My Metaphysical System

[SolitaryWalker]

Metaphysical System.: Philosophy Forums


God and the New Physics.

In this essay I will propound a cosmological theory. A systematic understanding of the Universe that can be reconciled with the modern day discoveries of physics. Then I will use the design and erect a natural theology upon its basis and show how it is possible to instantiate Christian faith upon it, the latter I will refer to as the subjective truth of Christianity, the state of spiritual conviction that is impossible to influence from the outer world, and hinges on intrinsic and subjective axioms, as opposed to objective. However, in order for this Christian truth to be established, it first must be shown how some of its axioms could be supported objectively. However, once the subjective truth is instantiated, in the event of the objective axioms being contravened, the subjective threw shall not shattered. In this Module I will not provide an exegesis of the work of Paul Davies, but instead I will try to answer some of the basic questions that he has concerned himself with in God and the New Physics. One shall presuppose that the main motive behind his theorizing must be to understand the world, to figure out the laws of the Universe, to answer these questions that he has posed, and not just provide a critique of some of the conventional understandings of these ideas, or provide the best way possible to understand and read Thinkers like Bohr, Einstein, Newton, Kant, Locke and so on, or whoever he may have learned from and was influenced by as a scientist. His purpose, almost without a doubt was to pick off at the point where those eminent men have left off, and not just recapitulate their ideas. Hence my essay has been clearly inspired by Paul Davies’s God and the New Physics, much like his writings may have been initially inspired by thinkers like Einstein and Bohr, but his purpose was to carry further and ask the same questions that they were asking, or at least come up with a method to encourage other people to take interest in such matters. And this shall be my purpose, one with an aim to explore those questions. As Plato once said, all philosophy begins with wonder, when we begin to wonder this is when we start to ask the real questions, when we start relying on reason to figure out how the Universe works, reason and only reason alone, not authority or convention. I think that all inquiry which I refer to as reason-founded speculation is about cosmology. The final end to asking all of these questions is no other but this: to figure out how the world works. This is what cosmology is at its mere essence. People have many motivations for engaging in inquiry of cosmology, some ask why, what is the meaning of life, what is the purpose of all of this, why is the sky blue, what are the leafs green and so on. This is a subject-centered speculation and is subjective in the strictest sense of the word. It insinuates the notion of why it was made to be that way, who willed for this to be in such a fashion, as if, is there a God, and what were his personal reasons for making the sky blue and the leafs green.


Another way to look at cosmology is from the standpoint of asking the what questions, which concern themselves with the object, and are objective at their mere essence, and have no relationship to the creator’s personality, the nature of the subject, the personal purpose of individuals and how the Universe affects us, and in short, the human element. Which of the two approaches we chose to take is a matter of temperament. The more sentimental of us tend to be the meaning seekers, those who seek the significance and purpose of life, the more analytical of us by temperament tend to ask the what questions. What exactly is it about the lake that makes it contain water, what exactly is it about the leaf that makes it green, never-mind how it affects us, all that matters is what inheres within nature. This is indeed the pursuit of figuring out natural law at its raw form. Not for our subjective purpose or for any human need, but for the sake of seeing how the World works. This latter mentality is the foundation of scientific inquiry, the cornerstone of physics. An enterprise where one should ask the what questions, not why questions. The pursuit of physics should be to solve the ultimate question of cosmology, what is the world, and how does it work, the question of who made the world and what the purpose of it and the purpose of ours is, is subjective in nature and is biographical as pertaining to the nature of God or man, which we need not concern ourselves with. Metaphysics is an indispensable part of cosmology, it is the study of ultimate reality and the extension of physics in itself. Paul Davies has endeavored to make an inquiry into the ultimate study of reality with his questions of reductionism v holism, what is the self, can it possibly exist, and if it does how can it be reconciled with the ultimate nature of reality, what is the mind, does it exist independently of the body, and if so, how does this fit into the larger cosmological framework, and what are the body and mind, can they both exist and once again what is the ultimate stuff that they are made of. Within all of this could we possibly answer the question of free will and determinism. And finally what is life, what is the universe, how can we figure out cosmology. The accentuation in all of this inquiry was on the big picture, which is centered around the salient questions of cosmology. What is the universe, how does it work and how do we relate to it and vice versa.



