Metaphysics can be scientific

Philosophy Forums Science, Technology, and Math
1

In a forum that does not allow philosophical discussion I entered into a philosophical debate with a member. I suggested we continue the debate here.

Claim: Metaphysics can be scientific.

  1. b is a scientific statement iff b is highly certain and b is important and few people are aware of b.
  2. c is a metaphysical statement iff c is about the most basic abstract concepts.
  3. m is a concept iff m has many instances.
  4. d is an instance iff d is e and d is unique and there are many e.

(‘is’ is indefinable but it has transitive properties. E.g. if x is y and y has z, then x has z.)

  1. f is unique iff everything except f is not identical to f.
  2. g is abstract1 iff something has the property being g.

E.g. A collection of atoms have the property being John means John is an abstraction which names the collection of atoms which we refer to as John. A collection of atoms have the property being the Moon and the atoms are concrete and the name ‘Moon’ is what we use to refer to that collection of atoms.

  1. h is abstract2 iff the concrete things which have the property being h are not very similar.

E.g. Math is more abstract than automechanics. This is because the things which have the property being two are very dissimilar whereas automechanics concerns cars and cars have much more in common than those things which constitute two of something. Time is also considered more abstract than a rock because rocks are much more similar to each other than say the year 1750 and the year 2000.

  1. i is basic iff i cannot be defined in terms of j.

  2. k is basic2 iff many things are defined in terms of k.

E.g. ‘At’ is a very basic term because many things contain the word ‘at’ in their definition. E.g., if you define point the only thing you can say about a point is 'b is a point iff c is at b and b is indivisible. When we start defining the things that occupy space such as biological terms, horse, dog, we will sooner or later have to point out that these things exist in space and when we do we will have to use the word ‘at’. So ‘at’ is a very basic term in the sense that many words contain ‘at’ in their definition and ‘at’ is itself basic because ‘at’ is not defined in terms of something else. You just have to know what it means. ‘Dog’ on the other hand is not very basic because few words are defined in terms of ‘dog’, maybe ‘bark’ and then there are types of dogs but that’s about it.

I have now defined all the terms I need to make my definition of metaphysics comprehensible. Few would deny that metaphysics studies the following concepts: existence, properties, time, space, mind, matter, relations, general, abstract, particular, concept, instance. The question is what do those concepts have in common? They are the most basic abstract concepts.

Let’s now move on to what science is.

  1. b is a scientific statement iff b is highly certain and b is important and few people are aware of b.

  2. c is certain iff d believes that it is unlikely that d will deny c in the future.

E.g. Science is distinguished from mere conjecture in that what we conjecture today we often retract several years down the road. Scientific statements have a way of continuing to be believed decades after they are first uttered. Of course some statements which we thought were scientific 100 years ago are no longer believed, but that is why these statements are merely ‘highly certain’ rather than absolutely certain.

  1. e is important iff e helps many people obtain something valuable.

E.g. Scientific statements are distinguished from mere trivia. So it is highly certain that Marilyn Monroe starred in Some Like it Hot but that statement about MM although certain has something trivial about it. Science on the other hand is not trivial. Now, drawing the line between trivial and non-trivial is often a matter of personal taste. There are astronomers right now which are trying to build a map of every galaxy in the universe a map which serves very little practical benefit. On the other hand, the fact that MM starred in Some Like it Hot might be of practical benefit to an aspiring actress who wants to improve her acting skills.

  1. f is aware of g iff g exists and f believes g exists.

E.g. What is science in 1610 is not science in 2014. So ‘Jupiter has moons’ was considered science in 1610 but some would assert that today that statement is mere common knowledge. Science has a way of being reserved for an elite who are in the know whereas the mere plebs or groundlings do not have access to it because they are too ignorant. For that reason, a scientific statement has to be one that few people are aware of.

Statements 1-12 are not in contradiction.

