Eternal Creation Ex Nihilo vs Modern Cosmology

[Bahman]

I think the key question is whether what we observe is reality or manifestation of reality. In first case metaphysics conclusion can be induced and in the second case metaphysics itself can be induced since by definition metaphysics is a set of consistent concepts that explain reality. This is very important to understand since we have to know what we have in our hands and what we want to prove. The existence of laws of nature guarantee the existence of regularity in reality if we accept them as metaphysical concepts hence scientism is correct unless one argue that the laws of nature are not metaphysical concepts by this I mean that laws of nature are derived from metaphysical concepts but they are not the same. The former claim in fact argues that reality is what we observe and the second claim argue that reality is not what we observe. Based on this discussion I found the position of theist philosophers very ironic since they strive on scientism meanwhile arguing against it!!!

 

[inocente]

Since I blew this thread by creating an unclear title I will just respond by saying that the question isn’t interesting to me. But Thomas has argued ( De Potentia, Book 1, arts 3 & 5 ) that God could have eternally been creating the universe out of nothing. The point being that whether or not the universe has had a finite or an eternal past, a creation out of nothing would still have been necessary. But for Cathlics the answer is that God created the universe, in time, our of nothing. It is a De Fide teaching based on the Scriptures.

58 degrees in KC, MO. right now. Very unusual but refreshing.

There seems to have been a lot of argument to come to that position.

30 in the shade here. That’s 86 in ye olde worlde units.

 

[tdgesq]

I think the key question is whether what we observe is reality or manifestation of reality. In first case metaphysics conclusion can be induced and in the second case metaphysics itself can be induced since by definition metaphysics is a set of consistent concepts that explain reality.

I think this is a false dichotomy. To say that what we observe is not reality would be self-defeating. We would have no concepts, no empirical methods, to investigate reality if that were the case. I’m not saying you disagree with this, just setting forth one of the presuppositions for any knowledge of reality.

When you use the phrase “manifestation of reality,” I take that to mean that our view of reality is incomplete; that there is more to discover about reality - quantum mechanics, dna sequence, etc - than what our initial observations discovered. I also believe it means that some initial observations of reality can be incorrect. I don’t think many here would disagree with you. What they might disagree with is that physical reality is solely a description of quantum particles and their interactions.

The existence of laws of nature guarantee the existence of regularity in reality if we accept them as metaphysical concepts hence scientism is correct unless one argue that the laws of nature are not metaphysical concepts by this I mean that laws of nature are derived from metaphysical concepts but they are not the same.

Again, few Thomists would argue with you that all knowledge (there are some non-applicable exceptions) of reality comes to us through the senses, or that sensory data is abstracted by the intellect to discover metaphysical concepts. Even the law of excluded middle and the pythagorean theorem are ultimately derived through sense data, although we wouldn’t necessarily call them “laws of nature.”

The former claim in fact argues that reality is what we observe and the second claim argue that reality is not what we observe. Based on this discussion I found the position of theist philosophers very ironic since they strive on scientism meanwhile arguing against it!!!

I haven’t seen that, at least not in this thread. Objections have been lodged that metaphysical claims are being proffered for which we have little or no warrant, given our observations.

 

[Bahman]

I think this is a false dichotomy. To say that what we observe is not reality would be self-defeating.

It is not. Consider the case of Plato cave by which I mean that reality has many layers and we are just exposed to outer surface and very deep underneath there exist true reality namely metaphysical concepts which all laws are derived from.

We would have no concepts, no empirical methods, to investigate reality if that were the case. I’m not saying you disagree with this, just setting forth one of the presuppositions for any knowledge of reality.

We could still have concepts with the difference that our concepts based on empirical methods are not metaphysical concepts.

When you use the phrase “manifestation of reality,” I take that to mean that our view of reality is incomplete; that there is more to discover about reality - quantum mechanics, dna sequence, etc - than what our initial observations discovered. I also believe it means that some initial observations of reality can be incorrect. I don’t think many here would disagree with you. What they might disagree with is that physical reality is solely a description of quantum particles and their interactions.