I shall start with the metaphysics of Immanuel Kant. Kant’s greatest merit, one shall say is the demarcation of the way the world exists as a thing in itself, and the way it strikes the human mind. Hence, he referred to the World as we experience as the phenomenal world, and the world as it is, as the noumenal world. According to Kant, it is impossible for us to have any experience of the thing in itself, or the noumenal world. However, he does not maintain that it is not possible for us to have any knowledge of it. Kant argued, much like Parmenides, the Pre-Socratic philosopher who maintained that the ultimate reality is one, it is ever-lasting(eternal) and un-changing, all change is illusory. Hence, this is the premise that in Kant’s philosophy the fundamental essence of the Universe hinges. The singleness of the noumena. To Kant, the noumenal world is inaccessible to our senses, and everything that we perceive, we perceive only through our senses, and hence the world as it is perceived is the phenomenal world. Spirituality, God, human souls, Heaven and Hell, according to Kant are all outside of our sphere of experience and exist only in the noumenal world. For practical purposes, one shall ask, if the noumenal world can not be experienced at all, what is the purpose of the concept. The purpose of the concept is to show that there is mystery in life, and that there are certain things that we will never have reliable knowledge of, and how those mysteries in life could be identified. We can not know anything else about those mysteries other than they exist, however we can make speculations about them, though we can not have any reliable knowledge of them. We can only have reliable knowledge of the world of phenomena, the world as experienced through our senses, this is the only realm that could be ascertained of cogently with our minds. Kant maintained that metaphysics is only possible if it is within the realm of human understanding, or human imagination. Metaphysics, or speculation about the noumenal world is possible, but only marginally, yet it must be ultimately grounded in our sense-verification, our speculation about the noumenal world must be grounded in the phenomenal world. What we can posit about the thing in itself must ultimately be verifiable by the thing as perceived. Hence, speculation about the noumenal world, if in check with what we know about the phenomenal, is possible within the realm of metaphysics. Or theoretical knowledge. Reliable knowledge is only possible about the world as experienced. Hence, epistemology, the study of knowledge, and metaphysics, the study of the ultimate reality must be kept in separate accounts. Therefore, the study of the noumenal world is within the province of metaphysics, although it is outside of the scope of epistemology, which should only be confined to worldly knowledge. Hence, experience of the noumenal world is impossible, albeit knowledge of the thing in itself must be purely speculative. Therefore, it is not impossible for us to have knowledge of the noumenal world, we should say this a bit more modestly and posit that there is very little prospect of us knowing the thing in itself, as opposed to no prospect at all.