2

Now, some will argue that statements 1-12 are in contradiction because whereas science is highly certain, metaphysicians have no hope of forming a consensus and thus their statements cannot be scientific because why believe a statement if experts do not agree on it. It is true that right now metaphysics is far from highly certain. In fact, the exact opposite is true. It is the most uncertain thing out there. Be that as it may, in 200 years I’m willing to bet that a consensus will emerge. What metaphysicians will have to do is the following: use the mathematical method. What is the mathematical method? Here’s what you do:

  1. Define all of your terms starting with a small set of indefinable terms.
  2. Write up your list of inference rules.
  3. Write your theorems.
  4. Reduce your theorems to the indefinable words.
  5. Use a step by step decision procedure to check for consistency or contradiction.

With computers this can be done.

3

That is NOT what Science is. Science is a method for testing hypotheses/theories through observable predictions.

That is basically what Rational Metaphysics is;
Definitional Logic + Scientific Methodology + Resolution Debating

… and is better than mere Science (and a whole lot less expensive).

4

I wonder how much of our perception and understanding of our environment is learned after birth, and how much of it is inborn/genetic. What would a person see and how would he interpret the world if he were to be suddenly introduced to it after spending all of his life up to that point in the dark, or in a coma. How would he see, interpret and designate objects? Would he react to the world as an infant would? What would he see and how would he see it? A tree, a running dog, a sky, other people, etc.

5

There has been a great deal of study in psychology concerning that question for decades. I don’t know how far they have gotten in choosing an answer. From my own understanding on the subject, one cannot “see” nor “hear” or make any sense of any of the universe unless they are prewired to distinguish changes in what we call “the five senses”. Once a being has that ability, to make sense of anything would lead them to the same final conclusions as anyone else. The only issue is how long it took that species to arrive at the conclusion and whether they destroyed themselves before they could get there.

6

That is certainly true about five senses. But, prewiring goes two steps beyond that.

Like, the first thing that a newborn child does is weeping. And, that happens within seconds after taking birth. Many people may not be aware of the fact this first weeping is taken by the doctors as all is okay with the child. If the child does not weep at that moment, doctors take the child by the legs, put him upside down and slap him on the hips to make him weep. This a general practice.

So, the question is from where and when the child learns weeping? There is no way that he can learn that within those some seconds. He has not seen anyone weeping yet.

He must be prewired to weep. There cannot be any other explanation possible whatsoever and neither given so far. And, weeping is not the only thing that comes embedded with five senses. Almost all basic characteristics of the feeling like pain, pleasure, sadness etc are a priori qualities for human mind. He does not learn either how to feel or how to react at those feelings after taking birth. That comes prewired. He only learn to relate those with his prewired feeling capacity here.

Again, that is very subtle point, where the whole concept of AI misfires.

with love,
sanjay

7

Emm… huh?

What does any of that have to do with AI “misfiring”?

… and btw, doctors (used to) spank the infant so that the infant would breath and clear his lungs (thus upside down).

8

That is not pertinent here.

The actual point is how a newborn child becomes capable of feeling pain and expressing that feeling as weeping within those some seconds, unless he would not be prewired to so?

Can any psychologist/scientist provide any explanation other than what i gave?

And, it is not a rocket science either but a simple conclusion from a very common phenomenon. But, we have been become far too much hardwired of the concept that we use to learn everything in this world, thus unable to notice that simple realities.

And also, doctors do not have to do that every child. Most of the infants start weeping on their own, without any provocation, as soon as they come out from the mother’s body.

with love,
sanjay

9

I’m not arguing with that. We have known that for a very long time. My question was;

10

Because, that very a priori prewiring is necessary for any intelligence. Intelligence is related to intellect, not merely information. Unless we cannot create an artificial intellect, we cannot create artificial intelligence.

In AI, we take some information, feed it into a machine and program it to react in a particular way according to the information that it gets either from us or from its sensors. That is roughly what humans do.

But, human mind takes cognizance of the surrounding/circumstances/information to the level of feeling, which a step beyond analyzing information, then reacts. That is why it can evolve on its own and change its reactions too. Machines cannot do that and you cannot feed them with every possible situation and reaction either.

with love,
sanjay

11

Oh…

So you are still trying to hold onto the idea that you have some magical property that machines can’t have.
:laughing:

…dream on. :sunglasses: