Phil Forum - Metaphysics in Science

[Gnomon]

The term metaphysics is very ambiguous. If we don't clarify it, we can make a mess of it.
In my opinion and since Kant (to quote the sources is useful) metaphysics is a branch of knowledge that is based on universal and necessary knowledge obtained in the sole light of reason (without being based on experience). — David Mo

I agree. That's why, for my personal worldview, I provided a definition that is specifically tailored to the primary subject of the thesis: Information. It's obvious that Aristotle believed that both volumes of his encyclopedia of early iron-age knowledge were scientific. But the Physics volume was focused on physical material aspects of reality, while the volume that later came to be called "Metaphysics" was mostly concerned with how we come to know the truth about reality : the mental & rational element.

After the Enlightenment though, both Religion and Philosophical metaphysical traditions were rejected by physical scientists because they were ambiguous enough to support religious doctrines that were deemed superstitious. Since then, only philosophers wasted their time on mushy metaphysics, especially anything that involved understanding of the human mind and consciousness. But eventually some thinkers attempted to apply scientific methods to off-limits subjects that came to be called Psychology and Sociology. These are metaphysical topics about "stuff" that's invisible & intangible.

Now, in the 21st century, Metaphysics has become unavoidable in scientific investigations. Information Theory, Quantum Theory, Systems Theory, and Consciousness studies have become mainstream Science, even though they are all about invisible intangible topics that are not subject to empirical methods. So, philosophy can no longer be viewed as the red-headed step-child of Science.


Metaphysics : Physics refers to the things we perceive with the eye of the body. Meta-physics refers to the things we conceive with the eye of the mind.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page14.html

[Gnomon]

So is the distinction (i.e. duality) of "body" & "mind" itself physical or meta-physical? Do "we perceive" this body-mind distinction (as it is / as we are) or do "we conceived" of this body-mind distinction (formally / grammatically)? Does the latter cause (or mediate) the former, or vice versa? — 180 Proof

Perception and Conception are functions of the brain, not things in themselves. One does not cause the other. Perception is what we experience physically. Conception is what we think or feel about what we experience. Perception is physical, Conception is metaphysical. But both process are generated by the working brain. In visual perception, you can trace the flow of energy from eyes through various brain components to the "visual cortex". But the conscious conception of that energy is a holistic function; it emerges globally, not located in any single part of the brain.

In my view, the MInd/Soul/Self does not exist apart from the body. Minding is what the brain does, just as hammering is what a hammer does. One is the function of the other.

[Gnomon]

The names "Metaphysics" and "Physics" are not by Aristotle himself. — David Mo

Yes, I know. But it's the content, not the title that I refer to as "Meta-physics". For the purposes of my thesis I adopted the term, but added a hyphen to emphasize the relationship of Mind to Matter. This is my definition, not a dictionary definition that equates Metaphysics with Spiritualism. The common usage is based on a mis-application of Aristotle's implicit distinction between the objective physical realm of Matter, and the subjective "meta-physical" realm of Mind. Volume Two was mis-interpreted, not as "after" Volume One, but as "above & beyond" Physics. Ari was not talking about spooky supernatural stuff, but mundane human ideas about nature. "Aboutness" is the essence of Consciousness.

Meta-physics :
The branch of philosophy that examines the nature of reality, including the relationship between mind and matter, substance and attribute, fact and value.
1. Often dismissed by materialists as idle speculation on topics not amenable to empirical proof.
2. Aristotle divided his treatise on science into two parts. The world as-known-via-the-senses was labeled “physics” - what we call "Science" today. And the world as-known-by-the-mind, by reason, was labeled “metaphysics” - what we now call "Philosophy" .
3. Plato called the unseen world that hides behind the physical façade: “Ideal” as opposed to Real. For him, Ideal “forms” (concepts) were prior-to the Real “substance” (matter).
4. Physics refers to the things we perceive with the eye of the body. Meta-physics refers to the things we conceive with the eye of the mind. Meta-physics includes the properties, and qualities, and functions that make a thing what it is. Matter is just the clay from which a thing is made. Meta-physics is the design (form, purpose); physics is the product (shape, action). The act of creation brings an ideal design into actual existence. The design concept is the “formal” cause of the thing designed.
5. I use a hyphen in the spelling to indicate that I am not talking about Ghosts and Magic, but about Ontology (science of being).
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page14.html

Aboutness : "Aboutness and function, says Deacon, is not something added on top of things, but something that emerges from constraints on matter and ..."
http://somatosphere.net/2014/terrence-d ... ture.html/

[Gnomon]

Aristotle never made a distinction between inductive science and rational science. This is a further interpretation of his writings. His division was between science and opinion. — David Mo

Aristotle did make a distinction between a> empirical Induction and b> rational Deduction, which roughly parallel the methods of a> Science and b> Philosophy. Are you saying that Philosophy is mere opinion, hence of no value to science? That has been the "opinion" of some prominent modern scientists. But, whether they realize it or not, most scientists use both methods.

Induction vs Deduction : https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-logic/

No modern philosopher (marginal exceptions are possible) tries to impose "first principles" on any science now. — David Mo

They are now called "axioms".

First Principles : A first principle is an axiom that cannot be deduced from any other within that system.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_principle

In what sense is interpretation metaphysical? I do not see the point. — David Mo

I'm not sure which "interpretation" you are referring to. A> That Science has rid itself of the "pernicious influence" of Philosophy, or B> That "Analysis" is superior to "Synthesis"?

Oh. Maybe you are questioning my implicit assertion that human opinions are metaphysical "interpretations", not physical Facts. The Closer To Truth TV series was a philosophy of science program, based on the understanding that Science deals not in final truths, but in pragmatic information, useful for specific applications. All Theories are philosophical conjectures. Ultimately, all human "facts" are somebody's "opinion". They are always subject to revision and update.

Apparently you didn't see the point of my reason for making a special definition of "Metaphysics" as it relates to Information Theory. But don't worry --- it's just my opinion. It doesn't matter to Science.

PS___Scientists are fooling themselves if they think their work has been purged from the pernicious influence of Metaphysics. Quantum Physics is full of such (literal) nonsense.

"Metaphysics is the science of immaterial Non-Things such as Ideas, Concepts, Processes, & Universals. Non-things are Agents (subjects), Actions (verbs), or Categories (adverbs, adjectives)."
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page14.html

[Gnomon]

One of the battles of science against medieval scholasticism was the elimination of final causes (purpose) in the study of nature. — David Mo

Yes. But post-20th-century scientists --- since the advent of Quantum Theory --- are losing that battle. We discuss some of the Teleological implications of modern science in the various Teleology threads on this forum.

Final Causes : "But I was surprised to read that biologists especially (including Darwin himself) have begun to tackle even Teleology, the Fourth Cause. Is this appropriate in Modern Science?"
https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/qu ... inal-cause

Systems Theory : https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Systems_T ... _Behavior)