The main question is what we observe can be explained in term of set of laws so called laws of nature and they are metaphysical laws if what we observe is the only thing that can be observed namely reality. The duty of science is to discover the metaphysical laws from empirical methods then which means there is no room left for anything else such as theology and philosophy. Hence scientism is the only approach to reality and it is correct.

Again, few Thomists would argue with you that all knowledge (there are some non-applicable exceptions) of reality comes to us through the senses, or that sensory data is abstracted by the intellect to discover metaphysical concepts. Even the law of excluded middle and the pythagorean theorem are ultimately derived through sense data, although we wouldn’t necessarily call them “laws of nature.”

That I am aware of but they cannot by any chance provide an argument that what we observe through our sensory system is reality hence what we discover through abstraction are metaphysical concepts.

I haven’t seen that, at least not in this thread. Objections have been lodged that metaphysical claims are being proffered for which we have little or no warrant, given our observations.

Again, if what we observe through our sensory system is reality then science is the only approach that one can derive laws of nature or metaphysical concept from. By definition, science is set of systematic methods which explain the behavior of objective reality, the latter is what we observe through our sensory system. Can you please define what is the duty of philosophy given the definition of science?

 

[tdgesq]

It is not. Consider the case of Plato cave by which I mean that reality has many layers and we are just exposed to outer surface and very deep underneath there exist true reality namely metaphysical concepts which all laws are derived from.

Plato’s allegory of the cave demonstrates the exact opposite of your conclusion. The shadows of the puppets against the cave wall are not real people, and don’t even reflect real people. More to the point, the prisoners in the cave could never deduce from this non-reality, what is actually reality. It is only when they are freed from their imprisonment and can then see reality that they can know what it is. So no, a mere reflection or shadow of some part of reality does not lead to knowledge of reality under Plato’s allegory.

Btw, even if Plato’s allegory is in some sense analagous to our actual situation, it certainly didn’t lead him to the correct conclusion about reality. Well, unless you believe that the highest level of reality is made of immaterial Forms that exist in the world of ideas!

We could still have concepts with the difference that our concepts based on empirical methods are not metaphysical concepts.

Is the scientist’s microscope real? Is his supercollider real? They had better be or else his observations derived from them are in jeopardy.

The duty of science is to discover the metaphysical laws from empirical methods then which means there is no room left for anything else such as theology and philosophy. Hence scientism is the only approach to reality and it is correct.

Um, scientism is the position that only the scientific method (hypothesis, data gathering, testing, analysis, conclusion) leads to valid conclusions about reality. Not only is scientism unprovable through the scientific method, but even the most mundane observations show it is false. 99% of our knowledge comes from empirical observation that doesn’t involve any of the steps enumerated in the scientific method. I don’t need the scientific method to know that reality is that I prefer ice cream to lima beans. I don’t need the scientific method to know that the British Navy was the victor at the battle of Trafalgar.

That I am aware of but they cannot by any chance provide an argument that what we observe through our sensory system is reality hence what we discover through abstraction are metaphysical concepts.

Since we both accept the reliability of the senses, why would my philosophical argument for it make a difference? The point still stands that our empirical observations yield reliable information about reality. If you deny this, then you destroy empiricism and the scientific method along with it.

Again, if what we observe through our sensory system is reality then science is the only approach that one can derive laws of nature or metaphysical concept from. By definition, science is set of systematic methods which explain the behavior of objective reality, the latter is what we observe through our sensory system. Can you please define what is the duty of philosophy given the definition of science?

I guess I’ll just go wherever your argument leads, and that’s apparently that philosophy cannot give us knowledge of reality. First, your definition fails to describe what “systematic methods” exclusively belong to it, although the scientific method certainly would. Second, philosophy has classically defined itself (particularly metaphysics) as a science, just not an exclusively empiriometric one.

