Philosophy Now Forum

Impenitent wrote: ↑Sun Oct 25, 2020 3:47 pm

Age wrote: ↑Sun Oct 25, 2020 9:14 am

Impenitent wrote: ↑Sun Oct 25, 2020 3:51 am

yes, infinity

Is that from your perspective?

Impenitent wrote: ↑Sun Oct 25, 2020 3:51 am -Imp

nope, infinity is not empirically apprehended

-Imp

So, what is/are the actual 'question/s', which can be answered logically, but not empirically?

Advocate wrote: ↑Wed Oct 21, 2020 6:06 pm ...any questions that can be answered logically but not empirically and do not depend on perspective.

Is this definition necessary and sufficient?

Almost. Any logical statement however rooted in what is either evident given the definition or it follows to be evident.

Advocate wrote: ↑Wed Oct 21, 2020 6:06 pm ...any questions that can be answered logically but not empirically and do not depend on perspective.

Is this definition necessary and sufficient?

That definition is certainly NOT 'necessary' but it can be 'sufficient'.

'Sufficiency' is all depended upon what one is looking for or seeking.

What do you hope to achieve with that definition of 'metaphysics'?

Maybe if you provide some examples of questions that can be answered 'logically' but not 'empirically', then we can take a LOOK at if that definition is 'sufficient' or not.

By the way, EVERY 'thing' involved in discussion between human beings is depended upon 'perspective', whether 'you' like it or not.

attofishpi wrote: ↑Thu Oct 22, 2020 12:29 pm My interpretation is meta - about things - in this case physics. I think one of those Greek Philos came up with the original definition but it is shit now, but pretty good at the time.

And what does 'meta' actually mean, to you?

Skepdick wrote: ↑Fri Oct 23, 2020 11:06 pm

Advocate wrote: ↑Wed Oct 21, 2020 6:06 pm ...any questions that can be answered logically but not empirically and do not depend on perspective.

Is this definition necessary and sufficient?

Metaphysics IS Logic

Meta-circular evaluators (a.k.a interpreters) are computational constructions.

Metalinguistic abstraction is problem-solving through creating precise, domain-specific languages.

If 'you' are NOT a 'robot/computer', then WHY does it appear as though just about EVERY thing, to 'you', comes down to computations?

Are 'you' REALLY NOT able to just LOOK AT and SEE 'things' for what they JUST ARE?

attofishpi wrote: ↑Fri Oct 23, 2020 11:00 pm

Advocate wrote: ↑Thu Oct 22, 2020 2:42 pm

attofishpi wrote: ↑Thu Oct 22, 2020 12:29 pm My interpretation is meta - about things - in this case physics. I think one of those Greek Philos came up with the original definition but it is shit now, but pretty good at the time.

That sounds like you mean constrained to the
external/material. Does your metaphysics have nothing to say about the patterns in the mind?

Why? Physics is about EVERYTHING. Our brains are made of atoms, and apparently is where our 'minds' reside.

How do you KNOW that 'physics' is about EVERYTHING?

Is it NOT POSSIBLE to you for there to be 'things' that are NOT 'physical'?

By the way, I like the way you LOOKED AT thee ACTUAL Truth of 'things' here with your use of the 'apparently' word. It is great to SEE when people are LOOKING AT 'things' how they ACTUALLY ARE.

uwot wrote: ↑Sat Oct 24, 2020 12:38 pm

Advocate wrote: ↑Wed Oct 21, 2020 6:06 pm ...any questions that can be answered logically but not empirically and do not depend on perspective.

Is this definition necessary and sufficient?

Call it what you like, but physics is how you describe what you see happening with reference to constants and variables of your choosing. Metaphysics is what you are left with when you take the numbers away.

Well this is ANOTHER 'definition'.

Impenitent wrote: ↑Sun Oct 25, 2020 3:47 pm

Age wrote: ↑Sun Oct 25, 2020 9:14 am

Impenitent wrote: ↑Sun Oct 25, 2020 3:51 am

yes, infinity

Is that from your perspective?

Impenitent wrote: ↑Sun Oct 25, 2020 3:51 am -Imp

nope, infinity is not empirically apprehended

-Imp

If this statement, proposition, claim, perspective is NOT from 'your' perspective, then WHERE did 'it' come from, EXACTLY?

Age wrote: ↑Sat Jan 23, 2021 4:39 am If 'you' are NOT a 'robot/computer', then WHY does it appear as though just about EVERY thing, to 'you', comes down to computations?

Are 'you' REALLY NOT able to just LOOK AT and SEE 'things' for what they JUST ARE?

I am

The concept of "I" is the paragon of computation.

Self-reference, a.k.a recursion IS computation.

Advocate wrote: ↑Wed Oct 21, 2020 6:06 pm ...any questions that can be answered logically but not empirically and do not depend on perspective.

Is this definition necessary and sufficient?

Not sufficient certainly, and rather misleading.

