical ideas, and Culture vanishes from the world. And along with Culture, Science itself would disappear from the world. And Technology would revert to apes pounding nuts with rocks. :nerd:

PS__ I can guess the answer to my own question above : you want to ban Metaphysics, because of its association with Religion and Mysticism. Me too! That's why I want to bring it back under the broad umbrella of Classical Philosophical Science by labeling it "Meta-Physics". Although the topic is inherently Subjective, I try to keep it grounded in Objective science as far as possible.


In metaphysics, a universal is what particular things have in common, namely characteristics or qualities.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_(metaphysics)

Qualia are the subjective or qualitative properties of experiences. ... Qualia have traditionally been thought to be intrinsic qualities of experience that are directly available to introspection. However, some philosophers offer theories of qualia that deny one or both of those features.
https://iep.utm.edu/qualia/

Idealism in sense (1) has been called “metaphysical” or “ontological idealism”, while idealism in sense (2) has been called “formal” or “epistemological idealism”. The modern paradigm of idealism in sense (1) might be considered to be George Berkeley’s “immaterialism”, according to which all that exists are ideas and the minds, less than divine or divine, that have them.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/idealism/

The journal embraces a broad and dynamic definition of the preternatural, since the ... strongly encourages submissions covering cultural traditions worldwide.
https://www.psupress.org/Journals/jnls_Preternature.html

The trouble with Psychology :
With respect to science, human psychology faces an immense obstacle posed by its focus on the mind. Human psychology is defined as "the study of the mind, occurring partly via the study of behavior", but the mind is not a physical organ, it's an abstract concept, and measurements of the mind's state are indirect and subjective (by way of a subject's verbal reports, for example). This makes psychology, as defined, a branch of metaphysics, not physics.
https://arachnoid.com/trouble_with_psychology/index.html

GAG on Philosophy

PS__ I can guess the answer to my own question above : you want to ban Metaphysics, because of its association with Religion and Mysticism. Me too! That's why I want to bring it back under the broad umbrella of Classical Philosophical Science by labeling it "Meta-Physics". Although the topic is inherently Subjective, I try to keep it grounded in Objective science as far as possible. — Gnomon

There's a very sensitive sub-topic around this point - the boundary between metaphysics, philosophy and religion are somewhat hazy and it's easy to find yourself crossing it whenever this subject is discussed.

My approach is somewhat religious, but not the way my grandad (for instance) would have understood. As I frequently mention, my interest in philosophy arose from what I understood 'enlightenment' to be, subject of discussion in another thread. That pathway lead through psychedelic experiences (way back) to what I understood to be the only legitimate way to re-capture those higher states I thought I'd seen without such artificial enhancements - namely, Eastern philosophy. In any case, that's a preamble to something I discovered in that endeavour, namely that the practice of Buddhist meditation has an inescapable religious dimension to it, albeit very differently conceived to that of theistic religions (on the surface, at least). Meanwhile I also worked to map 'the idea of enlightenment' across different spiritual traditions or 'domains of discourse', which is the subject of Comparative Religion. During all of this, some of the latent religious ideas in my cultural background became activated by some of this reading and the associated realisations. But I'm trying not to get drawn into 'religious belief' as is usually understood, although again it's often a fine line. (I'm reminded of a comment attributed to Noam Chomsky, 'I'll tell you if I'm an atheist if you can tell me what it is I'm supposed not to believe in'.)

IN ANY CASE, what I'm wanting to say here is that there is a strong implicit prohobition against certain kinds of ideas associated with religion, which is well articulated by Thomas Nagel:

In speaking of the fear of religion, I don't mean to refer to the entirely reasonable hostility toward certain established religions and religious institutions, in virtue of their objectionable moral doctrines, social policies, and political influence. Nor am I referring to the association of many religious beliefs with superstition and the acceptance of evident empirical falsehoods. I am talking about something much deeper--namely, the fear of religion itself. I speak from experience, being strongly subject to this fear myself. I want atheism to be true and am made uneasy by the fact that some of the most intelligent and well-informed people I know are religious believers. It isn't just that I don't believe in God and, naturally, hope that I'm right in my belief. It's that I hope there is no God! I don't want there to be a God; I don't want the universe to be like that.