Finally, and conclusively, I will give you a duty of philosophy that is not “science” as you define it. I could give you many, but one that is dispositive is enough to disprove your argument. Formal logic. It’s taught in every philosophy department at every major university around the world. Without using its principles, there would be no science at all.

 

[opusAquinas]

I think the key question is whether what we observe is reality or manifestation of reality. In first case metaphysics conclusion can be induced and in the second case metaphysics itself can be induced since by definition metaphysics is a set of consistent concepts that explain reality. This is very important to understand since we have to know what we have in our hands and what we want to prove. The existence of laws of nature guarantee the existence of regularity in reality if we accept them as metaphysical concepts hence scientism is correct unless one argue that the laws of nature are not metaphysical concepts by this I mean that laws of nature are derived from metaphysical concepts but they are not the same. The former claim in fact argues that reality is what we observe and the second claim argue that reality is not what we observe. Based on this discussion I found the position of theist philosophers very ironic since they strive on scientism meanwhile arguing against it!!!

I take it you’ve read the Gospel. And don’t believe any of it?

You don’t believe Jesus is God???

 

[Bahman]

I take it you’ve read the Gospel. And don’t believe any of it?

You don’t believe Jesus is God???

I don’t think that reading Gospel and believing in Jesus would resolve any problem when it comes to a philosophical argument.

My question is very simple: Do what we observe so called objective reality is real? The answer is either yes or no. If yes then metaphysical concept are physical concept and there is nothing beyond. If no then there exist reality which is different from what we observe since metaphysical concepts are different than physical concept since by definition metaphysical is a set consistent concept which explain reality hence physical concept are drove from metaphysical concept.

 

[Bahman]

Plato’s allegory of the cave demonstrates the exact opposite of your conclusion. The shadows of the puppets against the cave wall are not real people, and don’t even reflect real people. More to the point, the prisoners in the cave could never deduce from this non-reality, what is actually reality. It is only when they are freed from their imprisonment and can then see reality that they can know what it is. So no, a mere reflection or shadow of some part of reality does not lead to knowledge of reality under Plato’s allegory.

I am aware of Plato’s allegory. What I am arguing is the metaphysical concepts are real only under Plato’s allegory meaning that there exists a set of underlying consistent concept that physical concepts, namely what explain the behavior of shadows, are derived from.

Btw, even if Plato’s allegory is in some sense analagous to our actual situation, it certainly didn’t lead him to the correct conclusion about reality.

The question whether we are open to reality given we are exposed to shadows is subject of discussion. This depends very much whether there exist a minimal number of anomalies that prohibit us from having a set of consistent concepts that could explain shadows well. Each anomaly is a door to the reality of what really sun looks like and if we have enough number of anomalies then we can know the reality. A world without anomaly is a prison of thoughts.

Well, unless you believe that the highest level of reality is made of immaterial Forms that exist in the world of ideas!

What I believe is that reality can be explained in term of a set of consistent concepts in world of ideas which is infinite. It has to be infinite otherwise the properties of beings are resolvable and reducible.

Is the scientist’s microscope real? Is his supercollider real? They had better be or else his observations derived from them are in jeopardy.

What we know through observation is either real or not. If it is real then metaphysical concepts can be directly be induced from what we observe. If it is not then metaphysical concepts has to be indirectly be induced from anomalies within observation by which I mean to establish a new framework which anomalies are resolved, the final framework which is anomaly free if it exist then explain the reality through watching the shadows.

Um, scientism is the position that only the scientific method (hypothesis, data gathering, testing, analysis, conclusion) leads to valid conclusions about reality. Not only is scientism unprovable through the scientific method, but even the most mundane observations show it is false. 99% of our knowledge comes from empirical observation that doesn’t involve any of the steps enumerated in the scientific method. I don’t need the scientific method to know that reality is that I prefer ice cream to lima beans. I don’t need the scientific method to know that the British Navy was the victor at the battle of Trafalgar.

What I am arguing is that if reality is what we observe then scientism is the correct approach to know the reality hence physical concepts are metaphysical concepts since there is no underlying reality that should be discovered by metaphysics.

