Why can't reality in total contain its own explanation? — apokrisis

Self-explanatory: Self-explanatory

To be fair though, most explanations are such that they rely on something exterior, usually more basic, to that which is being explained e.g. Why is the sky blue? Rayleigh scattering.

This gives me an idea. If explanations must always move in the direction from the complex to the simple, there'll come a point when we'll have hit a wall, the simplest, which would need no explanation at all.

If the territory itself is the map then the map is an exact replica of the territory. — EugeneW

Ocean in a teacup.

One problem with arguments from (in-)conceivability is that what are called 'private mental states' can have no significance for serious inquiry. — lll

Why not? I can inquire into my own private mental states, can't I? It appears that our analytic brain has become used to doing what it does (analysis) symbolically. No symbol, no analysis. If our "world" is essentially analytic in character then, as Wittgenstein said, "the limits of my language are the limits of my world." However, there's more to our world than simply comprehending it, there's pure experience of it, something that actually takes place as part of the process of data collection, pre-analysis.

almost no one knows what to do — lll

Yes, almost. Let's say that's 99% of folks. Who are the 1% and where are they?

MV, one the fundamental confusions in philosophy is taking a realm of shared logical intuitions and qualia for granted as foundational ur-stuff and trying to construct a world from it. — lll

Excellent. It doesn't have to be that way, and the truth has no obligation to reveal itself thus. However, what's the alternative? Every man for himself? That would be amazing! The question is, are we as similar as we think we are or are we, each one of us, irreconcilably unique? How do we know that this "shared intuitions and qualia" isn't an illusion i.e. there's no consensus, even if there is, it's in name only?

Unless the map is the territory. — EugeneW

How so?

Economics, I'd say. (I don't just money, but practical constraints and tradeoffs.) — lll

Yes, economy, I must agree.

Because it'd be useless, right? — lll

Not useless, but (too) complex/complicated/unwieldy.

It'd be just as easy to stare at the world. — lll

I wonder if that's what we should be doing.

oversimplification — lll

Do you have an instance of oversimplification?

Abstraction is subtractive — lll

Nice! Reductive would be a better word, but subtractive is good enough (for government work).

Ignore the right things, right? — lll

:clap: Bravo!

Paradoxes are semantic or conceptual illusions generated by inadequate, or faulty, premises. Zeno's faulty premise is that the physical world is 'infinitely divisible', which atomists (of his day) conceptually and quantum physicists (over twenty-two centuries after him) experimentally have demonstrated is not the case. Poof, no paradox – we know how Zeno's magic "arrow" trick is done. :sparkle: — 180 Proof

I'm a bit unsettled by your confidence on the matter! Is it wise to be so cocksure? I thought skepticism was good for the soul (Orcale of Delphi: Surety, then ruin).

Anyway, your proposed solution to Zeno's paradox (infinitely divisibility of space has to be rejected) is fine by me.

simplicity is good. But why? — lll

Off the top of my head...

1. There's only so much that our brains can handle.

2. The map can't be an exact replica of the territory.

I argue in my link that reality is necessarily not contradictory (i.e. an impossible world). And our maps certainly can and do contain contradictions, some of which I mention in the first sentence of my previous post. — 180 Proof

To my knowledge, the mind simply can't handle contradictions. It might appear as though we can take contradictions in our stride (vide cognitive dissonance), but remember they cause distress/anxiety and people go to great lengths, bend over backwards so to speak, to resolve the offending antinomy.

Experimenting on myself, I attempted to conceive of a ball wholly red AND wholly not red (I chose black). It was a failure, it can't be done, by me at least.

Returning to what I said my earlier post, I believe paradoxes, like anything else for that matter, can be put to good use. I compare them to statements that computers can't parse - DOES NOT COMPUTE! I believe they are portals to nirvana, at least in a Zen context (koans are paradoxes, that seems to have been the aim in formulating them anyway).

Zeno wouldn't have made such a vexing, idiotic speculation had he read and groked Democritus. Anyway, Max Planck dispelled Zeno's "infinite divisibility" assumption once and for all. Science has provided physical grist for the metaphysical mill in many many instances. — 180 Proof

Not everyone is sold on the calculus solutions to Zeno's paradoxes or so they tell me.

I like Zeno of Elea. I like paradoxes. I recommend them to you too You look like a guy who'd enjoy transcendence every now and then, paradoxes (contradictions) provide one of the best ways for the mind to catch a glimpse of the next level of reality (beyond-mind).

:up:

One point in your own post you linked to caught my eye - modeling/mapping reality. It appears that the idea is to create/generate mental models/maps of reality. The mind can't do contradictions - it's beyond its ken as it were - and so it rejects aspects of reality that are either contradictions or very nearly contradictions.

