What does it mean "to Exist"?

[Obvious Leo]

Dubious.

When physics makes metaphysical claims, such claims must be subjected to metaphysical scrutiny whether they like it or not.

For example.

What physics says is this. The universe is a 4 dimensional pseudo-Riemannian continuum of space and time.

Physics has no authority whatsoever to make such a statement.

What physics is entitled to say is this. Physics models the universe as if it were a 4 dimensional pseudo-Riemannian continuum of space and time.

If the distinction between these two statements is too finely nuanced for your understanding then you are insufficiently schooled in both science and philosophy.

[JSS]

What physics says is this. The universe is a 4 dimensional pseudo-Riemannian continuum of space and time.

Physics has no authority whatsoever to make such a statement.

What physics is entitled to say is this. Physics models the universe as if it were a 4 dimensional pseudo-Riemannian continuum of space and time.

Exactly!

[Dubious]

When physics makes metaphysical claims, such claims must be subjected to metaphysical scrutiny whether they like it or not.

That depends on who or what determines if physics actually made a metaphysical claim in the first place. Can you say what decides the parameters in physics that go beyond theory to render it metaphysical?

It has always been the prerogative of philosophy first and foremost to make metaphysical claims which can never be falsified in the way theories are falsified. In philosophy any redundant metaphysics remains a philosophy in the books whereas in science any failed theory is thrown out. One hell of difference I'd say.

What physics says is this. The universe is a 4 dimensional pseudo-Riemannian continuum of space and time.

Physics has no authority whatsoever to make such a statement.

...implying that philosophy has the über-macht on authority as given from the philosopher's pulpit to determine what authority physics should have in its own domain!

Physics is not Philosophy having to make absolute statements out of pure speculation. That kind of “eminent domain” expropriation more properly belongs to the philosopher types like you and James who take it upon themselves to state categorically that physics has no authority to make such statements in its own back yard.

What physics is entitled to say is this. Physics models the universe as if it were a 4 dimensional pseudo-Riemannian continuum of space and time.

Whether is or as if makes NO difference since both the conceptual and operational model of GR remains in effect until further notice especially so since the discovery of Gravitational Waves causing the space-time model to become even more palpable in spite of your splendid distinction between formalities which effectively amounts to zero.

If the distinction between these two statements is too finely nuanced for your understanding then you are insufficiently schooled in both science and philosophy.

It's amazing how many times you've so gratuitously dispensed this advice to others as if you were some high priest advising his flock to read their catechism more closely...and yet I still can't get an answer as to how the word “epistemic” in context applies to the word “fields”.

--------------------------------

As to how science can be done without philosophy is simple. The scientific method was established somewhat late in our history precisely to leave philosophy and religion out of it, endorsed instead by experimentation, observation and not least, imagination.

No, no, no. Science was developed much the same way as Christianity. They were both pushed forward and insisted upon so as to stop any OTHER philosophy.

Don't know if this is meant as a clumsy joke or truly meant...in which case it's an absurdity bordering on insanity but maybe that's the shortcut which allowed you to solve all the problems in physics!

But as such, the philosophy that we call the "Scientific Method" can only verify philosophical hypotheses. Science knows nothing of truth, only of verification through demonstration that something isn't provably wrong. Science can never prove a truth on its own, only a falsehood.

Proving a falsehood by ANY method, elicits a truth in reaction. Besides which, science is not in the business of providing truth only the probability of something being true. Ironically truth as TRUTH remains subservient in those domains least able to obtain it: Religion and Philosophy.

[JSS]

Dubious, you are getting the cart before the horse. What you now call science used to be called "Natural Philosophy" or the "Philosophy of Nature" and then because they were dealing with material issues, they ran across the ability and significance of being able to independently demonstrate what they called "natural laws". Later they discovered that there natural laws weren't really laws, but tendencies and sometimes just misunderstandings. So they stopped making "laws" and changed everything (but the Second law of Thermodynamics) to a "theory of physical nature" to eventually become merely "Physics".

It never stopped being a study in philosophy. It was merely material/physical philosophy (as apposed to abstract/ideal) and then it found the method of independent demonstration (which it can no longer support).

Today Science is taught as the new religion of Secularism and the New World Order. But it has always had the problem of not being able to do any more than to say, "No this philosophical hypothesis is demonstrated to be wrong" or in contrast, "This might not make sense, but it works for predictions".

There are very many issues that Science cannot deal with. One is the issue of consistent ontology or even fully understanding what an ontology is. Those are critically important issues to rational thinking, but seldom a part of science thinking. Scientists are merely technicians in the world of metaphysical ontology. And when they speak so proudly as if they were the only intelligent people on the planet, they are like children espousing how much smarter they are than their own parents.

Quite seriously, no ego involved, scientists are like children who are really good with their toys, but still very seriously philosophically immature. That is not to say that every philosopher is going to be better or wiser, certainly not. Philosophy allows for all kinds of foolishness as a part of it. It is very open, thus a great deal of dirt gets blown in.

But the issue is that science is very narrowly confined to a specific thought pattern that is given by philosophical principles which they irreverently attempt to supersede without understanding.

