Bas C. van Fraassen - How Does Metaphysics Reveal Reality?
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 20 ต.ค. 2024
- Some think metaphysics is ancient nonsense; others that it's the bizarre occult. How does modern metaphysics contribute to our understanding of the world? It asks the most profound questions: what kinds of things exist? How does causality work? Sound too abstract? How about: does God exist? Are you a soul?
Free access to Closer to Truth's library of 5,000 videos: bit.ly/376lkKN
Watch more interviews on metaphysics: bit.ly/3DGd3Bo
Bas C. van Fraassen is a Distinguished Professor of Philosophy at San Francisco State University and the McCosh Professor of Philosophy Emeritus at Princeton University.
Register for free at CTT.com for subscriber-only exclusives: bit.ly/2GXmFsP
Closer to Truth, hosted by Robert Lawrence Kuhn and directed by Peter Getzels, presents the world’s greatest thinkers exploring humanity’s deepest questions. Discover fundamental issues of existence. Engage new and diverse ways of thinking. Appreciate intense debates. Share your own opinions. Seek your own answers.
Peter Kingsley did a superb job in teasing out what was going on in Parmenides’ “On Nature”. I got my understanding from his book “Reality.”
No, you have that backwards. Metaphysics is based on deductive reasoning - you start with accepting a core idea as truth.
Science is based on the null hypothesis ; you try to prove an idea to be false. Big, big deference.
how does science start with nothing at all? science presupposes tons of things. science presumes that logic works, that mathematics is true, that our senses are reliable, that our reasoning faculties are reliable, that the nature is intelligible, that we humans as being have the capabilities to understand the nature, that the natures follows some specific laws etc. how does science differ from metaphysics and not take some propositions as self evident, brute facts, and a priori without any argument to prove they are so?
Most of our discoveries start with some kind of speculation, rooted in our ability to reason combined with some observation of the world. I see no problem at all with speculating on "first principles" or "laws" that appear to be beyond our current abilities to test: as long as we are clear about what we are doing. Did Democritus waste his time by speculating on the existence of atoms? Did Zeno waste his time bringing attention to our lack of understanding of the nature of space and time? I'd say no. These early "speculators" were laying the foundation for much of what came after. We don't yet know the deeper principles that we may yet discover. So, we keep pushing the limits.
I forget the specifics but, well before I'd given it much thought or study, I saw a renowned thinker argue that neuroscientists and AI engineers were wasting their time in trying to understand consciousness based on reductionist and materialist considerations. Well, I thought, at least they are trying. And who knows what unexpected things they might discover in the process. So far, history has not been kind to those who have been fooled into thinking they can define the absolute limits of what we can know. My bet is that this pattern is likely to continue.
He said, " why have a truth if it can't be tested " well, the truth of knowing what it is like being a human being Isn't something you can test through studying the chemicals of the human body because it is something understood subjectively, so because we can't test it does that mean we can't know what it is like being a human being?
Knowledge is justified belief. Is there any other justified belief
greater than that you're human?
@@havenbastion Do you really need to believe that you are human?
@@williamburts5495 I need to believe whatever's true and effective toward saving the world from itself, which mainly just means truth.
@@havenbastion For the world to be saved we are going to have to perform sacrifice.
@@williamburts5495 When society requires existential change there is no choice but to harm the majority in proportion to how deeply they were benefiting from the status quo.
This channel is awesome
🙂
This is a non-sensical position that holds no water. The desire to embrace the questions of science is totally valid, but the validity of a logically sound argument, or the use of math in your explanation of any empirical function of reality hinges on the validity of logic itself - on its metaphysical underpinnings. Juggling mathematical equations that have been imported from outside the space of empirical study suggests that “the context” of these real, worldly connections that can’t be removed from our explanation also includes a deep field background of reason, which is necessarily referenced in making discrete judgment. Whether “black” exists doesn’t strike as me a particularly good gateway into metaphysics, but a radical denial of metaphysics just comes off as absurd.
couldn't have said better. very well said! it's silly trying to deny metaphysics. even denial of metaphysics is a metaphysical position.
actually, you can empirically test the effects and outcomes of metaphysical claims, if you need empirical data. First test and measure the amount of design and order found in the universe and prove a designer.
I think metaphysics extend the scope what is possible not just for those who can see narrower field through their limited perception. The thing is that if you see more it does not mean you are less, what science postulates, but you are more, as you see broader picture, you can take an exampla of color blind person.
Metaphysics is all of the deepest "What is the nature of" questions. It doesn't reveal anything per-se. A philosophy is a coherent set of answers to a set of philosophical questions, metaphysical or otherwise. A good set of answers is coherent and can reveal something, but a bad set of answers is indistinguishable from arbitrary.
