TPF : Transcendental Cosmology

[Gnomon]

It's not merely a grammatical matter... — Janus
Underestimating grammar's capacity to mislead is the source of metaphysics, don't you think? — Banno

Perhaps. But overestimating the proper scope of Physics might also have bad consequences. Blocking access to metaphysical ideas would turn Philosophy into Empirical Physics --- and by what authority?. Would Physical Philosophy be a desirable alternative to the current unverifiable & unregulated metaphysical speculations of Philosophers & Cosmologists?

Grammar is merely the structure of language, while Semantics is the content. So you could equate Grammar with Empirical Physics, and Semantics with Theoretical Metaphysics. Universal Grammar is a constraint on language, while the meaning of our words is malleable and subject to personal interpretation in variable applications. But somehow we manage to communicate, despite the cacophony.

Should we take away the freedom of poets to interpret the world? Should we legislate against Metaphysics, as the Marxists attempted to do? Or should we continue to openly debate Transcendent ideas, in the free market of ideas, as philosophers have always done? Let's not over or under-estimate, but aim for the Golden Mean.


Grammar refers to the structure of language: how words are used in speech and how groups of words are put together in patterns. Semantics refers to the literal meaning of the words we use. Both concepts are connected to the use of language, but are different aspects of language function.

Universal Grammar is usually defined as the “system of categories, mechanisms and constraints shared by all human languages and considered to be innate”

"Language allows us to transcend time and space by talking about abstractions, to accumulate shared knowledge, and with writing to store it outside of individual minds"
"The Origins of Us: Evolutionary Emergence and the Omega Point Cosmology (The Science and Philosophy of Information Book 1)" by Alex M. Vikoulov

↪Janus

[Gnomon]

So what makes them informative? Well, when they have a use. So this view is mote sympathetic to Hossenfelder, that if a theory can't be checked against the world, can't be made use of, then it amounts to little. — Banno

Hossenfelder is/was an empirical scientist, and she insists that "Physicists must stop doing metaphysics"*1. Ironically, the same warning could apply to this forum : Philosophers should stop pretending to do Physics. Science is the search for practical knowledge that has a pragmatic "use" in the real world (e.g. food & clothing). But philosophy, by definition, is a search for abstract "wisdom" (e.g. to mature our minds). So, the "use" (purpose) of Wisdom is Discernment or Judgment : "ability to reach intelligent conclusions".

Both approaches (exploring outer & inner worlds) can be "informative" and useful, but Science is supposed to use its information to navigate the Real world of Nature, and Philosophy uses its wisdom to negotiate the Ideal world of human Culture. Is natural information (facts) more "informative" than inter-personal information (beliefs & values)? Is putting a man on Mars a practical "use" of Science? Is the Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence (SETI) a pragmatic "use" of scientific knowledge, or is it feckless Philosophy? Is Cosmology "informative" or merely a vain attempt to see the world from a divine perspective?

*1. "Don't confuse science with philosophy".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mCZh4VE0k-0

As for Kant, there's been some developments in philosophy over the last two hundred years. You wouldn't think so looking around here, but that's part of the oddity of these fora. — Banno

Yes, but this thread applies Kant's 400 year old antinomies to 21st century Cosmology : Philosophical Science and/or Metaphysical Physics? And the jam-fingered people quantum-tunneling through the imaginary wall between pragmatic physics & idealistic metaphysics are the professional physicists that Hossenfelder shakes her mommy-finger at*1.

Hence, the topic of this thread*2. Should we try to prohibit (legislate) Theoretical Scientists from practicing Theoretical Philosophy, or vice-versa*3? Is it even possible to completely separate Natural Philosophy from General Philosophy : separation of powers ; non-overlapping magisteria? 2500 years ago Aristotle divided his encyclopedia of Nature into observational (physics) and theoretical (metaphysics) volumes. And we are still trying pretend that human knowledge must be either utilitarian or irrational, with no middle ground?


