So there is an infinite number of points between any two points? — baker

It depends if you're talking about a line segment or a line that has both ends expanding. And I don't know why you asked this question.

1 - to some degree. As written it sounds like we know we can figure it all out. I guess it probably does, at least at some level, but it doesn't mean we ever will. It seems like a good presupposition to me - We can't show it's true, but we have to pretend it is. — Clarky

I don't see why. Hey, let's learn as much as we can. I don't think we need to assume that all can be known by sentient creatures. If we found out - how I don't know - that there was a limit, would we need to stop?

I tried to keep this simple by putting limitations on us as described in the OP. One limitation is that we look at things from a materialist /physicalist point of view. Another is that we look only at classical physics. — Clarky

Yes, classical and also with the metaphysical baggage, I would argue, from taking a stand against dualisms and transcendant 'things'. So we are left with an ism that seems to be taking a stand on ontology, when really science at least is taking a stand on methodology. I think slowly we will end up with something like scientific verificationism and drop the seeming ontological stand of physicalism/materialism. Neutrinos and even massless particles, fields particles in superposition or even whole entities in superposition, and even some physicists beliefs in mathematical realism run counter to substance type claims.

Yes, it is possible we will someday find things going on far away and long ago that are inconsistent with how we currently see things. But the only way we'll be able to figure that out is by assuming that the rest of the universe operates on the same rules we have here until we run into a contradiction. — Clarky

I'd say we'd be testing if it still holds or did hold. I can see the sequence in method, but I don't see any reason to assume it. In fact I think it would be good not to. Counterevidence will take more time to be noticed and accepted. I guess, I am thinking of specific scientific minds. Is a scientist hampered if the don't assume that the laws have held since the Big Bang (or before ?! that) and if they don't assume it must hold everywhere (deep in black holes, far away across the universe, wherever). I don't see where this stops him or her. It even seems positive to me. I can see the advantage of not deciding we have to begin at zero knowledge when they jump through a wormhole to another galaxy in the future. IOW they go with technology that works in our part of the universe and all that. But once the ship appears in the other galaxy, being open to rules being different seems like a positive idea. In fact I would suggest any jump say, to a new area, it would be wise to immediately check and see a lot of things right away. And then to be open over time to changes. And then when looking way back in time to keep open to the rules having changed.

I didn't think there was consensus on quantized vs continuous. I think in a classical universe there would be. That's why I included that limitation in the OP. — Clarky

Ah, sorry. But I would assume people were at least open to if not leaning towards irreducible levels pre-QM because it seemed like there were fundamental particles to some, even Democritus. I don't have a good way to google this issue however. I'd be interested to hear what science assumed about there being utter continuousness all the way down or not. I am not sure that depends on QM in the history of science.

The way I said it was awkward and potentially misleading. Your formulation is probably better. Kant himself wrote "All phenomena, then, are continuous quantities" which is probably even better. — Clarky

The problem is, that ideas such as this, "there is an infinite number of points between any two points", are very useful principles, which are not true. Work done at the Planck level demonstrates the falsity of that principle. So useful principles, when not true, tend to have their limits, and when employed at those limits, are counter-productive, producing misleading and deceptive conclusions.

We can take the position, that these fundamental principles, absolute presuppositions, need not necessarily be true, (which they are not in actuality), and we can also hold that the laws of physics which follow from them need not be true as well, (they just require a predictive capacity), but we will suffer from the consequences of such a choice. At those limits, where the predictive capacity of those laws breaks down, where the fundamental presuppositions no longer apply, we will be forced to make all sorts of exceptions, excuses and rationalizations, to continue application of those principles, in acts of self-deception.

Therefore the more appropriate position to adopt is to be skeptical and doubtful of these absolute presuppositions, and the laws of physics which follow from them. We need to subject them to formalized principles of skepticism, reveal the falsities hiding within, and reject them accordingly. In short, we ought to look for truth in such principles rather than usefulness.

