Tony,
I shall try fussing with this series of confused statements, not expecting an interesting reply, but in honor of your ongoing best-effort contributions to metaphysical thought.
- A metaphysical theory is an interpretation of reality.
2.Your theory is an interpretation of reality.
- Therefore your theory is a metaphysical theory.
I agree. However, it is an unusual kind of metaphysical theory, in that it is derived from belief in a creator, plus full acceptance of the principles and hard evidence from physics.
Moreover, it incorporates the latest insights from neurology, psychology, and microbiology. While speculative, my theories are constrained by scientific evidence and solid theoretical principles.
- The Big Bang is a physical theory.
Not anymore. It began with the notion that some little cosmic micropea smaller than a proton had always existed, then suddenly exploded without cause.
The “without cause” statement is outside of all other physical theories, which deal with causes and effects, opposing forces, etc. Cosmologists ignored this little glitch.
Recently, after learning that the math did not support the micropea hypothesis, cosmies quietly morphed the micropea into something they call a “physical singularity.” Unfortunately, there is no such thing.
This is entirely a mathematical concept, a contrivance designed to support cosmological beliefs, that has nothing to do with physical reality.
- There is no evidence that reality is solely physical.
Nor is there evidence that reality contains anything that is non-physical.
However, kindly note that the only evidence we can obtain about the universe is entirely physical. That is the only evidence that I work with.
Lest you get dreadfully confused, let me point out that I include a sophisticated Creator-concept, plus a functional notion of what you would label a “soul,” within a clear and simple physical framework.
- Therefore there is no evidence that metaphysical theories are physical theories.
And so what? Everyone knows that most metaphysical theories are a mixture of religion, spirituality, and made up nonsense. I’ve yet to read a serious metaphysical theory (other than my own) which incorporates physics.
Kind of strange, since metaphysics is about what happened before physics, and would have been properly named
antephysics.
- Therefore there is no evidence that cosmological theories - which are necessarily physical theories - are necessarily metaphysical.
And so what? BTW, the “Therefore” at the beginning of the above statement is irrelevant, and does not logically follow from the preceding stuff.
- The only physical theory which is necessarily metaphysical is physicalism.
I guess from this incorrect statement that you’ve not read my book.
- No one has ever explained how reasoning can be valid if it is caused by blind physical events.
I have, right here on CAF. My book does, with finer detail and better background.
- Physicalism is self-destructive - and therefore false - because it explains consciousness and reasoning in terms of blind physical events.
I kind of agree with this, while noting that it does not follow from any of your prior statements.
I disagree with your claim that physicalism explains consciousness. It tries, unsuccessfully.
Since I’m not a “physicalist,” I find it rather easy and simple to explain consciousness in the context of physics— but not quite the physics that we were taught in school. I integrate
dark energy into my ideas, explaining it in the process, as an essential component of a coherent metaphysical scheme.
