GENIUS FORUMS

David,

Neil: Metaphysics means something like beyond nature or beyond our world.

DQ: Strictly speaking, it means "beyond science", which is not the same thing as saying "beyond Nature". I agree that it is foolish to talk about going beyond Nature, especially if one conceives of Nature as being the totality of all there is. But pushing one's reasoning beyond science in order to understand those truths of Nature which are beyond the powers of science to either prove or disprove is a perfectly legitimate activity to engage in. And I would argue, a vitally important one too. It would cure most of the world's madness in an instant.

I agree with this definition. What I am questioning is if there are really any truths beyond science that we can grasp. It is vital to understand and affirm that our language was originally created from empirical observations as a tool. The line has been blurred has our language evolved and we seem to have forgotten that ultimately our language is derived from the natural material world. The question is whether this language can be applied to anything "beyond" the natural material world. As I formulated last post, metaphysics is basically: Our_World -> Language -> Beyond_Our_World. I can see no reason to find the last step legitimate. More on this below.

NM: So talking about other worlds, all worlds, gods, and other intangible concepts is metaphysics.

DQ: Science deals in intangible concepts all the time. "Particle", "force", "energy", "law", "star", etc - these are all intangible generalizations upon which the entire edifice of science is built.

Nietzsche made the point that no two things in the world are ever alike, that there are really no such things as "stars" and particles" and so on. These are just abstract categories into which we lump seemingly not-too-dissimilar things together. And yet despite this, science is a perfectly legitimate activity that can be used to glean much information from the world. The same is equally true of philosophic reasoning.

We really need to dig deeper than you did. We human beings must conceptualize. There is no other way. No two trees are the same and yet we lump them all into a category and label them "tree". Why? For predictive power. We can remember the common and perhaps not-so-common traits of trees and can make rational decisions involving the properties we have attributed to this concept "tree". The difference between science and metaphysics is that science is modeling our empirical observations for predictive power whereas metaphysics is modeling beyond our empirical observations in the name of "truth". An intelligent scientist won't claim science is truth, only that it is highly useful and rigid models of life. A metaphysician will claim that he has arrived at some ultimate truth by doing row reductions on arrays of concepts that have been created for predictive power as though God himself had created or was bound by these concepts.

DQ: An example is the truth all things are finite or limited in nature. In other words, a thing always falls short of constituting the totality of all there is. This is something which is necessarily true in all possible worlds. There can never be an instant, in any place or time or dimension, in which a particular thing isn't limited in extent, that it doesn't have a beginning or an end. All things are united by this characteristic.

Neil: This is a logical truth only because of the way we have defined terms like "finite".

DQ: While that is true, the beauty of this definition is that it is impossible for anything, anywhere, to fall outside of it. That is what makes the definition useful as far as philosophically understanding the nature of all phenomena is concerned.

You are making your mistake right here. How do you know that nothing can fall outside the definition? Because you defined it so. But how did you come to that definition? Ultimately all our definitions were derived from our subjective empirical observations. So your definition can only hold, and only really as a model, for the world of your empirical observations.

What is really happening here is that we create a plethora of definitions from induction, from inductive reasoning. Then the rationalists come along and use these definitions as though they were laws of the universe. They use deductive reasoning on these definitions which they forget were originally simply inductions and act as though their results are binding on a scope outside the original inductions.

Reminder from dictionary, induction: any form of reasoning in which the conclusion, though supported by the premises, does not follow from them necessarily. Thus we cannot state that there are any real "facts" about our world, only very powerful predictive models. And we are just extremely way off when we try to take our induction from a small population and apply it to a larger one or a to the "totality" (another horrible metaphysical term). Any statistician knows that you must sample large populations and make inferences inwardly, not work the other way around.

NM: Remember that our whole language is derived from empirical observations. To assert that this language can then describe things outside our empirical observations is metaphysics.

DQ: It is fortunate for me, then, that the concept of "finite", as I define it, applies to everything that I empirically observe.