[1] We live in an ordered universe that can be understood by humans.
— Clarky

well, at least 4% of it, anyway. — Wayfarer

:clap: :yikes: (Not bad for an "immaterialist".)

I would assume people were at least open to if not leaning towards irreducible levels pre-QM because it seemed like there were fundamental particles to some, even Democritus. I don't have a good way to google this issue however. I'd be interested to hear what science assumed about there being utter continuousness all the way down or not. I am not sure that depends on QM in the history of science. — Bylaw

:fire: Yes. And didn't classical atomists (dis)solve "Zeno's paradox" by disputing 'unbounded divisibility'? Thus, 16th-18th century "natural philosophers" had assumed corpuscularianism.

Yeah the other 96% is woo :up:

Nothing woo-ful about "dark matter" and "dark energy". They are just yet-to-be-explained and not inexplicable as such (or worse). :smirk:

Oh, so they're scientifically-approved woo. Well, that's OK then.

First focus - the discussion will take place from a materialist/physicalist/realist point of view. — Clarky

The purpose of this thread is not to discuss the validity of a materialist viewpoint. — Clarky

Then the point of this thread is to preach to the choir?

When I was a Christian, I didn't seriously think about the view of being a Christian. I just was, and accepted the idea that God exists without seriously thinking about what that meant. Once I began to seriously take on the view and asking deeper questions about this viewpoint in an attempt to better understand and defend this viewpoint did I come to understand that what I believed simply didn't fit with more objective observations. So it was only in delving deeper into the view that I began to reject the view.

Second focus - For the purposes of this discussion, we live before 1905, when the universe was still classical and quantum mechanics was unthinkable. I see the ideas we come up with in this discussion as a baseline we can use in a later discussion to figure out how things change when we consider quantum mechanics.

Third focus - We’ll stick as much as possible with issues related to a scientific understanding of reality. Physics in particular. — Clarky

Right. So for the purpose of this discussion, we accept the view that macro-sized "physical" objects are the interaction between smaller "physical" objects, and that those smaller "physical" objects are themselves composed of the interactions of even smaller "physical" objects. If "physical" objects are really the interactions of smaller objects, then it seems to me that it doesn't make any sense to say that it's "physical" all the way down. It appears that using a pre-relativity physicists viewpoint actually shows that the world is not "physical" but relational all the way down.

Oh, so they're scientifically-approved woo. Well, that's OK then. — Wayfarer

Speculative, non-fallacious inferences – philosophical or scientific – are not what I mean by "woo", Woofarer; such speculations are either valid/sound or they are not.

I don't see why. Hey, let's learn as much as we can. I don't think we need to assume that all can be known by sentient creatures. If we found out - how I don't know - that there was a limit, would we need to stop? — Bylaw

I don't agree. As we approach any problem, ask any question, we have to act as if it's solvable, answerable. If we reach an impasse, we just recalibrate and continue on.

Yes, classical and also with the metaphysical baggage, I would argue, from taking a stand against dualisms and transcendant 'things'. So we are left with an ism that seems to be taking a stand on ontology, when really science at least is taking a stand on methodology. — Bylaw

We are talking about metaphysics, not science.

I think slowly we will end up with something like scientific verificationism and drop the seeming ontological stand of physicalism/materialism. Neutrinos and even massless particles, fields particles in superposition or even whole entities in superposition, and even some physicists beliefs in mathematical realism run counter to substance type claims. — Bylaw

This is not a discussion of the merits of materialism or physicalism. It's an examination of what the underlying assumptions of materialism might be.

Is a scientist hampered if the don't assume that the laws have held since the Big Bang (or before ?! that) and if they don't assume it must hold everywhere (deep in black holes, far away across the universe, wherever). — Bylaw

For the purposes of this discussion, we're talking about classical physics before quantum mechanics and relativity. Before knowledge of an expanding universe. Even if we weren't, I think scientists today still need use this same presupposition. We study things billions of years old and billions of light years away. When we find something that doesn't fit our expectations, we rewrite the laws, but we still expect the new laws to apply everywhere.