I disagree on his take on Metaphysics. Not sure he understands the process and methods and the claims that metaphysics makes (I am a Thomist (broadly speaking)). A great book is Introduction to the Philosophy of Being - George P. Klubertanz. It's interesting they use the Platonic idea of Form instead of Aristotle's moderate Realism which, in my opinion, has a greater historical impact (mainly through Thomism). I do agree with his distaste for modal logic and 'many worlds'. There is a good argument against 'many worlds' in Real Essentialism - Oderberg.
The Metaphysician often thinks in terms that Tesla presented, in that if one wishes to understand the Universe think in terms of Energy, Frequency and Vibration. Metaphysics understood that even thoughts are energy and the Neuroscientist now understand that as being so as is confirmed from the EEG waveforms they discovered back in the 1920's. You cannot put metaphysics in a box which is what they are trying do and this is one reason metaphysics continues to be valuable within philosophy and science. Einstein himself embraced metaphysical concepts and philosophical thought as being, ". . .distinction between a mere artisan, or a specialist and a real seeker of truth". It can be said that the metaphysician thinks outside the box and by doing so gives the box to the scientist to play with...
contrary to the claims in the episode, the twentieth century analytic philosophers chose the most common metaphysical framework today. According to Jaegwon Kim, “it was the papers by Smart and Feigl that introduced the mind-body problem as mainstream metaphysical Problematik of analytical philosophy, and launched the debate that has continued to this day” see "Mind in A Physical World" So far from containing metaphysics, Analytic philosophy has invented many of the topics constantly revisited on CTT like structural realism via fine tuning and the multiverse, anomalous monism is constantly being propounded on this show consider van Fraassen's dismissal of Quine's first order seems motivated by such, and we hear about functionalism like when brains go bad et cetera
I'm devoted to metaphysics, I love it.
The empirical view is subjective, even science, because as we all know, what we knew at ages 10, 20, 30, 50 is always different -- our perspective changes overtime as our underlining understanding, that being Wisdom which is an insight from within, develops. And as in science, nothing is concrete, not simply because science is endlessly revised, but because physics, that is nature, as in relativity from our points of view and causality, this realm of cause and effect, nothing is concrete, nothing permanent. What ultimate truth is there in what is impermanent or mutable? I even ask what Truth is, the very essence of, and once again negation seems to be thy best friend.
Metaphysics does just this: discussing what is allegedly thought of as of being discussed, or questioning the very question, seeking the very logic of logic itself. In this, arises the contradictions, which are subtle, and not known if you believe you are the body, the mind, etc. What we think we see with our eyes is not so, and what we think, from what we precieve, we construct our minds as so. The eyes and the mind very much work together. What you think your eyes precieve is the very construct that is now your mind.
Is metaphysics baloney? Metaphysics doesn't deny science of the phenomenal world, it simply realizes it isn't the Ultimate Truth.
"Metaphysics means nothing but an unusually obstinate effort to think clearly" (William James). Ha Ha that's not to say there aren't any terrible metaphysicans who just like to play around.
Why believe there's any ultimate truth?
@@TheMahayanist because Intellect, Reason, physics and evidence.
@@divertissementmonas that's a good one considering a main proponent of metaphysics is Reason and logic. I cannot understand why that foolish man would even think the term 'obstinate' is apt.
It's quite funny to think as you do, of metaphysics on one side, and empiricism & science on the other, once one cares to look at metaphysics in its original context.
The bottom line about it is that it precisely started as a theoretical apparatus designed to extrapolate _empirical_ and protoscientific laws to their logical extents.
The irony, of course, is that generations after generations, metaphysicists eventually lost touch with their ancient geometric, mathematical, and protoscientific roots, to the point where sometimes they may even think of their fields as a framework underpinning scientific research, instead of the other way around.
Put simply, 'true' metaphysics is what modern cosmologists, quantum mechanical physicists, and even some mathematicians are doing, whereas both old school and modern metaphysics tend to be nothing more than storytelling.
The guest picked the wrong example with economic INFLATION... NO ONE UNDERSTANDS IT, am I speaking as a trained (and very successful) finance professional....ALL "explanations" of Inflation are both ex post facto AND "metaphysical" in nature... Certainly no one can predict it... indeed Nobel Laureates are clueless when it comes to Inflation and are split along many "religions" (monetary, Keynesian, Austrian, etc) similar to classical, relativistic, quantum physics... which incidentally has its own "Inflation" (Alan Guth) cross to bear 😀
Fundamental matter particles are being discovered at Large Scale Hedron Colliders at Cern and Texas? Not depending on the machines, nature of matter, consciousness and mental factors can truly be discovered through deep Jhanic (samadi / focus / concentration) meditation. However, jhanic meditation wont come easy to any practitioner Tom, Dick and Harry. Meditation can be considered as one of the most important foundations of metaphysics. Deep (highly concentrated) meditation, (with its laser sharp focus) can truly discover fundamental nature of matter and mind.
