I suppose it depends on what is covered by the term "metaphysics". Theists
sometimes profess absolute certainty in the face of absolute lack of
evidence, and are proud of it. I wouldn't lump this in together with the
interpretation of quantum mechanics (I'm sure you wouldn't either, but I
thought I'd make the point).
On 2/24/07, Brent Meeker <meekerdb.domain.name.hidden> wrote:
>
>
> Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 2/24/07, *Tom Caylor* <Daddycaylor.domain.name.hidden
> > <mailto:Daddycaylor.domain.name.hidden>> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Feb 23, 3:59 am, "Stathis Papaioannou" <stath....domain.name.hidden
> > <mailto:stath....domain.name.hidden>> wrote:
> > > On 2/23/07, Tom Caylor <Daddycay....domain.name.hidden
> > <mailto:Daddycay....domain.name.hidden>> wrote:
> > >
> > > > My point in quoting Kronecker was to simply to allude to the
> > fact that
> > > > the foundations of mathematics are axiomatic in a similar way
> that
> > > > ultimate meaning is ultimate. We have a feeling that the
> > foundation
> > > > of math is ultimately right, even though we can't prove it. In
> my
> > > > "logical reason" (reason #1 a few posts back), I am simply
> > arguing for
> > > > realism (vs. positivism). Your arguments that you are trying
> to
> > > > enforce here would apply equally well (if valid) to realism in
> > general
> > > > (not just God), and therefore put you in the positivist camp.
> > >
> > > > Tom
> > >
> > > Positivists don't like metaphysics, but even if you allow that
> > metaphysics
> > > isn't all just nonsense, you have to maintain some sort of
> > standards. How do
> > > you weed out those metaphysical beliefs which *are* just
> nonsense?
> > >
> > > Stathis Papaioannou
> >
> > I agree that positivists don't like metaphysics, and they actually
> > don't believe in it either. The problem with this is that science
> is
> > ultimately based on (and is inescapably in the context of) some kind
> > of metaphysics, since it is in the context of the universe as a
> whole.
> >
> > There are some ways of sorting out metaphysics. In fact these
> > criteria are mostly the same as how we sort out science (since,
> again,
> > science is based on metaphysics). These are such things as
> > fundamentality, generality and beauty. However, the fact that
> science
> > conventionally has been limited to the "material" (whatever that
> > means!) implies that the criteria of naturality (a viscious circle
> > actually!) and reproducibility (another vicious circle) that we have
> > in science cannot be applied to the universe as a whole or to
> > metaphysics.
> >
> > [Side note: But even more important is to recognize that
> metaphysics,
> > as well as science, is filtered for us: we are part of the universe
> > and we are limited. So this filters out almost everything. This
> > limits more than anything the amount of "sense" we can make out of
> > Everything.]
> >
> > However the criterion that you are trying to enforce, that of all
> > things having a cause even in the context of Everything and
> Everyone,
> > is a positivist criteria, treating metaphysics as science. It
> assumes
> > that Everything has to be part of this closed system of cause and
> > effect. There are plenty of criteria to sort out Everything (as
> I've
> > mentioned above) without getting into the positivist viscious
> circle.
> >
> >
> > The universe is not under any obligation to reveal itself to us. All we
> > can do is stumble around blindly gathering what data we can and make a
> > best guess as to what's going on. Science is just a systematisation of
> > this process, with guesses taking the form of models and theories.
> > However, it's all tentative, and the scientific method itself is
> > tentative: tomorrow pigs might sprout wings and fly, even though this
> > has never happened before. I would bet that pigs will still be
> > land-bound tomorrow, because there is no reason to think otherwise, but
> > I have to stop short of absolute certainty. A metaphysical position
> > would be that flying pigs are an absurdity or an anathema and therefore
> > pigs absolutely *cannot* fly. But it is arrogant as well as wrong to
> > create absolute certainty, absolute meaning, or absolute anything else
> > by fiat, just because that's what you fancy. If there are some things we
> > can't know with certainty or can't know at all, that may be unfortunate,
> > but it's the way the world is.
> >
> > Stathis Papaioannou
>
> You seem to take metaphysics to be an absolutist theory. Maybe Tom does
> too. But I think of metaphysics to be the interpretation we put on top of
> our mathematical theories, e.g. Bohm's pilot wave and Feynman's multiple
> particle paths are two different metaphysics we can use to explain what the
> formalism of quantum mechanics refers to. But we're *less* certain about
> them than about the formalism. In fact they don't even matter in
> applications. Their usefulness, if they have any, is in suggesting
> extensions to the theory.
>
> Brent Meeker
>
> >
>
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list.domain.name.hidden
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list-unsubscribe.domain.name.hidden
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Received on Sat Feb 24 2007 - 06:32:56 PST