My guess is that this cosmic authority problem is not a rare condition and that it is responsible for much of the scientism and reductionism of our time. One of the tendencies it supports is the ludicrous overuse of evolutionary biology to explain everything about life, including everything about the human mind. Darwin enabled modern secular culture to heave a great collective sigh of relief, by apparently providing a way to eliminate purpose, meaning, and design as fundamental features of the world. Instead they become epiphenomena, generated incidentally by a process that can be entirely explained by the operation of the non-teleological laws of physics on the material of which we and our environments are all composed. — Thomas Nagel, Evolutionary Naturalism and the Fear of Religion

That's where I think a lot of the gag originates. The British, American and German idealists, whose ideas were effectively closed down by Russell and Moore at the beginning of the 20th Century, had a similarly kind of 'swinging-door' relationship with religion, as philosophical idealism nearly always does. So the reaction against all of that culminated in the typical kind of 20th century physicalistic naturalism which is the defacto standard.

On which topic:

The modern paradigm of idealism in sense (1) might be considered to be George Berkeley — Gnomon

I disagree with this because of Berkeley's nominalism. If think idealism has to recognise the reality of universals in the form of 'universal ideas' - ideas which are the same for all who think, but are nevertheless ideas rather than material objects. That is much nearer the traditional formulation (which is preserved in C.S. Pierce, a quote from whom, incidentally, is the starting-point for Nagel's essay above).

Philosophers often coin new words for novel or technical concepts. — Gnomon
That's true. Sometime you and I can have a discussion about why I think that is an unnecessary and disruptive practice. — T Clark

Surprise! I have already written an essay on that very topic. I get blow-back from lazy posters who don't care enough about philosophy to learn new ideas. They seem to want their philosophy expressed at an eighth-grade level. IMHO Philosophy is supposed to be disruptive. And my thesis in particular is intended to shake-up old hand-me-down notions and definitions of cutting-edge topics. :smile:

Why Coin Tech Terms? :
The practice of using words that can't be found in a dictionary makes reading more of a challenge, and may seem pretentious. But, such coining is common for scientific and philosophical writings that explore uncharted territory off the current maps. One reason for using novel words is to avoid old biases. Well-known words usually have collected a lot of baggage over the years. And some-times, the meaning of common words has evolved into a sense far from the original context & connotation. But the primary reason for using a special label for a technical definition is so the writer can control its meaning precisely.

I don't reject your concept. I object to your use of "metaphysical" or "meta-physical" to name it. If I might paraphrase a wonderful statement from Cartuna from a different discussion: — T Clark

I have offered several alternative definitions. Can't you find one that doesn't offend your sensibilities. What motivated you to start this thread? Did you hope for a nice simple list of precisely-defined dos & don'ts. That's not philosophy, but propaganda or dogma. Philosophy, and especially subjective Metaphysics, is always open to interpretation. So, what's your interpretation of "my concept" (Enformationism), if it's not "Meta-Physics", as I defined it in the thesis : non-physical ; immaterial)?

Regarding Cartuna's post, scientists don't do "Metaphysics" by any name. But for idea-dissecting philosophers, that's all they do. Although some like to think they are practicing hard Science, when they argue endlessly over the meaning of words. Science is necessarily Reductive & Analytical & Precise. But Philosophy is necessarily Holistic & Synthetic & Vague (General, Universal, Moot). :cool:


Note -- Aristotle's "Categories" in The Metaphysics volume, are inherently general and non-specific.