Kant has speculated that the realm of mind, which is only filtered through our senses can exist within the noumenal world, however, we can only have access to the objectification of the noumenal world, because we can only perceive what our mind tells us through our senses, and our sense-perception is what filters our imaginary experiences, and by and large our ideas about what mind presents to us are profoundly influenced by our sense-based experiences. However, it is also true that we can never experience the thing in itself of what our senses tell us about the world, as our mind imposes structures upon it that are purely subjective. We need our imagination in order to incept what our senses gives to us. For example, a baby or an animal can smell the gas leak, but it can never make sense of it, it can not identify what the gas leak is, and hence only when a baby grows up, and learns to reason for itself, than and only then will it have the notion of what the gas leak is. For Kant, the human mind imposed structures on the external world, in order for it to be made sense of. The question of how the external world exists, or rather what it is, invites the inquiry into what matter, time and space are. Paul Davies notes (P.144) that science is only possible because we live in an orderly universe. For Kant, this was not so, science was indeed impossible, and the universe was not orderly, the orderliness was merely a figment of our imagination. Science could only deal with the phenomenal, the world as it has been conjured by our minds, though the noumena is outside of its scope. Hence, science can only concern itself with epistemology, not metaphysics. This certainly does not necessitate a materialist ontology, it is a mistake to believe that science supports a materialistic perspective. Science is ontological neutral, ontology is a question of metaphysics which science can not concern itself with. It can theoretically adapt a materialistic or a non-materialistic perspective, but it can not declare either of the two is true, it can only adapt an ontology of this or that kind in order to establish a framework of ideas on which to build its inquiry on. Hence it is only means to an end, and we all must have metaphysical beliefs in order to ask meaningful questions, and science must engage in this field of metaphysics(ontology) in order to proceed to epistemology. Therefore it sets its foot on the province of metaphysics, but does not go so far as to build a tent on it, it only plays with metaphysical questions, but does not endeavor to answer them. Science can only answer the questions of epistemology, and epistemology must necessarily confine itself to the world of our senses, or the phenomena while allowing itself very little prospect of transcendental ( metaphysical) knowledge, as it must be purely speculative and hence will not have a high enough degree of probability in order to be accepted as reliable knowledge. I follow Popper’s doctrine of fallibilism in discerning what knowledge is, which is a question that lies at the heart of epistemology, as I have maintained, epistemology is an endeavor to understand the world of the affairs within the range of our senses. According to Karl Popper, there is no such thing as absolute certainty, and therefore what we should regard as the truth is what we consider to be the most likely to be true with the given set of circumstances. It is not something that shall be seen as the eternal truth, but something that is accepted only tentatively, hence the theory that we see as true today, must be declared to be false when something better arrives. For example, Einstein’s quantum physics, at the time had, we should extrapolate (75 points out of 100 in terms of truth value), today his theory is not regarded as completely false, but superseded by something that has been perceived as having a higher degree of veracity to it, for instance a theory that has 75.2 points out 100. Truth/falsehood must be assessed on a continuum, what is true is what appears to us to be the most likely to be true at the current moment. We should say that in order for a theory to be considered a moderately stable one, or one that qualifies as reliable knowledge, it should receive at least 30 points out of 100. Metaphysical ideas, since they have so little of the verifiable essence in the phenomenal world, are so unstable, that they can never be seen as something that will likely stand out as true later on and could be easily contravened by even a small force of opposition. Hence, they could never be awarded more than 10 points, this means that they can never be thought of as reliable knowledge, and therefore the best they can do for us is to maintain that there is very little prospect of knowing the real world, as opposed to none at all.

 

[SolitaryWalker]

Immanuel Kant maintained that matter is force clustered within a single unit, and this discovery has been reaffirmed by Albert Einstein’s studies in 20th century physics. This insinuates an ideality of matter, that matter is contingent upon this idiosyncratic force that Kant has insinuated for its existence. The ultimate reality is changeless, though according to Kant, this force is constantly in motion. In this respect, what we have is only the stability of the material world, but if we look closely at what the chairs that we are sitting in really are, we will see that they consist of the vibrant, ever-changing force that is mysteriously trapped within them. They only appear to be stable because the force is trapped within the seemingly material essence. If we were to get a God perspective on this matter, we would discover that the Universe as we understand for it to be, the material essence of this planet does not really exist. Hence the ultimate reality does not change and it is entirely ideal, it is immaterial. The force that is trapped within a unit is actually a figment of our imagination, perceived through the apparatus of our senses and then our imagination. What we have here is, the ultimate reality being the non-change ontologically Ideal essence, the ever changing force that inheres within matter, and matter in itself the material entities that seem to be immune to change. The former, the unchanging ultimate reality, as in the World of Parmenides is in the noumenal world. The following two, the ever-vibrating force and the material entities are the phenomenal world. Hence, had we had adequate faculties, we would be able to experience two and three, but never one. We, however, can ostensibly experiences three, but had our minds progressed faster in time we would be able to experience two. What we have here is this. Grade one: the crude matter as we see it. Grade two: the force that is clustered within the unit that constitutes matter as we see it. Grade three: the Ideal entity of reality, as in the noumenal world which is impossible for us to experience. As far as Grade Two is concerned, homage is paid to metaphysics of Heraclitus, a pre-Socratic philosopher who argued that the ultimate reality is in the state of perpetual flux, everything always changes, the only thing that does not change is change. We should relegate his notion of the ultimate reality(Grade Three) to Grade two, the phenomenal reality which is only slightly outside of our scope. The ultimate reality, as in the world of Parmenides, is changeless albeit the way our minds perceive it, we can only perceive so much, as we are ostensibly stuck within the empire of time, hence because we are prisoners of time we get the illusory notion of change, as the notion of changeless is impossible for us, because in order to grasp it, one must have access to eternal and infinite vision. This is not accessible to the apparatus of our senses and imagination. Therefore our minds project change onto the changeless reality, however we can only perceive so much change at the same time, and therefore we create an illusory notion of changelessness in our phenomenal world, (Grade one), hence in our Grade One, we have a combination of change and changelessness. Grade Two, the more sophisticated sight of what we get would consist in constant change.



