Everyone has a metaphysics?

[Darat]

That explains the sheep...

 

[Matt the Poet]

Which really means bugger all when you think about it since it starts with an assumption "I am the solipsist". The solipsist has no way of knowing whether they are the solipsist or not she just assumes she is.

Ah. Interesting. I think you’re right – but doesn’t this just mean that even solipsism isn’t free from metaphysics? Even the solipsist has to assert that they exist, at which point they become a metaphysical entity (the only one in the universe, granted, but still…)

 

[Darat]

Ah. Interesting. I think you’re right – but doesn’t this just mean that even solipsism isn’t free from metaphysics? Even the solipsist has to assert that they exist, at which point they become a metaphysical entity (the only one in the universe, granted, but still…)

Yes in the sense that metaphysics means nothing more than acknowledging that everything we do is based on axioms.

 

[Matt the Poet]

Yes in the sense that metaphysics means nothing more than acknowledging that everything we do is based on axioms.

‘Nothing more than?’ Really? Personally, as a skeptic, I find the fact that even the most modest, practical philosophical outlook can’t escape making assertions that transcend observable reality a pretty large thing to deal with.

Is there any way (beyond the sterile route of solipsism) to ‘minimise’ such statements? Is there any reason for doing so? Are there ‘better’ or ‘worse’ assertions to make (e.g. what, if anything, is wrong with the weaker forms of theism?)

All of these seem to me to be useful, interesting metaphysical topics for discussion.

 

[cyborg]

The metaphysical can be represented physically.

How does one tell the difference other than by assertion that the "type" is different?

 

[Matt the Poet]

The metaphysical can be represented physically.

How, exactly? And what do you mean by 'the metaphysical'?

 

[cyborg]

How, exactly?

You recently acheived this feat utilising a series of electronic pulses

And what do you mean by 'the metaphysical'?

That which is about the physical.

 

[Matt the Poet]

You recently acheived this feat utilising a series of electronic pulses

Not following you. What metaphysics did I make visible?

That which is about the physical.

Nope. Metaphysics is about that which applies to the physical. Which is different. Non-physical attributes, such as truth, can apply to physical objects. Please physically manifest 'truth' for me in the absence of a true statement. Please describe the physical nature of 'existence' in the absence of an object that exists.

 

[Darat]

‘Nothing more than?’ Really? Personally, as a skeptic, I find the fact that even the most modest, practical philosophical outlook can’t escape making assertions that transcend observable reality a pretty large thing to deal with.

...snip...

Really? To me it has seemed to always be a rather trite and obvious point.

Is there any way (beyond the sterile route of solipsism) to ‘minimise’ such statements?

...snip...

Solipsism does not "minimise" such statement any more than most other "metaphysical" systems already mentioned in this thread. It relies on many assumptions (lots to do with the words solipsism is usually expressed in)- sadly it's just that those assumptions are usually not apparent to the people making the solipsist case.

Is there any reason for doing so? Are there ‘better’ or ‘worse’ assertions to make (e.g. what, if anything, is wrong with the weaker forms of theism?)

All of these seem to me to be useful, interesting metaphysical topics for discussion.

Well for me its a bit simpler then that - just use what seems to work for as long as it seems to work, if it no longer seems to work use something else!

 

[cyborg]

Not following you. What metaphysics did I make visible?

None then.

Nope. Metaphysics is about that which applies to the physical. Which is different.

Really?

Non-physical attributes, such as truth, can apply to physical objects.

Applying truth to physical objects is talking about them surely?

Please physically manifest 'truth' for me in the absence of a true statement. Please describe the physical nature of 'existence' in the absence of an object that exists.

Please talk metaphysically without being physical about it.

 

[Matt the Poet]

Applying truth to physical objects is talking about them surely?.

No. It's talking about the properties that they have - which are not physical objects.

Please talk metaphysically without being physical about it.

Is your point really, honestly, that metaphysics can't exist because we have to use words (which are physical objects) to discuss it? Because that really is rather facile. The fact that I apply a word to something doesn't mean that the thing itself is necessarily physical.

What is the physical manifestation of 'and'?

 

[cyborg]

No. It's talking about the properties that they have - which are not physical objects.

I say: metaphysics is talking about objects.
You say: metaphysics is applying X to objects.
I say: this is talking about objects.
You say: no, this is talking about properties of objects.

I ask: how do I talk about an object without implictly talking about properties of objects?

Is your point really, honestly, that metaphysics can't exist because we have to use words (which are physical objects) to discuss it?

No.

Because that really is rather facile. The fact that I apply a word to something doesn't mean that the thing itself is necessarily physical.

The metaphysical is represented in the physical.

