On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 20:43:20 -0700, in rec.photo.digital , The_Sage
<The_Sage@msn.com> in <bbd9c11s9nu8so1rrl036pvitke1tg4tug@4ax.com>
wrote:
Reply to article by: Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com>
Date written: Thu, 30 Jun 2005 03:18:58 GMT
MsgID:<6co6c1pvpn1itbpm4g2fe78hsdmtligstn@4ax.com>
"Universe" is a name we use to refer to the totality of perceptual
existence.
Not just what we perceive, 'universe' includes eveything there is.
Depends on how you take your metaphysics.
The Universe is not metaphysical in any way, shape, or form. The "meta-" in
metaphysics means "pseudo-", or in other words, metaphysics means "not actual
physics but pseudo-physics".
That is not right, that is not even wrong. "Meta" means "beyond"...
You forgot to look up the definition for beyond:
"That which is past or to a degree greater than knowledge or experience; the
unknown"
Where did you get this definition?
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=beyond
Anyway, I gave you references for what "metaphysics" means.
And now you are ignoring any further factual references to what "metaphysics"
You gave no such thing. You look in the wrong place and got the wrong
meaning of "meta" and then make the wrong conclusion of what
metaphysics means. The sad thing is, I think you are not trolling.
means because you don't want the whole truth, you only want enough of the truth
to support your white lies.
What lies? That I know what metaphysics is and its place in human
thought and you don't seem to?
So metaphysics is the "study" of things that are beyond knowledge or experience.
No, it is not.
The dictionary link proves you otherwise.
The dictionary link said what "meta" means. I already explained how
the "beyond" worked. Even so, you make what is called the argument
from etymology, the notion that you can figure out an idea by looking
at the origin of the words. It does not work that way. I will try one
more time. The term "metaphysics" refers to the subjects covered in
some books by Aristotle. The "beyond" referred to how those books were
placed on a shelf, not to the subject being beyond knowledge.
You could also try giving us an
example of something metaphysical that is not beyond knowledge or experience,
but I predict you will fail. Again.
Nominalism is a more powerful tool, a more accurate understanding,
than essentialism. Care to discuss that?
That is most certainly not physics in any way, shape, or form
No, it is not physics, it is metaphysics.
Exactly -- it isn't physics so why do they call it "-physics"? It's just all
part of the snow job.
Do you just make this stuff up? The term is some 2,200 or so years
old, sorry if it is new to you.
then, since
physics is the pursuit of knowable things and the categorization of experience.
That sounds more like a definition of science.
...and less like metaphysics.
Metaphysics is supposedly beyond those things and doesn't need them. What does
it need then? Blind faith belief.
Talk about the argument from ignorance.
No thank you, I don't want to talk about you.
And, yet, you claim to object to ad hominem. You are arguing from your
personal ignorance of the topic. You don't have a clue, yet you make
assertive claim after claim. Read these sources and we can start to
talk:
http://www.philosophypages.com/dy/m7.htm#mephy
http://www.ditext.com/runes/m.html#Metaphysics
You really should learn
something about the topic before you start speculating.
Done. Now it is your turn.
Well, I have read some of the more significant works in the field,
though I am more of an advocate for Nominalism than I am a general
thinker.
Metaphysics is
a branch of *philosophy*, belief has nothing to do with it. Again, I
gave you links, you really should have read them.
Anything that cannot support it's claims with evidence requires faith,
Nope.
and faith
is nothing more than make believe. I gave you a link to an online dictionary,
you really should learn to use it.
You don't use general dictionaries to learn about technical subjects.
That said, it is amusing to look up metaphysics in your preferred
dictionary:
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=Metaphysics
1.
1. Metaphysics.
2. A system of metaphysics.
2. An underlying philosophical or theoretical principle: a belief
in luck, the metaphysic of the gambler.
I wonder what they have under "recursion"? "See metaphysics"?
Try those philosophy dictionaries, they will give more help.
So let's go back and ask the question, what do you think "beyond physics" means
then?
I think that *metaphysics* means :
"Branch of philosophy concerned with providing a comprehensive account
of the most general features of reality as a whole; the study of being
as such."
Note how it makes no claim to be a science, therefore it has no regard for facts
or evidence or logic...not too much unlike your arguments.
Chawow! So you reject all philosophy. Impressive. Do you really think
that science is all there is to knowledge? That science is the only
field that uses logic? I think you will find that the logic in science
is simplistic to that in philosophy.
It means it so far beyond the physical and the scientific, that it isn't
physics or science anymore.
Nope. Again, it got the *name* (you do understand that names are just
names, don't you?) because of how it was *placed*. The *name* referred
to the location of the physical *books*.
Please provide evidence for your claim then.
Which claim? About what metaphysics means? I gave you two links above
and I can provide more. About the original claim?