Feynman on Philosophy :
A person talks in such generalities that everyone can understand him and it's considered to be some deep philosophy. However, I would like to be very rather more special and I would like to be understood in an honest way, rather than in a vague way. ___Richard P. Feynman

Was Richard Feynman a philosopher?
Ben Trubody finds that philosophy-phobic physicist Feynman is an unacknowledged philosopher of science.
https://philosophynow.org/issues/114/Richard_Feynmans_Philosophy_of_Science

Philosophers often coin new words for novel or technical concepts. — Gnomon
That's true. Sometime you and I can have a discussion about why I think that is an unnecessary and disruptive practice.
— T Clark

Surprise! I have already written an essay on that very topic. I get blow-back from lazy posters who don't care enough about philosophy to learn new ideas. They seem to want their philosophy expressed at an eighth-grade level. — Gnomon

Yeah, don't you just hate people like that.

The practice of using words that can't be found in a dictionary makes reading more of a challenge, and may seem pretentious. But, such coining is common for scientific and philosophical writings that explore uncharted territory off the current maps. — Gnomon

Sometimes in science you just can't get by without coming up with new words. I'm not sure if that's ever really necessary in philosophy, in which people are still talking mainly about the same phenomena that have been discussed for a thousand or more years. In philosophy it is not unusual to read through something someone has written and realize it is very similar to what someone else has written, but that it's hard to tell because each uses idiosyncratic language.

I have offered several alternative definitions. Can't you find one that doesn't offend your sensibilities. — Gnomon

I have no problem with your ideas, but they're not metaphysics as anyone else has used that word. Putting in a hyphen doesn't get you off the hook. Nuff said.

There's a very sensitive sub-topic around this point - the boundary between metaphysics, philosophy and religion are somewhat hazy and it's easy to find yourself crossing it whenever this subject is discussed. — Wayfarer

Oh yes! My head is "bloody but unbowed", as a result of encounters with anti-religionistas. But my thesis necessarily crosses the line, because traditional religions in most cultures were based on the philosophical & scientific memes of their time. I have no problem with the philosophical basis of Hinduism, it was insightful for its era. But I see no philosophical reason to bathe in the polluted Ganges, It's just an ancient cultural practice that some feel compelled by religious loyalties to continue. Likewise, I appreciate the philosophical foundation of Buddhism, but I don't follow any of its tradition religious rituals. For example, I studied Meditation long ago, but it was a secular form. :smile:

My approach is somewhat religious, but not the way my grandad (for instance) would have understood. — Wayfarer

Some would consider my behavior to be somewhat religious, but with my Fundamentalist family and relatives I tread lightly. I do have a concept that I call "G*D" in the thesis, but it's not a lordly tyrant in the sky. Instead, it's more like Spinoza's Nature sive Natura, or Plato's Logos, or Lao Tzu's TAO. I used to attend meeting of a local Deist group, but they split between the religious and secular factions. :nerd:

IN ANY CASE, what I'm wanting to say here is that there is a strong implicit prohobition against certain kinds of ideas associated with religion, which is well articulated by Thomas Nagel: — Wayfarer

I agree with Nagel's hope that their is no "God" (in the Biblical sense). But, have never been able to find a reasonable alternative to a First Cause, that is necessarily preter-natural, in the sense of existing prior to the beginning of our natural world. But it's not "super-natural" in the sense of Greek super-hero gods, or a heavenly humanoid. If believing in a First Cause or Necessary Being makes me religious, I'm guilty. But I have no motivation to impose any doctrine on anyone. My posts on this forum are for self-development, not for evangelism. :cool:

in which people are still talking mainly about the same phenomena that have been discussed for a thousand or more years — T Clark

Yes. But my thesis is based on 21st century science, with strange concepts that didn't exist eons ago. Which necessitates the use of novel tech terms, even though it falls into the 2 & 1/2 millennia old category of Metaphysics, (according to my reading of Aristotle). Ironically, Shannon's "Information Theory" deliberately gave a new meaning to an old word. So, when I refer to the original conventional meaning (e.g. meaning in a mind, not digits in a computer) I have to contrast it with the entrenched technological notion. So, for convenience, I have added a growing number of pertinent definitions to the thesis glossary over the years. For example, "meta-physics", if taken literally, should be self-explanatory, And here's one I didn't coin, that I may add eventually just to deny that my thesis implies : Acosmism. (That arcane term was used by 180proof). :smile:

PS__a good example of novel philosophical coinages is A.N. Whitehead's Process and Reality. which is on the same basic topic as my thesis. I had a lot of difficulty reading it, because it didn't have a glossary of neologisms, So, I feel your pain. But I persevered. :joke:

my thesis is based on 21st century science, with strange concepts that didn't exist eons ago. Which necessitates the use of novel tech terms, — Gnomon

If you want to start a new thread about the use of new words, I am likely to participate, although I will be out of town with no computer for three days.

