The relation between metaphysics and physics

[inocente]

Knowing there is an infinite amount of chocolate that can be eaten for infinity would do nothing but cheapen the experience

I now got myself confused about what metaphysics is, but would you say that’s made up stuff for the intellectually bored?

 

[tonyrey]

I’d say that you treating my lame joke as a serious comment is in itself irrefutable proof that metaphysics is impossible.

But also, the article makes the point that modern metaphysics is a ragbag of all the stuff no one else wanted, presumably staffed by folk who got left off the soccer team:

Can we say that the word ‘metaphysics’ is a name for that “science” (that episteme, that scientia, that study, that discipline) whose subject-matter is the subject-matter of Aristotle’s Metaphysics? If we do say this, we shall be committed to some thesis in the neighborhood of the following theses: “The subject-matter of metaphysics is ‘being as such’”; “The subject-matter of metaphysics is the first causes of things”; “The subject-matter of metaphysics is that which does not change.” Any of these three theses might have been regarded as a defensible statement of the subject-matter of what was currently called “metaphysics” till the seventeenth century, when, rather suddenly, many topics and problems that Aristotle and the Medievals would have classified as belonging to physics (the relation of mind and body, for example, or the freedom of the will, or personal identity across time) began to be “reassigned” to metaphysics. One might almost say that in the seventeenth century “metaphysics” began to be a catch-all category, a repository of philosophical problems that could not be otherwise classified: “not epistemology, not logic, not ethics … ”. - plato.stanford.edu/entries/metaphysics/

Best thing to do with a ragbag, imho, is bin it.

The twelve statements in defence of metaphysics have been overlooked. They are appended together for easy reference:

1. Logical positivism made the same claim and is now recognised as obsolete.
2. Opinions in the article are not infallible.
3. No explanation of why metaphysics is impossible have been given on this forum.
4. If metaphysics is impossible science is also impossible because science is based on metaphysical principles.
5. Science presupposes the validity of logical and mathematical principles.
6. Science presupposes the validity of the principle of induction.
7. Science presupposes the intelligibility of the universe.
8. Science presupposes the power of reason.
9. Science cannot define itself in scientific terms.
10. Science is restricted to physical reality.
11. Science cannot prove that physical reality is the sole reality.
12. Science cannot explain the mind of the scientist.

 

[JDaniel]

Your quote gives me the opportunity to explain my view of time. As I mention in another post, there are two modalities of time, cosmological and ontological. Cosmological time is the time within our universe that we measure using “clocks” consisting of configurations of s-points that change uniformly from a NOW s-frame to the NEXT s-frame. Cosmological time is time we observed from inside the cosmic s-frame; it is incremental. Imagine a movie of a person watching a clock in which the second hand is moving in synch with the frame rate of the film (24 frames/second). That means for every 24 increments of the film, one second clicks off the film’s clock. Because a person cannot “see” the incrementation when the frame rate is greater than 16/sec.,to the person in the film, time appears to be moving continuously. Suppose the projectionist stops the projector for ten minutes then starts it up again. To the projectionist the time on the clock in the film has stopped for ten minutes, but the person in the film can’t tell that the time being measured in the film stopped for ten minutes, everything else in the universe was frozen in a fixed configuration. God (our projectionist) can stop the incrementation of the s-frames without anyone inside the s-frame being aware of the stoppage. It is the interval between incrementations, the time of which is measured outside the s-frame, that represents ontological time. Ontological time is continuous, cosmological time is incremental (discrete). This is not an easy concept to grasp; it keeps slipping in and out of my mind, but the existence of ontological time, God’s time, allows us to form a more sensible picture of existence “before” the big bang and allows us to reconcile our implicate view with science’s explicate view that “time” began with the big bang. Cosmological time is finite, ontological time is infinite (eternal). God’s mind is dynamic.

Yppop:

I hate to be the cause of any slippage - as if I could! But, I cannot reconcile the Infinite with any kind of time. I don’t view the Infinite as a body, like a human’s, where there are nerve tendrils extending throughout it, reporting back to a central repository. If infinite space is the Mind of God, then its magnitude includes everything everywhere. There could be no “other side of me” (said by God). There could be no outside edge - as there is with our universe. There could be no center of God.

