The relation between metaphysics and physics

[fakename]

My point was that you can use physics to help explain metaphysics, but the two were never meant to be ‘related’: i.e. he didn’t teach physics as a lead in to metaphysics. He had developed philosophies and studies on both, and simply in the name are they linked. Again, that isn’t meant to say you couldn’t use one to explain/rationalize the other, but I would call that relationship tangential at best. I do not believe Aristotle meant for them to be compared, contrasted, or one as a tool for aiding the other.

That was my animal-Shakespeare reference. One can draw connections between them, but that doesn’t really mean a relationship exists any more so than the fact that a higher power (God) exists and created a world bound by laws (physics). I would say physics can not prove the existence of God (although they can and do suggest it) any more than the existence of God can be used to prove a theory in physics.

I disagree then, for Aristotle seems to prove metaphysics with physics. He uses a very physical reason (that the physical world can explain itself) to prove that no platonic forms exist. And platonic forms are metaphysical.

So there must be a direct relationship or else there would be no proof. This is unsurprising considering his idea that lower sciences get their axioms from higher ones and metaphysics is the highest.

 

[Sair]

Physics = real.

Metaphysics = made up stuff for the intellectually bored.



Happy to help

Sarah x

I think I love you!

 

[Sair]

Physics concerns itself with real things, i.e., physical things. Metaphysics concerns itself with the real as real.

As physics looks at real things, it cannot tell us what it means to be real. It tells us that real things consist of space, and fundamental particles, which it also rather poorly defines, and because it rather poorly defines examples of reality, it very poorly defines matter, energy and motion. It always defines these by giving example after example.

So, it looks like your definition of “metaphysics” might actually be the definition of “physics!”.

However, metaphysics and physics together appear to provide us with the best symbiosis for the intelligibility of real things as real.

God bless,
jd

From what I’ve read, metaphysics is supposed to deal in things that are “beyond” human sensory perception, in the explanation of the “meanings” we ascribe to reality (because “meaning”, apparently, is something we can’t sense). One may say that the facts of a situation are thus, but the meaning of that situation is something entirely different, because its meaning is supposed to obtain on a level above and beyond its mere existence.

I might give money to a stranger on the street, because my sensory perception gave me information that I interpreted as, “This person needs my assistance - they are dressed in ragged clothing, sitting on cold concrete against a cold wall with a sign and a cup in front of them, and this stirred my sense of compassion.”

A metaphysical interpretation of this situation might insist that my sense of compassion was predetermined by the ultimate nature of morality, and that the physical cues prompting it were merely the vehicle for the true character of morality to shine forth. The meaning of my action, therefore, was conformity to the nature of morality, and my immediate, visceral response to the appearance of neediness was secondary to the overarching purpose inherent in the exercise of compassionate action.

I rather think this gets the whole thing backwards. I wonder, for example, how it is possible to ascribe meaning to any situation unless this meaning is that the situation has some bearing upon our actual experience. You say physics can “only” give example after example, but how else is meaning to be discerned?

Metaphysics seems to me to presuppose a script to which reality must be made to conform. I wonder upon what basis such a script is formulated.

 

[inocente]

It’s the branch of philosophy that deals with first principles. That’s what it means to philosophers, at least.

The article on metaphysics at Stanford starts out by saying it is impossible to define and ends up by saying it is impossible.

plato.stanford.edu/entries/metaphysics/

 

[JDaniel]

From what I’ve read, metaphysics is supposed to deal in things that are “beyond” human sensory perception, in the explanation of the “meanings” we ascribe to reality (because “meaning”, apparently, is something we can’t sense). One may say that the facts of a situation are thus, but the meaning of that situation is something entirely different, because its meaning is supposed to obtain on a level above and beyond its mere existence.

Sair:

Stop reading those things.

The essential subject of metaphysics is the real as real, or, being as being. I’m not sure we can know that something is real without it becoming intelligible to us in some way, typically through our senses and interpreted by our intellect…

I might give money to a stranger on the street, because my sensory perception gave me information that I interpreted as, “This person needs my assistance - they are dressed in ragged clothing, sitting on cold concrete against a cold wall with a sign and a cup in front of them, and this stirred my sense of compassion.”

A metaphysical interpretation of this situation might insist that my sense of compassion was predetermined by the ultimate nature of morality, and that the physical cues prompting it were merely the vehicle for the true character of morality to shine forth. The meaning of my action, therefore, was conformity to the nature of morality, and my immediate, visceral response to the appearance of neediness was secondary to the overarching purpose inherent in the exercise of compassionate action.

Although beings are included in your above paragraph, it is mundane beings that you are referring to. They are beings immersed in a scenario, and it seems that the scenario has precluded the metaphysical. BTW, the scenario also has being - because of which we can express the future perfect about it, ad infinitum - even if no creature is around to verity it.

I rather think this gets the whole thing backwards. I wonder, for example, how it is possible to ascribe meaning to any situation unless this meaning is that the situation has some bearing upon our actual experience. You say physics can “only” give example after example, but how else is meaning to be discerned?

Well, let’s take St. Thomas definition of “motion” as an example. In physics motion is always defined as a sort of motion; or, a speed of motion; or, a distance covered. While these things are important to science, they do not define motion qua motion. St. Thomas dissects motion into its constituent parts, giving these parts the names of “potency” and “act”. We learn that “act” refers to being, that is, the act of existing. We learn that in local motion, there is a subject that undergoes motion. We learn that at the beginning of any local motion, this subject is in a potency to reaching a final (sort of) destination that St. Thomas calls “act.” So, “act” is usually understood to be the final embodiment that which is the end-of-a-motion. Yet, at any point along a motion’s trajectory, it can be reliably said that the potency (which it still is) is in act (for it is real at each point in the trajectory). Thus, he defines motion as the “act of the potential as potential.”

That’s one example, but I’m sure we can discern others.

Metaphysics seems to me to presuppose a script to which reality must be made to conform. I wonder upon what basis such a script is formulated.

I think not. No “script,” at least as you mean it. However, in the actuality of reality, there must be a script, or, an algorithm. “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. 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?)

God bless,
jd

 

[Qoeleth]

From what I’ve read, metaphysics is supposed to deal in things that are “beyond” human sensory perception, in the explanation of the “meanings” we ascribe to reality (because “meaning”, apparently, is something we can’t sense). One may say that the facts of a situation are thus, but the meaning of that situation is something entirely different, because its meaning is supposed to obtain on a level above and beyond its mere existence.

I might give money to a stranger on the street, because my sensory perception gave me information that I interpreted as, “This person needs my assistance - they are dressed in ragged clothing, sitting on cold concrete against a cold wall with a sign and a cup in front of them, and this stirred my sense of compassion.”

A metaphysical interpretation of this situation might insist that my sense of compassion was predetermined by the ultimate nature of morality, and that the physical cues prompting it were merely the vehicle for the true character of morality to shine forth. The meaning of my action, therefore, was conformity to the nature of morality, and my immediate, visceral response to the appearance of neediness was secondary to the overarching purpose inherent in the exercise of compassionate action.

I rather think this gets the whole thing backwards. I wonder, for example, how it is possible to ascribe meaning to any situation unless this meaning is that the situation has some bearing upon our actual experience. You say physics can “only” give example after example, but how else is meaning to be discerned?

Metaphysics seems to me to presuppose a script to which reality must be made to conform. I wonder upon what basis such a script is formulated.

I think you have made an accurate assessment. Metaphysics is an interpretation, and as such a contruction of meaning, although it may be experienced as a discovery of meaning.

I suppose life and the universe has no script- but by doing metaphysics one is created. It seems that this is both desirable and necessary.

 

[yppop]

Sair:

Well, let’s take St. Thomas definition of “motion” as an example. In physics motion is always defined as a sort of motion; or, a speed of motion; or, a distance covered. While these things are important to science, they do not define motion qua motion. St. Thomas dissects motion into its constituent parts, giving these parts the names of “potency” and “act”. We learn that “act” refers to being, that is, the act of existing. We learn that in local motion, there is a subject that undergoes motion. We learn that at the beginning of any local motion, this subject is in a potency to reaching a final (sort of) destination that St. Thomas calls “act.” So, “act” is usually understood to be the final embodiment that which is the end-of-a-motion. Yet, at any point along a motion’s trajectory, it can be reliably said that the potency (which it still is) is in act (for it is real at each point in the trajectory). Thus, he defines motion as the “act of the potential as potential.”

Hi JD
Would you agree that what St. Thomas was describing as the nature of “motion” can also be described in a more “physical” way as the incrementation of configurations of discrete space (s-frames)? Each specific configuration “exists” (is real) and therefore can be considered to be an “act” and yet can also be considered a “potency”, at least until it experiences a change (an incrementation) and repeats the act-potency-act sequence and reaches the “final embodiment”.

It would be nice to know whether or not that what we have been discussing elsewhere as the “holonomic mechanism” is a confirmation of St. Thomas’ view of motion. My knowledge of St. Thomas is completely deficient, but what I gather from your quote is that he is explaining not just motion as the movement of matter through space, but also the movement of reality through time, in which case he is talking about the advancement of creation along a path of actualization. Hence “motion” describes the evolution of forms of matter towards a “final embodiment” that appears, for example, as the first living cell, the .
first bird, the first man???

Always willing to discuss the meaning of my suppositions; how else could I tell if they’re wrong?

Yppop

 

[JDaniel]

Hi JD
Would you agree that what St. Thomas was describing as the nature of “motion” can also be described in a more “physical” way as the incrementation of configurations of discrete space (s-frames)? Each specific configuration “exists” (is real) and therefore can be considered to be an “act” and yet can also be considered a “potency”, at least until it experiences a change (an incrementation) and repeats the act-potency-act sequence and reaches the “final embodiment”.

Yppop:

Yes . . . with the exception of coming-to-be which is, as you are more aware than I, is something quite different.

It would be nice to know whether or not that what we have been discussing elsewhere as the “holonomic mechanism” is a confirmation of St. Thomas’ view of motion.

That I can’t say for sure. I don’t see any Thomistic objection to it though.

My knowledge of St. Thomas is completely deficient, but what I gather from your quote is that he is explaining not just motion as the movement of matter through space, but also the movement of reality through time, in which case he is talking about the advancement of creation along a path of actualization.

Correct. We see things advance then stop. Nothing stops, for God. His advancement of creation is a continuous stream.

Hence “motion” describes the evolution of forms of matter towards a “final embodiment” that appears, for example, as the first living cell, the .
first bird, the first man???

I think so too.

Always willing to discuss the meaning of my suppositions; how else could I tell if they’re wrong?

I’m always trying to get others involved in this perception, but, as I said in another thread, I think people are afraid. None of what we’ve discussed is anti-Catholic, or, in my opinion, anti-Aquinas. Lifetimes of not well thought out cosmology have left us believing in the “spiritual” over against the “non-spiritual,” the non-physical over against the physical. This has relegated the intelligibility of cosmology to a sorry state.

Question: how do you view the collision of two or more s-frame configurations? IOW, a train wreck? And further, how would you view aberrations?

God bless,
jd

 

[tomarin]

I think I love you!

Then what are you so afraid of?

 

[yppop]

Correct. We see things advance then stop. Nothing stops, for God. His advancement of creation is a continuous stream.

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.

I’m always trying to get others involved in this perception, but, as I said in another thread, I think people are afraid. None of what we’ve discussed is anti-Catholic, or, in my opinion, anti-Aquinas. Lifetimes of not well thought out cosmology have left us believing in the “spiritual” over against the “non-spiritual,” the non-physical over against the physical. This has relegated the intelligibility of cosmology to a sorry state.

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.

Question: how do you view the collision of two or more s-frame configurations? IOW, a train wreck? And further, how would you view aberrations?

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”.

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.

Thank you for your responses and your curiosity.

Yppop

 

[tonyrey]

The article on metaphysics at Stanford starts out by saying it is impossible to define and ends up by saying it is impossible.

plato.stanford.edu/entries/metaphysics/

1. Logical positivism made the same claim and is now recognised as obsolete.
2. Opinions in an article are not infallible.
3. No explanation of why metaphysics is impossible have been given on this forum.

 

[tonyrey]

1. If metaphysics is impossible science is also impossible because science is based on metaphysical principles.
2. Science presupposes the validity of logical and mathematical principles.
3. Science presupposes the validity of the principle of induction.
4. Science presupposes the intelligibility of the universe.
5. Science presupposes the power of reason.
6. Science cannot define itself in scientific terms.
7. Science is restricted to physical reality.
8. Science cannot prove that physical reality is the sole reality.
9. Science cannot explain the mind of the scientist.

 

[atheistgirl]

1. No explanation of why metaphysics is impossible have been given on this forum.

Excuse me!

I gave a very thorough explanation!

I said it was all just made up stuff for the intellectually bored

Sarah x

 

[tonyrey]

Excuse me!

I gave a very thorough explanation!

I said it was all just made up stuff for the intellectually bored

I am delighted to announce that I fully agree that you have given an extremely thorough rationalisation -

highly convenient for those who are intellectually indolent and prefer not to delve too deeply into reality lest they discover unpalatable facts…

 

[atheistgirl]

I am delighted to announce that I fully agree that you have given an extremely thorough rationalisation -

highly convenient for those who are intellectually indolent and prefer not to delve too deeply into reality lest they discover unpalatable facts…

Nope.

Just stating the obvious

Unfortunately, the patently obvious is not always obvious to everyone.

Obviously

Sarah x

 

[atheistgirl]

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

Are the three logical absolutes just that, absolutes, because they neither require a human mind, or a Deity?

Sarah x

 

[tonyrey]

Nope.

Just stating the obvious

Unfortunately, the patently obvious is not always obvious to everyone.

Obviously

Sarah x

Certainly not to those who prefer chocolate to the most sensational delights for the intellect… :yyeess:

 

[atheistgirl]

Certainly not to those who prefer chocolate to the most sensational delights for the intellect… :yyeess:

I agree.

Anyone who does not prefer :bowdown: chocolate :bowdown: - to anything - is severely lacking in mental capacity, and judgement and their opinions may be savely dismissed

And I’m not being too flipant here.

The sure and certain knowledge that there is a limit to the amount of chocolate I can have, means every piece is cherished and eaten with the deepest of appreciation

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

Sarah x

 

[tonyrey]

Are the three logical absolutes just that, absolutes, because they neither require a human mind, or a Deity?

There is no conflict whatsoever between truths and personal existence.

In fact materialism excludes truth and is thereby self-destructive. If truth is an illusion so is materialism - like everything else!

But then how do we know everything is an illusion?

 

[inocente]

1. Logical positivism made the same claim and is now recognised as obsolete.
2. Opinions in an article are not infallible.
3. No explanation of why metaphysics is impossible have been given on this forum.

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.