What is Metaphysics & Why Is It A Valid Means Of Describing Reality?

[Just_Lurking]

Well how 'bout that! Back to the topic at hand though, what is metaphysics?

If you don’t know that’s fine (if you want to know an open mind will be required), and don’t worry, I’m sure no metaphysician wants to prevent you from doing math. You seem to want to prevent metaphysicians from doing metaphysics though - why is this? Do you really think that the study of reality is exhausted by mathematics (and related sciences)? That would be a bold claim!

I’m just trying to learn about metaphysics. It seems like metaphysics tries to tackle hard problems, but it doesn’t have any good methods, only mind games. I don’t mind metaphysicians doing metaphysics, but I do think it is silly for them to expect to have their opinions respected in disciplines that have a better foundation, such as mathematics and physics.

Just my take so far.

 

[Betterave]

“We infer the existence of objects from the evidence of our senses. The only reality we know directly is within our mind.” - Tony

Where is the problem? Could an omnipotent being, theoretically, manipulate a consciousness in ways so as to “simulate” everything that we experience daily, although really no external objects or people existed? Yes, of course. Could we ever discover this was the case? No.

This is entirely consistent with our current experience. I’m not saying it’s true eek, but it does prove that “the only reality we know directly is within our mind”.

You’re right, perhaps, that “this possibility] is, theoretically, entirely consistent with our current experience.” You added the word ‘theoretically’ in your justification for this position for good reason: precisely to indicate that you are not claiming that it is true. That’s the function of this word and such a qualification was missing from Tony’s original assertion. That’s where the problem is, isn’t it? ‘Theoretically’ can be taken as shorthand for ‘this is open to debate’ or ‘this may not be the best way to frame the problem.’

 

[tonyrey]

I’m just trying to learn about metaphysics. It seems like metaphysics tries to tackle hard problems, but it doesn’t have any good methods, only mind games. I don’t mind metaphysicians doing metaphysics, but I do think it is silly for them to expect to have their opinions respected in disciplines that have a better foundation, such as mathematics and physics. Just my take so far.

What a coincidence! I have just posted a reply on another thread on that very topic:

Unlike mathematics science deals with probabilities not certainties .Not only that. Science is based on logical and philosophical principles which are the **foundation **of all knowledge and cannot be established scientifically. It presupposes the power of reason and the intelligibility of the universe. In the order of knowledge science is a late arrival on the scene. It relies primarily on induction rather than deduction and is concerned with only one aspect of reality - physical - whereas philosophy is concerned with reality as a whole. Science would not emerged at all if philosophy were unverifiable speculation which nobody agrees on …

 

[Betterave]

I’m just trying to learn about metaphysics. It seems like metaphysics tries to tackle hard problems, but it doesn’t have any good methods, only mind games. I don’t mind metaphysicians doing metaphysics, but I do think it is silly for them to expect to have their opinions respected in disciplines that have a better foundation, such as mathematics and physics.

Just my take so far.

Okay perfect, that’s a great attitude.

Maybe start by thinking about this: if metaphysics is the study of being, the question ‘what is metaphysics’ is a metaphysical question (we might rephrase it as ‘how should we characterize the being of metaphysics?’). That means that any answers to the question are implicitly metaphysical too, or at least ‘on the way’ to metaphysics (i.e., answers are often lacking in ‘metaphysical rigor’ - there is such a thing!).

This is different from mathematics or physics: the question ‘what is mathematics?’ is not a mathematical question (same for ‘what is physics?’ - not a question addressed by the physicist, at least qua physicist). ‘What is mathematics?’ and ‘what is physics?’ are metaphysical questions, just like ‘what is metaphysics?’ (They are also historical questions, but in my strange view, rigorous metaphysics is inseparable from history.) If you want to answer these questions in a reasonable way, you have to go beyond blank assertions about ‘good methods,’ ‘better foundations,’ and ‘mind games.’ You have to offer an account of what a ‘method’ is, what ‘good’ is, how the term ‘good’ applies to ‘method,’ what a ‘foundation’ is, what constitutes the ‘goodness’ of a foundation, etc. So go ahead, please explain yourself!

(If you weren’t interested in addressing any of this but only wanted to make categorical assertions about ‘mind games,’ etc., I think it would seem to most people that you’re not interested in thinking about the problem, but only in flaunting your opinion, which in my view would fall below the level of a mind game - i.e., ‘mind game’ would be a step up!)