But once the ship appears in the other galaxy, being open to rules being different seems like a positive idea. — Bylaw

As I noted, we already study things further away than galaxies. I think it's reasonable to expect conditions to be different in different places and times, but not laws of science.

But I would assume people were at least open to if not leaning towards irreducible levels pre-QM because it seemed like there were fundamental particles to some, even Democritus. — Bylaw

People certainly knew that some things came in small pieces rather than continuous substances. I always assumed this was talking at a more fundamental level. That space and time are continuous. This was one of the presuppositions that Kant identified. I wonder if it was a reaction to Newton's and Leibnitz's invention of calculus, which depend on things being infinitely divisible.

I've read about some scientists today who are speculating that space itself might be quantized. But that's a different discussion.

The problem is, that ideas such as this, "there is an infinite number of points between any two points", are very useful principles, which are not true. Work done at the Planck level demonstrates the falsity of that principle. So useful principles, when not true, tend to have their limits, and when employed at those limits, are counter-productive, producing misleading and deceptive conclusions. — Metaphysician Undercover

This is a discussion of metaphysics before the discoveries in physics of the 20th century were known. Any absolute presupposition has the potential to limit the kinds of things we look for and can see. That's why they change over time.

We can take the position, that these fundamental principles, absolute presuppositions, need not necessarily be true, (which they are not in actuality), and we can also hold that the laws of physics which follow from them need not be true as well, (they just require a predictive capacity), but we will suffer from the consequences of such a choice. — Metaphysician Undercover

I disagree. It is both Collingwood's and Kant's understanding that you can't dispense with all underlying metaphysical assumptions. I agree with them. Science cannot proceed without them.

When I was a Christian, I didn't seriously think about the view of being a Christian. I just was, and accepted the idea that God exists without seriously thinking about what that meant. Once I began to seriously take on the view and asking deeper questions about this viewpoint in an attempt to better understand and defend this viewpoint did I come to understand that what I believed simply didn't fit with more objective observations. So it was only in delving deeper into the view that I began to reject the view. — Harry Hindu

Absolute presuppositions can change with changing knowledge.

Right. So for the purpose of this discussion, we accept the view that macro-sized "physical" objects are the interaction between smaller "physical" objects, and that those smaller "physical" objects are themselves composed of the interactions of even smaller "physical" objects. If "physical" objects are really the interactions of smaller objects, then it seems to me that it doesn't make any sense to say that it's "physical" all the way down. It appears that using a pre-relativity physicists viewpoint actually shows that the world is not "physical" but relational all the way down. — Harry Hindu

This is not a discussion on the merits of materialism.

Absolute presuppositions can change with changing knowledge. — Clarky

This is not a discussion on the merits of materialism. — Clarky

You missed the point. In discussing materialism you inevitably get to the point of realizing it has no merit.

You missed the point. In discussing materialism you inevitably get to the point of realizing it has no merit. — Harry Hindu

As I've written many times in this thread, this is not a discussion of the validity of a materialist viewpoint.

How can you discuss the viewpoint of materialism without discussing it's validity? In discussing materialism you are inherently discussing its validity. :roll:

How can you discuss the viewpoint of materialism without discussing it's validity? In discussing materialism you are inherently discussing its validity. — Harry Hindu

The "Is there an external physical world" thread is in the middle of a discussion of the validity of materialism right now. I suggest you take your issues there.

I don't agree. As we approach any problem, ask any question, we have to act as if it's solvable, answerable. If we reach an impasse, we just recalibrate and continue on. — Clarky

Every problem we encounter, from our perspective might be solvable. That's enough of a window, even in not correct in some cases (and we wouldn't recognize them) to try. It's not like we encounter some new kind of object in space and go, oh, that thing we'll never understand. We'd go ahead and give it a shot, and again. We have a metaposition that perhaps not everything can be understood and we have the day to day trying to learn about stuff. I see no reason the metaposition inhibits the species, though some individuals might do better without the metaposition. It's very likely to some scientists that there is a good chance they won't figure something out in their lifetimes and even that their research might be a wrong turning.But on they go.