I define “place” as the innermost surface of a surrounding body. I do not see it being relevant to God in any fashion. The Infinite would engulf all place. Time requires a before and an after. It, therefore, requires that a thing has part of itself in the before and another part of itself in the after. Now, time of some sort might help us to understand how the Infinite gaze might work. But only analogically.

From my point of view, I would not wish to be God. Why? Because, then all things would be immediately and simultaneously intelligible. I couldn’t handle that. But, obviously God can.

Good luck with your attempt “to get others involved in this perception”, I find that there is a woeful scarcity of curiosity in this forum that styles itself as “philosophical” discourse. I think cosmology is doing as well as it is able considering its self-imposed restriction to study only the material part of reality.

I would say, “You can say that again!” But, I’m not sure saying it again would make it go away.

There is only one cosmic s-frame, (leaving aside the possibility of parallel universes) and that is our universe, consequently there is nothing to collide with. I leave the collision approach to the string theorists and their collision of branes or to my friend Greylorn (who I see has gotten himself suspended) whose theory includes a collision of two forms of “energy”.

That makes sense.

By aberrations I assume you mean "deviations from the cosmic algorithm. I believe God built “contingency” into the process of actualization (bringing into reality) through the holographic phenomena. If you break a hologram into two pieces, the entire image “programmed” on the whole plate is also contained on the separate halves. No matter how many pieces the hologram is divided into, the whole image is contained on each. The price paid is that the fidelity of the image is reduced in correlation to the number of pieces. God’s algorithm is perfect, but something is lost in the transmission from the nomos to the discrete space. Contingency is necessary in the actualization of reality because “free will” (and the uncertainty principle) depends on it.

Well, it has only taken about four readings of this, but, I think I’ve finally got it. Now, I must ask you, What would you say the notion of 'actualization" is akin to? I don’t think it’s actualization in the classical physics sense, or am I wrong?

Thank you for your responses and your curiosity.

The other day I was thinking about this when I suddenly realized that what I have for years seen only as a vague tissue, your theory has slid under it and perfectly aligned with it. You’ve taken an idea that perhaps many of us have had, and put it into a meta-physics.

Much appreciation.

God bless,
jd

 

[yppop]

Yppop:
I hate to be the cause of any slippage - as if I could! But, I cannot reconcile the Infinite with any kind of time. I don’t view the Infinite as a body, like a human’s, where there are nerve tendrils extending throughout it, reporting back to a central repository. If infinite space is the Mind of God, then its magnitude includes everything everywhere. There could be no “other side of me” (said by God). There could be no outside edge - as there is with our universe. There could be no center of God.

Well, it has only taken about four readings of this, but, I think I’ve finally got it. Now, I must ask you, What would you say the notion of 'actualization" is akin to? I don’t think it’s actualization in the classical physics sense, or am I wrong?

By actualization I simple mean brought into reality. I view reality to consist of four levels: objective, subjective, rational, and transcendent. Objective reality consists of the configurations of s-points that we experience as matter and energy at the explicate level of reality; it is external and discrete. Subjective reality is the emotions, feelings, images, and all the emergent qualia that is inexplicable to science; it is internal and continuous. Rational reality is the symbols (words and numbers) that represent meanings that the human mind manipulates to build the collective knowledge of the world; it is internal and discrete. Transcendent reality is the mind’s direct experience of the divine that manifests itself as beauty, truth, justice, peace, joy and all other positive experiences that can’t be explained or described; it is external and continuous. The two levels of discrete reality are “of this world”; the two levels of continuous reality are spiritual. Continuous reality (subjective and transcendent) was actualized once; redness and joy are unchangeable in time; they are spiritual in essence; they are part of God’s grace. Discrete reality (objective and rational) are actualized bit by bit over time; matter evolved from simple hydrogen to the cosmos in billions of years while knowledge evolved from rudimentary language to the internet in tens of thousands of years. Since any observation of objective reality over time must recognize the increasing material complexity, the evolution of discrete reality, (the path of actualization) can be represented by a plot of the complexity. There is no way that we can measure absolute complexity, but we can observe relative complexity, for example, the simplest animated cell is vastly more complex than the largest inorganic molecule. Material complexity increases rather slowly with time until a certain threshold is reach therein complexity takes a quantum jump of many orders of magnitude. This vast increase of complexity in a geologically short period of time can be considered a “creation event”. There are five major creation events: cosmogenesis (the big bang); geogenesis (formation of the planet earth; abiogenesis (creation of life); morphogenesis (creation of multicellular life); and psychogenesis ( the appearance of the mind with the first human).