Too bad the same cannot be said of "infinite" or "non-finite" (that it has a place in 'reality'). It is a useless concept in the natural world, we have to thank the abstract world of mathematics for this.

zarathustra wrote:By your logic David Quinn, an enlightened person ( knowing everything) should know how everything works, the logic behind it.

There's no need to know the logic behind it. If you want to do something, you do it. Easy. Do most people know the science behind raising their hand to scratch their nose? Science is good to know for technology to move forward; but for simple things people do, it isn't necessary.

Zarathustra,

The difference between metaphysical methodology and scientific methodology is simple: methphysical methodology is not open to proof (proving) but speculation from which conclusions are drawn. Scientific methodology is the exact opposite. It deals with the LAWS that constitute REALITY. One look at all the great inventions/discoveries will varify this. Absolute truth/ enlightenment, or whatever, may appeal to some people's egos, but in reality, tell us NOTHING about reality.

The exact opposite is the case. Science cannot tell us anything at all about reality, not even in the slightest, whereas philosophic reason, when performed intelligently and wisely, can tell us everything that can ever be known. But it does require a knowledge of how to go beyond the ordinary empirical mindset that we have all been raised in, which many people find very difficult to do.

At best, science can only give us provisional theories about sense-observed things which may or may not actually exist - which, strictly speaking, doesn't really constitute a form of knowledge. They are closer to being tentative speculations that often prove to be useful.

A scientist is like a blind man in the dark tentatively banging things together and theorizing about what he hears, whereas the enlightened person is like a sighted person in the full light of day making his way around the world with freedom and ease. Such a person has no need for theories.

Ultimately, human existence is a mystery. All we can do is speculate about the nature of our origins. At best, metaphysics is speculative, and can thus appeal to logic, at worst, well, have a listen to Benny Hinn...But in both cases it can prove NOTHING. Wishful thinking. Which I admit can at times be quite beautiful, and like everything beautiful, seductive...

You're merely describing your own condition here.

By your logic David Quinn, an enlightened person ( knowing everything) should know how everything works, the logic behind it. The simple truth is: they don't. And there is not one speck of evidence in recorded history that can prove otherwise.

The enlightened person has opened his eyes to the fundamental nature of everything, which is indeed a form of omniscience. Indeed, it is the only kind of omniscience that can ever be had.

This is a difficult thing to explain to people who only have scientific complexity in their eyes. But it is something which is easily understood by those who manage to piece the core illusion of life and see into the heart of Reality. It is an omniscience which is amazingly real.

-

Neil,

Neil: Metaphysics means something like beyond nature or beyond our world.

DQ: Strictly speaking, it means "beyond science", which is not the same thing as saying "beyond Nature". I agree that it is foolish to talk about going beyond Nature, especially if one conceives of Nature as being the totality of all there is. But pushing one's reasoning beyond science in order to understand those truths of Nature which are beyond the powers of science to either prove or disprove is a perfectly legitimate activity to engage in. And I would argue, a vitally important one too. It would cure most of the world's madness in an instant.

Neil: I agree with this definition. What I am questioning is if there are really any truths beyond science that we can grasp. It is vital to understand and affirm that our language was originally created from empirical observations as a tool.

That's true, but it's also the case that our brains have developed enough sophistication and complexity that we can now apply language and concepts in any manner we please. We have the power to take them beyond the confines of their pragmatic origins.

The line has been blurred has our language evolved and we seem to have forgotten that ultimately our language is derived from the natural material world. The question is whether this language can be applied to anything "beyond" the natural material world.

I've stated many times that there is nothing beyond the natural world. We both agree that Nature is all there is. So I'm not sure why you remain obsessed with this "other worlds" thing. How about you throw it away, so we can move on.

NM: So talking about other worlds, all worlds, gods, and other intangible concepts is metaphysics.

DQ: Science deals in intangible concepts all the time. "Particle", "force", "energy", "law", "star", etc - these are all intangible generalizations upon which the entire edifice of science is built.