Deep meditation does not alllow someone to discover the fundamental nature of matter and science. Deep meditation just causes people to make empty truth claims.
What is required is an axiomatic framework of fundamental assumptions, such as what Isaac Newton provided in Newtonian physics. My axiomatic assumptions, for example, would begin with taking entropy seriously. The established narrative (eg, multiverse theory, Neo-Darwinian genocentrism) has failed to do so, because they've failed to take top-down causation seriously. Another of my axioms seeks simplicity, generality, consistency across disciplines. Provided we stick within a framework of principled rigor, I can't see a problem with arriving at a metaphysical conclusion that checks off against all assumptions. And it is only at that point that an empiricist can say at 5:44, after asking the right questions, "Stop!" and be happy.
A "Distinguished Professor of Philosophy" who doesn't seem to have the slightest clue what metaphysics is about? Now that's a real metaphysical question...
He has a much greater clue about what metaphysics are about than you do
The answer is; Academic credentials prove compliance, indicate knowledge, and say nothing of understanding.
Love Bas
Well I can't think of any other explanation.
It's the best we've come up with so far.
So I bet it's true.
Metaphysics is a way to see beyond the contradictions of science and logic and unify them in a different light.
The meaning of it all can be made up and is subject to interpretation, but under the hood, there are some universal principles (like harmony/fractals/self-reference./recursion) that resonate with the core of maths and physics and can be explored through any creative practice.
Name one contradiction of logic.
“this statement is false”
@@AboutTime_in you cheated. This is not Logic, it's plain English. You can't translate it into a proper logical proposition.
@@ferdinandkraft857 hehe! Sure feels like cheating. You are in good company! Check out Russell’s paradox and the famous Gödel’s incompleteness theorem for more mathematical cheating!!
@@AboutTime_in not only feels like cheating; it is real cheating. Can you translate the Liar's Paradox to formal logic? I don't think you can (or anyone else).
Russell's Paradox is a different beast, it's a proof that a particular type of set theory is inconsistent (it's not a contradiction of logic, it's a contradiction within a specific axiom set.
Gödel's Theorems are not related to contradictions, but to incompleteness, which is a much "less severe" situation.
Kuhn really was Socrates here, and all van Fraassen did was double down on his own impoverished metaphysics. It's funny he picked Ockham, of all bad philosophers, to justify leaving metaphysics behind. Ockham, old 'don't multiply explanatory entities beyond necessity' guy, then says 'there are as many whitenesses as there are white things' (while Plato just says 'all those white things are just one thing, white'). Who owns the razor here? And yes, Ockham will say he doesn't like Forms because they violate basic math, being singular and plural at the same time... but he also said he didn't think numbers were real... so where's the problem Ockham? This f***ing guy bro!
Quantum Mechanics proves that metaphysical objects can exist, still no one knows preciously what is conciousness ? Even Einstein had been hating quantam mechanics superposition theoram but still it's a successfull theory, Mother Nature dose not open the pandora box , so mystrey continues.
"Quantum Mechanics proves that metaphysical objects can exist"
No.
Quantum mechanics doesn't prove anything like that.
Does this guy have any idea that metaphysics predates modern science by a few thousand years and was the intellectual bedrock from which science developed?
You mean perhaps
metaphysics was/is the intellectual nonsense that science overcame?
@@REDPUMPERNICKEL you're out of your right mind bud.
@@S3RAVA3LM "How many angels can dance on the head of a pin" is a question in the kind of metaphysics that I have in mind.
I'm not thinking at all about the kind of metaphysics that deals with the existential status of things like pattern and process.
@@REDPUMPERNICKEL and you entirely mistook my point because I was refering to the ancient Greek philosophers Plato, Aristotle, Heraclitus, Parminides, ect.
Van Frassen has more idea than you do about what metaphysics is. And no, science was developed precisely on rejecting the metaphysics of Plato and Aristotle.
I wonder how much of the mathematics physicists are calculating on the present-day cosmological 'reality' is based on hypothetical conjectures, is there a number? As well as, if cosmic inflation were to stop would time stop as well? or reverse?
Time is a concept derived from our thoughts about the relative movement of objects.
Consider the movement of a train and the movement in a clock.
@@REDPUMPERNICKEL Does this concept still hold true when the 'big bang' and all matter from this is accelerating from this expansion? everything, even the train and clock?
@@1p6t1gms Yes. What you are talking about is matter in motion.
How about a practical metaphysical question, such as life from non-life. The apparently truth is that there is a metaphysical creator. The probably that there is not a metaphysical element is very very small or zero.
Thanks is interesting powerful observations.
Theres not a finite amount of information as this guy is claiming. Even the way we differentiate one factoid from the whole of reality is a matter for speculation.
Both Hegel and Heidegger said that pure being and pure non-being are the same. (Nothing: A Sober Discussion of Being and Non-Being page 21)
Maybe some things can be evaluated experientially, different than experimentally by science?
Is mathematics scientific (as well as science being described mathematically)? Does mathematics have a scientific basis since it is able to describe science?
Science is rigor, or the body of knowledge rigourously compiled, or the culture that accretes around both.
Logic is a subset of science that deals with relationships that always replicate.
Math is a subset of logic that deals exclusively with relationships of quantity. Quantity is recursive boundary conditions. In other words, to the extent you can divide something into equivalent (not equal) parts, you can do math on it.
A vehicle takes no action without a driver. An object has no inherent momentum, only that which is imparted upon it. Each body has senses unique to that body. A body, by it’s very nature, is limited. How can we empirically deduce the full extent of what a foreign body can sense? Metaphysical inquiry is valid in that it leads to empirical analysis of that which cannot be sensed by a limited body. Intuition says, “there’s something there, but I can’t see it.” Imagination says, “there’s a way to see that which cannot be seen.” …
i couldnt disagree more: if anything Metaphysics must be about what our brain is capable of as a subject of its own, regardless from logic or facts and that is funny enough a very physical process...
Here we have a philospher who lived without the need of scientific rules that instead pretend that others dont search (or just make hypothesis) beyond what we knows (and what is scientifically proven). So basically he wants others to not do what he has done for all his life. I find this the sum of arrogance.
The arrogance of some philosophers is really nauseating.
Yes. I think advocates of physicalist reductionism fail to reflect on the process by which information about the world is obtained. Abstract mathematics, along with the act of measurement and the scientific process, are the two necessary activities for building a physical understanding of the world.
Mathematics is entirely fabricated and exists independent of physics. One is able to create truth a priori by making up abstract entities, defining their properties, and reasoning about their behavior. The crucial point is that mathematical objects are essentially fabrications, but you can nonetheless create rigorous truth about fictional entities. Mathematics is truth about fiction.
So one cannot even do physics without the capacity to reason about entirely imaginary objects. So maybe we should not be so quick to judge those who wish to reason about "fictional" objects, whether it be in philosophy, religion, or even storytelling and fiction. Cultivating a faculty of imagination and creativity is essential to the development of the mind.
Bas criticized metaphysics all of his career. He proposes a philosophy of science without metaphysical assumptions.
@@Xcalator35 everything that can be uttered or even thought is based on metaphysical assumptions
This comment doesn't make any sense.
@@afeather123 Van Frassen isn't a physicalist/reductionist.
the truth shall set you free
Such a great interview, with such a great philosopher. Bravo.
Many seek metaphysical explanations beyond what we can test and have failed to find anything that fits within the limitations of reason.
Do you want a coherent set of answers to everything in metaphysics?
MY LOGIC TEACHER!
What a relief! Finally, someone admits the human mind is a gerbil on its wheel and will always be asking questions. And language is set up for this compulsion.
I was wondering what interview would put an end to your series, your quest. If you don’t get off at this stop you’ll be riding on the MTA forever (with the Kingston Trio!).
Kuhn won't stop. He's the Don Quixote of Metaphysics.
I believe the title of this video should be "Does metaphysics actually reveal reality or not?" Professor van Fraassen states frankly that it does not. The metaphysical questions are fascinating and *empiricism* will reveal the answers.
It could in theory, but doesn't because there's no good way to answer the question.
@@cosminvisan520 The concept of "meaning" is a human conceit. Do protons, neutrons, and electrons wonder about what they "mean"? Does gravity question its own "nature"?
@@cosminvisan520 This is classic. You say they "don't exist" yet they do. What we choose to call them does not make them exist nor does it impute a greater or lesser degree of "meaning" to them. In fact, our consciousness of them has always been predicated on working from effect to cause.
@@cosminvisan520 That's just it, I don't have to. They already do.
@@cosminvisan520 I'd call that a "logic fail" since I've said nothing that is unfalsifiable yet everything I've said simply hasn't been falsified. Listen once more to what Prof. van Fraassen is asserting.
Abstract discussion on metaphisic goes anywhere re thar guys show up Concise philosophy model. It is only speculations that unfiy reality of the world .
Metaphysics is a lot of good questions with a lot of bad answers and no way to justify any of them.
You described bad metaphysics, not metaphysics.
keep up this content please…
If the purpose of metaphysics was simply to 'extend' the findings of science by methods that were quasi or even pseudo-scientific it would indeed go quite beyond the pale and be open to condemnation, but it isn't so it doesn't.