 

[GratefulFred]

I think this is not an accurate assessment of the Church’s stance towards intellectual development (education) and freedom. It sounds more like a transposition of a naive fundamentalist view of sola scriptura into a Catholic context (sola church teaching). The church holds scientific investigation and metaphysical inquiry in high esteem and the ultimate law of the church is love, that is an erotic (so says B XVI, in Deus Caritas Est!) and agapic movement out of ourselves towards the other and towards God and vice versa. This movement cannot be achieved simply by knowing unchanging church doctrine better (not to say that such knowledge is dispensable). Remember that the Catholic Church holds that there is such a thing as doctrinal development (famously expounded by John Henry Newman). Formulations of the essence of education or truth that smack of parochiality should be avoided.

I agree that my understanding may not be an accurate assessment of the Church’s position. I know I don’t know enough to lead in this area. At best, it is how I understand at this point in life.

Knowledge is one thing. Faith, a gift from God, is another. Some have one and not the other. Some like John Paul II and Benedict XVI and others in history seem to have both in great abundance. In the end, Faith is far superior in my view. Faith is enriched with knowledge.

In my limited education, I understand that the development of our understading of God has grown from Genesis to Christ to the Church today. Those who question, who challenge, provide ways to clarify and deepen our understanding of God. Sometimes they even serve to make corrections in the way we understand God before things go too far astray. “Lead out” is a journey. We grow in knowledge and in faith, but we do not “arrive” until we are in Heaven. Even then I do not expect to know God fully, but will be elated - grateful - to be in His Presence for eternity.

As to a parochial view: Again, I do not intend to know better than anyone. But, just as I beleive that 2+2=4 and no other answer is true, which is a narrow view, I also believe that God is Truth. No other answer can be true - the first principle of metaphysics - contradiction - God cannot be God and also not be true. God is true. The fact that I don’t understand and follow Him through Jesus Christ as well as I should is my shortcoming, my sin. God is not something different for each of us. He IS what HE IS. Only our perceptions are different.

God does love us all. He has given each of us different amounts of the same gifts and some have gifts that others do not. However, with SOME knowledge of God and with SOME faith in God, it seems to me the better thing is try always to know, to serve, and to love God better each day.

If metaphysics is to know (understand) that ONE “principle” that transcends all other science and knowledge, then GOD is that ONE “principle” (for lack of a better word.) ONE principle (as compared to many) may be narrow, parochial, but it cetrainly does control and puts into motion all else.

Those of us who believe that Jesus Christ is indeed the Living Son of God will want to follow His way as best we can, without putting our own limits in the way. When I read what Christ said and did, and I look for the best representation of the fullness of Christ in today’s world, that extends all the way back to Christ’s commission to Peter and the Apostles, I see that the Church belongs to Christ. Other demoninations, well intended I am sure, see Christ less clearly, less fully.

In the end, God knows who loves Him and who chooses to ignore or reject Him. God knows if each of us has done the best we could with what He has given us.

 

[Just_Lurking]

You have to offer an account of what a ‘method’ is, what ‘good’ is, how the term ‘good’ applies to ‘method,’ what a ‘foundation’ is, what constitutes the ‘goodness’ of a foundation, etc. So go ahead, please explain yourself!

In mathematics, the method used is deductive reasoning from specified axioms, e.g., ZFC set theory. This is the foundation of mathematics. It’s good because I am sure that 200 years from now, or 2000 years from now, mathematicians will still be convinced of the mathematical correctness of Fermat’s little theorem.

From the other discussions here, it sounds like there are multiple different foundations for various kinds of metaphysics, and each of these different foundations has there own adherents who disagree with the other approaches.

Are there any results from metaphysics (I’d call them predictions if I were talking about a scientific discipline) that have been independently verified outside the realm of metaphysics that would lead me to believe that the methods of metaphysics (i.e., the mind games) lead to true results?

In other words, I know Fermat’s little theorem is true because I can try it out by plugging in different numbers, and it always works. I know Maxwell’s equations in physics work because Marconi built a radio using them. How do I know that metaphysics works?

People around here post metaphysical proofs of God’s existence, and expect atheists to be instantly converted. Is that an accurate expectation of professional metaphysicians, or is that just the sign of a rank amateur? If that is an accurate expectation, does metaphysics have a track record of success that would justify that expectation?

 

[Just_Lurking]

This is different from mathematics or physics: the question ‘what is mathematics?’ is not a mathematical question

In mathematics, that is a good thing. (<== Here’s more insight as to my use of the word good.) Mathematical systems that are powerful enough to study themselves have been proven to be inconsistent by Godel’s incompleteness theorem. So when you tell me that metaphysics is capable of studying itself, I hear the robot in the distance saying, “Danger, Will Robinson!”.

 

[Just_Lurking]

Science is based on logical and philosophical principles which are the **foundation **of all knowledge and cannot be established scientifically. It presupposes the power of reason and the intelligibility of the universe.

I’m convinced that metaphysics addresses questions of fundamental importance. I just haven’t seen any reason to believe that metaphysics has any methods that are capable of addressing those questions in any reasonably accurate way.

In the order of knowledge science is a late arrival on the scene. It relies primarily on induction rather than deduction and is concerned with only one aspect of reality - physical - whereas philosophy is concerned with reality as a whole. Science would not emerged at all if philosophy were unverifiable speculation which nobody agrees on …

The scientific method deals with all testable aspects of reality. I don’t know that I would call a quantum mechanical wave function physical.

 

[tonyrey]

Or do you take it for granted you are in touch with reality?
I don’t start with any such assumption.

You may not be aware of the fact because we all take it for granted - like many other things in life.

I don’t think the question of whether or not our ideas get us more or less in touch with reality is one we need to ask.

In that case psychiatriists would be unemployed and judges would have a far easier life…

Are you suggesting that it is somehow part of intrinsic Human Nature to start with such questions?

Yes - not temporally but logically. It is the mark of a mature adult - and a bright child - to wonder what life is all about.

Then if we think of knowledge as a way of using reality rather than a way of representing reality, we never need to ask whether we have found the one true description of The Way Things Really Are.

We have to represent reality in order to use it! We are not concerned with “one true description of The Way Things Really Are” but with a true description of the way particular things really are, not how they appear to be…

We infer the existence of objects from the evidence of our senses. The only reality we know directly is within our mind.
Not at all. Pragmatists responses to questions like this often take the form “instead of asking X, try asking question Y, since someone who is concerned with Y never bothers to ask X.”

Do you mean your mind is less significant than the outside world?

You are trying to force me into taking some side on the appearance-reality bugbear, but if you aren’t thinking of knowledge as an attempt to represent reality and are rather thinking of knowledge as concerned with using reality, such a question does not get asked.

I would not dream of trying to force you into taking any side whatsoever. I am simply pointing out we have to represent reality in some way in order to use it. We don’t go around saying we’re just dealing with appearances. We deal with what we believe to be real. But we’re not infallible and if we never question what we believe we are being unrealistic.

If the future will be unimaginably better than the present, how could I possibly be in a position to set up criteria for judging it?

Is happiness not one of your criteria - if not the main one?

The important difference between secularists like myself and you in regard to hope is that we would like to replace hope for something interesting to happen after we die with the hope that life in the future can be made better than it is today.

You are seriously mistaken. We do not regard our present life has less value because it is a prelude rather than a finale. On the contrary it becomes more significant. We don’t stake everything on this life. We see it in the more meaningful context of eternity. The fact that it is incomplete means we try to remedy its incompleteness (e.g. its injustice) as far as we can while we are on this earth. But we don’t try to keep people alive at all costs - as if death were the supreme tragedy (in the words of Camus “le supreme abus”). There are worse evils than death. Nor do we regard heaven and hell as remote destinations but realities which exist here and now. We are already in heaven or hell according to whether we choose to love others or not…

 

[tonyrey]

I’m convinced that metaphysics addresses questions of fundamental importance. I just haven’t seen any reason to believe that metaphysics has any methods that are capable of addressing those questions in any reasonably accurate way.

I believe it is possible to reach a high degree of precision in metaphysical explanations, e.g.forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=363094
The Nature of God? #5
http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=363094

The scientific method deals with all testable aspects of reality.

Can the scientific method test whether a person is a good person? Or whether we are responsible for our behaviour?

I don’t know that I would call a quantum mechanical wave function physical.

It is studied under the subject of physics!

 

[Just_Lurking]

I believe it is possible to reach a high degree of precision in metaphysical explanations, e.g.forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=363094
The Nature of God? #5

I agree that you gave a precise explanation of design, but I don’t feel compelled to accept your conclusions as being logically necessary.

Can the scientific method test whether a person is a good person? Or whether we are responsible for our behaviour?

Assuming you can get the proposed research past the “human subjects” review board, I don’t see why not. For example, see here.