I got the implicit dismissive message of "negative metaphysics" : apparently it's intended to ban Metaphysics (i.e. anything non-physical) from philosophical discussion. — Gnomon

That's an uncharitable reading to say the least. I've proposed an alternative / complementary way of 'doing metaphysics' not unlike negative (apophatic) theology is an alternative / complementary to positive (cataphatic) theology. How you get "implicit dismissive message" "to ban" from that seems more disingenuous than not, Gnomon: you just don't want to examine (or explore) anything but anachronistic "hand me down notions" like e.g. Platonic "essences", etc. :yawn:

But I still don't get a positive understanding of why you would want a gag order on Philosophy (see PS below).

You don't, Gnomon, because I don't propose anything remotely like that (see reply above).

PS__ I can guess the answer to my own question above : you want to ban Metaphysics, because of its association with Religion and Mysticism.

Wrong. Also, "Religion and Mysticism" refute themselves and globally are uncorroborated by – inconsistent in manifold ways with – both human facticity and the natural world. They are not targets of my speculative concerns.

IMHO Philosophy is supposed to be disruptive. And my thesis in particular is intended to shake-up old hand-me-down notions and definitions of cutting-edge topics. — Gnomon

Your "thesis" doesn't hold up under either philosophical or scientific scrutiny, sir. And when you're presented with my "disruptive" alternative, you're so busy proselytizing that you uncharitably read my proposal (re: negative ontology ) and fail to even question its premises in the context of (western) ontology.

I have offered several alternative definitions.

Which, in the context of western metaphysics, they occlude as much as, or more than, they clarify. One ought to use ordinary terms to say out-of-the-ordinary things and not the other way around. And by "ordinary terms" I mean words and concepts used as classical and modern philosophers have used them. Unwarranted "alternative definitions" such as yours, Gnomon, are indistinguishable from misdefined jabberwocky. Illuminate the unfamiliar with the familiar (logic) rather than obscure the familiar with the unfamiliar (magic). :eyes:

Metaphysics, most of its subject matter - time, space, being, to name a few - seem ineffable or, if you prefer, hard to eff ( :grin: ). Almost like...mysticism.

The fact of the matter is we understand stuff in terms of simpler stuff and metaphysics deals with the simplest - it's, for that reason, incomprehensible.

If you want to start a new thread about the use of new words, I am likely to participate, although I will be out of town with no computer for three days. — T Clark

I'm not likely to start a thread on such a broad topic, and one that is outside my limited range of expertise. But I'm happy to discuss specific examples of Neologisms and technical jargon. For instance, my usage of the baggage-laden word "metaphysics", with a revived ancient meaning, is essential to understanding the neologism of "Enformationism". Most discussions on internet forums merely recycle old ideas expressed in conventional terms. But, if you have a novel idea, especially a whole new worldview, it would be self-defeating to use words carrying obsolete meanings. :smile:

A neologism is a relatively recent or isolated term, word, or phrase that may be in the process of entering common use, but that has not yet been fully accepted into mainstream language. Neologisms are often driven by changes in culture and technology.
___Wiki

Philosophy is Meta-Physics :
"As for a super-natural realm, however, can we ever hope to know about a realm not open to the inquiries of science? If it is beyond our physics, then it's metaphysics --- philosophy again."
___Peter Carter, MD
The Single Simple Question that Challenges All Convictions
Note -- The author seems to advocate Secular Humanism, as opposed to conventional religions. His challenging question is "does every event have a cause?" If so, then a trickle of Free Will is lost in the flood of Causation. However, he inadvertently raises the same "get out of jail free" exception that I use to justify my own notion of "FreeWill within Determinism". :joke:

That's an uncharitable reading to say the least. I've proposed an alternative / complementary way of 'doing metaphysics' not unlike negative (apophatic) theology is an alternative / complementary to positive (cataphatic) theology. — 180 Proof

I apologize, if I misinterpreted your intention. I didn't intend to the un-charitable, but I was shooting in the dark, so I might have missed what I was aiming at. Obviously, you are referring to a philosophical or theological approach that I am not familiar with. Perhaps, because I have no background or formal training in such esoteric topics. However, I looked-up "apophatic" and now I almost see what you meant by "negative metaphysics". It's trying to describe an ineffable being or concept by listing examples of what it is not. I was vaguely aware that medieval mystics used such reverse poetry to describe the deity they experienced subjectively --- in objective terms that always miss the target, but draw a circle around that empty place. :smile:

Apophatic :
The apophatic tradition is often, though not always, allied with the approach of mysticism, which aims at the vision of God, the perception of the divine reality beyond the realm of ordinary perception
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apophatic_theology

Wrong. Also, "Religion and Mysticism" refute themselves and globally are uncorroborated by – inconsistent in manifold ways with – both human facticity and the natural world. They are not targets of my speculative concerns. — 180 Proof

OK, you have denoted that which is not of concern to your philosophy. But I'm still not sure what is in the Black Box, whose contents you are describing without opening. If it ain't "Religion and Mysticism" what is it? Is there a common name for it, other than arcane terms like "Apophatic". I understand Terrence Deacon's notion of the "Power of Absence", but in the absence of some positive information, I'm at a loss to imagine that which is not there. I fail to see what "human facticity" has to do with Metaphysics, except in the sense that it is the common human perspective on that which is not Physics. I need you point in the direction that I should look, in order to see what you are seeing. :cool:

Note -- FWIW, I call my Black Box neither Religion nor Mysticism, but merely "philosophy".

Your "thesis" doesn't hold up under either philosophical or scientific scrutiny, sir. And when you're presented with my "disruptive" alternative, you're so busy proselytizing that you uncharitably read my proposal (re: negative ontology ↪180 Proof
) and fail to even question its premises in the context of (western) ontology. — 180 Proof

OK. So you're not seeing what I'm seeing. That's no reason to give-up. That's philosophy, I'm willing to keep shooting in the dark until I finally hit some target, even if I don't know what I'm aiming at. But, what you call "proselytizing" is what I call "explaining what I'm talking about". Maybe you need to do more proselytizing, If you want to bring me into the fold. :halo:

they occlude as much as, or more than, they clarify. — 180 Proof

Apparently, we are both occlusive in our 'splaining. I don't know what you are talking about, and you don't know what I'm talking about. But, maybe, if we keep "throwing mud" on the wall, some of it will eventually stick. Teach me. :joke:



PS___I have learned the hard way to not assume that posters will click on my links. That's why I usually try to summarize, in their words or my own words, what the link means.

Some would consider my behavior to be somewhat religious, but with my Fundamentalist family and relatives I tread lightly. — Gnomon

The G*D Mind who programmed the universe is still a 'God', even if not infinitely smart. How is it there as the Eternal Basis of All, it thus necessarily having no input? What memory does it have to work with? What relations of concepts would it have to use in order to sort out thoughts? How could it make plans? What source would it use for making a universe out of? What purpose would it have?

sorry tldr, so did we reach a conclusion and consesus as to what metaphysics is?

Obviously, you are referring to a philosophical or theological approach that I am not familiar with. — Gnomon

I've only proposed apophasis in a dozen of so posted replies to you (with links for further context and wiki-simple descriptions of relevant concepts), so, yeah, "obviously" you've not familiarized yourself with what I've spoon-fed to you.

I'm still not sure what is in the Black Box, whose contents you are describing without opening. If it ain't "Religion and Mysticism" what is it? Is there a common name for it, other than arcane terms like "Apophatic".

