Physics/metaphysics: where do you draw the line?

[Loren Booda]

Is there a sharp distinction between physics and metaphysics, or is their difference often undefinable? Can metaphysics ever affect physical reality? Is either more valid than the other?

 

[Zero]

I don't buy anything 'metaphysical' at all...

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by Zero

I don't buy anything 'metaphysical' at all...

So the metaphysical responce of "In an infinity the center can be everywhere" doesn't mean anything to you Zero?

 

[greeneagle3000]

metaphysical

i believe in metaphysical things. physics is more like mathematics where metaphysics is more of the mysteries of life. i might be wrong though.

 

[RuroumiKenshin]

where to draw the line?

...When it gets too religious,mystical and contradicts everything that is currently considered to be factual...

 

[wuliheron]

Hat's off to you Loren, yet another deep question.

Physics is the study of relationships while metaphysics are underlying principles or assertions of theories and world views. Chuang Tzu is once said to have commented that Taoism has no metaphysics. Thus I would draw the line between physics and metaphysics at Taoism or a spontaneous open mind.

This might sound strange to some, but it really isn't. When a dancer or musician become lost in their art they don't use any underlying principles or world views, they just do their thing. Likewise, physics can be practiced as an art in just such a manner.

As Zero says, he doesn't have any metaphysics. You could say the same thing for the Paradox of existence or Quantum Mechanics. As Stephen Hawking once said, QM is a theory about what we don't know. Hence it has no metaphysics unless you consider ignorance to be a metaphysical concept. :0)

 

[quantumdude]

Originally posted by Loren Booda
Is there a sharp distinction between physics and metaphysics, or is their difference often undefinable?

For starters, a physical theory must be contingent on experimental results. That's not to say that all non-contingent theories are metaphysical, but it tells us which ones aren't metaphysics. I am reading Beyond Experience, an online intro to metaphysics (I have a thread on it, somewhere on the last page of the forum. I'll revive it when I get a chance). The author says that metaphysics is not so well defined, and is pretty much whatever metaphysicians decide to call "metaphysics". He says that metaphysics is best defined by citing typical metaphysical problems, some of which are...

1. Nature of personhood.
2. Personal identity through time.
3. Nature of space and time.
4. Nature of pain (or any other perception).

Can metaphysics ever affect physical reality?

Metaphysics is a collection of theories, not an active force in the universe, so 'no'.

Is either more valid than the other?

They can be on equal footing as far as deductive validity, but they differ in that you can never know if a metaphysical theory is 'right'.

 

[quantumdude]

Originally posted by Zero
I don't buy anything 'metaphysical' at all...

I don't think that's possible. Everyone holds to metaphysical theories in some way. Do you believe that a fetus is a human being? Why or why not?

Your answer would count as a metaphysical theory.

 

[wuliheron]

Everyone holds to metaphysical theories in some way. Do you believe that a fetus is a human being? Why or why not?

Ritual

Well established hierarchies are not easily uprooted;
Closely held beliefs are not easily released;
So ritual enthralls generation after generation.
Harmony does not care for harmony, and so is naturally attained;
But ritual is intent upon harmony, and so can not attain it.
Harmony neither acts nor reasons;
Love acts, but without reason;
Justice acts to serve reason;
But ritual acts to enforce reason.
When the Way is lost, there remains harmony;
When harmony is lost, there remains love;
When love is lost, there remains justice;
But when justice is lost, there remains ritual.
Ritual is the end of compassion and honesty,
The beginning of confusion;
Belief is a colourful hope or fear,
The beginning of folly.
The sage goes by harmony, not by hope;
He dwells in the fruit, not the flower;
He accepts substance, and ignores abstraction.

 

[quantumcarl]

Originally posted by Loren Booda
Is there a sharp distinction between physics and metaphysics, or is their difference often undefinable? Can metaphysics ever affect physical reality? Is either more valid than the other?

"Metaphysics" fall under the category of

"If a tree falls in the forest and no one hears it... is there a sound?"

My answer to that is... as some know... yes there is a sound...

it is egocentric to think that if I don't hear a sound or see a rock fall down there are no physical properties suchas sound or gravity.

I use this example to explain that "meta"physics simply means physics princibles that occur without our knowledge of them.

If and when we are able to do more empirical and quantifiable experiments that deal with phenomena and the source of phenomena we will be breaking new ground and we will be converting "metaphysics" into physics... as progress is made.

Therefore... I see no line between the two definitions, physics and metaphysics.

I see a line between egocentricity and open mindedness.

That's my take, Loren.

 

[Loren Booda]

Has/Can past metaphysics become the physics of present?

 

[quantumcarl]

Originally posted by Loren Booda
Has/Can past metaphysics become the physics of present?

Hi again... yes.

I recently met an astrologer whom I asked about the physics of astrology.

She told me that there are some books that go into the physics and the effects of certain forces associated with certain planets and suns in certain locations throughout the Earth's event horizon. The gist was that they act on certain glandular structures, liquids, hormones, neurons and molecular alignmnents... via Chaos Theory as well as, no doubt, Fractal Influence.