 

[JDaniel]

Odd and even aren’t really all that useful properties when infinities are concerned, but since you asked. A number is even if it can be expressed as 2n for some number n. A number is odd if it can be expressed as 2n+1 for some number n. Cardinal infinity (the one denoted Aleph null) is both even and odd, as can be seen by taking n to be Aleph null. Ordinal infinity (the one denoted omega or omega zero) is neither even nor odd. The proof of this is harder.

Do you think “infinity” is a number then?

jd

 

[JDaniel]

Okay, take free will. Metaphysical reasoning about free will is “not even wrong” as those in the hard sciences sometimes say. Physics has a more precisely defined concept, that of contra-factual definiteness (CFD). All physical theories make predictions about experiments that you make. A physical theory provides for CFD if it also makes predictions about experiments that didn’t make, but could have decided to make given your free will.

CFD was taken for granted until quantum theory came along, and said that you can’t measure both position and momentum at the same time, so it isn’t a problem that quantum theory cannot tell you what the momentum was of a particle whose position was measured. This problem is much worse for the EPR paradox, where it would seem that the theory has to determine the result before the experimenter decides on the selection of experiment. So as a result there are several categories of physics theories:

• Those providing for full CFD.
• Those providing for CFD for future experiments, but not for past experiements.
• Those providing for some form of CFD that violates general relativity, but you can’t tell because you didn’t perform the experiments that would detect such a violation.
• Those that don’t provide for CFD for future experiments.

So my question is, does any of metaphysical analysis of free will provide insight as to what level of support for CFD is required for a correct physical theory? Do any physicists accept and acknowledge that metaphysical reasoning in their work?

You, sir, have successfully created a great straw man argument. None of what you are asking really has anything to do with “Metaphysics”. Again, Metaphysics is the study of being as being and the study of the cause of being which is God.

I have sampled some of the questions that Metaphysics asks and attempts to answer in one of my earlier posts. If you will go back through them, you will quickly discern the straw man - as can everyone else.

jd

 

[Just_Lurking]

Do you think “infinity” is a number then?

Aleph null is a cardinal number, and omega is an ordinal number. Both of them are infinite, and are the smallest infinite numbers of their respective type.

I don’t know about metaphysical infinity, obviously.

 

[Just_Lurking]

You, sir, have successfully created a great straw man argument. None of what you are asking really has anything to do with “Metaphysics”. Again, Metaphysics is the study of being as being and the study of the cause of being which is God.

I have sampled some of the questions that Metaphysics asks and attempts to answer in one of my earlier posts. If you will go back through them, you will quickly discern the straw man - as can everyone else.

I was asking a question, not making an argument. I take it from your response that metaphysics does not provide any guidance whatsoever as to which physical theories are compatible with the metaphysical concept of free will. However, I will say that I have seen arguments here to the contrary.

 

[JDaniel]

Aleph null is a cardinal number, and omega is an ordinal number. Both of them are infinite, and are the smallest infinite numbers of their respective type.

I don’t know about metaphysical infinity, obviously.

scienceblogs.com/goodmath/2008/10/infinity_is_not_a_number.php

First things first: Infinity is not a number: please review the above url. Second, mathematics is based upon the unit. No matter what you consider, in regard to things mathematical, one must presuppose the unit, i.e., the number 1. Set theory is an exciting mind game. Yes, certain mathematical concepts can be proved by employing set theory, such as quantifying quantities. But, what is it’s relation to the real physical world? What matter do these concepts called “numbers”, whether in a set or not, inure to - and, especially as a “set”?

Number is nothing more than multitude measured by a unit. Multitude is the genus of number, and the specific difference, that determines whether a number is this number or that number, is the final unit of the number in question. So, if I were to define two different multitudes of number, I would define them by their final number. In other words, the multitude called six (6) has as its final unit, six (6). The multitude called seven (7) has as its final unit, seven (7). If you vary the unit you vary the species of number.

We also call numbers discrete. Why? They are called discrete because each has an existence that is “discrete”. Two numbers, unlike two parts of a line which are continuous with another, have separate and independent existences. And, multitude is different from magnitude. Having just explained what multitude is, magnitude is continuous quantity. In other words, it is quantity having position. It is quantity of such things as the quantity of a line, or geometrical quantity.