Try a new trick, Gnomon: read my posts for comprehension (and the links via my handle). If you at least pay attention, you'll find I've answered these questions a while back without having to be asked. I read your (everyone's) posts enough at least to identify their premises or assumptions which I either take issue with (as in your case) or read on further until I find grounds for doubt or disbelief. So far, in your case, the courtesy has not been reciprocated. :brow:

Maybe you need to do more proselytizing, If you want to bring me into the fold.

I'm trying to engage you in a dialectic not an exchange, or clash, of preachy dogmas. Philosophy, man, not religious sophistry.

I usually try to summarize, in their words or my own words ...

Pro-tip: as much as and whenever possible, for clarity's sake, avoid sumarizing in your "own words". A thesaurus and philosophical dictionary don't bite.

The G*D Mind who programmed the universe is still a 'God', even if not infinitely smart. How is it there as the Eternal Basis of All, it thus necessarily having no input? What memory does it have to work with? What relations of concepts would it have to use in order to sort out thoughts? How could it make plans? What source would it use for making a universe out of? What purpose would it have? — PoeticUniverse

Good questions! I don't pretend to know the answer to those un-verifiable metaphysical conundra. All I know is that an Aristotelian First Cause is logically necessary to explain the existence of our contingent cause & effect world. So, I adopt the Aquinian Necessary Being as the axiom of my Information-based worldview. Whatever that non-contingent Entity might be, it serves as the "Eternal Basis of All". Or as Tillch so eloquently phrased it : the Ground of Being --- the eternal foundation of the space-time structure we call Home.

Unfortunately, anything prior to the initial Act of Creation (Big Bang : Birth Pang) is not subject to empirical verification. However, using normal philosophical methods of inference, I can establish a few logically necessary qualities of the Programmer of those initial conditions, and the evolutionary development of emergent features. For example, a primary characteristic of the presumptive FC is the creative power (Potential) to enform a new physical world from nothing but Cosmic Power, Which in my information-centered thesis I call EnFormAction (Meta-Physical Energy ; power to give form to the formless). If that notion sounds far-fetched, it is supported by logical argument and scientific evidence in the Enformationism thesis.

Most cosmologists agree that, for anything to exist in Space-Time, something must be Infinite & Eternal. But they typically think of that "something" as Natural Laws & Energy, which are not things but concepts. Yet, as a philosopher, not bound by the rules of space-time, I can conjecture into the un-bounded void beyond the Big Bang beginning. And I have various names for the eternal nothing that gave birth to something : i.e. everything in our world. And one name for that non-physical non-thing is Enformer : the creative power to convert Potential into Actual.

Most alternatives to a god-like Cause assume (without evidence) that Natural Laws and Constructive Energy have always existed (eternal Potential). And I agree, except that I call the mathematical "laws" of Nature : LOGOS. And the ability to "do work" (cause change) is what I call EnFormAction (the power to cause changes in Form). Moreover, I define "Form", not as a physical shape, but as the mathematical structure of each real thing. That's my interpretation of Plato's posited Source of all real things. If the logic of math & reason has always existed, rather than evolved, you could infer that it must be "infinitely smart", in the sense of encompassing all Possibilities.

By definition, any First Cause must have causal "input" in order to encode the criteria for a new world, in the form of initial conditions (constants, definitions) and rules for interaction (natural laws). That's why I use the metaphor of a Programmer to describe the FC. Our world was "born" with all the genetic information (constants & laws) necessary to compute a universe from a sub-atomic-scale dot of data. So, the data input was the program we call "Nature", which is currently running (evolving) on the self-creating self-organizing "machine" we call our World.

The "memory" (temporary repository or register) for all that calculating (energy exchanges) is Matter, which takes on physical forms as defined by the program criteria. Another theory of cosmic memory is the imprint of physical changes and energy exchanges on the gravitational field (see link below). I don't know much about such things. But, it's usually assumed by scientists and philosophers, that every change in the world leaves a trace (encoded information) behind. Long ago, I read an excellent sci-fi novel that was based on that notion. And that was long before the LIGO observatory detected gravitational waves from distant galaxies.