This is not a discussion of the merits of materialism or physicalism. It's an examination of what the underlying assumptions of materialism might be. — Clarky

I think I was addressing that. I don't think that in practice most physicalists or materials will demand that something discovered to be real must have certain qualities (that it is physical). We've already expanded what stuff we now call physical can be like and what qualities it need no longer have. So, if we are talking about assumptions in m and p isms, I don't think it includes assumtions about substance. Another way to put that is the words are expanding categories, they are placeholder terms.

We study things billions of years old and billions of light years away. When we find something that doesn't fit our expectations, we rewrite the laws, but we still expect the new laws to apply everywhere. — Clarky

I think some assume they must and others do not. The latter group may expect them to, but do not assume they must. I would guess this is more common related to changes over time. I don't see why this would stop or hinder anyone. And it seems rational not to assume, regard less of the period in history.

As I noted, we already study things further away than galaxies. I think it's reasonable to expect conditions to be different in different places and times, but not laws of science. — Clarky

Yes, my position is that one need not assume. Expecting X and not assuming it must be X are not mutually exclusive. I haven't heard a reason yet why this would stop people from researching or it must be assumed to move on. You've asserted it, but I don't know why it must be so. These things would not stop me and in fact, since there are a number of contingent problems I keep trying to solve and am aware i may never solve yet keep trying anyway and i see this quality in others (laypeople in their lives and researchers in their work) I don't see why it should be the case in general that humans would give up, avoid research or presume that any particular research could not be effective and an particular phenomenon could not be understood, despite the metaposition.

Anyway, we seem to disagree. I've had my say and if I hop in again I focus on something else..

Anyway, we seem to disagree. I've had my say and if I hop in again I focus on something else. — Bylaw

I feel guilty not responding in detail to your post, but, consistent with what you've written, I'll leave it at that.

I was just reading through the "Does Nothingness Exist" thread. It got me thinking maybe we should add this to our list of absolute presuppositions - Something can not be created from nothing. — Clarky

Again, remove (6) and there is no need for a first cause. (2) says that there is stuff, so the issue is resolved.

well, at least 4% of it, anyway. — Wayfarer

A petty point. All Clarky need is that at least some of the universe is understandable. We don't need to understand everything in order to understand something.

That we understand 4% of the universe implies (1).

well, at least 4% of it, anyway.
— Wayfarer

A petty point — Banno

You think the discovery that current cosmology accounts for only 4% of the projected totality of the Universe is petty?

No. I think using it as a supposed counter to (1) is petty.

Well just recall the historical origins of the 'ordered universe'. The term was 'cosmos', meaning the understanding of the Universe as an ordered whole. And I think that's completely out of sync with the state of current cosmology and physics which is utterly fragmented.

Again, remove (6) and there is no need for a first cause. (2) says that there is stuff, so the issue is resolved. — Banno

As we have discussed, you and I share an understanding that the idea of causality may not be a useful one. But still, causality has been an important metaphysical principle and I think most people believed it is valid in 1905 and probably still today. I'm reluctant to take it off the list. As for my new item on the list - Something can not come from nothing - it may be that, if I keep causality, I don't need it. But I still want to, even if only so I can have an even 10 items on my list.

Are you proposing that because we do not understand everything, we do not understand anything?

Of course you aren't. That there are things we do not understand does not count agains (1)

Unfortunately, I can find nothing to disagree with.

That's in conflict with one of my favorite quotes from my favorite scientist, Stephen Jay Gould - In science, “fact” can only mean “confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent. — Clarky

Nice one!

Are you proposing that because we do not understand everything, we do not understand anything?

Of course you aren't. — Banno

I'm not proposing you don't know how many cups there are in your cupboard, but pointing to the fact that current cosmological and physical theory is in a state of extreme flux and fragmentation. But of course we can overlook that, if it makes everyone here feel comfortable and satisfied to do so, which appears to be the aim.