I cannot think of a single example of such nonsense. It doesn't 'extend' anything, though its aim is to uncover the most fundamental general nature of reality. It does this by arguing from premisses that it takes to be clear to conclusions that must be true given those premisses. Furthermore, though its findings are not _empirically_ testable (otherwise it just _would_ be science) this does not remotely imply that they are not testable _at all._ One tests the soundness of metaphysical thesis by (a) seeing if the premisses of its arguments really are true, or at least likely so, and (b) examining whether the arguments employed are valid, that is, whether the conclusion really logically follow from the premisses. Anyone who fondly imagines that this process is easy or intellectually idle and does not involve rigour has clearly never tried it.
And, yes! Everybody _is_ indeed a metaphysician, even if most folk are bad ones. This is because everyone rests at some level on metaphysical positions - like it or not, or even recognise it or not. Bas van Fraassen, for example, rests upon the metaphysical presuppositions that only particulars exist and that, at bottom (being an empiricist), only the senses can deliver any reliable belief.
The Above. Thank you Theo. I didn't want to go to the trouble of actually providing a valid definition of Metaphysics that Fraassen makes a mockery of with his strawman definition - which I've never heard of before in my life. And Kuhn is to ignorant to know the difference when asking about this time honored, and still very relevant branch of philosophy. It's sheer hubris and crass ignorance to assume science resolves or even can replace Metaphysics. Science is simply a subset of Metaphysics, within a very broad fundamental philosophical category. In addition, Science itself uses rationality to make its deductions and theories. So this whole - Science is above it all, above human reason, is sheer bosh.
@@jamenta2 Science is not a subset of metaphysics. Metaphysics is just playing with language. By assuming a conclusion is correct metaphysics is able to back into the logic. For metaphysics to be correct it has to include physics. This means quantum physics, general relativity and Newtonian physics must naturally fall out of metaphysics. Also metaphysics would have to be testable and verifiable.
@@jamenta2
Many thanks for this. I go along with much of it. I don't know if I would describe science as a 'subset' of metaphysics exactly but if you mean simply that it carries with it a set of metaphysical presuppositions, I think you are right. As to RLK, he is science trained himself and, indeed, like many scientists, he has some deep misunderstandings of philosophy, though what he calls his 'quest' is decent and intelligent enough. But I share your frustration all the same. He always leaves one with th impression that he stands in need of 'Philosophy 101'. (Theology 101' wouldn't go amiss, either, I have noticed.) For all that, though, he at least acknowledges that there is a quest beyond the narrower borders of science to be had and really desires some answers. However, you are right, he also stands in need of some good questions to start off with.
Metaphysics in particular always causes problems with those in science and its camp followers. They seem to think, correctly, that both metaphysics and physics are about something called 'ultimate reality' and therefore (simply but invalidly) jump to the conclusion that they must, at bottom, be attempting to do the same job. One mistake usually leads to another and a downward spiral of ever increasing misunderstanding inevitably ensues. They then note that science seems to have the better method and therefore think, in full but entirely deluded assurance, that metaphysics should be ignored, or at best confined to the pages of the now discredited intellectual history of mankind. The attitude becomes one of, being now in possession of the Mark 2 model, why bother with the less reliable Mark 1? At which point, I have momentarily to give up thinking metaphysics myself and take up banging my head against a brick wall in order to find relief from the pain.
That whole way of thinking, of course, simply ignores the fact that the two disciplines ask some very different questions about ultimate reality, even when superficially they seem to be the same or when general topic area is shared - such as the good old perennial 'What is time?". Metaphysics has been well summarised as being about 'being _qua_ being'. It's questions are ontological. Physics, in complete contrast, is more about the mechanical details of being. It deals, hence, more with empirically testable mathematical models. I am aware of course that many will need the notion of 'being _qua_ being' unpacked to some considerable degree, but this is already quite long enough. Fortunately I have noticed that the very first entry on the Google search page seems to summarise it quite nicely.
@@kos-mos1127 Metaphysics simply is the philosophical inquiry into the fundamentals of reality. It is an enormous category in philosophy in which almost everything under the sun (including quantum physics, general relativity) would naturally be a category within.
You do not know what you're talking about.
@@jamenta2 Metaphysics does not include everything. Metaphysics a branch of philosophy that attempt to deals with firsts principles and the fundamental nature of reality. Metaphysics concerns itself with questions that they can never answer. Like dark shoreless oceans where all journeys end in ship wrecks.
You do not know what your are talking about.
What does he think of the value of Kripke's Naming and Necessity I wonder? And modal logic
Reality is matrix. It consists of discrete machines executing algorithm. That algorithm can be tested.
This dialogue begins with a strawman definition of metaphysics, and thus is not really informative.
