Metaphysics, math, & the physical sciences

[Jim_Baur]

IQ tries to measure a quality, intelligence, by using math which measures quantity.

Human reasoning should combine the physical sciences with the metaphysical, rationalist, and idealist schools.

If the philosophical scientists are somewhat accurate, there is being beyond the physical, the metaphysical.

If it “logos” or “idea” that “forms” the universe, math cannot detect the qualitative **noumenon. **

If “logos” is metaphysicl and noumenon then math and the physical sciences cannot detect by their being. Our intellectual quality of reasoning has metaphysically detected the metaphysical, and this is was done by people that used reason without religion.

This is just an idea. I am not trying to start fight.

I am hoping for honest sharing of agreements, disagreements and corrections.

THANKS!!!

 

[GLam8833]

Having a degree in Mathematics, I agree that there is a “leap of faith”
needed to believe in the metaphysical! There is no theorem that can
solve the “Logos”!

 

[Jim_Baur]

I also wanted to say: if one merely uses math and the physical sciences, one cannot get to human nature. I am much more than height, weight, and size.

I believe that gravity is much more than the math that tells us its physical properties.

It is the metaphysical, I believe, that regulates the gravity. It is not math that regulates gravity.

THANKS!

 

[GEddie]

To understand the physical world, all that is needed is what we are given in our minds and bodies.

The concepts of weight, mass, number et al seem to be innate in our human minds.

Conversely, to do metaphysics requires a lot of philosophical training, which is not for everybody. Trying to tie the IQ to philosophical ability would have roundly disappointing results for most everybody.

ICXC NIKA.

 

[4love2God]

Jim Baur said** : “Human reasoning should combine the physical sciences with the metaphysical, rationalist, and idealist schools.
If the philosophical scientists are somewhat accurate, there is being beyond the physical, [which is] the metaphysical.”**

Well, I can’t imagine any Christian thinking that there is NO metaphysical existence.
Heaven is purely metaphysical … and Hell.
And, all of the creatures there are metaphysical, including God Himself.

The MAIN Problem (as I see it) with Christians getting into the metaphysical school of thinking, is that most of those people would probably (as part of their study) delve into the Occult.
God is very clear in the Old Testament : No horoscopes, no predicting of the Future at all.
But, beyond that issue, I think that most people have ENOUGH Trouble trying to get a handle on Christianity … so, they would not want to take on another WHOLE Religion (of sorts).

 

[Jim_Baur]

My concern, although I stated it poorly, is that in a university setting, the physical scientists should make use of metaphysics, rationalism, and idealism.

The reason to use these three with math and science is that Plato, Aristotle, and modern idealism could help the math and scientists realize that there is much more than merely the physical world, and that the physical world is ruled by the metaphysical world.

And, yes: as a Catholic I totally believe in God as the Supreme Being.

 

[GLam8833]

I personally know of a high school physics teacher
who is trying to find a UNIFYING theory to ALL the
sciences, I don’t think he is alone! He is what is called
a naturopathic doctor also on his own time, (he is NOT
Christian)

 

[Jim_Baur]

GLam8833

This is one of the ideas that my idea is addressing.

Many natural scientists will not consider the why of gravity or the other laws.

It seems to me it is the why that makes them–the metaphysical that makes the physical.

 

[Jim_Baur]

**The physical sciences, phenomenology and existentialism are good, but can’t get to being. They stop short of being. They set aside the ideas of metaphysics, rationalism, and idealism.

A comparison might be. A mechanic that does not understand internal combustion, but only that this liquid, gas, makes the car go.

Well, just thinking.
**

 

[Counterpoint]

If “logos” is metaphysicl and noumenon then math and the physical sciences cannot detect by their being. Our intellectual quality of reasoning has metaphysically detected the metaphysical, and this is was done by people that used reason without religion.

I would argue that physics has converged with metaphysics. This is made evident by the numerous interpretations of quantum mechanics.

 

[Jim_Baur]

Counterpoint:

thanks!!!

 

[inthespirit]

Jim Baur said** : “Human reasoning should combine the physical sciences with the metaphysical, rationalist, and idealist schools.
If the philosophical scientists are somewhat accurate, there is being beyond the physical, [which is] the metaphysical.”**

God is very clear in the Old Testament : No horoscopes, no predicting of the Future at all.
.

Yet we predict tides and tidal surges based on the position of the moon. A number of weather forecasting equations apply the position of the sun. And didn’t Jesus overrule when He said, “Thy will be done on Earth as it is in Heaven?”

How can we approach the metaphysical nature of God’s Will without reference to the stars and planets which were created in the first few verses of Genesis by His very Will?

If we are not permitted to use our mathematical and scientific knowledge of planetary orbits, for example, as a step towards trying to identify the fundamentals of metaphysics in study, you might as well give up now, because that is where the answer most probably lies (Enoch, Genesis, Gospel inc. Jesus and Magi.)

 

[Anselm33]

To understand the physical world, all that is needed is what we are given in our minds and bodies.

The concepts of weight, mass, number et al seem to be innate in our human minds.