Nietzsche made the point that no two things in the world are ever alike, that there are really no such things as "stars" and particles" and so on. These are just abstract categories into which we lump seemingly not-too-dissimilar things together. And yet despite this, science is a perfectly legitimate activity that can be used to glean much information from the world. The same is equally true of philosophic reasoning.

NM: We really need to dig deeper than you did. We human beings must conceptualize. There is no other way.

Agreed. But at the same time, we don't have to be fooled by our conceptualizations.

No two trees are the same and yet we lump them all into a category and label them "tree". Why? For predictive power. We can remember the common and perhaps not-so-common traits of trees and can make rational decisions involving the properties we have attributed to this concept "tree". The difference between science and metaphysics is that science is modeling our empirical observations for predictive power whereas metaphysics is modeling beyond our empirical observations in the name of "truth". An intelligent scientist won't claim science is truth, only that it is highly useful and rigid models of life. A metaphysician will claim that he has arrived at some ultimate truth by doing row reductions on arrays of concepts that have been created for predictive power as though God himself had created or was bound by these concepts.

A good philosopher reasons from concepts that he has created for himself. These conceptions may well align themselves with traditional empirical-based concepts or they may not. It all depends on what he wants to reason about. The point is, he is in full control of what he is doing. He knows exactly how and why he is using a particular concept.

Because his purpose is very different from the scientist's, he often uses concepts differently from how scientists use them. He has different starting points and end points. This is something that Victor Danilchenko, for example, who represents the standard scientific mentality, has great difficulty in understanding. It's as though he senses the whole edifice of his knowledge beginning to teeter and collapse.

DQ: An example is the truth all things are finite or limited in nature. In other words, a thing always falls short of constituting the totality of all there is. This is something which is necessarily true in all possible worlds. There can never be an instant, in any place or time or dimension, in which a particular thing isn't limited in extent, that it doesn't have a beginning or an end. All things are united by this characteristic.

Neil: This is a logical truth only because of the way we have defined terms like "finite".

DQ: While that is true, the beauty of this definition is that it is impossible for anything, anywhere, to fall outside of it. That is what makes the definition useful as far as philosophically understanding the nature of all phenomena is concerned.

Neil: You are making your mistake right here. How do you know that nothing can fall outside the definition? Because you defined it so. But how did you come to that definition? Ultimately all our definitions were derived from our subjective empirical observations.

On the contrary, I complete made it up. I created it totally out of the blue, with my own intelligence.

The reason? Because I wanted to understand the shared fundamental characteristics of each and every phenomena in Nature. Creating categories into which every phenomenon necessarily has to fall is part of this process.

So your definition can only hold, and only really as a model, for the world of your empirical observations.

The logic of the definition dictates that it necessarily applies to each and every phenomena in the Universe, including the things that we empirical observe.

What is really happening here is that we create a plethora of definitions from induction, from inductive reasoning. Then the rationalists come along and use these definitions as though they were laws of the universe. They use deductive reasoning on these definitions which they forget were originally simply inductions and act as though their results are binding on a scope outside the original inductions.

Not so. The rationalist fully understands that the definitions he uses are completely arbitrary and can be shaped in any manner he pleases.

Reminder from dictionary, induction: any form of reasoning in which the conclusion, though supported by the premises, does not follow from them necessarily. Thus we cannot state that there are any real "facts" about our world, only very powerful predictive models. And we are just extremely way off when we try to take our induction from a small population and apply it to a larger one or a to the "totality" (another horrible metaphysical term). Any statistician knows that you must sample large populations and make inferences inwardly, not work the other way around.

If you use definitions that necessarily apply to all phenomena in the Universe, then you no longer have to rely on inductive reasoning and its associated uncertainties. Instead, the logical process becomes entirely deductive, which means that the conclusions you arrive at carry the same amount of certainty as the starting definitions themselves - that is, they are 100% certain.

NM: Remember that our whole language is derived from empirical observations. To assert that this language can then describe things outside our empirical observations is metaphysics.

DQ: It is fortunate for me, then, that the concept of "finite", as I define it, applies to everything that I empirically observe.