"Proving a falsehood by ANY method, elicits a truth in reaction."

And that is just logic naivety.
Knowing what isn't true tells you almost nothing of what IS true.

[Obvious Leo]

That depends on who or what determines if physics actually made a metaphysical claim in the first place. Can you say what decides the parameters in physics that go beyond theory to render it metaphysical?

Yes. This is a metaphysical claim.

The universe is a 4 dimensional pseudo-Riemannian continuum of space and time.

Whereas this is not. This is a scientific claim.

Physics models the universe as if it were a 4 dimensional pseudo-Riemannian continuum of space and time.

This distinction was made perfectly clear by many of the pioneers of early 20th century physics who were sufficiently well schooled in the philosophy of science to understand what it is that they were doing. These pioneers included Einstein, Planck, Heisenberg and Schrodinger but the general principle was expressed most eloquently after the 1927 Solvay conference by Niels Bohr in this arresting proclamation which has since been systematically ignored by subsequent generations of physicists.

"It is NOT the role of the physicist to explain what the universe is but merely to determine what meaningful statements he can make about the behaviour of matter and energy within it".....Niels Bohr.

Incidentally to suggest that subatomic particles within the atom move randomly is also a metaphysical claim and a fucking ridiculous one at that. Schrodinger told the story about the dead and alive cat as a joke at his own expense. It was intended as a piss-take to make the point that QM was NOT a physical model.

[attofishpi]

Re: What does it mean "to Exist"?

You are asking what does it 'mean' to be conscious. No?

[JSS]

Re: What does it mean "to Exist"?

You are asking what does it 'mean' to be conscious. No?

No. I am aware of what it means to be conscious.
I was asking what you mean when you say that something exists.

Dubious,
The reason I put this thread in metaphysics instead of science is because it is an issue of pure logic and language as to whether affectance exists. It is not up to philosophically naive physicists. Many philosopher types might argue, but in the long run, it is an issue of logic, not the scientific method.

And another issue is science attempting to proclaim things like the Big Bang. The scientific method cannot ever be used concerning the proposed Big Bang .. or really anything of history. Yet they preach it exactly like any religion would do. The BB is a joke, easily proven as nonsense. And that is what happens when physicists are allowed to be suckered into making claims outside their expertise. Now they go around preaching babble.

[attofishpi]

Re: What does it mean "to Exist"?

You are asking what does it 'mean' to be conscious. No?

No. I am aware of what it means to be conscious.
I was asking what you mean when you say that something exists.

Which is asking something that is conscious, what does one (that is conscious) mean by the term 'existence'.

[mickthinks]

Hmmm ...

The OP answers a question that I have seen posed nowhere else. Who (besides JSS) is disputing the meaning of "exists"? I'm not and I don't understand why anyone else would. I don't believe it is a sensible or worthwhile exercise to try to answer questions without first establishing from what conceptual or practical problem or problems they arise.

What is the philosophical problem you are trying to solve, JSS?

[JSS]

Hmmm ...

The OP answers a question that I have seen posed nowhere else. Who (besides JSS) is disputing the meaning of "exists"? I'm not and I don't understand why anyone else would. I don't believe it is a sensible or worthwhile exercise to try to answer questions without first establishing from what conceptual or practical problem or problems they arise.

What is the philosophical problem you are trying to solve, JSS?

Ontology is the study of existence .. the most studied concern in all philosophy, religion, and science.
Don't you think that you should know what it is first?
.. or are you one of those who argues about the existence of gods without even knowing what a god is?

Saying that "everyone knows" is very UN-philosophic and seriously not true.

If one is to study Dendrology, the first thing he learns is what a tree is and then of what it is made.

[nanophilosopher]

Emptiness always exists. But no effects. Emptiness affects nothing. And nothing affects emptiness.

[mickthinks]

JSS,

Ontology is the study of existence ...

I don't think Ontology is a study in the same way that Dendrology is a study.

Saying that "everyone knows" is very UN-philosophic and seriously not true.

Okay, it's not quite what I said, but we can let that pass for now. Why do you believe that a philosopher should not say "Every native English speaker knows how to use the word "is"? And why do you say that is not true?

[JSS]

Emptiness always exists. But no effects. Emptiness affects nothing. And nothing affects emptiness.

There has never been true absolute emptiness .. ever .. any where.

Why do you believe that a philosopher should not say "Every native English speaker knows how to use the word "is"? And why do you say that is not true?

You know how to use the word "god" don't you? Yet you don't actually know what a god is.
Many people today speak of a CPU, yet don't know what a CPU actually is.
People speak of black-holes, yet don't know what a black-hole is.

Language is learned through inference. People are given, or make up, words to associate with an inferred idea, concept, or thing. But having a word for it and understanding what it actually is are very different things.

People are still arguing over "spacetime", "God", "love", "Christianity", "Socialism", "Fascism", "evolution", "mind", "consciousness",... Yet once they discover what any of them actually are (a solidly good definition), the arguments stop.

Why would you want them to keep arguing over what existence actually is?

[mickthinks]

Who is arguing over what existence is? No one I know.

[JSS]

Who is arguing over what existence is? No one I know.

I take it that you don't know much about modern physics.