Matter as has been shown by Einstein, is force trapped within a Unit. The question of what is matter is inseparable from the question of what are time and space. Time, as has been established by Kant and later reaffirmed by Einstein is also a figment of our imagination. In order to be in time, Einstein maintained, one must be subjected to both light and mass. The ultimate reality is Ideal, hence it consists of pure force which is immaterial. Therefore since it is immaterial, it lacks mass, therefore it may still possess light, and its lack of mass necessitates the impossibility of the ultimate reality being within time. Force is also outside of time, only our minds are within it. Hence the way the force vibrates (as Grade Two is in perpetual flux) is a diagram of how our minds that are within time tend to perceive what is changeless and outside of time.



What I propound here is a double-aspect theory. That the noumenal world is not some mystical entity that is radically different than the phenomenal. We are actually looking at the noumenal world as we speak, the noumenal world is all that exists, we have no choice but to be confronted by it. Though, what constitutes the phenomenal world is the way that we perceive the noumenal. Hence, Grade Three is the thing in itself, Grade Two is what we would see had our minds being more acute, Grade one is the crude matter as we get it. Grade Two is what constitutes matter, grade three, the ultimate reality is what constitutes the force, or the groundwork of the material world. However, all that exists is just the ultimate reality, grades one and two are just the way the ultimate reality is perceived or can be perceived.



According to Einstein, there is no such thing as universal or objective time, this discovery is not new, as Kant made this speculation 200 years beforehand, Einstein has only confirmed what has already been stated in the Critique of Pure Reason. Hence, we all carry our individual time-frames within our heads. Since we all have different masses and are subjected to different amounts of light, we must all have different time frameworks within our mind. Therefore when we are moving at a higher speed than we usually move at, for example in a race car, we are actually traveling within time. Hence if we would stay in that state for a long period of time (according to standardized time) our body would age much quicker. Therefore we would feel a lot less time pass by, for example we may feel like only a year has passed by, but if we were to look at how much our body has aged, it may correspond to ten or twenty years in terms of the kind of time that we are used to. Conventional time is arbitrary, it is just an essence of how an average, imaginary person would experience his movement in time. Hence, present, past and future are within one essence, the essence of Grade Three reality, the essence that does not change. Neither of these three could be any more or less real than the other two. Hence space must also be the construct of our minds, as the ultimate reality is infinite and eternal, therefore it is impossible for it to have mass, in conclusion we have that the noumenal world, as Kant posited is impossible to experience because it is outside of human understanding and not even possible to analyze through metaphysics, as metaphysics can only make vague speculations about it, but must not go any further than that. It is outside of human understanding because human mind can not grasp what is infinite and eternal.