(1:20) *BF: **_"We have to step back from the enterprise of metaphysics and say how do we even evaluate it?"_* ... Information gathered through metaphysical means obviously cannot be empirically "evaluated" by science, but whatever is forwarded through metaphysics _can_ be "supported" by science. Science is like using a ruler to measure the length of something. The ruler can empirically measure something as being 19.25" long, but the ruler cannot tell you the nature of what you are measuring, how it got here, or why it exists in the first place.
Those who claim that one information-gathering system is superior to all others, and therefore all other systems should not be considered will never find the answers they seek. A mysterious realm where everything is in play requires the use of all available information-gathering systems to discover the truth.
Science doesn't seek 'Truth'. Science seeks theories with explanatory AND predictive power
@@user-gk9lg5sp4y *"Science doesn't seek 'Truth'. Science seeks theories with explanatory AND predictive power"*
... Science doesn't seek theories. Science produces theories. Seeking accurate, incontrovertible data is in any situation is tantamount to "seeking the truth."
@@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC yeah, pretty much what I said Professor Pedantic
@@user-gk9lg5sp4y *"yeah, pretty much what I said Professor Pedantic"*
First you wrote: _"Science doesn't seek 'Truth'"_
I replied with: _"Seeking accurate, incontrovertible data is in any situation is tantamount to "seeking the truth."_
... Now you are claiming that's what you were stating all along. Go figure?
@@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC OK Sparky, you 'win'
Well, there remains no science in religion, neither there remains any religion in science.
Is an abstract a "real" value, on an abstract level yes, does that mean the object of the abstract is real, no, it means possibly real, when you infer an evidential measure from an abstract that has no empirical evidence, it's measuring nothing but a figment of your imagination. Metaphysics is not physics, it's imagination disguised as reality. This is why when you find something empirically measurable it's physics and no longer in the metaphysical realm. It's trying to do to science what religion does to societal evolution. Creating dogmatic restraints on non measurable imaginary values.
Do you know basic physics, Brian?
@@20july1944 I know enough to talk physics with physisists, but I have no "degree" in physics, I am just an old autodidact. Why did you find something falsifiable about what I posted?
@@20july1944 *"Do you know basic physics, Brian?"*
... I will answer in behalf of Brian Stevens and tell you that he understands basic physics. It's never good to begin a discussion with a presuppositional question.
@@brianstevens3858 That's great -- I'm an old autodidact myself.
What are the original conditions of your cosmogony?
@@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC I disagree -- if Brian admits he knows nothing about physics then I have nothing to discuss with him.
I didn't "presuppose", I ASKED.
Good, metaphysics is my religion.
Great video
Yea this “decision theory” sounds like William James pragmatic maxim in action… Such an under valued philosopher! Too much credit as a psychologist. Not enough as a philosopher!
…also, this dude couldn’t shine Quine’s shoes, on my opinion..
Interesting ideas.
Good talk this. Here I m understand the Milky Way get a A4 couple of sheets put some iron dust on it put a magnet under not too closer blow out other dust intact dust to magnetic felid stays right other will go away.That kind of large magnetic field it can’t be every solar system in milky way gives that force combine together it’s stays in a whole sack n static energy connects with every thing on the base of that gravitational area my meta you r right sir 100 💯
Wow. So science is his faith and his metaphysic is accept unprovable things on faith.
Science cannot prove anything whatsoever. So he is denying certain knowledge altogether, although I’m not sure he understands that.
What a naive ignorance?
reality i based on planet creation or regular task at random times we all know
Yes science can explain the truth that no physical (contingent) thing can make or direct itself so every physical thing is (only) a creation that the Creator is ultimately responsible for. Everything is on Him whether He desired it for you or not and only your Creator can perfectly cover for you Himself and remake you again from the inside out by the power of His true word as no one else can since everything you do is on and against your Creator.
If there is credit (or glory) to be given for anything, the credit goes to the Creator. Every physical thing is a real fabrication and only a fabrication. It’s what’s in your heart to do that God proves is in your heart to do every day because it’s what you do every day. What you do depends on what spirit you listen to. What you do is based on what spirit you believe.
Now we know that there is an invisible creation as well as a visible creation. Evil spirits only have power if you believe their lies. Evil doesn’t actually exist unless you believe evil exists. You can make evil vanish by simply not believing their lies because lies don’t actually exist. They are lies. Don’t believe lies. Lies physically manifest as evil only if you believe them. You only do evil if you believe it is a good thing to do. Otherwise evil doesn’t actually exist.
Now tell me who is the “devil”? Who is the "man of sin”? It’s the one who believes what the lying spirits whisper in his ears.
No
@@kos-mos1127 Explain yourself.