The "relations of concepts" you question, would be what we call the Logic of Nature, which we know primarily in terms of abstract Mathematics. But we also imagine natural relations in terms of Space & Time, which are metaphysical concepts, not physical things. We perceive such abstractions in terms of metaphors, that only exist as mental images. That's why we can only communicate our ideas about such non-entities in the form of Meta-Physical Metaphors.

How could the presumed Creative Cause "make plans"? Presumably, in the same way human minds create imaginary scenarios, and then plot a course to make it real. The best laid plans of gods and men, oft go awry. Unless, the planner is an omnipotent programmer, with the power to control how the universe gets from Now to Tomorrow, from Input to Output. By inputting criteria into initial conditions and laws, that guide the world to compute an answer to the Programmer's question. I don't know what that question was, but it is the reason we are here in space-time. And the answer to that reason is the "Purpose" of this experiment in evolutionary programming. All I know is that it seems to involve increasing complexity & organization of matter & energy & mind.

In the Real world, each physical effect must be preceded by a physical cause. Except, when the cause is an idea in a mind. That's often called "the power of ideas", or "agency", or "creativity". So, the notion of a mental (meta-physical) Cause is not so far-fetched. Yes, I'm aware of the notion that even creative ideas can be traced back to a chain of physical causes, but what if the First Cause was the metaphorical pool-shooter, standing outside the pool table (physical universe)? That aiming Agency is the "Source" of all information in the world, which is also the source of all forms in the world. Ironically, in the Enformationism thesis, the Cause is also the Effect, in the sense that the Enformer is both transcendent & immanent. It consists of Potential Information (power to enform), which is a shape-shifting force similar to Energy, which is the "source" of Mass and Matter.

The bottom line of all this speculation is that, like the immaterial human mind, the Meta-Physical Mind of the Programmer exists in the form of Creative Power (EnFormAction) : which is both the Enformer and the Enformed, both the Creator and the Creature. A philosophical label for such a Power Input, which is also the Output, is PanEnDeism. Look it up. :smile:


EnFormAction :
Ententional Causation. A proposed metaphysical law of the universe that causes random interactions between forces and particles to produce novel & stable arrangements of matter & energy. It’s the creative force (aka : Divine Will) of the axiomatic eternal deity that, for unknown reasons, programmed a Singularity to suddenly burst into our reality from an infinite source of possibility. AKA : The creative power of Evolution; the power to enform; Logos; Change.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html

LOGOS : abstract mathematical rules of relationships, that we call Logic or Reason. What we call "Mathematics" is simply Symbolic Logic as we imagine it metaphorically. Those rules determine how real things fit together into a holistic Structure.

Causality is an abstraction that indicates how the world progresses. So basic a concept that it is more apt as an explanation of other concepts of progression than as something to be explained by others more basic. The concept is like those of agency and efficacy. For this reason, a leap of intuition may be needed to grasp it
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causality

How the Universe Remembers Information :
Nonetheless, physicists are on the hunt for evidence of an observable “memory effect” left behind by gravity that could soon be picked up in a lab.
https://nautil.us/issue/69/patterns/how-the-universe-remembers-information

How is time an abstract concept? :
Time is a abstraction, a filing system used to arrange events and memories into a logical system of cause and effect. Per relativity, space and time are not discrete entities, but a single construct called spacetime.
https://www.britannica.com/science/space-time

so, yeah, "obviously" you've not familiarized what I've spoon-fed to you. — 180 Proof

Obviously your are not swallowing what I poke at you, and vice-versa. So, what might cause two intelligent people to have a "failure to communicate"? That is the ultimate question for Philosophy. But the most common cause is a clash of worldviews or attitudes, in which words have different meanings, and motives are contradictory. I think our worldviews are not so different, but both of ours seem to be custom-made, so we're comparing apples and oranges. :joke: