Metaphysics: Things we can know to be true about reality without the scientific method

[Wesrock]

Wesrock:

While we can’t empirically test, it doesn’t mean we just make an arbitrary assumption. The beginning of metaphysics is not “things change.”

It doesn’t really matter where you begin, you’re going to run into the same problem…you have to presume something about the nature of reality in your attempt to explain the nature of reality.

We make reasoned conclusions about the nature of reality based on our experience with it.

Wesrock:

He simply meant some things begin to be, and some things have a tendency to eventually go out of existence. To corrupt. To not last forever. To be contingent is to have a tendency to not eventually no longer be (at least, no longer be the same thing substantially as what it was before)… At least, that’s what it meant in context of the Third Way.

But again, that’s making an assumption. You’re assuming that things go out of existence. My senses tell me that they do, but do they actually? Or have they always existed, and will they always continue to exist? I have no way of knowing. So to conclude otherwise is to make an assumption.

I understand what you are saying: it’s not falsifiable through experimental testing. That said, I take issue with the continued use of the word “assumption” as if the choice is arbitrary and not reasonable or intended to be the most rational position on the matter and on whether it fits with our experience of the world. That’s part of what this boils down to. Is this the most rational position? Is this position less rational? Is that position irrational? There is nothing wrong with such deductions.

As for change and things tending not to be, everything about the world is, admittedly, interpreted second hand through our senses. Yet certainly I am aware that my mental state changes. My thoughts change. My thoughts at some point no longer are and are replaced by different thoughts. This image I construe in my mind once wasn’t and at some point will not be anymore. I am not even talking about the neural activity, which we can only perceive second hand. I’m talking about the mental experience itself. It changes. That, at least, is more immediately at hand than even just observations about the external reality outside us.

 

[Wesrock]

Wesrock:

Does it? The scientific method cannot test the purpose of an eye, yet in biology and medicine it is common to speak of it as having a purpose of seeing (relaying EM sensory data to the brain). But there is no strictly empirical way to test for purpose. Neither can the scientific method alone strictly measure or detect perceptual experiences. Neither is there any strictly empirical way to test ethics. Yet we can, through observation and reason, make qualitative conclusions about properties that can’t be measured.

The point here isn’t even about whether the eye has a purpose. The point is that the scientific method, by definition, is incapable of measuring qualitative properties of the physical world, if there are any. It’s not something the scientific method would ever be capable of measuring. It’s not simply a matter of needing more technology. That doesn’t mean there is any such thing as the qualitative.

Everything you said is correct. But none of what you mentioned are “objectively existing”. They are subjective assessments, which do not exist objectively.

A dish can have a certain amount of spices in it, “salt” for example. The amount of salt can be measured objectively. But whether the dish is overly salty, or too bland or just right is subjective, and as such it cannot be measured. There is no problem here. As a matter of fact, if we had the sufficiently fine measuring system, it might happen that simply performing the necessary measurements we could predict that dish “X” will be too salty for person “A” and too bland for person “B”. Of course there is no reason to develop such refined measuring method, even if it is possible. There are many possible advances for the scientific method, which offere better return for the time and money invested.

However, the proponents of religion speak about some objectively existing gods, angels and demons, and are unable to present some objective method to ascertain the validity of their existence.

We’ll remain in disagreement then, because I do not take it as rational to consider something such as “purpose” or “ends” as being subjectively imposed on all things in the same way we make value judgments about taste. (This is not to deny that we can’t apply some purposes to things subjectively, such as a chair, or a computer.) And I am not talking about something separate from physical reality, but something qualitative that is inherent in it.

 

[Wesrock]

HarryStotle:

Empiricism must be true, says you, because you cannot empirically determine how it isn’t.

Not at all. Empiricism is true, because there is nothing else. How could you try to falsify the result reported by your senses? Because you can only rely on the result of what the senses report to you. If you wish to be skeptical about your senses, your position can be translated into the truly crazy proposition: “we cannot see BECAUSE we have eyes, and we cannot hear BECAUSE we have ears”, The senses are the “window” into the reality, not an impediment to learn about reality.

I like empiricism (in fact Aquinas’ epistemology is commonly considered to be empiricism, though that’ term is being applied retroactively), but it’s not the same thing as experimentally testable. The cognitive dissonance is jarring, given the amount of unscientific philosophy of science you’re presenting above. Ultimately, the scientific method cannot be the source of all knowledge there is to know about the natural world, because the scientific method presupposes we’ve already made some non-scientific but reasonable conclusions.

HarryStotle:

Basic metaphysical principles – the law of non-contradiction and the principle of sufficient reason, to name two – are a far more solid starting points than merely assuming empiricism.

The law of non-contradiction is a law of logic and it refers to propositions. The PSR is not generally applicable, because it would lead to an infinite descent of explanations. There always must be a starting point for explanations, the “axioms” in a formal system, and the “basic principles” in physics. One basic (metaphysical) principle is the reliability of our senses (and their extensions).

Can something ontologically exist and not exist at the same time?

What of the law of identity? If I have two Thing As that are occupying the same space at the same moment of time and made out of the same exact matter and and the same energy (same, not equal), do I actually have two Thing As or do I really just have one?

As for the PSR, you’re right in concluding that an infinite regress is irrational, but you’re just begging the question by ruling out the possibility of a starting point that is intrinsically explicable and not just a brute fact. And I’ll just add, you already stared doing philosophy and non-scientific reasoning here. You didn’t say, “as for the PSR, I don’t know because there’s no epistemology to study it,” you said rather conclusively, "The PSR is not generally applicable, because it would lead to an infinite descent of explanations. There always must be a starting point for explanations, the “axioms” in a formal system, and the “basic principles” in physics. "

 

[Damian]

I repeat, logic is just labels with agreed upon definitions. So as long as everyone agrees on the definition of the term used, it’s boundaries of use to say, we can make logical sentences and logical conclusions with these words. You’re just creating a puzzle out of words. As long as these boundaries are not referenced to what reality indicates are the boundaries, then you can make all the logical conclusions you want, still be true, and still not actually reference reality at all. So if you are concerned about being logically correct, but factually wrong about reality, then yes you can make a logically correct statement that has nothing to do with the demonstrated truth of reality. Labeled objects are non-contradictory as long as we agree upon the definition of those objects you are using. If you are referencing an object that has been demonstrated to be part of reality, then we can get on board with you. But the supernatural is not demonstrated to be part of reality, so it’s a made up word to a made up reference point. You can only make logical arguments about the supernatural when you have other people who presuppose the supernatural is there at all. But the people that reference demonstrated reality for their logic, you can’t get us on board with your logical proofs.

 

[Wesrock]

I repeat, logic is just labels with agreed upon definitions. So as long as everyone agrees on the definition of the term used, it’s boundaries of use to say, we can make logical sentences and logical conclusions with these words. You’re just creating a puzzle out of words. As long as these boundaries are not referenced to what reality indicates are the boundaries, then you can make all the logical conclusions you want, still be true, and still not actually reference reality at all.

Good point, but on the other hand, the entire question is whether the logical premises do make reference to reality, and certainly the entire point is that they make reference to reality, otherwise we certainly agree all would be meaningless.

 

[IWantGod]

I repeat, logic is just labels with agreed upon definitions.

Is that your preference? Then i guess for you it’s possible that things can really pop out of absolutely nothing without a cause since we cannot apply reason to the world. Your position is not intelligible.

1. Intelligibility.

When faced with the experience of reality, the fact that things exist ( whatever their nature may be ), we are presented with the irrefutable fact that insofar as they have an act of reality they are not also their opposite. Ontologically speaking, we do not have a situation where a thing exists and does not exist at the same time. In other-words the very act of reality is fundamentally intelligible.

This is where intelligibility fundamentally begins for metaphysics. It is the evidence that we can apply the principle of non-contradiction to the act of reality universally.

 

[Damian]

No sir,
We can not study what happens before the start of the big bang. We don’t know if it is “nothing” or not. You and your cult are teaching people the positive statement of what it was before the big bang and what happened before the big bang before anyone actually has studied it. You are presenting the case that it is absolute nothing without any demonstrable evidence of that actually being the case or any demonstrable testing process that you used to determine that is the actual case. You are arguing that if people don’t support your imagined idea then it is logically incorrect to support your logical conclusion that is not based on any demonstrated reference to actual reality. Your logical conclusion is only referenced to your imagination of what happened before the big bang. So again to my point, you can be logically correct if everyone agrees on your imagined reference point to be correct. But you will not be logically correct for people like us that use logic that is referenced in what reality has actually demonstrated to be the case instead of the imagination of your group.

 

[Wesrock]

I’m not sure what strawman @Damian is referring to, here. At least, in terms of metaphysics or philosophy of science.

 

[Damian]

So you are trying to poison the well by assuming I am making a strawman, but you can not actually understand if I am making a strawman or not? Seriously? Why not just say @Damian is a stupid head but I’m not actually sure if he is or not.

 

[Wesrock]

So you are trying to poison the well by assuming I am making a strawman, but you can not actually understand if I am making a strawman or not? Seriously? Why not just say @Damian is a stupid head but I’m not actually sure if he is or not.

Eh, it seemed to a very long-winded non-sequitur. If you wish to explain how it connects, please do.

 

[Damian]

I’m not sure what strawman @Damian is referring to, here

Here. You only wrote two sentences, so not sure how you missed this. You’re pointing out that I appear to be creating a strawman but start off with not being sure if I am doing this. So that is poisoning the well. You are trying to argue that I am making a fallacy, but can’t point out that I am or not. That is just trying to place doubt where you can’t demonstrate doubt is founded. IE: poisoning the well. “he’s being a stupid head but I don’t know if he actually is or not.”

 

[Sophia]

We’ll remain in disagreement then, because I do not take it as rational to consider something such as “purpose” or “ends” as being subjectively imposed on all things in the same way we make value judgments about taste.

And that is the problem. What is the “purpose” of a scythe? In agriculture, it is to cut grass, in a fight it is to kill others. Neither is intrinsic, both are imposed.

What of the law of identity?

The three laws of LOGIC are applicable to propositions. The correct way to state it is: “A proposition cannot be both true and not true at the same time in the same context”.

As for the PSR, you’re right in concluding that an infinite regress is irrational, but you’re just begging the question by ruling out the possibility of a starting point that is intrinsically explicable and not just a brute fact.

A brute fact needs no explanation. I have no idea what you mean by “intrinsically explicable”. If you use it as “it explains itself”, then you have a linguistic nonsense. Explanation is a set of propositions, which reduce a complex phenomenon to an already understood simple one.

 

[IWantGod]

No sir,
We can not study what happens before the start of the big bang

The big-bang is irrelevant. It’s besides the point. The point is if you really believe that it is possible for something to pop out of nothing then we can no-longer have an intelligible discussion. It’s either possible or it’s not; there is no room for i don’t know. Scientific verification has no relevance to the question, because if it is possible then any inference to a cause is just a subjective opinion and cannot possibly be verified by evidence because the very nature of reality becomes unintelligible and unreliable as a reference point to a cause. For all you know the world could have started yesterday including yourself with all your life’s memories from absolutely nothing, because there are no grounds for making any inferences at all.

If metaphysics falls apart then any hope for a reliable method of objective knowledge falls apart also, so say goodbye to science.

You don’t seem to be aware of what is at stake here.

 

[goout]

ProdglArchitect:

Except for that physics is limited to the study of physical reality. It cannot say anything about non-physical realities or experiences. It can’t even speak to the nature of the numbers it relies on, which are not physical constructs.

Physical reality is the only ontologically existing reality.

Is love a real thing?

 

[STT]

How do you plan to substantiate that there is non-physical, yet objective reality?

I call the world of forms as physical. Mind, what experiences and causes forms, is the only non-physical thing. That is all.

 

[Sophia]

Is love a real thing?

Love is a real emotion.

I call the world of forms as physical. Mind, what experiences and causes forms, is the only non-physical thing. That is all.

Forms are concepts, not physical objects. The mind is the activity of the brain.

 

[IWantGod]

The mind is the activity of the brain.

That’s a popular belief among materialists.

 

[STT]

Forms are concepts, not physical objects.

Physical objects are the stuff in different forms.

The mind is the activity of the brain.

I am afraid that that is not correct. Mind as something which is byproduct of brain activity cannot perceive and cause something.

 

[IWantGod]

Forms are concepts, not physical objects.

If concepts are not physical objects then why do they exist, since everything is physical.

 

[STT]

If concepts are not physical objects then why do they exist, since everything is physical.

Concepts are abstract objects. They don’t exist yet we can abstract them.