Since we both accept the reliability of the senses, why would my philosophical argument for it make a difference? The point still stands that our empirical observations yield reliable information about reality. If you deny this, then you destroy empiricism and the scientific method along with it.

The reliability of senses is subject to question when it comes to observing reality. What we see is either reality or it is a reflection of reality, in first case physical concepts which we construct them are metaphysical concept otherwise they are not.

I guess I’ll just go wherever your argument leads, and that’s apparently that philosophy cannot give us knowledge of reality. First, your definition fails to describe what “systematic methods” exclusively belong to it, although the scientific method certainly would. Second, philosophy has classically defined itself (particularly metaphysics) as a science, just not an exclusively empiriometric one.

Finally, and conclusively, I will give you a duty of philosophy that is not “science” as you define it. I could give you many, but one that is dispositive is enough to disprove your argument. Formal logic. It’s taught in every philosophy department at every major university around the world. Without using its principles, there would be no science at all.

My question is whether formal logic or other branches of philosophy explain reality which is what we observe, accepting the fact that what we observe is reality. If it is not, it doesn’t have anything with metaphysics and if it is then philosophy is science both dealing with metaphysics.

 

[opusAquinas]

I don’t think that reading Gospel and believing in Jesus would resolve any problem when it comes to a philosophical argument.

My question is very simple: Do what we observe so called objective reality is real? The answer is either yes or no. If yes then metaphysical concept are physical concept and there is nothing beyond. If no then there exist reality which is different from what we observe since metaphysical concepts are different than physical concept since by definition metaphysical is a set consistent concept which explain reality hence physical concept are drove from metaphysical concept.

So you don’t believe in Jesus Christ???

OK.

youtube.com/watch?v=y6DtYC9N8RM

These are some of the best academic philosophers of their generation.

They say you can’t know what the truth is outside of their being God.

 

[Skeptic92]

I don’t think that reading Gospel and believing in Jesus would resolve any problem when it comes to a philosophical argument.

My question is very simple: Do what we observe so called objective reality is real? The answer is either yes or no. If yes then metaphysical concept are physical concept and there is nothing beyond. If no then there exist reality which is different from what we observe since metaphysical concepts are different than physical concept since by definition metaphysical is a set consistent concept which explain reality hence physical concept are drove from metaphysical concept.

Yeah, we observe “objective reality”. I’m not sure the wedge driven between body and mind my post-Cartesian philosophy is a valid problem; it seems to be built into the premises in regards to the nature of the mind. The problem being these premises are the ones being assumed, rather than argued for.

Whoever defined Metaphysics as discovering an “hidden reality”? That sounds like idealism, or a hyper-rationalism, rather than classical Metaphysics.

 

[Bahman]

Yeah, we observe “objective reality”. I’m not sure the wedge driven between body and mind my post-Cartesian philosophy is a valid problem; it seems to be built into the premises in regards to the nature of the mind. The problem being these premises are the ones being assumed, rather than argued for.

Whoever defined Metaphysics as discovering an “hidden reality”? That sounds like idealism, or a hyper-rationalism, rather than classical Metaphysics.

So let me question the position of classical metaphysics versus physics? They both claim that they are dealing with reality. How one can differentiate them?

This is very important question related to this thread since if metaphysics and physics are one then we in principle can explain creation in a physical framework by which I mean that there exist a set of physical laws that can explain the physical concepts at point of creation. One has to assume that laws of physics are constant in different scale of creation so we can deduce the universe at the point creation from what we can abstract as physical concepts from what we observe now so called physical laws. One can easily argue that physical concept that explain reality at point creation is different from what we observe now if the former assumption is incorrect meaning that we are dealing with hidden reality since physical concept could be subject to change but not reality.

 

[Skeptic92]

So let me question the position of classical metaphysics versus physics? They both claim that they are dealing with reality. How one can differentiate them?