@@JungleJargon Science does not state that physical things are contingent. That is a metaphysical assertion. Science also does not state that a physical thing cannot make it direct itself because there is no experiment that science can set up to verify that claim. Science is an epistemology to determine how we know what is true. This is what separates science from metaphysics.
@@kos-mos1127 You can test matter and energy to see if it will write programming that’s not there.
@@JungleJargon Matter and energy wrote us and every structure in the universe. Already passed that test.
WONDERFUL, JUST WONDERFUL. VERY Important information.
I explain this problem in my book. Persephone said to Parmenides roughly translated, “Whatever is, is; and do not say nothing because nothing does not exist.” The problem is that our cosmos appears to have emerged out of nothing, and there is a matter as such but only at the subatomic level of photons and bosons it seems to be emerging out of nothing. Planck said there is no matter as such but only a conscious intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter. The goddess of the underworld gave us this mess of a duality of being and becoming. Now this uni-verse has come to the place that it must embrace the discarded, forbidden - nothing. So, it has come to nothing. See my book.
Mind is not the matrix of matter that is just an example of a scientist engaging in speculation not science. How we perceive matter and what matter really is are two different things. The reality is matter is diffused in space like a cloud rather than a solid object.
daddy sang bass
what he's saying is historically inaccurate. science comes out of a metaphysical framework. science comes out of aristotle and bacon. philosophers set up the framework by which a society operates. our reductionist materialist view comes from a specific philosophical view of the world.
Its like he has no understanding of history
absolutely true ...
Science came from a very "religious" world ... with a belief in some sort of supernatural Creator, everything having a purpose & fixed law of nature.
Science is now simply THE METHOD for Man to explain natural phenomena and "scientifically" prove beliefs/hypothesis due to the fixed laws of nature which enable repeatable & predictable behavior or properties of processes/phenomena.
Metaphysics is simply various ways of thinking or perceiving existence, leading to beliefs.
Science is just a method to explain phenomena based on fixed laws ... and does not need a "belief" about existence. One only needs to be objective, logical, rational, reasonable & ethical.
The scientific method is:
1.Observe (natural phenomena)
2. Hypothesis ( explain)
3. Test & predict
4. Conclude
5. Refine ( if the Hypothesis have merit)
See. Science does not need Metaphysics to scientifically prove a hypothesis or firm belief.
You want to know the origin of the Universe & life ... then start with an OBSERVATION of related phenomena with known origin ... then make a testable HYPOTHESIS.
Universal Functions ... is the hypothesis that explains Sir Issac newton's Watchmaker Analogy and any Machine Analogy used to prove Intelligent design. A machine & watch are Functions ... but so too is the Universe, sun, earth, atmosphere, air, water, .....life.
All Functions are made by an intelligence. And to prove the Univesre & Life are Functions ... you simply have to FULLY define the Function & Intelligence Categories to confirm what a Function is and that it can only be made by an Intelligence.
There is not evidence that nature can make a Function. And the reason Functions can only be made by an intelligence is because they all are processes, with purpose form, design & properties ... which are INFORMATION that every function possess to exist & to function.
Information can only come from the Mind of an Intelligence.
Again. No metaphysics required. You just have to be OBJECTIVE, logical, rational, reasonable & ethical.
Why do most reject Machine analogies and call them fake science from theists? Are they following the "science" or their beliefs? Machine Analogies .... are OBSERVATIONS ... that the Universe & life are like Machines They are not the proof. You have to make a Hypothesis to explain the observation. And then you test the hypothesis.
Most who reject Machines Analogies ... are themselves following fake science, & their own religion ... and are not objective, rational logical, reasonable or ethical. These same people reject the origin of any thermodynamic System ... when when applied to the Universe & Life. All thermodynamic systems are FUNCTIONS ... and originate from the surrounding systems which must provide the matter, energy, space, time, laws & intelligence to exist & to function.
We know the Universe is an isolated thermodynamic System.
And yet there is not one origin theory of Universe ... being a National system that was "made" in an UNNATURAL "surrounding" System. Subjective illogical, irrational unreasonable & unethical behavior .... of most in the sciences ... who don't believe God created the Universe. Science has been corrupted by religious zealots .... called Atheists or Materialists ... deceiving all people with "we follow the facts & science." smh.
@@abelincoln8885 The Universe is the surrounding and there be nothing surrounding the universe. The Universe is not a part it is the whole that includes all parts.
Science came out of natural philosophy not metaphysics.
Reality = That which is.
Problem is there are different kinds of is.
For instance there is matter and there is movement and
they are radically different.
Curiously, you can't have one without the other.
@@REDPUMPERNICKEL Come, let us reason together.
Since only That which is can either affirm or deny that there either is or is not That which is, there is That which is.
@@raycosmic9019 Indeed, 'cogito, ergo sum' has me completely convinced that I exist but I am certain that I knew it in the long ago moment my body became conscious.