It is somewhat entangled in Chaos Theory... which... suprisingly... is reflective of many of the philosophies and metaphyisical teachings of the past.

I think WuLi could come up with about a thousand examples of past methods of physics or metaphysics that are, today, touted as modern physical laws or princibles.

 

[Loren Booda]

quantumcarl-

The daunting challenge to justify astrology would need developing a predictive model based on the disparate actions you mentioned. How would you interpret in simple physical terms and with what formulae characterize the various influences that, e. g., all other people have on you?

 

[wuliheron]

I think WuLi could come up with about a thousand examples of past methods of physics or metaphysics that are, today, touted as modern physical laws or princibles.

I don't know about a thousand, but the most striking one that comes to mind is Democritus' idea that randomness unlies physical reality. That's essentially what Quantum Mechanics asserts today. Notably, it also provides a unique metaphysics never conceived of before. That of Shrondenger's Cat which can be alive and dead at the same time.

Loren, perhaps an even more pointed question is where does one draw the line between physics, metaphysics, and mysticism. :0)

 

[quantumcarl]

proximity nullified

Originally posted by Loren Booda
quantumcarl-

The daunting challenge to justify astrology would need developing a predictive model based on the disparate actions you mentioned. How would you interpret in simple physical terms and with what formulae characterize the various influences that, e. g., all other people have on you?

Loren... not that I am either an astronomer nor an astrologer... but... imagine..."all other people"... would fit as a dot in Jupiter's postpardom red spot...

Consider the emensity and the surface areas... the mass and the electromagnetic influences of the planets... not to mention a sun.

Combine certain specific combinations of these factors with positioning during conception and birth (and other significant events of one organism's emergence into the physical world) and you can see that the influence of a person or 6 billion people on that one person is but a drop in the bucket of much larger and much stronger influences.

This, of course, relies on negating distance and nullifying proximity while taking into account the massive influences of one person's event horizon in relation to the event horizons of several planets, gravitational and electromagnetic events. One would think other people would have effects of this nature... however... let's remember people are made of over 75 percent water.

Sort of a siccors cut paper ... rock breaks siccors...paper covers rock assessment here!

 

[Loren Booda]

quantumcarl-

The basic tenets of cosmology include isotropism and homogeneity, meaning that, on average in the universe, all points are centers and no point is preferred over the others - red spot, blue spot, or green spot - this galaxy or next.

Astrology is anthropomorphic, that is, astrologists endow human characteristics upon science in a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Influences are there, but we have yet to fully describe the motion of one neutral Helium atom!

Astrology undersells the beautiful complexity of the body and soul as sophistic rolls of dice.

 

[TENYEARS]

If you were born deaf dumb and blind, would you know you were? What would it take to understand this? I should not waste food like this here, there are people in life who have a real desire to understand.

 

[wuliheron]

The blind feel the sun on their face,
the deaf feel the beat of the bass drum,
and both dance in the warmth of sun,
and under to cool moon.

I was born with sight,
but I've never seen the ultraviolet.
I was born with hearing,
but I've never listened to the stars.
I was born with awareness,
that I've never understood.

 

[Loren Booda]

wuliheron - So it may be with metaphysics, a sort of philosophical "ESP" that presages physical awareness.

 

[quantumcarl]

Originally posted by Loren Booda
quantumcarl-

The basic tenets of cosmology include isotropism and homogeneity, meaning that, on average in the universe, all points are centers and no point is preferred over the others - red spot, blue spot, or green spot - this galaxy or next.

Astrology is anthropomorphic, that is, astrologists endow human characteristics upon science in a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Influences are there, but we have yet to fully describe the motion of one neutral Helium atom!

Astrology undersells the beautiful complexity of the body and soul as sophistic rolls of dice.

Loren Booda,

o\Of course, all science is anthropomorphic. Our measurements and observations and interpreatations are made from the perspective of an endoskeletal, bi-laterally symetric, neuro-cognizant point of view. We relate what we observe to how it effects us in every science...

it is very hard to separate the relationship of our receptors from what they are receiving.

Medicine is all about anthropomorphism. All science is anthropomorphic since science was created by anthromorphs. We place our own rigid grid on what was here long before we were in an attept to interpret the workings of the physical.

What we have been unable to grasp or coral or pigeon hole are the underlying influences that give rise to the physical. So we call them "beyond physical" or metaphysical.

So, what's your point?

 

[wuliheron]

wuliheron - So it may be with metaphysics, a sort of philosophical "ESP" that presages physical awareness.

ESP or knowledge or awareness or feeling of acceptance that could ultimately be beyond explanation. You could call it philosophy, you could call it mysticism, but it is our most clear connection between body, mind, and spirit as they converge in the paradox of existence.

 

[newton1]

Originally posted by greeneagle3000
i believe in metaphysical things. physics is more like mathematics where metaphysics is more of the mysteries of life. i might be wrong though.

i prefer physics loh...
i think it more logically
metaphysical is maybe for someone...
but physics is for whole world

 

[TENYEARS]

You are fish swimming in a tank with no walls and water is not required. You acknowlge you boundries quite well.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by TENYEARS
You are fish swimming in a tank with no walls and water is not required. You acknowlge you boundries quite well.