Notice here that reality doesn't have to be consistent (contradiction free), only the mental map/model has to be. This is like saying I can't understand Wittgenstein and so Wittgenstein is nonsense!

With great POWER comes great RESPONSIBILITY

When you say x could be either a, b, or c, it means x fits, meshes, with all of the options. In the case of Lewis' argument, if Jesus were brought before you, it would be hard/ impossible to tell whether he was a liar or a lunatic or the lord. That's what worries me! Is God a mendacious psychotic?

No one can as it would require one to hold something in the mind while at the same time not holding it in the mind. — Harry Hindu

Can you please tell me what exactly goes through your mind when, for example, I tell you to conceive (is this even the right word/concept?) the following:

1. Square & Not square (easy)
2. A quark & Not quark (hard)

Can a being be omnipotent without free will?
If I can do anything, but someone/something else decides what I'll be doing, what's the point of being omnipotent?


Can a being possess free will and not be omnipotent? Restrictions on being able to do what one chooses/wants to do. What's the point of just being able to want to do things, but being unable to do those things?

Omnipotence. What follows? A being that can do anything and everything cannot be reasoned with, if that being has decided upon a course of action, oui?

Why is omnipotence a divine attribute? What did we gain and what did we lose?

Well, if you're not allowed to do anything, f**k off! — Eddie Izzard

My thesis version 2.0

LNC

1. If it's impossible to the mind then, it's impossible in reality.

2. Contradictions are impossible (to the mind)

Ergo,

3. Contradictions are impossible in reality

On some reading, at some level, this is idealism (reality can't do a contradiction is the takeaway) i.e. reality must make sense to the mind or else it can't be reality or a part of reality.

However reality, some tell me, has a few surprises in store for us our minds - it defies the LNC on not one but multiple occasions I'm told. So what's this?

Good account of the situation as it is in certain parts of the world. I'm just curious, is the incel phenomenon global? I haven't heard of incels in countries other than the US of A. Is it just under-reporting or do they lack a platform to band together? I dunno.

Also, I didn't know incel had a women's wing. Well, at least in equal/proportionate representation they didn't get the short end of the stick. Bitter sweet.

There is no opposition; science and metaphysics are first-order "apples" and second-order "fruit". — 180 Proof

I thought so too; metaphysics and science are just different stages of philosophy/science depending on where one starts.

To paraphrase Witty: they try to say things that, at most, cannot be said; such "meta-physics" are nonsense. — 180 Proof

Indeed, if one considers the fact that metaphysical theories/concepts have to be created/invented from scratch with no readily available reference points that can be used to grasp the import of these theories/concepts, it is a veritable private language (incomprehensible to you and to others both). Nonsense!

What can we speculate about without talking nonsense? To my mind, only ways of interpreting nature – mapmaking maps of the territory – without using "supernatural" (i.e. ontologically transcendent / impossible world) predicates. — 180 Proof

Yup, William of Occam (Novacula Occami: Pluralitas non est ponenda sine necessitate); :kiss: (keep it simple, stupid). Why complexify? Shouldn't we simplify?

Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muss man schweigen. — TLP, prop. 7

Whatever it is that you're selling, I'm buying. :up:

Basically, metaphysics consists in conceptual speculations to the exclusion (as much as conceivable ~ Aristotle) of occult babytalk, glossolalia or mystagogy. — 180 Proof

:lol: :up:

:up: I hope I'll be able to read that book, if luck doesn't dump me like the last time she did!

:clap: The excerpt was well worth my time! Thanks! G'day mate.

our infinite jest is proof of the progress of philosophy — lll

You're on a roll, that's for sure. Does Democritus resonate with you at any level?

Wittgenstein: I like where he intends to take us, but I'm skeptical of his ability to do so! Bear with me: me, tenderfoot!

Good luck, good person!

No clear-cut answer. I'll take that as a no, philosophy hasn't made even an iota of progress.

I like your style sir/madam, I hope there's substance too in there somewhere! :smile:

I don't quite get it, why would Lemaître dissuade the Pope from endorsing the Big Bang Theory as a vindication of the doctrine of creatio ex nihilo?

Lemaître faced opposition even from scientists like Fred Hoyle, that should've been a big hint as to the utility of Lemaître's discovery in putting Christian belief on a firm footing.

It seems The Big Bang Theory had no takers on either side of the conflict (science vs. religion). For a moment there (coupla years perhaps) it fell between two stools.