Here was the passage in question:
JHC: Not just what we perceive, 'universe' includes eveything there
is.
MS: Depends on how you take your metaphysics. I don't like existence
claims that go beyond our ability to perceive.
The question is whether there is existence beyond our experience. This
requires some rigorous understanding of what it means to exist, a
topic that lies outside science.
I want to see a metaphysical claim
that is scientifically based on physical (read: non-make believe) evidence. By
definition, metaphysics has no such evidence, therefore your claim is ludicrous.
By your definition? Why should anyone care about your definition.
The only thing beyond physics is the superstitious and the ludicrous.
Nope. You might want to look up the word "philosophy". It does not
mean either superstition or ludicrous.
We are not talking about philosophy here,
Sure we are.
we are talking about a subset of
philosophy that is concerned with things beyond physically knowable facts or
experience, hence the reason that nothing metaphysical is physically knowable or
physically demonstrable.
What does "exist" mean? How can we know?
All one needs as proof to see this is true is to actually
read something metaphysical
I have. Want to discuss _ Summa totius logicae_? Or Aristotle's
_Metaphysics_ itself? An impressive work.
I prefer to see demonstrable evidence but just like Aristotle, you are all talk
and no facts or logic.
I gather you have not actually read any Aristotle. (BTW, Aristotle did
not write _ Summa totius logicae_. Do you know who did and his
standing in the history of science?)
and see for themselves that all metaphysical is make
believe nonsense.
Really? Want to discuss Nominalism vs. essentialism? Do you have
anything to say about ontology? Or are you just blowing smoke?
You want to get into a big long-winded discussion but I have an extremely simple
solution: show us some physically demonstrable evidence that metaphysics is
based on
The question makes no sense.
Here are some examples of some metaphysical things: magic
wands, crystal balls, healing crystals, ufo sightings, etc.
Nope. You really should have read the links.
As usual for your type, it is the other way around:
http://www.crystalinks.com/index.html
Yeah, metaphysical and science website. Was your point that science
deals with healing crystals and ufos and such?
If you don't want to resort to common logical sense and facts in any of your
arguments, just say so, don't hide behind New Age mumbo jumbo and pretend you
are doing the right thing or have an defensible argument.
ROTFLMAOASTDTD. I am sorry I used a term that confused you. I should
have tailored my writing to the level of my audience.
That tells us alot about your peers and good thing I am not your audience.
Yeah, my peers actually read about topics before criticizing others
about them.
I don't like existence claims that go beyond our ability to perceive.
Then logically you wouldn't like believing in the unperceivable God.
I can't figure out what the term "logically" means in that sentence.
It almost seems to mean "changing the subject". Certainly the term
"belief" does not belong since I said nothing at all about belief.
Belief is not an existence claim.
Let's try to put this in terms even you can understand:
1) You don't like claim of the existence of things that go beyond our ability to
percieve them, and
2) God is beyond our ability to percieve, therefore
3) You would not like the claim that God exists and/or
4) You would not like to beleive in God
Again, what is your step 4 doing there? You certainly don't intend
that as a logical argument do you?
You wouldn't understand whether it was or not, so what difference does it make?
And, yet, you claimed you don't like ad hominem. Your argument was
flawed. Rather than face the flaw or correct it you attack me. That
does not eliminate the flaw. You added a new term in the conclusion of
what was supposed to be a deductive argument. That makes for an
invalid argument. Your conclusion does not follow from your argument.
Insulting me will not fix your argument. Closing our eyes will not
make the error go away.
If so you should know (or learn)
that you don't introduce new terms and concepts in the conclusion.
*Belief* is a different issue.
That is why I'm not discussing belief but *liking*.
Even so, the belief does not belong in the argument. Your step three
was correct, your step four does not follow.
Maybe what you are trying to
say here is you are not logical
No, I was directly saying that your logic is flawed. You need to stop
with ad hominem.
and therefore you don't like things that are
claimed to exist if they go beyond our ability to perceive them, God for
example, but you believe in God anyway despite the contradiction?
Please find something that supports the idea that I believe in God.
I can accept
that, in fact it makes sense considering your lack of logic throughout this
posting.
I pointed out your specific errors, you have yet to point out mine.
Attacking me personally does not make my arguments invalid or
illogical.
[snip]
Someone who introduces a new
concept in the conclusion of a logical argument wants to teach me?
It is only new to you because you selectively ignore facts that contradict your
blind faith beliefs.
It was new to the *argument*. But I am interested, what are the facts
that contradict my blind faith beliefs? And what are my blind faith
beliefs? You should know since you know that I am selectively ignoring
them.
--
Matt Silberstein
I needed a drink, I needed a lot of life insurance, I needed a vacation, I needed a home in the country. What I had was a coat, a hat and a gun.
Raymond Chandler
.