It is obvious that you disapprove of something that is being said. What is it exactly, that you disagree with?

 

[Loren Booda]

quantumcarl-

We have no option other than to observe through our given human senses. We can choose, however, to be relatively objective and not claim a preferred postion in the universe.

I do not disagree that astrology is a legitimate belief or metaphysics, I just observe that it seems discrete from physics and promotes bad science in general.

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally poste dby Quantumcarl

o\Of course, all science is anthropomorphic (SNIP)

I disagree with this entirely, as anthropomorphic is placing human chacteristics into animate, and inanimate, things.

Saying that "A rock is made out of crytals" is definitely NOT an anthropomophisism, not a chance of that, as being a crystal is not a human quality, so we are not "Morphing the rock to appear as a man"!

WOW!

 

[quantumcarl]

What sign are you? "Slippery when wet"

Originally posted by Loren Booda
quantumcarl-

We have no option other than to observe through our given human senses. We can choose, however, to be relatively objective and not claim a preferred postion in the universe.

I do not disagree that astrology is a legitimate belief or metaphysics, I just observe that it seems discrete from physics and promotes bad science in general.

Loren: I am not suggesting astrology is a science since it has not been accepted as such by the science community...

I disagree that astrology promotes bad science... since it is not considered a science, it promotes something other than science.

There has been no investigations into the physical events behind astrology. It would be good science to work diligently on finding correlations between physical phenomena and the claims of astrology.

Parsons:

It is anthropomorphic to say the a rock is made up of crystals etc...
in fact "anthropomorphism" is anthropomorphic.

"Rock" is an anthropomorphic definition of a type of matter.

"Crystal" is an anthropomorphic description of a type of matter.

"Matter" is the anthropomorphic interpretation/terminology for what has been anthropomorphically determined to be condensed "energy".

The list goes on.

I propose a toast.

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

QuantumCarl you are really lame,...

LOOK *HERE*http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/DictionaryResults.aspx?search=anthropomorphic"

Doesn't fit the definition

 

[Loren Booda]

Mr. Robin Parsons-

No need to get personal. quantumcarl's last response to me seems reasonable enough. I would sooner use the term "anthropic" rather than his "anthropomorphic," though.

"To 'Governing dynamics, gentlemen'"

 

[quantumcarl]

Parsons... find the kiddy section

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
QuantumCarl you are really lame,...

LOOK *HERE*http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/DictionaryResults.aspx?search=anthropomorphic"

Doesn't fit the definition

You might want to start a special section for name-calling-little children like yourself to play together here, at the Physicsforums.

You've attracted quite a few people *exactly* like yourself to the forum so you will have some carbon copy company at the KIDDIE's PHYSICS TREAD.

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by quantumcarl
You might want to start a special section for name-calling-little children like yourself to play together here, at the Physicsforums.

You've attracted quite a few people *exactly* like yourself to the forum so you will have some carbon copy company at the KIDDIE's PHYSICS TREAD.

Lets see, I anthropomorphisized the link by using the word "turkey", as in I gave the turkey the human quality of being able to reveal to you the/answer/being that it needed to demonstrate HUMAN characteristics, and YOU assume that I am talking exclusively to you, the only person here(?) and not really just addressing an entire forum of potential readers, somehow hoping to slightly amuse some of them.

Now that Quantumcarl is a demonstration of just how childish you truly are, nothing more.

As for myself, I had loooooong agoooooo admitted to having a "childlike" nature, by the Grace of God, hence running a children’s section would probably be something that I could do, just that I have probably got a better challenge out of some of the people in these forums who, as adults, are no more then "Poseurs'.

It is also abundantly clear that you never, even so little as, addressed the question of your assumption of the definition of the word "anthropomorphic" as 'all encompassing of everything verbally human', as opposed to what the 'talking' ^turkey^ told us all.

That is a childish dodge.

 

[quantumcarl]

blah blah blah

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
Lets see, I anthropomorphisized the link by using the word "turkey", as in I gave the turkey the human quality of being able to reveal to you the/answer/being that it needed to demonstrate HUMAN characteristics, and YOU assume that I am talking exclusively to you, the only person here(?) and not really just addressing an entire forum of potential readers, somehow hoping to slightly amuse some of them.

Now that Quantumcarl is a demonstration of just how childish you truly are, nothing more.

As for myself, I had loooooong agoooooo admitted to having a "childlike" nature, by the Grace of God, hence running a children’s section would probably be something that I could do, just that I have probably got a better challenge out of some of the people in these forums who, as adults, are no more then "Poseurs'.

It is also abundantly clear that you never, even so little as, addressed the question of your assumption of the definition of the word "anthropomorphic" as 'all encompassing of everything verbally human', as opposed to what the 'talking' ^turkey^ told us all.

That is a childish dodge.

Parsons comment on his own reply "That is a childish dodge".

Exactly... look whose dodging the issues. Both Loren and myself perceived you as a name-caller. Now we can see you are an unappologetic one. You are simply defending your hormonal outburst and poor sportsmanship.