Metaphysics traditionally consists of three things:

(1) "First principles"
(2) "Natural theology"
(3) Ontology

First principles are probably most familiar to contemporary people with an interest in philosophy via Kant's transcendental arguments. They're basically logical requirements or logical implications for things to be as they are (or if one has more of an epistemological bent, as Kant did, for things to be experienced as they are). To keep more of a metaphysical rather than epistemological bent, we would say that first principles are the "logical grounding of existence" or of nature per se.

Natural theology has been largely subsumed into philosophy of religion. Natural theology was largely concerned with arguments for God's existence, but it also included stuff like analysis of the divine nature or the world in general.

Ontology is the bulk of metaphysics in contemporary practice. Ontology is "philosophy of existence"--and it's a bit like the philosophical counterpart to physics. Ontology focuses on the nature of the world qua the world, without a focus on epistemological concerns, unless one is prone to idealism or solipsism (in which case one believes that the world is solely mind, or can only be known (in more of an acquaintance sense) as mind). Ontology looks at what things are/how they exist/what the nature of their existence is, etc., and specific popular topics include things like identity (including through time), time itself, relations including part/whole relations (aka mereology), the notion of ontic simples ("monads" were Leibniz' version of these), whether there are any real abstracts, whether there are any real types/"forms" etc. and so on. Ontology is often very focused on empirical data, but as philosophy, it doesn't really do empirical experiments, per se (otherwise it would just be science. . .there is plenty of overlap/quite a fuzzy boundary sometimes).

Whether anything in metaphysics/ontology depends on perspective is itself going to come down to one's particular ontological views. On my view, perspective is inescapable, but where I stress that I'm not using "perspective" to refer to mentality, I'm using it to refer to a broader sense of "situatedness," somewhat akin to how perspective is used in the visual arts.

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Sat Jan 23, 2021 6:07 pm Metaphysics traditionally consists of three things:

(1) "First principles"
(2) "Natural theology"
(3) Ontology

First principles are probably most familiar to contemporary people with an interest in philosophy via Kant's transcendental arguments. They're basically logical requirements or logical implications for things to be as they are (or if one has more of an epistemological bent, as Kant did, for things to be experienced as they are). To keep more of a metaphysical rather than epistemological bent, we would say that first principles are the "logical grounding of existence" or of nature per se.

Begging the question: what are the first principles of logic? And the answer is: There aren't any!

The first principles of first principles thinking is that there are no first principles.

And it may very well be a moral hazard to confuse the world of logic with the real world.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Sat Jan 23, 2021 6:13 pm Begging the question: what are the first principles of logic? And the answer is: There aren't any!

The first principles of first principles thinking is that there are no first principles.

And it may very well be a moral hazard to confuse the world of logic with the real world.

That's not what begging the question is first off.

And they're not first principles of logic--the field we're talking about isn't logic per se. They're first principles of metaphysics, which are derived via logic. An example per Kant is that experience isn't possible without at least the concepts of space and time.

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Sat Jan 23, 2021 6:38 pm That's not what begging the question is first off.

It's precisely what it is. Your pre-supposed such things as "first principles".

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Sat Jan 23, 2021 6:38 pm And they're not first principles of logic--the field we're talking about isn't logic per se. They're first principles of metaphysics, which are derived via logic.

Which is precisely why I said "The first principles of first principles thinking is that there are no first principles." with no reference to logic or metaphysics. It's a general statement.

But lets entertain what you are saying for a second: if metaphysics is derived from logic, then what is logic derived from?

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Sat Jan 23, 2021 6:38 pm An example per Kant is that experience isn't possible without at least the concepts of space and time.

That's exactly backwards! Experience doesn't depend on concepts. Concepts depend on experience. Concepts are experienced.

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Sat Jan 23, 2021 6:38 pm

An example per Kant is that experience isn't possible without at least the concepts of space and time.

Skepdick replied;

That's exactly backwards! Experience doesn't depend on concepts. Concepts depend on experience.

Synthetic a priori depends on naturalism as the frame and system of belief. Naturalism is form of pantheism. The biosphere is an ecological system. Within that system humans retain inherent brain-mind patterns. Chomsky has described generative grammar, for instance, as deep structure of human language.It's probable in a habitat that is measurable by values of space and time that humans, by process of natural selection, are inherently able to synthesise values of space and time.

Advocate wrote: ↑Wed Oct 21, 2020 6:06 pm ...any questions that can be answered logically but not empirically and do not depend on perspective.

Is this definition necessary and sufficient?

No, it is not sufficient.

Example: What is 1+1 ?

Can this question be answered logically? No.
Does the question depend on perspective? Yes.

The answer to the question depends on the perspectival system you have in mind.

1+1 = 10 in binary.
1+1 = 2 in decimal.
1+1 = "11" if you are just concatenating string.

There are two fundamental problems here:
* 1+1 is ambiguous
* How do you express questions in logic?