Later...science gave its nod of approval to Lemaître's astounding discovery, and the Pope should've immediately grabbed the opportunity to reconcile at least astronomy with Christianity, religion generally speaking. That ship hasn't sailed (yet). What are the Popes waiting for? They must have bigger fish to fry like pro-choicers in the US or something.

Returning to the OP's concerns vis-à-vis anti-metaphysics, Occam seems to have been pro-science or anti-metaphysics; Occam's rule (do not multiply entities beyond necessity) is quite popular among scientists I hear.

He did some good blow jobs indeed. — EugeneW

:rofl: Good one!

Unless we understand the movements of our limbs as answers. — lll

Solvitur ambulando.

Life throws us hungry into a mess — lll

Dust!

My question is, has philosophy made progress? It's a simple question. Dare I think it has a simple answer?

Hi. The bolded part doesn't seem quite right to me. Perhaps the 'physical' is too readily equated with that which we can be scientific or objective or unbiased about. Is the frequency of various words used on Twitter a physical issue? Perhaps one can emphasize the mechanics of storage and transmission, but it's more intuitive and convenient to think of them as tokens that can be uncontroversially counted. It's also easy to make predictions that can be uncontroversially evaluated afterwords for their accuracy or lack thereof. When you say 'science claims...,' you seem to be making 'science' into a metaphysician. — lll

I can tell you this: no amount of arguing for the existence of the nonphysical is going to persuade science to change its mind on what can exist (only the physical - matter & energy). You're just begging the question I'm afraid.

Popular myth. Properly speaking, it’s indifferent to the subject. It’s up to metaphysics to accommodate the empirical discoveries of science, which it ough not to have trouble doing. — Wayfarer

:ok: Science does use Occam's broom though, the issues that don't suit their cause are conveniently swept under the rug or is it that they bury their heads in the sand?

Didn't know there was an anti-metaphysics brigade, but it seems inevitable, from a yin-yang point of view that is. The duet, however, isn't pleasant to the ear or the soul, unless of course I'm missing something (critical). Perhaps it's an acquired taste :vomit: $\rightarrow$ :yum: (give it time, she'll come around).

So, science is enemy #1 for metaphysics. Metaphysics, its domain, is empirically empty; what it studies is not observable, the clearest proof of that being the strain of logic employed viz. (exclusively) deduction and not induction.

True to its purpose, metaphysics investigates the necessity/possibility of scientific paradigms; it isn't just content with a description of nature like science, it strives to discover the rationale, the logic, the formal cause of reality as it were and mayhaps that'll become our springboard for uncovering reality's final cause (telos), then on to God, the creator.

Too, metaphysics isn't clear about what existence means, yet science claims only the physical exists. That's like someone who doesn't know what blue means and claiming the sky is blue. :chin:

Furthermore, for science has as a fundamental premise change, that it is real and happens. Metaphysics isn't so sure (vide Parmenideans). Here too, a joke at our own expense: How can someone who's unsure whether souls are real or not go on to measuring and doing calculations on souls?

Then space and time, metaphysical points of interest that are taken for granted in science. There are, last I checked, (mathematical) paradoxes that are veritable logic bombs, ready to detonate randomly in crowded places, threatening the very conceptual foundations of spacetime (vide Zeno of Elea).

Science is ahead of metaphysics, but it cheats in a manner of speaking for it begins its run midway and not at the starting line where metaphysics is. If science continues in this rather ignoble manner, it might regret taking such a rash decision.

Only he who creates himself out of nothing has a completely free will. — charles ferraro

:fire:

Excelente!

Determinism beaten...that too soundly.

5 times fewer?

11 times 5 = 11 × 5 = 55. It's not fewer, the product is greater than the original number we began with.

5 times fewer. :chin:

We can say I want 0.2 times fewer. 0.2 = $\frac{1}{5}$

Can someone please contradict himself/herself and tell us what's going on inside his/her head?

Why is God like a dictator or conversely why is a dictator God?

Why is free will mixed up in power (games)?

Yes, you're correct. — Bartricks

:up:

Omnipotence (absolute power) = Dictator (absolute power)

You're now absolutely right!

Free will & Omnipotence, what's the connection?

Omnipotence = Dictator
It's as inevitable as summer follows spring!

Yes, like most atheists, you confuse 'God' with 'Christianity' and think that hackneyed criticisms of Christianity can just be lazily peddled against anyone who defends God.

Doesn't work. Once more: God is by definition morally good. Dictators are morally bad - and that's something you believe too, yes? So, God is not a dictator. — Bartricks

You're right!

You're right!

You are now confusing God with the bible. — Bartricks

Am I now? Thanks for noticing.