Arthur Schopenhauer, the successor of Kant proceeded to make prescriptions for what the noumenal world is like. He, in effect agreed with Kant and Parmenides that the ultimate reality is one. In this respect he is saying that it is unchanging, since in order for there to be change, there must be both time and space. Hence, from this premise he maintains that individuality is impossible. Therefore this means that humans can not have a self. However, I find this claim to be untenable. This is because human mind only perceives for change to be possible only within the confines of time and space, but in the ultimate reality individuality can exist even if change and time and space do not exist. What this means is that it is all laid out in eternity, and we are all part of this infinite, ideal essence that I have referred to as grade three. We are all part of it, though we have individualities, and all of our individualities borrow from the ultimate, infinite essence of grade three. So this is much like a castle having three towers. We are all part of one essence, but we seem to differ within this one essence.


Hence Schopenhauer’s argument for the impossibility of individuality in the ultimate universe is not acceptable. The notion of how the ultimate reality is one can be reconciled with the assertion that individuality exists, and that individuality is philosophical fiction. We can not know which one is true, and this only reaffirms the clause that it is impossible for us to have any real knowledge of the noumenal world. As far as the self is concerned, we can posit that the self is part of Grade three reality, but this does not mean that it is an object immanent within grade three reality. It exists as a thing in itself and it transcends the confines of being an object, and hence can claim to be a subject A self, we should say is an individualistic essence that inheres within the noumenal world, and transcends realities of grades one and two. It is a mind, a spiritual essence that does not generate force of its own nor does it change, but if it were to be perceived through the scope of grade two reality, it would appear to generate force of its own. Our human bodies are just the objectification of the force that our self or our minds generate, hence the body is just the crude perception that our minds perceive the minds of others. This bears a semblance on Plato’s cave theory where he maintains that our true selves are inaccessible and hence impossible to be seen, this reaffirms my theory that our ultimate nature is immaterial, and materiality is just a construct of our minds, or the way the immaterial or the ultimate reality is perceived by us. The reason to believe that we have a self is because a self is necessary in order for their to be perceiving of any kind, illusory or not. As Kant said that without a subject there could be no object and hence it makes sense to say that each individual being, that is perceived as a body has a mind that is perceived as a body, and this mind is a subject in itself. Since we each make our own time and space, and it is subjective to our minds, though it bears enough similarities to the minds of our contemporaries so we can establish a framework of objectivity. In other words, the space and objects and time I perceive are not exactly like what X perceives, but we are take in the world similarly enough to agree that your subjective perceptions are pointing at the same entity of the ultimate reality that the human mind grasps. Schopenhauer took issue with Kant’s metaphysics, , and that because the ultimate reality is one, it is impossible for us to have a self, and the subject must be the essence of the Ultimate reality, which he called the Will. I regard this view as implausible, it makes more sense to say that the ultimate subject is not this blind and erratic force that he calls the Will, but God, since God is both the subject and the object at the same time. God is reality of grade three, so at this point we have a mitigated form of panentheism. Not pantheism, pantheism is the thesis that all is god, panentheism maintains that all is in God. So hence we are all within God. With pantheism, as with Schopenhauer it would be impossible for us to have individuality because we are all part of the essence that is both an object and a subject. With panentheism it is possible for us to be part of this ultimate reality that is changeless, albeit we can still have individualities. If Schopenhauer was right, that pantheism and not panentheism is true, than the law of perception would be impossible.