NM: Too bad the same cannot be said of "infinite" or "non-finite" (that it has a place in 'reality'). It is a useless concept in the natural world, we have to thank the abstract world of mathematics for this.

If a mathematical entity falls short of being the totality of all there is, then it is necessarily "finite", by my definition of the term.

-

There is a fundamental difference between logic and science, particularly philosophical logic, which merely reflects on 'what is' from an abstract point of view, whilst science deals with 'what is' by understanding how it works .e.g. genetics. The more we learn about genetics, the less credible many of our popular myths will be. Geneticists are on the brink of being able to cure many diseases, including 'mental diseases' by simply switching a gene on or off. This has incredible implications for the present status quo of our moral/ethical and philosophical institutions. It will change the nature of mankind and how mankind sees itself in relation to the universe. Jung, Freud, Skinner and co will be considered primatives in terms of their understanding of the human psyche, whilst the whole ediface of the old quasi-religious philosophical institutions to which David Q and others in this forum pay lip service, will come tumbling down, like the tired old idols they are...

z

David,

Neil: I agree with this definition. What I am questioning is if there are really any truths beyond science that we can grasp. It is vital to understand and affirm that our language was originally created from empirical observations as a tool.

DQ: That's true, but it's also the case that our brains have developed enough sophistication and complexity that we can now apply language and concepts in any manner we please. We have the power to take them beyond the confines of their pragmatic origins.

I want you to affirm that whatever your highly advanced brain does to language and concepts that they ultimately come from empirical observations. As a child your parents taught you the language so you didn't create the concepts yourself. But could you do anything if your parents did not teach you the concepts? Could you pop them out yourself? If you did they would come from empirical observations again. You can change your language and concepts but only using other language and concepts and other empirical observations. There is no source on concepts outside empirical observations. Can you affirm this?

Neil: The line has been blurred has our language evolved and we seem to have forgotten that ultimately our language is derived from the natural material world. The question is whether this language can be applied to anything "beyond" the natural material world.

DQ: I've stated many times that there is nothing beyond the natural world. We both agree that Nature is all there is. So I'm not sure why you remain obsessed with this "other worlds" thing. How about you throw it away, so we can move on.

Sorry, I was using "natural, material world" as in our realm of empirical observations. There could be a different planet, for example, or a different 'universe' (scientific definition) that would fall outside the "natural, material world" by this definition. Basically I am saying that to extrapolate from our area of observation (or statistical analysis) to a larger area is erroneous.

Neil: No two trees are the same and yet we lump them all into a category and label them "tree". Why? For predictive power. We can remember the common and perhaps not-so-common traits of trees and can make rational decisions involving the properties we have attributed to this concept "tree". The difference between science and metaphysics is that science is modeling our empirical observations for predictive power whereas metaphysics is modeling beyond our empirical observations in the name of "truth". An intelligent scientist won't claim science is truth, only that it is highly useful and rigid models of life. A metaphysician will claim that he has arrived at some ultimate truth by doing row reductions on arrays of concepts that have been created for predictive power as though God himself had created or was bound by these concepts.

DQ: A good philosopher reasons from concepts that he has created for himself. These conceptions may well align themselves with traditional empirical-based concepts or they may not. It all depends on what he wants to reason about. The point is, he is in full control of what he is doing. He knows exactly how and why he is using a particular concept.

This seems off topic of the above to me. At any rate, I must disagree. You have not created your concepts yourself. At most you have changed them or renamed or refined them. And if you want to be a philosopher who communicates with others, as all philosophers that are known to others must be (including you and me), you must use at least mostly the same concepts as others for communication purposes. Nobody is in full control of what he is doing, there is much more that I am not in control of than what I am and of course the large part of our development was completely out of our control. Back to topic....

NM: Because his purpose is very different from the scientist's, he often uses concepts differently from how scientists use them. He has different starting points and end points. This is something that Victor Danilchenko, for example, who represents the standard scientific mentality, has great difficulty in understanding. It's as though he senses the whole edifice of his knowledge beginning to teeter and collapse.