Look at it this way... this is Loren's thread about where do you draw the line between physics and metaphysics... it has nothing to do with the dictonary definitions and spelling bees you want to promote.

This thread has nothing to do with you or I being right, either. It is a discussion thread not a showcase for name calling or defence tactics... or hiding... or tricking people into liking you... or any of those delinquent and destructive behaviours of child-like minds.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I imagine you still don't understand what I was trying to say... and its very simple. Our perception of all things is determined by our condition as humans.

If a snail can perceive a rock, its perception is going to be one that is arthropomorphic (since it is an arthropod). In fact it may consider grains of sand as rocks. Where humans will consider sand as sand, especially fine sand.

Its all about relativity and the relationship of the perceiver with what is perceived.

Very simple. Tell that to the little turkeys in the Kiddie's section.

As for the "line between Physics and Metaphysics"... I have already said what I wanted to point out quite a few posts ago.

The line is drawn only by our ignorance of what laws lay beyond the known laws of physics.

 

[TENYEARS]

The line is drawn only by our ignorance of what laws lay beyond the known laws of physics.

This is good.

Carl I have a question solely for you. If someone says yes this is what gravity is, science agrees it becomes an accepted fact tell me will it become a realization at that point or just fact? Would not that be blind acceptance of what science says is real if it does not become a realization to you? How would you know they were right?

Does an understanding have to be knighted by "so called science" in order to be true? Did Einstien not figure out the theory of relativity until enough people amassed to say yea maybe he's right?

There is something very embarrassing going on in the scientific world right now. If Eienstien were here he would laugh his ? off. He would say what do you mean you don't know what universal theory is?

One does not need to have their understanding knighted by science for it to become real.

Happy Easter And Good Night

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by Quantumcarl
Exactly... look whose dodging the issues. Both Loren and myself perceived you as a name-caller. Now we can see you are an unappologetic one. You are simply defending your hormonal outburst and poor sportsmanship.

That two decide that there perception is therefore fact, does not make it so! I did not dodge, I responded!

Originally posted by Quantumcarl
Look at it this way... this is Loren's thread about where do you draw the line between physics and metaphysics... it has nothing to do with the dictonary definitions and spelling bees you want to promote.

Which is why my comment on the very first page, of this thread.

But naturally, I had wanted to make certain we are all 'on the same page' in the usage of language, it is how I have heard communicating is done, otherwise it is 'sorta' worthless.

Note how you continue to use childish reference, "spelling bee's", not me.

Originally posted by Quantumcarl
This thread has nothing to do with you or I being right, either. It is a discussion thread not a showcase for name calling or defence tactics... or hiding... or tricking people into liking you... or any of those delinquent and destructive behaviours of child-like minds.

WOW! so if someone here arives at what seems like a generally 'consensused' answer, still nobodies right? what do you discuss for? if not to stregthen your own grasp of it "all", hence communicative manner, word usage, (read the definitions of the words, don't just copy/paste them) verballizations, are what lead to the understandings of the nature of the discourse.

Improper word use is a mislead.

And I see again the childish 'refers', and no admission from you, to any error, but I might just have committed one, now, simply by responding to you again, so I, God willing, will stop here, towards you, because...

Originally posted by Quantumcarl
If a snail can perceive a rock, its perception is going to be one that is arthropomorphic

Even with the help of a dictionary you don't seem to realize the essence of what that word does, as the snail is NOT imbibing the rock with it's own character, it is recognising the outer grain of sand using it's inner sense of perception, I surely doubt that it sees the grain of sand as if it were another snail, as that is what Arthropomorphic means!(implies)

Does that help?

Sorry Loren, just trying to draw a 'metaphysical line' *here* (tee hee)

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Aside from that, I would have agreed with Loren's statement about astrology, just that I might have tried something like "Anthro-zoo-pomorphic" as clearly astrology attemtps to instill "animal qualities" into humans, Piscies the fish, Leo the lion, Aires the goat, except Libra, the scales.

Same thing in the Chinese astrology, the Monkey, Rabbit, Snake, all attempting to 'see' the characteristic behaviours of the animals in question, as applied to humans, and their characters, and qualities.

It is a 'Metaphysical Perception', to say the least, as there is no direct, or (reasonably) indirect, evidence, that demonstrates it as "truthful", over time.

Least, not to the best of my knowledge, provable knowledge.

EDIT; TY'PO

 

[Bellatrix]

Originally posted by Loren Booda
Is there a sharp distinction between physics and metaphysics, or is their difference often undefinable? Can metaphysics ever affect physical reality? Is either more valid than the other?

Hi Loren. There are at least a couple of ways of looking at this.

One that comes to mind is this: that there is a distinction between physics and metaphysics by definition. Physics being a science is the study of our physical world and subject to the rules of science and research to prove facts. MetaPhysics is the study, discover and journey of a non physical world, the world of our inner realities, consciousness and all that journey entails and has been described by some to be Meta or Beyond physics, beyond the reach of the traditional rules of factual proof. That which Science can't access.