*2. Transcendental Cosmology :
What are your thoughts on existential Transcendence? Is it irrational to imagine the unknowable "What-If" beyond the partly known "What-Is"? Should we "fall-down & prostrate"? or just "shut-up & calculate"? Or is it reasonable for speculative Philosophers & holistic Cosmologists daring to venture into the "Great Beyond" where pragmatic Scientists "fear to tread"? ___original post

*3. Einstein's Quest to 'Know God's Thoughts'
"In 1925, Einstein went on a walk with a young student named Esther Salaman. As they wandered, he shared his core guiding intellectual principle: "I want to know how God created this world. I'm not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts; the rest are just details."
The phrase "God's thoughts" is a delightfully apt metaphor for the ultimate goal of modern physics,"
https://www.livescience.com/65628-theor ... -away.html

[Gnomon]

As I see it Kant doesn't offer the thing-in-itself as an explanation of anything, other than to point out that if something appears it seems to follows that there must be something which appears. and we seem to have no reason to believe that that which appears is the exactly the same as its appearance, or even anything at all like it. — Janus

...and no reason to think that it might be other than it appears. Kant is just using language badly. — Banno

Hoffman sheds new light on the old ding an sich question : evolution, via conditional survival, has taught us to treat "appearances" as-if they are the real thing. If you follow his evidence and reasoning, it should make sense. But, if you judge it by common sense, it may sound like non-sense.

The Evolutionary Argument Against Reality :
The cognitive scientist Donald Hoffman uses evolutionary game theory to show that our perceptions of an independent reality must be illusions.
https://www.quantamagazine.org/the-evol ... -20160421/

[Gnomon]

Yeah. I'm reading that. Not so impressed.
There's a trend for engineers and physicist to move in to philosophy. What I've noticed is that they at first suppose that they have the answer to an age-old philosophical issue; they present this to the community, and are taken aback that it is not just accepted. Often, what happens is that they have only a superficial grasp of the issue, and so are not seeing the full breadth of the issue.
I'll have more to say when I finish Hoffman. — Banno

Don't take the title of the book too literally. It was intended to be provocative. Hoffman said that he began as a "naive realist". But after years of research into perception & conception, he has evolved to a more nuanced philosophical view of reality --- a virtual reality. He's another pragmatic scientist, who was forced by the direction of the data to "move into philosophy" : Ontology & Epistemology. So back to the question of this thread : is it a bad thing for serious scientists to dabble in "trivial" philosophy? Is philosophy the underachieving poor relation of science?

The video linked below might "impress" you more than the book. A writer can present his views in a logical linear manner. But, when challenged man-to-man & face-to-face, a "superficial grasp of the issue" might begin to unravel to reveal kinks in the logic. Michael Shermer is a science-defending skeptic by trade, and few people can go toe-to-toe with him and come out with their dignity intact.

SKEPTIC interview with Hoffman :
https://www.skeptic.com/michael-shermer ... -our-eyes/

"take it seriously, but not literally"

[Gnomon]

The point about Kant's antinomies is their grounding in his observation that we ask questions we can't know the answers to, as a consequence of our ability to reason. That's the sense in which they're comparable to the Buddha's 'unanswered questions'. You can waste a lot of time wondering, but the reality of existence is a pressing matter and not captured by speculative wondering. Not that it's something that I myself don't do. — Wayfarer

The point of this thread is to ask the question : Is it a sin for a professional astronomer to speculate on a cosmological view from god's perspective? Or is it a waste of brain-power for a philosopher to engage in imaginary Ontological & Epistemological exploration? Are we chasing the elusive butterfly of love?

[Gnomon]

Just to be sure, you do see that it does not follow from this that there is no "independent reality"? — Banno

I'll defer to Hoffman to answer that question from a better-informed position. In the video linked above, he addresses the conundrum : "does the moon exist when we're not looking"? As a "naive realist" though, I assume -- without sensory evidence -- that the moon continues to exist apart from my sensory experience of it. But I can't prove it. :joke:

PS__Is the world within a Virtual Reality headset an "independent reality"?

[Gnomon]

↪Gnomon
, prior to Kant there were various approaches to philosophy that tried to derive metaphysical, and even physical, facts from first principles by mere deduction. Kant's Antinomies might best be seen as a nascent version of the realisation that logic, on it's own, does not lead to any conclusions. — Banno

I am not a Kant scholar, and I had never heard of his list of Antinomies (logical contradictions) until I read the article quoted in the OP. So, Kant's authority is not a concern of mine. The list was just a convenient outline for an open-ended philosophical discussion on the inherently meta-physical topics of "Transcendence & Cosmology". The browsing questions are inviting considered opinions, not final answers*1. I doubt that we will ever "deduce" any full-stop ultimate conclusions about "Transcendence" or "Metaphysics". But we may refine our personal worldviews with such abstractions, sifted through fine-grained philosophical argumentation.

However, since you mentioned it, how else would you derive "metaphysical facts" apart from "mere deduction"? Are such non-physical necessities empirically observable & testable? What is a "metaphysical fact" anyway*2, other than a consensus opinion drawn from collective reasoning rather than experimentation? I suppose you are expecting that "conclusions" drawn from a pattern of "metaphysical facts" would be merely confirmation of prior personal beliefs? So, as with all such abstract or ideal topics, a modicum of skepticism would be advisable. But a complete ban on metaphysical speculation would be the death of philosophy.

A list of opposing concepts, exclusive of middle ground, logically neutralizes itself. So any useful conclusions would have to come from the inter-relationships between those extremes. Therefore, your comment that abstract Logic alone (sans concrete instances) cannot lead to practical knowledge, goes without saying. Besides, as Hume noted, Reason serves at the pleasure of the passions ; so philosophers must learn to control their own base motives. This forum is a school of hard knocks for self-serving egos.

*1. Transcendental Cosmology :
PS__In the next post, I'll provide some ruminative commentary & questions on Kant's Antinomies, as they relate to Transcendental Cosmology. What are your thoughts on existential Transcendence?
___original post

*2. What is an example of metaphysical facts? :
Examples of metaphysical concepts are Being, Existence, Purpose, Universals, Property, Relation, Causality, Space, Time, Event, and many others. They are fundamental, because all other concepts and beliefs rest on them.
http://getwiki.net/-Metaphysics

It's just the ever-present temptation to jump to a conclusion, to believe one has the answer before the arguments are finished, that is to be avoided. — Banno

Yes. hasty generalizations are to be avoided in rational argumentation. Ironically, such leaps do occasionally occur, even on a philosophy forum. But, how can you know when the "arguments are finished"? In formal Logic, conclusions are supposed to necessarily follow from the indubitable premises presented. But on this amateur forum, such mathematical logic is rarely presented.

Transcendence & Metaphysics are inherently doubtful, and must be supported by reasoning instead of experimentation. And in this thread, absolute final facts cannot be expected to compute from the informal "ruminations" and open-ended questions of the OP*1. I'm aware that many, if not most, comments on this forum are implicitly defending a sentimental personal worldview, instead of abstract Truth. So, speaking of antinomies, your admonition should apply to devotees of both Physicalism & Metaphysicalism, both Materialism & Idealism, both Naturalism & Transcendentalism.
a day ago

[Gnomon]

But this insight can't be captured or described in propositional terms, as it is something that has to be actualised. The crucial error in Western culture is to attempt to reduce it to propositional knowledge on par with (but inferior to) empirical or natural science. — Wayfarer

True. But, I doubt that Western science is seriously challenged by the notion of Eastern self-transcendence, since each person can define his own criteria, and keep his propositional knowledge to himself. But Transcendence of physical (space-time) limits would undermine some basic assumptions of classical empirical science. So, it's a no-go.

Likewise, Metaphysics (Idealism) would be like a parallel realm of Reality (what I call "Ideality") that is inaccessible to the physical tools of Science. Also, mathematics is sometimes conceived in Platonic terms, and Psychology can be interpreted as dealing directly with the metaphysical Mind, instead of the physical Brain. Yet again, those classifications are moot.

Self-transcendence may be subjectively "actualized" without being objectively realized. So, it's not much of a threat to a Materialistic worldview. That's why Steven Jay Gould could accept the conciliatory notion of "non-overlapping magisteria" as a compromise between Science (how) & Religion (why). Similarly, I tend to view Philosophy, ideally, as an attempt to live in that demilitarized zone.
4 hours ago

[Gnomon]

Each of Kant's antimonies looks to me to have been re-framed, and for the better, in the years after his demise. — Banno

Kant's polarities probably seemed to be more fundamental from a classical (Newtonian) physics perspective. But quantum physics has knocked holes in some watertight classical categories. So, it's understandable that one era's firm facts may tend to wilt over time. But, if you are trying to set-up logical oppositions, for philosophical purposes, can you make a better list?

Kant vs Newton :
Kant thus directly confronts the metaphysical question of how to understand attraction that Newton attempted to avoid by positing it merely mathematically. As Kant interprets the situation, Newton “abstracts from all hypotheses purporting to answer the question as to the cause of the universal attraction of matter … [since] this question is physical or metaphysical, but not mathematical” (4:515). In response to the “most common objection to immediate action at a distance,” namely “that a matter cannot act immediately where it is not” (4:513), Kant argues that action at a distance is no more problematic than action by contact (whether it be by collision or pressure), since in both cases a body is simply acting outside itself.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-science/

[Gnomon]

Underestimating grammar's capacity to mislead is the source of metaphysics, don't you think? — Banno

In the book I'm currently reading, Fire In The Mind (1995), by science writer George Johnson, I came across several passages that deal with the contention between material Physics & mental Metaphysics. The book is generally about the Santa Fe Institute's*1 unsettling work on Information & Complexity. Are such forays into previously unexplored fringes of physical science (Chaos, Complexity, Cosmology, etc) leading us into Metaphysical error? What is the grammar of Information?

Johnson notes that "we are finite creatures contemplating the infinite, and there is always the danger of confusing our maps of reality with reality itself". But that warning works both ways. Later, he tells about a son who asked his father, "do you believe in ghosts?". The father replies, "No, they contain no matter, and have no energy and therefore, according to the law of science, do not exist except in people's minds". Then, he reflects, "Of course, the laws of physics contain no matter and have no energy either and therefore do not exist except in people's minds". Tit for tat.

The author goes on to observe that : "Pushed up against this edge, science often retreats into platonism". As an example of such platonic idealism, he offers "information physics*2, being pursued in Los Alamos, Santa Fe, and elsewhere suggest a way of bridging the divide : the laws of the universe are not ethereal, they say, but physical --- made from the stuff called information" Ironically, until Claude Shannon labelled his algorithm's of 1s & 0s as "information", that word had traditionally referred to the ethereal contents of a human mind, such as ideas & memes.

If, as some cutting-edge physicists have concluded, "information is as physical as matter and energy, and if ideas and mathematics are made of information, then perhaps they are rooted in the material world. But the price for banning platonic mysticism may be a dizzying self-referential swirl ; the laws of physics are made of information; information behaves according to the laws of physics. Everything begins to seem like ghosts." Continuing with that theme, he says "with its grand unification theories and cosmological schemes, it is seeking answers so fundamental that they border on theology".

Should we then declare that border a no-fly zone for philosophers and theoretical physicists? Johnson thinks its too late to close the barn door. "Los Alamos and Santa Fe, where people are re-thinking some of the most basic beliefs of science, invite one to gaze inward and wonder if the maps could be drawn differently . . ." And I think grammar-weilding philosophers should lead the exploration of Terra Incognita of mind & matter. Of course, they must be careful to avoid errors of grammar & logic.


*1. The Santa Fe Institute is an independent, nonprofit theoretical research institute located in Santa Fe, New Mexico, United States and dedicated to the multidisciplinary study of the fundamental principles of complex adaptive systems, including physical, computational, biological, and social systems. ___Wikipedia

*2. Information Physics: The New Frontier
At this point in time, two major areas of physics, statistical mechanics and quantum mechanics, rest on the foundations of probability and entropy. . . . . Information physics, which is based on understanding the ways in which we both quantify and process information about the world around us, is a fundamentally new approach to science.
https://arxiv.org/abs/1009.5161 (mathematical physics)

↪Wayfarer