This is just muddying the waters pal.

DQ: While that is true, the beauty of this definition is that it is impossible for anything, anywhere, to fall outside of it. That is what makes the definition useful as far as philosophically understanding the nature of all phenomena is concerned.

Neil: You are making your mistake right here. How do you know that nothing can fall outside the definition? Because you defined it so. But how did you come to that definition? Ultimately all our definitions were derived from our subjective empirical observations.

DQ: On the contrary, I complete made it up. I created it totally out of the blue, with my own intelligence.

You think too highly of yourself here. Unless you have changed over to Jehu's position and believe you are actually God with all this going on inside your head, this statement is ridiculous.

DQ: The reason? Because I wanted to understand the shared fundamental characteristics of each and every phenomena in Nature. Creating categories into which every phenomenon necessarily has to fall is part of this process.

The task is impossible. Categories can be created in two types: Inductive ones and Abstract ones. Inductive ones come from empirical observation while abstract ones come from beyond empirical observation. How can you affirm or deny something that is beyond empirical observation? You can't. These abstract concepts seem to come from an ill extrapolation of inductive concepts outside the realm in which they can accurately describe. It's like a statistician sampling Austrailia and then claiming his inferences hold internationally. It is a flaw. We metaphysicians: First of all we forget the confidence interval of our inductive concepts and take them as "truth" and "facts". Then we go a step further to extrapolate them outside the population they accurately reflect, our world, our natural material world that we can empirically observe.

NM: So your definition can only hold, and only really as a model, for the world of your empirical observations.

DQ: The logic of the definition dictates that it necessarily applies to each and every phenomena in the Universe, including the things that we empirical observe.

Then you have defined something out of the definition. If you say that all trees must by definition have bark then some quasi-trees that lack only bark may exist but you can accurately say that "no trees have bark", which is about as great a truth as "1+1=2".

NM: What is really happening here is that we create a plethora of definitions from induction, from inductive reasoning. Then the rationalists come along and use these definitions as though they were laws of the universe. They use deductive reasoning on these definitions which they forget were originally simply inductions and act as though their results are binding on a scope outside the original inductions.

DQ: Not so. The rationalist fully understands that the definitions he uses are completely arbitrary and can be shaped in any manner he pleases.

Can you try to understand what I said rather than throw up defenses that miss the point?

NM: Reminder from dictionary, induction: any form of reasoning in which the conclusion, though supported by the premises, does not follow from them necessarily. Thus we cannot state that there are any real "facts" about our world, only very powerful predictive models. And we are just extremely way off when we try to take our induction from a small population and apply it to a larger one or a to the "totality" (another horrible metaphysical term). Any statistician knows that you must sample large populations and make inferences inwardly, not work the other way around.

DQ: If you use definitions that necessarily apply to all phenomena in the Universe, then you no longer have to rely on inductive reasoning and its associated uncertainties. Instead, the logical process becomes entirely deductive, which means that the conclusions you arrive at carry the same amount of certainty as the starting definitions themselves - that is, they are 100% certain.

I tried to explain to you that all definitions come from induction. You don't have a priori definitions in your head. God did not make transcendental english dictionaries. IF HE DID then pure deduction would work. Since fallible, clumsy, stupid human beings wrote the dictionary to treat them as infallible definitions and use deduction on them leads to disasters like metaphysics.

NM: Too bad the same cannot be said of "infinite" or "non-finite" (that it has a place in 'reality'). It is a useless concept in the natural world, we have to thank the abstract world of mathematics for this.

DQ: If a mathematical entity falls short of being the totality of all there is, then it is necessarily "finite", by my definition of the term.

What is this "totality of all there is"? ... it is the mathematical opposite of "finite" -- "infinite". Both are abstract terms. We can empirically observe nothing "infinite" which makes it abstract and thus it's counterpart is also abstract. This truth amounts to "1+1=2" and it is only because we defined it so. This truth has zero relation to reality.