Studying Metaphysics is sort of like research in the quantum world. The more magnification you have, the more there is to discover. Fractals are like that. The more you zoom into a fractal design or object, the more you are likely to discover details within that you would have never thought possible. Metaphysically one explores the reaches of their beliefs and ideas to a deeper and deeper place within.

In the metaphysical world, the research and discovery is in a totally different direction than science has access to. Meta physics This kind of study is totally subjective, but, not without proof. As with all research and study, and quest for answers, researching others' experiences tops the list. We connect with some ideas and concepts and reject others, and then use these ideas to form a basis for our own subjective journeys. Instinct plays a primary role in sorting through a lifetime of information and study, as to what ideas and beliefs to choose. It's a subjective journey.

Proof?? Yes, I was coming to that. Now in this category, I can speak for no one but myself. My quest is Consciously creating my reality. I have been influenced by many writers with unique ideas based on their own experiences, and have taken certain ideas that I want to explore and have worked with them now for a few years. For example, the idea that my personal reality is based on all the beliefs, thoughts, expectations, emotions, and intentions that create the filter of who I am. And, that, with work and practice, I can change any of these elements to reshape my reality. Yes, Yes, the Proof. The proof is really only recognizable to me. It's not something that can be documented as experiment in fact. It is actual change manifested in my own life based on the changes I consciously made in my beliefs, thoughts, expectations, emotions and intentions. Besides, results are the only validation needed for proof in metaphysics. Each experience is subjective the the individual exploring their personal reality and deeply personal to them. The results would be irrelevant to others, other than the fact that the process worked.

I know that sounds so airy fru fru and out there that it belongs in the fairy tale category. All I can tell you is that it works. Those elements for the structure of your reality. What you CHOOSE to believe, think, expect, feel and intend is TOTALLY up to you. Look around you. Whatever you are experiencing, relationships, what you see in your community, your world. It all comes from what you believe about your world. Try this. When something in your day pushes a button, you know the kind of button, the agro button, stop and ask yourself Why? why does this particular thing make me feel the way I do? What opinion do I hold that validates this experience? Where did this opinion come from? When was I first aware of this opinon? Going within is the key to resolving all of life's little (and big) annoyances.

Defining Physics and Metaphysics can also be as Validating a Mass Reality and a Personal Reality. Something to think about.

For what it's worth, this has been my experience.

 

[Loren Booda]

Could metaphysics be said to involve anything that is out of our physical control?

 

[Bellatrix]

Originally posted by Loren Booda
Could metaphysics be said to involve anything that is out of our physical control?

Hi Loren. ThankYou for your reply. Yes, I believe so. I posted earlier today to the subject of magic on the Mystics and Pseudo Science forum here on this site that speaks to some of this subject.

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?threadid=1240

Metaphysics involves creating with thought, it is a focus of concentration and determination to understand self, reconcile the past, and create the future. Physical conditions may have some impact, depending on the situation. The physical exists because the spirit created it. It is pure energy manifested.

I've been wondering about the context of the phrase "out of our physical control". Whose physical control? The individual? or others trying to stop it, control it, for whatever reason? I'm not understanding what you mean by that term. The physical is created and manipulated. Because a majority of people believe that life is random and is to be reacted to, in that context, there can be control by the physical. Mass conditioning allows it to happen. People are taught and told what their reality is, through family, education, community, society and media. The influence of the status quo is iron clad, UNLESS individuals learn to take their power back and understand that their reality is WHATEVER they want it to be , not necessarily what is dictated to them by their past experience and beliefs.

 

[Istari]

Bellatrix:

Just wanted to say I appreciated your comments to Loren clarifying your position about physics and metaphysics.

I have two comments. Have you ever studied Edmund Husserl's 20th century philosophical method called Phenomenology? Secondly, and more germane to your reply to Loren, would your understanding of metaphysics change if any of the assumptions that led you to formulate your reality turned out to be false?

For instance, you stated, "results are the only validation needed for proof in metaphysics." What if the results are based on something held to be true but in reality are false. What does it mean if misunderstanding can produce actions which only fortify the error into being believed that it is not an error? It may mean nothing significant. Or, it may mean metaphysics has no intrinsic value. Or it may mean any value is relative and therefore even if false, exists and can be utilized in any manner desired. I'd like to know what you think it could mean.

Bellatrix you also stated, "The proof is really only recognizable to me." Isn't the crux of this line of reasoning leading us to say that one's metaphysical beliefs are as real and as existent as those who's beliefs are based on the Scientific Method?

On the one hand Bellatrix you say that physics is distinct from metaphysics. Yet for me, I see the end result being the same. Both disciplines wind up with data on which one creates their reality. So I ask again but in a slightly different way, do you think there is an intrinsic difference either in results or even in the existence itself between physics and metaphysics when a said assumption is later shown false?

-Istari

 

[Loren Booda]

Istari-

An assumption shown to be false by logic alone or through measurement as well?

Bellatrix-

Rather than "out of physical control" one might say "immeasurable" or "unobservable" in nature. By "control" I meant (and poorly labeled) the ability to sense and manipulate, albeit by photon, the material world.