@@raycosmic9019 -
Here's a version of my previous comment edited to make it a little more reflective of what seems to me most likely...
Indeed, 'cogito, ergo sum' has me completely convinced that I exist but I am absolutely certain that I knew it in the long ago moment when my body began to run the being conscious process.
The being conscious process is what modulates the self thought process.
Some of those modulations are
of what the self is conscious.
(The 'modulations' are changes in neural discharge frequency.
Neural discharge frequency is the means by which analogies are encoded.
(Thoughts, like words, are all analogies)).
Self evidently, the self lies at the core of what it means to be conscious.
I find the work of Julian Jaynes, Douglass Hofstadter, Charles Darwin, Ernest Rutherford and their ilk most inspiring.
@@REDPUMPERNICKEL
Core Self = That I am
Essential Self = What I am
Social Self = Who I am
My inspiration is from the Gurdjieff Work and Nyingma Buddhism, although I am familiar with the authors you mentioned. The more I explore and discover, the more devoted to practicing Beginner's Mind I become.
Since there is That which is, there is not that which is that is other than That which is, for if there was something other, it would still be That which is which we merely call 'other'. Therefore, That which is, is all-inclusive.
It's being able to connect quantumly between the physical world of thought and reality. The inner, the other side that can be found with new math/ physics. It's just another branch of nature. One where we have been conditioned to fear by religion.
I love this guy Bas. He basically told Kuhn to his face that his mission is plainly irrational. Kuhn says he may never get an answer to his questions. He won't get an answer, 100% guaranteed he won't get an answer. At best he'll find a satisfactory stopping point or he will die unsatisfied.
As scientific discoveries continue, the answers and explanations continue so, no, he will get answers at some point either complete or most probably incomplete.
@@ZoiusGM Kuhn will never get a satisfactory answer.
science cannot decide what exists and what doesnt. it is not enough to understand reality
Metaphysics does not decide what exists and what does not exist as well. It is not enough to understand reality.
@@kos-mos1127 no but it gives a hint at what could exist. And it is as necessary as science to get a full picture of reality. Furthermore it can help you decide which experiments to conduct
@@ChristianSt97 Philosophy decided what experiments to run not metaphysics.
@@kos-mos1127 but isnt metaphysics a big part of philosophy?
@@ChristianSt97 Science uses natural philosophy not metaphysics. There is no way in principle to test metaphysics. Natural philosophy can be tested.
_"Once the menu of well-worked-out theories is before us, philosophy is a matter of opinion."_ [David Lewis]
White men are amazing
Wow, I think The guy being interviewed is a pompous idiot but I think that about LeBron James too. It has nothing to do with skin color. You might want to judge people by their ideas and actions rather than by their skin pigmentation, just a suggestion.
🥴
i had to stop this bs at 5 min in.. another mr know it all lol
what a prat
Metaphysics
The clever coyote (greed) is always trying to catch the roadrunner (love). But never does. Because something that is not real (absence of love) can never catch that which is real (love).
That coyote is a crazy clown...
The roadrunner is the state bird of the Land of Enchantment. The land of magic (love).
*God is falsifiable.* All you have to do is to have matter and energy make themselves and direct themselves. Then God would no longer be needed. It would validate ancient pagan idolatry. Just show me magical morphing monkeys acquiring vast amounts of written instructions that aren't there. Show me your source for the programming of living organisms without waiting for infinite possibilities in limited time and space for a *single* supposed modification of a living organism so that living organisms have no satisfactory physical explanation of how they came into existence.
You don't mean God is falsifiable, but more that science COULD show there is no reason to infer a God if we had an airtight cosmogony/abiogenesis model without an intelligent agent.
@@20july1944 *"You don't mean God is falsifiable, but more that science COULD show there is no reason to infer a God if we had an airtight cosmogony/abiogenesis model without an intelligent agent."*
... I do not believe in God, but if an explanation for the origin of all things can be demonstrated through science, then the proposition of an almighty God would indeed be falsifiable. The scenario you just offered serves as that falsifiability
@@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC No, I mean God is not falsifiable -- I think that's obvious.
if we had an airtight cosmogony/abiogenesis model without an intelligent agent a theist could still posit that's how God set it up.
Falsifying something is an excessive standard of disproof.
@@20july1944 *"if we had an airtight cosmogony/abiogenesis model without an intelligent agent a theist could still posit that's how God set it up."*
... That's a self-contradiction. An airtight explanation for the existence of everything that eliminates the necessity for any God(s) could not be orchestrated by the same God that has summarily been eliminated via the explanation.
@@JungleJargon *"So you admit that you have no evidence of a natural cause."*
... Where have I admitted that I have no natural explanation for existence? Will you copy and paste that for me in your next comment, please?