David (but also for Neil),

Because his purpose is very different from the scientist's, he often uses concepts differently from how scientists use them. He has different starting points and end points.

This concept was first presented to me in an interesting light. The last metaphysical conclusion, it was claimed, is the first scientific assumption.

I think many scientifically-minded people feel that their first assumptions are so logically sound (which they undeniably are) and obvious (which they are not) that they refuse to consider that these first assumptions could ever be the result of some great thinker's tireless lifetime of effort -- or that there even exists methods to discover new first principles.

Trevor,

This concept was first presented to me in an interesting light. The last metaphysical conclusion, it was claimed, is the first scientific assumption.

What metaphysical conclusion are you speaking of?

Neil,

What metaphysical conclusion are you speaking of?

Every single scientific assumption.

Trevor Salyzyn wrote:Neil,

What metaphysical conclusion are you speaking of?

Every single scientific assumption.

many metaphysical conclusions are also assumptions.

the question is, is it true that everything is empirical? Even 1+1=2 is empirical.

faust,

many metaphysical conclusions are also assumptions.

Only those that are not arrived at through logical processes (ie. those conclusions that are metaphysical in name only, such as ESP and many conceptions of God).

All metaphysical conclusions of any significance are derived from maxims. There is a significant difference between an assumption and a maxim: an assumption -- of which a scientific hypothesis is an example -- is used as a test for the validity of a statement. A maxim is a very first principle; to remove or add a maxim requires that one change one's entire worldview. If I were to say "the principle of non-contradiction is unacceptable for use as a maxim", I would limit the range of my thought so much that it would be impossible to establish any truths whatsoever.

the question is, is it true that everything is empirical? Even 1+1=2 is empirical.

When you use empirical in that sense, it loses all meaning. We distinguish between empirical and theoretical claims for a reason, even though both involve an access to the world. Don't cripple yourself by calling everything one thing: dualism is not a weakness.

Trevor,

All metaphysical conclusions of any significance are derived from maxims. There is a significant difference between an assumption and a maxim: an assumption -- of which a scientific hypothesis is an example -- is used as a test for the validity of a statement.

Huh? All metaphysical conclusions are deduced from logical operations on certain concepts. The assumption that faust was talking about is that the concepts being used are accurate.

Neil, that right there could be your confusion.

Causality, for instance, is derived logically from maxims. Nothing is "applied" to it. The fact of causality is the conclusion that comes at the end of a particular line of thought that begins with maxims; it is never an assumption.

Trevor Salyzyn wrote:Neil, that right there could be your confusion.

Causality, for instance, is derived logically from maxims. Nothing is "applied" to it. The fact of causality is the conclusion that comes at the end of a particular line of thought that begins with maxims; it is never an assumption.

What are these maxims?

I believe it is possible to arrive at causality solely using the principle of non-contradiction, meaning quite simply that causality cannot be false without contradiction.

Ugh, I guess I'll quickly go through the proof myself.

1. Maxim: It is impossible for a thing both to be and not be.
2. Definition: Being [edit: upper-case Being, as opposed to lower-case being] is the Totality of all things.
3. From #2: All things, therefore, are part of the Totality.
4. From #2: The Totality, therefore, is composed of all things.
5. From #1 and #3: It a thing is not part of the Totality, it does not exist.
6. From #1 and #4: It is impossible for the Totality to be composed of any less than all things.
7. From #2 and #6: It is impossible for the Totality to be composed of any less than the Totality.
8. From #4 and #7: It is impossible for all things to be composed of any less than the Totality.
9: Definition (Equivalent to #2): To be part of the Totality is to exist.
10. From #8 and #9: All things, therefore, depend on the Totality for existence.
11. From #5 and #8: All things depend on the Totality for existence and if a thing is not part of the Totality, it does not exist.
12. Definition (re: #11): To be thus dependent is to be part of a causal relationship.