You seem to say that the spirit (source of, or equivalent to, metaphysics as well?) controls physical reality. Is that the spirit of the individual, of Nature, of a Higher intelligence?

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Loren Booda
Could metaphysics be said to involve anything that is out of our physical control?

Yes, because God, gods, demons, the Devil, etc... are all metaphysical concepts. And yet they are entirely beyond physical control.

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Hummm, isn't human language metaphysical?, we all use it regularily, it follows metaphysical rules, (No proof) and it is exactly what we use to describe everything.

So how can we separate physics, as that is a description, and metaphysics, when all is simply a mind perception, as attested to by subjective testimony, no matter what!

Can we draw a line?

 

[Istari]

Loren Booda

>An assumption shown to be false by logic alone or through measurement as well?

Either or both, yes. If it is logical, measurement becomes a possibility. If it is illogical, something metaphysical can still be measured (correctly or incorrectly).

When Belatrix stated, "results are the only validation needed for proof in metaphysics" I instantly appreciated this. I tend to agree with it. However, the word "proof" needs clarification. Can truth contradict truth or is proof synonymous with truth? In otherwords, if the proof, the results, are based on a false assumption, isn't the proof false? Perhaps it is better to leave the word "proof" out of Belatrix's saying. Is it better to say, results are the only validation needed for metaphysics? I am trying to get away from "proof." There is little we can prove in physics let alone metaphysics afterall.

I'll give an example. For no good reason, let's say one day I tell a person n=1. In fact, n=2. My explanation, a false one, is desired for some reason by the person I tell it to, regardless that it is false. This person models their life around n=1. It "works" for him or her.

My understanding of Bellatrix's explanation of metaphysics seems to say that the results validate, and are proof of "n" equalling one, when in fact they don't. So I ask, is it correct to say that results are the only "proof" in metaphysics? Proof does not seem to fit here.

I'll end here.

-Istari
[?]

 

[Istari]

Mr Robin Parsons,

I'd like to open a thread about Phenomenology. There are only a handful of universities in the States that have that course of study and unfortunately I didn't attend one that did. I put the word out now, any phenomenologists in the physics forums? I suspect a phenomenologist would be an excellent addition to this discussion.

Please don't ask me what Phenomenology is. I've probably read less than ten hours of information on the subject. Here is a primer for what it's worth:


(from <www.phenomenologycenter.org[/URL]>)
Seven Widely Accepted Features of the Phenomenological Approach

Phenomenologists conduct research in ways that share most of the following positive and negative features.
1. Phenomenologists tend to oppose the acceptance of unobservable matters and grand systems erected in speculative thinking;

2. Phenomenologists tend to oppose naturalism (also called objectivism and positivism), which is the worldview growing from modern natural science and technology that has been spreading from Northern Europe since the Renaissance;

3. Positively speaking, phenomenologists tend to justify cognition (and some also evaluation and action) with reference to what Edmund Husserl called Evidenz, which is awareness of a matter itself as disclosed in the most clear, distinct, and adequate way for something of its kind;

4. Phenomenologists tend to believe that not only objects in the natural and cultural worlds, but also ideal objects, such as numbers, and even conscious life itself can be made evident and thus known;

5. Phenomenologists tend to hold that inquiry ought to focus upon what might be called "encountering" as it is directed at objects and, correlatively, upon "objects as they are encountered" (this terminology is not widely shared, but the emphasis on a dual problematics and the reflective approach it requires is);

6. Phenomenologists tend to recognize the role of description in universal, a priori, or "eidetic" terms as prior to explanation by means of causes, purposes, or grounds; and

7. Phenomenologists tend to debate whether or not what Husserl calls the transcendental phenomenological epochê and reduction is useful or even possible.


-Istari

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Istari
Mr Robin Parsons,

I'd like to open a thread about Phenomenology. There are only a handful of universities in the States that have that course of study and unfortunately I didn't attend one that did. I put the word out now, any phenomenologists in the physics forums? I suspect a phenomenologist would be an excellent addition to this discussion.

Please don't ask me what Phenomenology is. I've probably read less than ten hours of information on the subject. Here is a primer for what it's worth:


(from <www.phenomenologycenter.org[/URL]>)
Seven Widely Accepted Features of the Phenomenological Approach

Phenomenologists conduct research in ways that share most of the following positive and negative features.
1. Phenomenologists tend to oppose the acceptance of unobservable matters and grand systems erected in speculative thinking;

2. Phenomenologists tend to oppose naturalism (also called objectivism and positivism), which is the worldview growing from modern natural science and technology that has been spreading from Northern Europe since the Renaissance;

3. Positively speaking, phenomenologists tend to justify cognition (and some also evaluation and action) with reference to what Edmund Husserl called Evidenz, which is awareness of a matter itself as disclosed in the most clear, distinct, and adequate way for something of its kind;

4. Phenomenologists tend to believe that not only objects in the natural and cultural worlds, but also ideal objects, such as numbers, and even conscious life itself can be made evident and thus known;

5. Phenomenologists tend to hold that inquiry ought to focus upon what might be called "encountering" as it is directed at objects and, correlatively, upon "objects as they are encountered" (this terminology is not widely shared, but the emphasis on a dual problematics and the reflective approach it requires is);

6. Phenomenologists tend to recognize the role of description in universal, a priori, or "eidetic" terms as prior to explanation by means of causes, purposes, or grounds; and

7. Phenomenologists tend to debate whether or not what Husserl calls the transcendental phenomenological epochê and reduction is useful or even possible.