This is very important question related to this thread since if metaphysics and physics are one then we in principle can explain creation in a physical framework by which I mean that there exist a set of physical laws that can explain the physical concepts at point of creation. One has to assume that laws of physics are constant in different scale of creation so we can deduce the universe at the point creation from what we can abstract as physical concepts from what we observe now so called physical laws. One can easily argue that physical concept that explain reality at point creation is different from what we observe now if the former assumption is incorrect meaning that we are dealing with hidden reality since physical concept could be subject to change but not reality.

The natural sciences have of their principle object “being in motion”; whether that is organic, inorganic, or cosmological depends upon the branch. Whilst metaphysics is the study, and application of first principle, to being as being. We now commonly distinguish between two disciplines under metaphysics; Epistemology/Criteriology, & Ontology. Epistemology deals with “being as known to the subject”, that is how we know being. Whilst Ontology, what would have previously been called Metaphysics, deals with Being simply speaking.

The subjects of enquiry in Ontology are; causality, substance, essence, nature, existence, the transcendentals, nature of being per se.

These are all subjects that other areas of Philosophy (and the sciences which branch off from it) must presuppose before they can ever get off the ground. Any explanation of these subjects could only be found in Ontology; as in any other discipline the argument would be circular, so ultimately self-defeating.

EDIT: Ooo, I see you appealed to the laws of physics. Can you please tell me the exact nature of these laws? Are they theological decrees? The interaction of causal powers of substances? Platonic forms employed by the demiurge as in Platonic philosophy?

 

[Anselm33]

Please see the relevant posts in my blog:
Philosophic Issues In Cosmology 1–Introduction
2. Relativistic Theories for the Origin of the Universe
3. Mathematical Metaphysics: Quantum Mechanical Theories for the Origin of the Universe
4. Creatio ex Nihilo–Theology versus (?) Physics
5. What Measurements Tell Us
6. The Anthropic Coincidences
7. Is there a Multiverse?
8.Foundational Propositions and Conclusions
The posts are taken from an article by George F.R. Ellis and article in Conferences called by St. John Paul II (as Pope) on theology, philosophy and science in Divine Action. (specific references are given in the posts.)
Constructive comments and brickbats welcomed!

 

[tdgesq]

I am aware of Plato’s allegory. What I am arguing is the metaphysical concepts are real only under Plato’s allegory meaning that there exists a set of underlying consistent concept that physical concepts, namely what explain the behavior of shadows, are derived from.

You are obviously aware of Plato’s allegory, yet unaware of its implications. Plato’s conclusions were wrong. Neither you nor I agree that there exists a separate world of immaterial Ideas that are the actual ground of reality. That is where philosophers end up when they begin with the premise that what we apprehend are mere shadows or reflections of reality.

The question whether we are open to reality given we are exposed to shadows is subject of discussion. This depends very much whether there exist a minimal number of anomalies that prohibit us from having a set of consistent concepts that could explain shadows well. Each anomaly is a door to the reality of what really sun looks like and if we have enough number of anomalies then we can know the reality. A world without anomaly is a prison of thoughts.

“A world without anomaly is a prison of thoughts.” While that sounds deep and profound, a world without knowledge of reality is the prison. Presumably both scientism and Thomism seek the truth - what is reality. “Anomaly,” as you put it, is the enemy of reality. It is non-reality. Even if you were to exclude all “anomalies,” that doesn’t get you to reality; just as excluding all competing theories doesn’t make one’s own theory true. There must be some means by which to judge reality. Having “enough number of anomalies,” - enough instances of non-reality - does not tell us what reality is.

What I believe is that reality can be explained in term of a set of consistent concepts in world of ideas which is infinite. It has to be infinite otherwise the properties of beings are resolvable and reducible.

So what. I believe something similar (not identical), obviously for very different reasons than you do. Our respective beliefs aren’t relevant. Knowledge is though.