The other day I was thinking about this when I suddenly realized that what I have for years seen only as a vague tissue, your theory has slid under it and perfectly aligned with it. You’ve taken an idea that perhaps many of us have had, and put it into a meta-physics.

Sorry to unload this on you, but I thought you might be interested in where I am heading with the “holonomic mechanism”. It applies to the entire path of actualization whereas science requires a great number of diverse models, mechanisms, and theories to “describe” the path of actualization. Our approach (if you want to stick with it) is a purely metaphysical approach that is largely based on scientific observations. And that gives you an idea of how I view the relationship between science and metaphysics (although I prefer to call the implicate view metascience). Science is the observational part of metaphysics. Science only describes; metaphysics explains.

Thank you for your comments:
Yppop

 

[inocente]

The twelve statements in defence of metaphysics have been overlooked. They are appended together for easy reference:

1. Logical positivism made the same claim and is now recognised as obsolete.
2. Opinions in the article are not infallible.
3. No explanation of why metaphysics is impossible have been given on this forum.
4. If metaphysics is impossible science is also impossible because science is based on metaphysical principles.
5. Science presupposes the validity of logical and mathematical principles.
6. Science presupposes the validity of the principle of induction.
7. Science presupposes the intelligibility of the universe.
8. Science presupposes the power of reason.
9. Science cannot define itself in scientific terms.
10. Science is restricted to physical reality.
11. Science cannot prove that physical reality is the sole reality.
12. Science cannot explain the mind of the scientist.

1. • They are probably sound though as it’s written by Peter van Inwagen, to quote the Wiki article on him: an American analytic philosopher and the John Cardinal O’Hara Professor of Philosophy at the University of Notre Dame. …] Van Inwagen is one of the leading figures in contemporary metaphysics, philosophy of religion, and philosophy of action.
2. • Which doesn’t mean none exists, just no one has given one you accept.
3. • I wouldn’t know except from Inwagen’s brief history, it seems instead that science discarded metaphysics.

5, 6, 7, 8. - Beside the point, no discipline invented them, no discipline owns them.

1. • The definition of science uses general terms, it has no need to be arcane.
2. • No, anything which can be studied systematically is a candidate.
3. • True, science can’t absolutely disprove fairies and werewolves.
4. • No yet. Be patient, it will.

 

[tonyrey]

1. Logical positivism made the same claim and is now recognised as obsolete.

No response.

1. Opinions in the article are not infallible.
2. • They are probably sound though as it’s written by Peter van Inwagen, to quote the Wiki article on him: an American analytic philosopher and the John Cardinal O’Hara Professor of Philosophy at the University of Notre Dame. …] Van Inwagen is one of the leading figures in contemporary metaphysics, philosophy of religion, and philosophy of action.

Appeal to authority.

1. No explanation of why metaphysics is impossible have been given on this forum.
2. • Which doesn’t mean none exists, just no one has given one you accept.

No explanation of why metaphysics is impossible has still not been given on this forum.

1. If metaphysics is impossible science is also impossible because science is based on metaphysical principles.

I wouldn’t know except from Inwagen’s brief history, it seems instead that science discarded metaphysics.

Science is based on metaphysical principles such as the intelligibility of the universe and the validity of reason.

1. Science presupposes the validity of logical and mathematical principles.

1. Science presupposes the validity of the principle of induction.

1. Science presupposes the intelligibility of the universe.

1. Science presupposes the power of reason.

5, 6, 7, 8. - Beside the point, no discipline invented them, no discipline owns them.