R.G. Collingwood wrote that metaphysics is the study of absolute presuppositions. Absolute presuppositions are the unspoken, perhaps unconscious, assumptions that underpin how we understand reality. Collingwood wrote that absolute presuppositions are neither true nor false, but we won’t get into that argument here. I would like to enumerate and discuss the absolute presuppositions, the underlying assumptions, of classical physics. I’ll start off. — Clarky

I wasn't familiar with RGC, but his notion of "absolute presumptions" is interesting. In metaphysical discussions on this forum certain "presumptions" & prejudices quickly become apparent as posters line-up on opposite sides : crudely described as Physics versus Metaphysics. However, RGC seems to be returning to Socratic, versus Analytic, methods; apparently in response to Two-value Logical Positivism. Analytical Positivism seems to presume that knowledge is either True or False. Yet, Socrates demonstrated that most human knowledge is debatable.

I don't have the technical training to make any "absolute" observations on your list. But it's apparent that [1] is not very controversial in this day & age, but [2] is at the root of most of our interminable debates. Disagreements on the other items may depend on degree of commitment to Materialistic or Spiritualistic worldviews, which could also be labeled as "Realism vs Idealism". Absolute Presuppositions seem to assume a Black & While, Either/Or world. But Einstein's Relativism has implied that the world is BothAnd. :cool:


Socrates would challenge initial hypotheses and examine them for presumptions and assumptions.
https://www.qcc.cuny.edu/socialsciences/ppecorino/intro_text/Chapter%202%20GREEKS/Socrates_Legacy.htm

The Socratic method is a form of cooperative argumentative dialogue between individuals, based on asking and answering questions to stimulate critical thinking and to draw out ideas and underlying presuppositions. ___Wikipedia

"Collingwood had nothing to contribute to the debate between realists and idealists; he would have regarded it as belonging to metaphysics as the study of pure being, not as metaphysics understood as a form of presuppositional analysis. . . . "
The task of philosophy, Collingwood claims in An Essay on Metaphysics, is not to assert propositions in answers to questions but to uncover presuppositions.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/collingwood/

[1] We live in an ordered universe that can be understood by humans.
Note --- a minority of *educated* people today may still presume that the frustrations & rational challenges of the world are due to Trickster gods, or dueling deities, such as Jehovah & Satan.
** I caught a presupposition of my own.
[2] The universe consists entirely of physical substances - matter and energy.
Note ---Since the advent of Quantum & Information theories in Science, the physical foundation of the world was been undermined. What was classically presumed to be absolute, now seems to be indeterminate & uncertain.

[2] is at the root of most of our interminable debates. Disagreements on the other items may depend on degree of commitment to Materialistic or Spiritualistic worldviews — Gnomon

As I said in my original post, the validity of materialism is not the subject of this discussion. It's purpose is to try to identify the absolute presuppositions of a materialist view point, i.e. materialism is assumed for the purposes of this discussion.

2] The universe consists entirely of physical substances - matter and energy.
Note ---Since the advent of Quantum & Information theories in Science, the physical foundation of the world was been undermined. What was classically presumed to be absolute, now seems to be indeterminate & uncertain. — Gnomon

As the OP indicates, this discussion is based on classical physics, in particular what was known in 1905, before quantum mechanics had been discovered.

As I said in my original post, the validity of materialism is not the subject of this discussion. It's purpose is to try to identify the absolute presuppositions of a materialist view point, i.e. materialism is assumed for the purposes of this discussion. — Clarky

Yes. But a materialist might disagree with the label of "presupposition", and insist that it is just an "absolute truth" or "known fact". Assuming you do find some "absolute presuppositions" in Materialism, will that reflect on its Validity? Likewise with Spiritualism or Idealism or any kind of -ism. One man's presupposition may be another man's fundamental Truth.

The label for each belief system is intended to identify its core value, its ultimate truth, and its essential reality. Metaphysical debates on this forum tend to focus on finding false assumptions in the opposition worldview, while presenting obvious truths in the correct worldview. Then around & around we go. :joke:

PS__Why do you limit this discussion to Classical Physics? Do you have an agenda? Just asking.