What we know through observation is either real or not. If it is real then metaphysical concepts can be directly be induced from what we observe. If it is not then metaphysical concepts has to be indirectly be induced from anomalies within observation by which I mean to establish a new framework which anomalies are resolved, the final framework which is anomaly free if it exist then explain the reality through watching the shadows.

Identifying what isn’t reality does not make what is reality one whit more probable. This is especially true if your “world of ideas” is infinite. The set of all possible realities cannot, by definition, be jointly exhaustive ie. there are infinite options. A model of how to know and judge reality must rest on the truth of its own principles.

What I am arguing is that if reality is what we observe then scientism is the correct approach to know the reality hence physical concepts are metaphysical concepts since there is no underlying reality that should be discovered by metaphysics.

Except that isn’t what metaphysics claims to do. Sure, if you redefine metaphysics to be the study of non-reality, but that is contrary to the actual definition. Metaphysics is the study of first causes, the formal object of which is the being of things - that is - the ultimate reality of things.

Perhaps you mean that the scientific method is the only means by which to know reality. I already provided examples that isn’t correct, to which you never responded. In fact, I asserted (with examples) that most of what we know about reality is not arrived at through the scientific method.

The reliability of senses is subject to question when it comes to observing reality. What we see is either reality or it is a reflection of reality, in first case physical concepts which we construct them are metaphysical concept otherwise they are not.

Except that modus ponens isn’t a physical concept; inherent human rights aren’t a physical concept; the laws of mathematics aren’t a physical concept; Qualia as a mental state isn’t a physical concept. Are any of these not real? The fact that our knowledge of these things ultimately come through the senses does not make them physical concepts, yet they are quite real.

My question is whether formal logic or other branches of philosophy explain reality which is what we observe, accepting the fact that what we observe is reality. If it is not, it doesn’t have anything with metaphysics and if it is then philosophy is science both dealing with metaphysics.

Does logic explain reality?! Aren’t you attempting to describe reality to me right now, and aren’t you using logical arguments to do it? Yes, every time a scientist conducts an experiment he uses the law of non-contradiction: his results can’t both confirm and deny the hypothesis at the same time in the same sense.

Logic is the tool, the method, by which philosophers gain knowledge of first principles and of being. If you want to define logic and philosophy as science, that’s fine with me. It has been defined that way traditionally. But let’s be clear: philosophy does give us knowledge of reality, yet it does not use the scientific method of the specialized sciences. In fact, the scientific method ultimately relies on philosophy for its existence.

 

[Bahman]

You are obviously aware of Plato’s allegory, yet unaware of its implications. Plato’s conclusions were wrong. Neither you nor I agree that there exists a separate world of immaterial Ideas that are the actual ground of reality.

I do in fact think that there could exist a separate world of immaterial ideas that are actual ground of reality and we could be cognitively closed to it. Think of duality of mind and body which is not resolvable under any interpretation. The Plato’s allegory can only be excluded if we could find a set of consistent concepts that can explain objective reality completely yet it cannot completely be disproved.

That is where philosophers end up when they begin with the premise that what we apprehend are mere shadows or reflections of reality.

Philosophy doesn’t end up. We just have to be careful of our claim whether the subject of study is reality, its reflection, just a part of it, etc. How could be so sure that what we observe is reality?

“A world without anomaly is a prison of thoughts.” While that sounds deep and profound, a world without knowledge of reality is the prison. Presumably both scientism and Thomism seek the truth - what is reality. “Anomaly,” as you put it, is the enemy of reality. It is non-reality.

Anomaly is not enemy of reality. The existence of anomaly just states that the current interpretation is not correct.

Even if you were to exclude all “anomalies,” that doesn’t get you to reality; just as excluding all competing theories doesn’t make one’s own theory true. There must be some means by which to judge reality. Having “enough number of anomalies,” - enough instances of non-reality - does not tell us what reality is.

It does if we accept that there does not exist two realities since it cannot exist two different theories which are anomaly free and they could explain objective reality well unless there exist a unique map between two theories.

So what. I believe something similar (not identical), obviously for very different reasons than you do. Our respective beliefs aren’t relevant. Knowledge is though.