Can you talk to me metaphysically without the physical?

What is the physical manifestation of 'and'?

It has many - one of which you have demonstrated.

 

[Matt the Poet]

'Today is Friday November 23rd 2007'

Today, this sentence has the property 'true'.
Tomorrow, it will have the property 'false'

Please indicate the physical changes you expect to occur that will reflect the sentence's change of state

(added in edit) - to be clear, I'm asking you to indicate the changes in the sentence that will reflect this change.

 

[cyborg]

I'm asking you to indicate the changes in the sentence that will reflect this change.

I expect no change - the truth is not in the sentence to begin with.

 

[DreamLizard]

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos said

But we've already had that debate endlessly with Interesting Ian and Undercover Elephant, may they rest in peace.

I am a great friend of Interesting Ian, you can be assured he's very much alive and participating in what he feels is a more conducive forum.

 

[Darat]

That most be one where no one is allowed to disagree with his silliness.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Answering those questions in order: 1) Why shouldn't it be? 2) He did.

But he didn't do it consciously, because he certainly didn't keep the state of the world constantly in mind while going about his business. So he did it nonconsciously. But why should the solipsist assume that this nonconscious maintenance of the state of the world is going on in his head? He has no evidence of that. It could just as well be maintained by something other than himself.

Look, I'm not a solipsist. But I do acknowledge that it is an absolutely unassailable logical position, and what I'm arguing is that it's the only one that could honestly be said to preclude having a metaphysics. If something exists, then that something has at least one necessary property (existence) - and necessary properties are metaphysical entities.

But the solipsist exists, so according to that he has a metaphsic from the get-go. In any event, I think this hiddent agent who maintains the state of the world blows off any claim that nothing exists but the solipsist.

Your own definition of things that are 'real' gives rise, as all non-solipsist thinking does, to a metaphysical conclusion. Imagine an entity that was being affected by things but briefly enters a state where nothing is affecting it. By your definition it stops being real. At which point, again by your own definition, nothing can ever affect it again - it can never return to reality.

Sounds fine to me.

A thing therefore has to be continually affected by other things - and by continually I mean literally continually. If, for a Planck second, it is not subject to some influence, it disappears from your universe, never to return.

As far as I can see, this means that your 'non-metaphysical' outlook requires the highly speculative, highly metaphysical condition of infinitessimally continuous time to work at all.

Interesting, but I'm not sure I care. Let things disappear from reality. How would I ever know?

~~ Paul

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

I am a great friend of Interesting Ian, you can be assured he's very much alive and participating in what he feels is a more conducive forum.

I'm glad to hear that. Which forum?

~~ Paul

 

[Matt the Poet]

(Shuffles back into room apologetically…)

But the solipsist exists, so according to that he has a metaphsic from the get-go. In any event, I think this hiddent agent who maintains the state of the world blows off any claim that nothing exists but the solipsist.

I’ve conceded that point with Darat in posts above. Yes, even solipsism isn’t exempt from metaphysics

Interesting, but I'm not sure I care. Let things disappear from reality. How would I ever know?

You’ll notice that things tend not to disappear from reality. Indeed, the laws of physics that we know appear to preclude it.

Also, if time is universally non-continuous then it’s not a matter of a few rocks popping out of existence on some planet orbiting Betelgeuse - everything should suffer the same fate, as everything will regularly be ‘between moments’. Under your system you have to assert that either

a) it is possible for something to affect something else in the absence of time (i.e. there is a form of ‘timeless being’ – a pretty heavy metaphysical concept)
b) something other than ‘having an effect on X’ maintains the reality of objects (this is similar to the solipsist’s problem above, except that instead of you it’s the whole universe that is ‘looking away’ for a bit.)

It’s either that or time is only continuous for some parts of the universe. In which case there’s some rule overarching the general physics of time (a ‘meta’ physics, if you will…) which ‘decides’ which bits of the universe are to have non-continuous time – a rule that, it seems would have to keep such areas well hidden from conscious observers – otherwise we would notice things disappearing all the time.

You could, as you’ve said earlier, throw up your hands and say ‘I don’t care about this stuff’. I’m fine with that, not everyone’s into philosophy. But my argument is that by doing this you’re not taking some sort of bold, pragmatist standpoint so much as choosing not to think through the one that you already have.

 

[Matt the Poet]

I expect no change - the truth is not in the sentence to begin with.

Eh? You’ve earlier claimed that talking about the properties of a material object and talking about that object directly are the same thing.

Now you’re saying that my sentence (which, by your lights, is a material object) has the property ‘truth’ (well, ‘non-truth’ now), but doesn’t actually contain any truth. What kind of material property behaves like that?