-Istari [/B][/QUOTE]

Perhaps you should start a new thread, solely about phenemology.

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Istari, why do you refer the 'phenomenologists' bit at me?

Better yet, start a thread, and if I find it, I'll ask you there, as this thread is still about 'metaphysics'...at least I thought it was.

 

[Bellatrix]

Originally posted by Istari
Bellatrix:

Just wanted to say I appreciated your comments to Loren clarifying your position about physics and metaphysics.

I have two comments. Have you ever studied Edmund Husserl's 20th century philosophical method called Phenomenology? Secondly, and more germane to your reply to Loren, would your understanding of metaphysics change if any of the assumptions that led you to formulate your reality turned out to be false?

For instance, you stated, "results are the only validation needed for proof in metaphysics." What if the results are based on something held to be true but in reality are false. What does it mean if misunderstanding can produce actions which only fortify the error into being believed that it is not an error? It may mean nothing significant. Or, it may mean metaphysics has no intrinsic value. Or it may mean any value is relative and therefore even if false, exists and can be utilized in any manner desired. I'd like to know what you think it could mean.

Bellatrix you also stated, "The proof is really only recognizable to me." Isn't the crux of this line of reasoning leading us to say that one's metaphysical beliefs are as real and as existent as those who's beliefs are based on the Scientific Method?

On the one hand Bellatrix you say that physics is distinct from metaphysics. Yet for me, I see the end result being the same. Both disciplines wind up with data on which one creates their reality. So I ask again but in a slightly different way, do you think there is an intrinsic difference either in results or even in the existence itself between physics and metaphysics when a said assumption is later shown false?

-Istari

Hi Istari. ThankYou for your reply. Please forgive my late reply, I wanted to think about what your wrote.

First, I’m sorry, I’m not familiar with Edmund Husserl or Phenomenology. I am glad that I waited to post so that I could get some idea of this philosophy from your post to Robin. From what little I know, and I know only what you’ve posted, it seems to me that the philosophy looks for physical evidence and proof, generally in the same way science does. Their methodology may be quite different from science, but both disciplines focus on finding answers within physical evidence.

Metaphysics is not only valuable and it is simply unavoidable on the human journey. It is the NON PHYSICAL STUDY OF THE NATURE OF REALITY, both personal and mass realities. It does require that TRUST and FAITH replace the scientific method in it’s exploration.

The nature and structure of reality is flexible and provides structure for ANYONE’S chosen beliefs. Noone’s reality can ever be false. It just is. It is subjective to the individual holding those beliefs, and just as valid as the next individuals’. As for my reality? What I’ve come to know as my reality is based more on a recognition of truths recognized and identified within me, more than an assumption and/or hypothesis. It’s been the focus of my inner journey for many years. My core belief and understanding of metaphysics is built on a foundation which has a structural framework that creates reality from the elements or color palet of BELIEF, THOUGHT, EMOTIONS, INTENTIONS and EXPECTATIONS. These elements create a unique picture of who you are. The ‘colors’ you use to paint the picture of your personality is totally up to you. So, every belief is valid to the individual holding it. It is an element of the structure of the individual’s beliefs. Over the years, I’ve been examing my life one issue at a time and connecting them with the beliefs that are at the core of the issues. It’s been a journey of what I term ‘practical metaphysics’ where I don’t just read and hypothesize about theory, rather it’s been a journey of testing out theory and making practical changes in my life using metaphysical techniques.

one's metaphysical beliefs are as real and as existent as those who's beliefs are based on the Scientific Method?

Yes, exactly. You create your own reality from what you choose to believe in and that reality is just as valid as anyone or bizillion realities here or in any dimension. There is a mass belief that is taught as part of our conditioning, that we are all the same, we must buy into the mass reality, live by the same rules of community, culture, religion, etc. We are taught to trust ‘facts’ taught to us in school, trust what we read in the newspapers and hear on the news, trust the politicians, the lawyers, the doctors, the scientists, the scientific method. We are taught that the only thing that can qualify as valid or having value is if someone has proof that it exists or endorses it. Individuality is generally shunned in the community, particularly evident in memories of school. If anyone was the least bit different from everyone else, they were shunned to the outside of the ‘circle’. These days, in many communities, it has excalated to bullying, resulting in increasing physical and emotional abuse, and in some cases murder and suicide. All because we are taught that being different is not acceptable. The whole mentality of sameness and conformity is at the root of race conflict and political conflict on all levels of governent internationally. It’s like this big competition, ‘I’m right!’, ‘No, I’m right’, etc etc etc. The only thing that will resolve these conflicts is accepting the differences, not agreeing, but simply accepting, letting people be, respecting each others’ choices, etc. But, as long as there are organizations, cultural, political, religious, etc, with agendas and alterior motives, there will always be elements of manipulation and coersion. It’s kind of at the core of a good portion of conflict.