This means that there exist not a theory with finite number of concept which is anomaly free and can explain the subject matter well.

Identifying what isn’t reality does not make what is reality one whit more probable. This is especially true if your “world of ideas” is infinite. The set of all possible realities cannot, by definition, be jointly exhaustive ie. there are infinite options. A model of how to know and judge reality must rest on the truth of its own principles.

The fact that world of ideas is infinite indicates that there could exist a theory which could explain objective reality well within a framework if and only if there exists one unresolvable anomaly.

Except that isn’t what metaphysics claims to do. Sure, if you redefine metaphysics to be the study of non-reality, but that is contrary to the actual definition. Metaphysics is the study of first causes, the formal object of which is the being of things - that is - the ultimate reality of things.

I think I was very clear with my argument. Suppose that one find a physical theory which explains the objective reality well. This theory in principle is a framework that explains the ultimate reality of things. There is no room left for metaphysics to claim that they could find a theory which can explain objective reality well too and if there is then there exist a unique map between physical theory and metaphysical theory. This however doesn’t mean that the type of anomalies are similar.

Perhaps you mean that the scientific method is the only means by which to know reality. I already provided examples that isn’t correct, to which you never responded. In fact, I asserted (with examples) that most of what we know about reality is not arrived at through the scientific method.

Except that modus ponens isn’t a physical concept; inherent human rights aren’t a physical concept; the laws of mathematics aren’t a physical concept; Qualia as a mental state isn’t a physical concept. Are any of these not real? The fact that our knowledge of these things ultimately come through the senses does not make them physical concepts, yet they are quite real.

This I already explained. In simple world accepting that the world if ideas is infinite means the existence of a theory that can explain the objective reality within finite set of premises is subject to existence of at least one anomaly. This means that the claim that metaphysics is the approach that can explain ultimate reality is false considering the fact that metaphysics deals with finite number of premises. Please read the last two comments for further explanation.

 

[Bahman]

The natural sciences have of their principle object “being in motion”; whether that is organic, inorganic, or cosmological depends upon the branch. Whilst metaphysics is the study, and application of first principle, to being as being. We now commonly distinguish between two disciplines under metaphysics; Epistemology/Criteriology, & Ontology. Epistemology deals with “being as known to the subject”, that is how we know being. Whilst Ontology, what would have previously been called Metaphysics, deals with Being simply speaking.

The subjects of enquiry in Ontology are; causality, substance, essence, nature, existence, the transcendentals, nature of being per se.

I don’t think if one can find a theory which is epistemologically correct before establishing ontology as a substrate.

These are all subjects that other areas of Philosophy (and the sciences which branch off from it) must presuppose before they can ever get off the ground. Any explanation of these subjects could only be found in Ontology; as in any other discipline the argument would be circular, so ultimately self-defeating.

EDIT: Ooo, I see you appealed to the laws of physics. Can you please tell me the exact nature of these laws?

The basic assumption is that there exists a world of observables, irreducible concepts, so called objective reality and there exist a set of premises so called laws of physics that can explain the behavior of observables.

Are they theological decrees?

It depends on how do you define theological decrees?

The interaction of causal powers of substances?

Yes, in simple word.

Platonic forms employed by the demiurge as in Platonic philosophy?

Some do and some don’t believe so. For example string theory is an attempt to explain objective reality in term of entities which are real but not observable whereas standard model is a framework which tries to explain objective reality in term of entities, such as electron, positron, etc, assuming that they are real.

 

[Anselm33]

Some do and some don’t believe so. For example string theory is an attempt to explain objective reality in term of entities which are real but not observable whereas standard model is a framework which tries to explain objective reality in term of entities, such as electron, positron, etc, assuming that they are real.

As a physicist I don’t really believe or perhaps, understand, what you are saying. How can you say the entities of M-theory (which are varied) can be real if they’re not observable? Unless you’re classifying M-theory (string theory) as mathematical metaphysics, since it isn’t science (see “Not Even Wrong”, by Peter Woit) and thereby postulating a reality to these theoretical entities as metaphysical constructs.