12 steps to a new definition isn't that bad. If necessary, I could probably pare that down, but I wanted to be thorough. (Step #7, for instance, was written solely so I could double-check my work to that point; the fact that I used it to reverse the claim was not, strictly speaking, necessary. As such, Step #8 is showing-off. ;) )

Trevor Salyzyn wrote:Only those that are not arrived at through logical processes (ie. those conclusions that are metaphysical in name only, such as....many conceptions of God).

why can't there be a supreme being that made everything? Funny thing about causality is that there's no cause for anything to exist in the first place. So since that's so irrational, a supreme being isn't that irrational. The fact that anything should exist is itself supernatural, matter and science are supernatural because there's no real explanation on how they operate. Science can only go so deep, and then after remains all this matter and cosmic entitites that are beyond reason. So the existence of things is just as irrational as a supreme being. Both can plausibly exist since they are beyond reason.

Trevor Salyzyn wrote:Maxim: It is impossible for a thing both to be and not be.

hmm is this against Poison for the Heart's, "the universe was always here and never here"?? and it's empirically based, how is this 'logical'??

Being [edit: upper-case Being, as opposed to lower-case being] is the Totality of all things.

too vague

3. From #2: All things, therefore, are part of the Totality.

empirical

12. Definition (re: #11): To be thus dependent is to be part of a causal relationship.

causality is an empirical phenomenon and empirically realized. If we had no way of finding out about causality we wouldn't realize it 'logically.'

faust,

why can't there be a supreme being that made everything?

I said "many conceptions of God". Read more carefully.

Science can only go so deep, and then after remains all this matter and cosmic entitites that are beyond reason.

Beyond your capacity to reason, perhaps. Not beyond reason.

Just as a side-note, you yourself are a cosmic entity. Watch your definitions.

hmm is this against Poison for the Heart's, "the universe was always here and never here"??

No, it is not.

too vague

It's precise. If you have difficulty interpreting it, I rephrased it later (#9). Being is a very precise concept that, after all the work done on defining it in the last century, does not admit of much ambiguity.

empirical

Stop with this word. You are misapplying it.

causality is an empirical phenomenon and empirically realized.

I just proved this statement false. You are doing little more than screaming "nuh-uh!"

Trevor Salyzyn wrote:I believe it is possible to arrive at causality solely using the principle of non-contradiction, meaning quite simply that causality cannot be false without contradiction.

Ugh, I guess I'll quickly go through the proof myself.

1. Maxim: It is impossible for a thing both to be and not be.
2. Definition: Being [edit: upper-case Being, as opposed to lower-case being] is the Totality of all things.
3. From #2: All things, therefore, are part of the Totality.
4. From #2: The Totality, therefore, is composed of all things.
5. From #1 and #3: It a thing is not part of the Totality, it does not exist.
6. From #1 and #4: It is impossible for the Totality to be composed of any less than all things.
7. From #2 and #6: It is impossible for the Totality to be composed of any less than the Totality.
8. From #4 and #7: It is impossible for all things to be composed of any less than the Totality.
9: Definition (Equivalent to #2): To be part of the Totality is to exist.
10. From #8 and #9: All things, therefore, depend on the Totality for existence.
11. From #5 and #8: All things depend on the Totality for existence and if a thing is not part of the Totality, it does not exist.
12. Definition (re: #11): To be thus dependent is to be part of a causal relationship.


12 steps to a new definition isn't that bad. If necessary, I could probably pare that down, but I wanted to be thorough. (Step #7, for instance, was written solely so I could double-check my work to that point; the fact that I used it to reverse the claim was not, strictly speaking, necessary. As such, Step #8 is showing-off. ;) )

Sorry to go through all this work. At any rate I am disappointed. :(

My problem with this is with something more primitive than the logic... with the concepts involved. Some of the concepts you used are "Totality", "being", "exist", etc etc. Basically what you have shown is that if all these concepts are accurate, the conclusion that follows is accurate. However you have merely asserted, and wrongly so IMO, that these concepts are accurate. You have asserted this in claiming that your conclusion is absolute truth.