If infinity is a real number then infinity must also be discrete. It must have its own independent and separate existence. It can’t be blurred and blended to be whatever one wants it to be. If “100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,005” is an independent and separate number (that happens to be odd), it cannot be, “100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,006”, or, “100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,004”. It is no different with “infinity”. There cannot be an infinity that is “infinity + 1”, or an infinity that is “infinity - 1”, or, whatever we’d like it to be based upon our own exquisite whims. If it were, then I could argue that my infinity is larger (or, smaller) than your infinity. This would be absurd.

That is what is meant by actual infinity. It speaks about infinity as a multitude of physical things in the real world, such as blades of grass or grains of sand. Now, if, on the other hand, we find ourselves with things such as grains of sand and we speak of them as potentially infinite, we are acknowledging that the number of the grains of sand is increasing in the world due to erosion, etc., but, at this particular point in time, the current, actual number is finite. With each second of time that passes, another grain of sand is added to the pool of grains of sand on the earth. If I wait a year, then stop and ask, “Have we reached an infinity of grains of sand?” I must answer, “No.” And so on, year after year until the universe entropies.

Set theory is part of mathematics. It is not the entirity of it. And, it is certainly not the principle of it. Arithmetic and mathematics does not flow from set theory.

jd

 

[JDaniel]

I was asking a question, not making an argument. I take it from your response that metaphysics does not provide any guidance whatsoever as to which physical theories are compatible with the metaphysical concept of free will. However, I will say that I have seen arguments here to the contrary.

You are crossing two completely different (not of the same genus) lines of thought. You might as well be asking, “Is that man lying on the floor dead, or, what time does the sun set this evening?” “Cleaver girl”, as the zoo keeper said to the Velociraptor.

jd

 

[Just_Lurking]

scienceblogs.com/goodmath/2008/10/infinity_is_not_a_number.php

First things first: Infinity is not a number: please review the above url.

From your url:
You can do things like Cantor’s transfinite numbers, but they get very strange very quickly - and they don’t work the way that we expect numbers to work - for example, you need to distinguish between cardinal numbers and ordinal numbers, and you don’t get fractions. And they don’t even really behave like infinity! For example, if we treat infinity as a number, there’s no number greater than infinity. But for Cantor’s transfinite numbers, if N is a transfinite number, there’s always another transfinite number larger than N.
Aleph null is the smallest infinite cardinal number, and omega is the smallest infinite ordinal number. Unlike metaphysicians, mathematicians are in agreement about this. If you choose to disagree, then you are not doing mathematics.

 

[Just_Lurking]

It is no different with “infinity”. There cannot be an infinity that is “infinity + 1”, or an infinity that is “infinity - 1”, or, whatever we’d like it to be based upon our own exquisite whims. If it were, then I could argue that my infinity is larger (or, smaller) than your infinity. This would be absurd.

I don’t know what the rest of your post is about, but it certainly isn’t mathematics. Cantor proved in 1891 using diagonalisation that the infinity of real numbers is larger than the infinity of natural numbers. Ordinal numbers have infinite numbers that are one more than other infinite numbers. However, ordinal addition is not commutative.

Set theory is part of mathematics. It is not the entirity of it. And, it is certainly not the principle of it. Arithmetic and mathematics does not flow from set theory.

It’s very apparent that you have not been forced to read Whitehead and Russell’s Principia Mathematica, or Quine’s New Foundations for Mathematical Logic, which do exactly what you claim cannot be done.

 

[JDaniel]

From your url:
You can do things like Cantor’s transfinite numbers, but they get very strange very quickly - and they don’t work the way that we expect numbers to work - for example, you need to distinguish between cardinal numbers and ordinal numbers, and you don’t get fractions. And they don’t even really behave like infinity! For example, if we treat infinity as a number, there’s no number greater than infinity. But for Cantor’s transfinite numbers, if N is a transfinite number, there’s always another transfinite number larger than N.
Aleph null is the smallest infinite cardinal number, and omega is the smallest infinite ordinal number. Unlike metaphysicians, mathematicians are in agreement about this. If you choose to disagree, then you are not doing mathematics.

It is not my point to debate CONCEPTUAL concepts. That would be ridiculous. The mathematical concepts you are trying to convince me of are CONCEPTUAL not REAL. They do not exist in the physical realm, or the physical world. They do not even exist in the first or, physical, order of abstraction. Aleph null and omega exist only in one’s mind, like King Kong and Nosferatu, and only after two abstractions, one from individual sensible matter to common, or universal sensible matter, and the second, from universal sensible matter to universal intelligible matter.

Beyond the simplicity of my explanations I can go no further. If you have specific arguments with the blogger’s blog, your best bet is to contact him.

jd