Understanding the structure of reality, and understanding that all realities are valid, and just need to be accepted unconditionally without judgement and with simple compassion for the human journey that each of us takes, there is no such thing as false or wrong. It all exists together.

Thank you for your post, Istari.

May the Force be with you.

 

[Bellatrix]

Originally posted by Loren Booda
Istari-

An assumption shown to be false by logic alone or through measurement as well?

Bellatrix-

Rather than "out of physical control" one might say "immeasurable" or "unobservable" in nature. By "control" I meant (and poorly labeled) the ability to sense and manipulate, albeit by photon, the material world.

Could metaphysics be said to involve anything that is out of our physical control?

Hi Loren. ThankYou for clarifying the term for me. So, to answer your question properly, I would have to say that results are observable but not measurable in the scientific sense. I can tell you from my own personal experience, that I’ve observed great improvement over the years of my abilities to analyze and reconcile beliefs that result in marked changes in outer circumstances. I am observing more frequently and consistently the results of my inner efforts, but, no one else is privy. It is a personal journey.

Joesph Campbell, (Power of Myth) has said that the myths of the world exist to attempt to describe in simple folk terms an understanding of reality for the culture. He also pointed out how contemporary culture is sadly lacking a modern mythology to help the culture understand. But, then he points to George Lucas, and the first Star Wars Trilogy and how it became immensley popular because he gave modern futuristic myth so that people could learn to relate on terms more familiar with them. Yes, it’s a movie, it’s a story, but it is also a modern mythology. Study to be a ‘Jedi’ knight, learn about the Force and how it be a part of your life. To me, it is a religious metaphor. The Force is God Force or God. It is an energy, neither good nor evil, just pure energy that you can imprint who you are and your intentions onto it and create your destiny the way you want. The film is chocka block full of metaphysical teachings couched in the metaphor, the story of a young man searching for his dream.

You seem to say that the spirit (source of, or equivalent to, metaphysics as well?) controls physical reality. Is that the spirit of the individual, of Nature, of a Higher intelligence?

Metaphysics is the study of NON PHYSICAL REALITY. Each of us exists in the image of God, or God Force, as pure energy of light of the spirit and our purpose is creativity. Creating a universe, solar system, this planet, the physical history of the planet and all the inhabitants, mysteries and all, creating cultures, religions, creating ourselves to be born into the physical experience to learn and become aware of who we really are. Creating multi-dimesions of reality to create simultaneously, like juggleing a hodgepodge of items, banana, baseball, alarm clock, sneaker, and a Mack truck. There is no limit to imagination, the more you have the more spectacular the creation.

As far as controlling physical reality, I would say that become aware of and consciously connect with your Higher Self, still you, but your true you, who exists outside your physical life experience. I would call Higher Self a guide, intuition, angel on your shoulder, or your favourite invisible friend, many different things, depending on personal beliefs.


May the Force be with you.

 

[Istari]

My core belief and understanding of metaphysics is built on a foundation which has a structural framework that creates reality from the elements or color palet of BELIEF, THOUGHT, EMOTIONS, INTENTIONS and EXPECTATIONS. (Bellatrix)

Bellatrix, I appreciate your response, and especially this foundation that consists of a five-fold framework for your understanding of metaphysics. Just one more question if I may be permitted. Is the first word, belief, required to incorporate empiricism in the formation of your reality-building framework?

-Istari

 

[Bellatrix]

Originally posted by Istari
Bellatrix, I appreciate your response, and especially this foundation that consists of a five-fold framework for your understanding of metaphysics. Just one more question if I may be permitted. Is the first word, belief, required to incorporate empiricism in the formation of your reality-building framework?

-Istari

Hi Istari. ThankYou for your reply. BELIEF is the foundation or premise. THOUGHT arises from BELIEF and combined with EMOTION or how you feel in response to your circumstances manifests into INTENTIONS and EXPECTATIONS. Your EMOTIONS, how you feel, are the fuel to project your BELIEFS AND THOUGHTS, INTENTION forms the direction, and EXPECTATION attracts the desired (or undesired) results. I say, desired or undesired because the strongest beliefs, emotions, and expectations will get you results.

I had a friend years ago, who, with his wife, purchased a ‘heritage home’ and renovated it. He had a fear of being in a fire, so in the reno, he installed smoke detectors, and folding ladders from second story windows, and they regularly practiced fire drills every month to make sure each of them knew what to do IF there was a fire. Today, smoke detectors, etc doesn’t sound all that unusual, but in the early ‘70’s most people weren’t even aware of such things. A couple of years later, the house burned to the ground. My friend and his wife and kids all got out safely like they had rehearsed every month since they moved in. He had a fear of fire, he projected it onto his family, they practiced for the inevitable and achieved the exact result he wanted, which was to get everybody out alive.

Examine your beliefs closely and decide what kind of reality you REALLY want.

FOCUS ON WHAT YOU WANT, NOT WHAT YOU DON’T WANT.


May the Force be with you.