Well, you can certainly go deeper if you really want to, but unless you learn to appreciate logic, the derivations for words like "being", "Totality", and "existence" won't impress you, either. Profound logic never seems impressive to people who don't think logically. Metaphysics is boring, not false.

Regardless of your opinion, though, these are the facts. (Since your opinion is merely that I am wrong no matter what I say, it's not hard to completely disregard you when you say "IMO")

Trevor Salyzyn wrote:faust,

why can't there be a supreme being that made everything?

I said "many conceptions of God". Read more carefully.

wtf??? a supreme being is a conception of God.

Science can only go so deep, and then after remains all this matter and cosmic entitites that are beyond reason.

Beyond your capacity to reason, perhaps. Not beyond reason.

Just as a side-note, you yourself are a cosmic entity. Watch your definitions.

[/quote]
that anything should exist is beyond reason. There's no reason for anything to exist, therefore the universe is irrational. causality can never explain WHY anything exists to have causality in the first place.

Yes I'm a cosmic entity, so??? There's no reason for me to exist, our lives are irrational and the whole universe is irrational in nature.

hmm is this against Poison for the Heart's, "the universe was always here and never here"??

No, it is not.

why not?

Being is a very precise concept that, after all the work done on defining it in the last century, does not admit of much ambiguity.

and what is the precise concept of being?

causality is an empirical phenomenon and empirically realized.

I just proved this statement false. You are doing little more than screaming "nuh-uh!"

prove it. your maxim is an empirical phenomenon.

Trevor Salyzyn wrote:I believe it is possible to arrive at causality solely using the principle of non-contradiction, meaning quite simply that causality cannot be false without contradiction.

Ugh, I guess I'll quickly go through the proof myself.

1. Maxim: It is impossible for a thing both to be and not be.
2. Definition: Being [edit: upper-case Being, as opposed to lower-case being] is the Totality of all things.
3. From #2: All things, therefore, are part of the Totality.
4. From #2: The Totality, therefore, is composed of all things.
5. From #1 and #3: It a thing is not part of the Totality, it does not exist.
6. From #1 and #4: It is impossible for the Totality to be composed of any less than all things.
7. From #2 and #6: It is impossible for the Totality to be composed of any less than the Totality.
8. From #4 and #7: It is impossible for all things to be composed of any less than the Totality.
9: Definition (Equivalent to #2): To be part of the Totality is to exist.
10. From #8 and #9: All things, therefore, depend on the Totality for existence.
11. From #5 and #8: All things depend on the Totality for existence and if a thing is not part of the Totality, it does not exist.
12. Definition (re: #11): To be thus dependent is to be part of a causal relationship.


12 steps to a new definition isn't that bad. If necessary, I could probably pare that down, but I wanted to be thorough. (Step #7, for instance, was written solely so I could double-check my work to that point; the fact that I used it to reverse the claim was not, strictly speaking, necessary. As such, Step #8 is showing-off. ;) )

You missed one. After step 10 should be: "From #4 and #6: The Totality depends on all things for existence." That would require a revision of the last step.

Trevor,

I am not attacking your logic. If you use perfect logic on false premises your conclusion is not true. Your argument includes the premise that the concepts involved are accurate. I am disputing that abstract concepts like "Totality" are accurate in describing reality. I have already expounded on this ten times do you no comprendo?

Neil,

I am disputing that abstract concepts like "Totality" are accurate in describing reality.

The Totality is identical to the word "Reality" in meaning. Strangely enough, you have no similar difficulty understanding and using the word reality.

(By the way, when you find that you are repeating yourself ten times and yet nobody agrees with you, you may be commiting the fallacy of argumentum ad nauseum. The number of times you present an argument has no bearing on its validity.)

df,

You missed one. After step 10 should be: "From #4 and #6: The Totality depends on all things for existence." That would require a revision of the last step.

After writing it, I lost my attention span. I'll have to take your word on this, and trust that you can make the necessary adaptations in your head. (I'm not brushing you off, btw. I'm brushing off faust, who I'm not even going to bother replying to, since his foot appears to have migrated to his mouth.)