Conversely, to do metaphysics requires a lot of philosophical training, which is not for everybody. Trying to tie the IQ to philosophical ability would have roundly disappointing results for most everybody.

ICXC NIKA.

As a physicist (retired), I’m not sure I agree that the concepts of mass and weight are innate in our minds. I remember in my freshman physics class at Caltech trying to get a handle on the difference between mass and weight (the first is a measure of inertia, resistance to change in momentum, and the second is the force due to gravity) and later, in teaching, trying to impart the concepts to students. As far as number goes, that seems to vary–my two year old grandson was fascinated (and is still) by numbers–he would come up to us and ask “what number are you?” (a real Pythagorean), but if you start dealing with math with my wife, her stomach starts to turn over… I have a Shih Tzu who can count up two (and possibly three)… If I give him only one treat, he will wait for the accustomed second.

Roger Penrose, the great English mathematical physicist (or physical mathematician) maintains that mathematics exists in a Platonic world of the ideal–we discover mathematical truths that are embodied in that world, we don’t invent them.

 

[GEddie]

As a physicist (retired), I’m not sure I agree that the concepts of mass and weight are innate in our minds. I remember in my freshman physics class at Caltech trying to get a handle on the difference between mass and weight (the first is a measure of inertia, resistance to change in momentum, and the second is the force due to gravity) and later, in teaching, trying to impart the concepts to students. As far as number goes, that seems to vary–my two year old grandson was fascinated (and is still) by numbers–he would come up to us and ask “what number are you?” (a real Pythagorean), but if you start dealing with math with my wife, her stomach starts to turn over… I have a Shih Tzu who can count up two (and possibly three)… If I give him only one treat, he will wait for the accustomed second.

Roger Penrose, the great English mathematical physicist (or physical mathematician) maintains that mathematics exists in a Platonic world of the ideal–we discover mathematical truths that are embodied in that world, we don’t invent them.

You might have a point about mass/weight as separate quantities. In our earthly environment, they go together.

But weight is intrinsic to the operation of a muscular body, and we all understand it innately.

No child tries to stack blocks in the air; they know even then that objects fall downward.

And number is a wee bit more basic than “math.” Even young children can compare sizes and quantities.

And it’s all much easier than metaphysical philosophy.

ICXC NIKA

 

[GEddie]

Roger Penrose, the great English mathematical physicist (or physical mathematician) maintains that mathematics exists in a Platonic world of the ideal–we discover mathematical truths that are embodied in that world, we don’t invent them.

Ok.

A wee bit interesting, the combination of “embodied” and “platonic ideals.”

The two terms would seem to be antithetical.

It is possible, however, that mathematics is simply the language our physical world is written in, rather than a Platonic ideal.

ICXC NIKA

 

[Anselm33]

** Even young children can compare sizes and quantities.** (not necessarily)

And it’s all much easier than metaphysical philosophy.

ICXC NIKA

Actually Piaget, the great Swiss Child Psychologist, has done interesting studies on the development of cognitive abilities in children. He posits that children go through four stages–for example, at an early age (less than 7 or 9 as I recall)they are not able to use a conservation law: suppose liquid from a tall narrow cup is poured into a wide short cup; they say that the short cup will contain less liquid. They are also not until a later age able to use a law of transitivity in measurement …e.g if you move a foot long ruler along a stick they will say the greater length corresponds to the ruler moved higher on the stick.
… see Piaget’s Cognitive Development stage article in Wikipedia

 

[Anselm33]

I would argue that physics has converged with metaphysics. This is made evident by the numerous interpretations of quantum mechanics.

Why do you say that? I’m a physicist who has worked with quantum mechanics, and don’t agree with your assertion.
Although the interpretations of quantum mechanics have an ontological component, that certainly doesn’t say that physics as a discipline has “converged” with metaphysics. You could make the same argument about special relativity or general relativity. Physics as a discipline is distinct from the philosophy of physics, although philosophers, or those who profess to engage in the philosophy of science, should really know what physics is all about.

 

[Anselm33]

Why do you say that? I’m a physicist who has worked with quantum mechanics, and don’t agree with your assertion.
Although the interpretations of quantum mechanics have an ontological component, that certainly doesn’t say that physics as a discipline has “converged” with metaphysics. You could make the same argument about special relativity or general relativity. Physics as a discipline is distinct from the philosophy of physics, although philosophers, or those who profess to engage in the philosophy of science, should really know what physics is all about.

I’m going to amend my earlier comment. If you were to say there’s a philosophical background or foundation to physics, I would agree. However, physics will work irrespective of the philosophical interpretation one puts on a theory. For example, the calculations of quantum mechanics work most excellently, to a high degree of precision, irrespective of the many interpretations. I will agree that there are experiments that disprove some interpretations of quantum mechanics; I’m thinking of the Aspect experiments on Bell’s Theorem that disproved local realistic interpretations of quantum mechanics. There’s also the Conway-Kochen Free Will Theorem, that shows from quantum mechanically based axioms, that if we have free will, so do fundamental particles, and that’s deriving a philosophical (metaphysical if you will) conclusion from physics theory. (See my blog)