 

[Bahman]

As a physicist I don’t really believe or perhaps, understand, what you are saying. How can you say the entities of M-theory (which are varied) can be real if they’re not observable? Unless you’re classifying M-theory (string theory) as mathematical metaphysics, since it isn’t science (see “Not Even Wrong”, by Peter Woit) and thereby postulating a reality to these theoretical entities as metaphysical constructs.

I am a physicist too but not a particle physicist anymore.

String and entities of M-theory could of course be observable if we could reach and control the energy in plank scale otherwise they will be hidden from us forever. To me any physical theory is based on a metaphysical substrate the former deals with epistemology (knowledge of how things work which can be expressed as a set of laws) and later deals with ontology (what beings are and what properties they have). Any attempt in the direction to claim that particle like electron is not elementary is based on metaphysical assumption that electron is constitute of something else. Now suppose that we find a M-theory that can explain the universe in scale of energy which is possible for us but far from plank scale. This means that we find the theory of everything in spite the fact that ultimate observable/reality is not observable to us.

 

[Skeptic92]

I don’t think if one can find a theory which is epistemologically correct before establishing ontology as a substrate.

The basic assumption is that there exists a world of observables, irreducible concepts, so called objective reality and there exist a set of premises so called laws of physics that can explain the behavior of observables.

It depends on how do you define theological decrees?

Yes, in simple word.

Some do and some don’t believe so. For example string theory is an attempt to explain objective reality in term of entities which are real but not observable whereas standard model is a framework which tries to explain objective reality in term of entities, such as electron, positron, etc, assuming that they are real.

The Laws of Physics were originally developed by Ockham, Descartes, Hume, et al, as Decrees by God as to how the material world interacted. This is proposed contrary to the concurrentism of Thomism, Scotism, etc which would have viewed them as the interaction of natures of substances that exist given their powers and passive potencies. Empiricists never updated this notion, they’ve removed the Decree by God that was originally in place without proposing a single alternative. Which is why occasionalism is still the main causal theory in secular philosophy.

If you concede that it is the interaction of causal powers of substances; you concede the Scholastic position.

You also seem to have an epistemology sorted out without having a consistent ontology worked out. It seems to be a mix of empiricism and metaphysical naturalism, which you then contradict by conceding the existence of intrinsic causal powers.

 

[Anselm33]

I am a physicist too but not a particle physicist anymore.

String and entities of M-theory could of course be observable if we could reach and control the energy in plank scale otherwise they will be hidden from us forever. To me any physical theory is based on a metaphysical substrate the former deals with epistemology (knowledge of how things work which can be expressed as a set of laws) and later deals with ontology (what beings are and what properties they have). Any attempt in the direction to claim that particle like electron is not elementary is based on metaphysical assumption that electron is constitute of something else. Now suppose that we find a M-theory that can explain the universe in scale of energy which is possible for us but far from plank scale. This means that we find the theory of everything in spite the fact that ultimate observable/reality is not observable to us.

If you’re saying that there is no observational evidence that the electron is composed of quarks, I believe you’re mistaken. Aren’t there SLAC scattering experiments that show the electron is a compound particle (I can’t find a URL ref immediately)? And there are so many different landscapes/formulations of M-theory that I’m not sure the inaccessibility of energies to verify/falsify theories is really a keystone of criticism against it. Again, I urge you if you have not already done so to read Peter Woit’s “Not Even Wrong”.
Also, I’m with Fr. Stanley Jaki (and some other philosophers of science). An essential part of science is the empiricial verification/falsification of theories. Any theory that cannot be quantifiably assessed is not science. Abductive reasoning (reasoning to the best explanation) is not a warranty of truth. Witness phlogiston as a theory for heat (disproved by Count Rumford’s cannon-boring experiments) and the ether as a medium for electromagnetic waves (disproved by the Michelson-Morley experiments).