The history of philosophy proves otherwise.

1. Science cannot define itself in scientific terms.
2. • The definition of science uses general terms, it has no need to be arcane.

Godel has proved it is impossible.

1. Science is restricted to physical reality.
2. • No, anything which can be studied systematically is a candidate.

Science is restricted to empirical knowledge.

1. Science cannot prove that physical reality is the sole reality.
2. • True, science can’t absolutely disprove fairies and werewolves.

Science cannot prove that physical reality is the sole reality.

1. Science cannot explain the mind of the scientist.
2. • No yet. Be patient, it will.

Blind faith that science can in principle explain everything.

The opponent of metaphysics uses his metaphysical beliefs in his attempt to discredit metaphysics…

 

[CardManningFan]

Read the French Catholic physicist Pierre Duhem’s article “Physics & Metaphysics.”

See also:
Note on the Validity of the Principles of Inertia and Conservation of Energy
by
Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P.
&
Pierre Maurice Marie Duhem

 

[CardManningFan]

Also, check out the 8 tenets of River Forest / Aristotelian Thomism, which are elaborated in The Way toward Wisdom (vide the first chapter, this excerpt, John Deely’s review) by Benedict Ashley, O.P., which discusses the question “What is metaphysics?” The ultimate goal of the natural sciences is to show the existence of immaterial being(s).

Metaphysics, according to the Aristotelian Thomistic meaning, is several things:

1. 
   *]The science of being as being
   *]The “First Philosophy” (first in the sense of “ultimate”, but last in the order of our learning)
   *]“Beyond physics”
   *]The study of “one”
   
   Modern philosophy, however, gives a much broader definition of metaphysics: “The branch of philosophy that deals with the first principles of things or reality, including questions about being, substance, time and space, causation, change, and identity (which are presupposed in the special sciences but do not belong to any one of them); theoretical philosophy as the ultimate science of being and knowing.” (OED).
   
   For a Thomist, “questions about” “time and space, causation, [and] change” are parts of natural philosophy, not metaphysics.
   
   St. Thomas says of “metaphysics”:
   
   1. 
      *]“one” which is convertible with being is a metaphysical entity and does not depend on matter in its being. ( I q. 11 a. 3ST ad 2)
      *]…the highest of [the sciences], viz. metaphysics… ( I q. 1 a. 8ST c.)
      *]…acquired knowledge about Divine things, for instance, the science of metaphysics… ( II-II q. 9 a. 2ST arg. 2)
      *]…metaphysics, which treats of being or substance… ( I lec. 41 b)Post. Anal.
      *]Metaphysics at once studies being in general and first being, which is separated from first matter. ( proem.)De generatione
      *]It is called metaphysics inasmuch as it considers being and the attributes which naturally accompany being (for things which transcend the physical order are discovered by the process of analysis, as the more common are discovered after the less common). ( proem.)In Meta.
      *]metaphysics, which deals with divine things, is the last part of philosophy to be learned ( I a. 4)
      CG
      
      St. Thomas says of “physics” (natural philosophy, natural science, or philosophy of nature):
      
      1. 
         *]…physics, which treats of mobile body *. (Post. Anal. I lec. 41 b)
         
         Basically, if there are no such things as immaterial beings, physics would be the ultimate or first science (In Meta.VI lec. 1 [1170]):
         

         if there is no substance other than those which exist in the way that natural substances do, with which the philosophy of nature deals, the philosophy of nature will be the first science

         . But if there is some immobile substance, this will be prior to natural substance, and therefore the philosophy which considers this kind of substance, will be first philosophy.*

 

[DeepBlueSea]

“God is in all things.” God is Infinite. We are not bubbles within God. We cannot displace that which is Infinite. We are permeated by Him. It is He who provides our hardness or softness.

Nice. This somehow brings to my mind John 1:1-4

It is He who moves us (or, at least provides us with the illusion of motion). For us to be so arrogant that we think it is us doing . . . is just that: arrogance. (Do you really think that dimensionless exigencies can cause? Even if they are strung together in lattice fashion?)

This somehow brings to my mind John 1:9-10