We would not even be able to perceive the ultimate reality at all, Schopenhauer’s theory is implausible because it commits intellectual suicide. It necessitates its own non-existence, because if we can not perceive, there could be no object for us to have in mind, and hence with his pantheistic Will, there could be no real subject and an object at the same time, the Will would just be an object that pretends to be a subject. The only plausible resolution would be to say that God, since He is infinite, he is both the subject and an object at the same time, and since we are all part of God, we are all part of what is infinite, hence panentheism holds true. An object depends on a subject for its existence. All things are either necessary or contingent. A being that is a subject is contingent on something else for its own existence, an entity that is an object is also contingent, because it is contingent upon a subject for its own existence. A necessary being can not be in just one of those two categories. A necessary being must be both an object and a subject at the same time. This being can only be God and in virtue of that, we are all part of God. Creation is philosophical fiction. Creation, in my conceptual framework should mean the same thing as unveiling, so when we say that God created the Universe at this or that time, we just mean that it became possible to be observed by our crude, phenomenal world building minds at this or that time, and time is used in terms of how we perceive it. I have also noted that there could be such a thing as a subject without an object, in fact this should be retracted and I have only used this phraseology to describe the relationship between a subject and an object, and the whole point of using the word subject was to show we must necessarily have a self, or otherwise we would not be able to perceive anything at all. The intricacy of how we perceive things (three grades as I have stated), furthermore strengthen the clause of personhood being a real thing. Hence everything that exists is necessarily both a subject and an object. We have always existed, the birth of our bodies is only a property of the phenomenal world, or the world as we perceive it. Our minds have not been created, they have been eternal, as they are part of God. Creation only signifies our attunement with the physical world, though in reality as a thing in itself, this is non-existent. This means that we do not have our real selves on this planet, our real selves are in the kingdom of heaven with God salvation consists in our ability to break away from the phenomenal world and step onto the noumenal and re-unite with our real beings. God did not make the physical man, God only made our heavenly bodies, as they are part of him. God is both transcendent and immanent from the perspective of our crude human minds, hence this is what panentheism is at its raw form.



Schopenhauer went on to argue that free will is also impossible. But again, this clause of his stems from his assertion that the only thing that is real is the Will, but as I have already shown how this idea commits intellectual suicide, had this been true, existence of any kind would be impossible. Hence since panentheism is what we have accepted at this point, this necessitates an existence of distinct subjects which are immanent within each and every human body, and this points a finger at the possibility of free will. Because we have already established that the ultimate reality is one, this necessitates the superiority of holism over reductionism. Reductionism also commits intellectual suicide because it makes being impossible, it makes a subject impossible to exist, and if a subject does not exist, there could be no perception and with no perception there could not be a universe. Reductionism makes it impossible for a subject to exist because, it can presuppose a subject, but then from its premises it must necessarily follow that the subject could continue getting reduced ad infinitum. If a human mind is just a collection of experiences, it must have these experiences stored within somewhere presumably a subject of a sort in order for them to be recollected. If Reductionism is to be accepted, it would necessarily follow that those experiences would not even be possible to recollect because there would be nowhere for them to be stored, and what is more is that it would be impossible for them to exist at all, because being a subject and an object is a prerequisite for existence, and since reductionism has eliminated the subject, it can not have an object, and because of this it promptly necessitated its own non-existence.



In effect my panentheistic cosmology maintains ontological holistic idealism(matter, space and time are subjectively conditioned and the ultimate reality is comprised of a spiritual essence, space and time are the way that this spiritual essence manifests itself to the human mind, and matter is just the crude representation of the interplay between space and time) , existence of free will as God’s identity is separated from man’s, and God being in Kant’s philosophy the noumenal world in itself. Hence ultimately reality is spiritual(ontological idealism), and the ultimate reality is comprised entirely of God. Although as distinct from pantheism, my panentheism does not maintain that God is immanent in matter, God is both transcendental and immanent, albeit God underlies matter. The real matter is the intangible force that constitutes the material. In Descartes’ philosophy it is called an extension, an entity that is distinct from thought and ideality of universal reality. True matter, paradoxically enough is in itself immaterial, although the human mind (In Grade One) perceives it as what we commonly understand for matter to be. Not the other way around as the materialists believe. Reductionism is an attempt to eliminate metaphysics, but this is impossible, as we all will have metaphysical beliefs, whether we like it or not. Hence, we have to make some suppositions (which can be warranted apriori, but at times we will have to make some unwarranted assumptions just to get off the mark). In order to do any inquiry at all, we need to assume that there is such a thing as truth or that the world is coherent or that our senses give us reliable information. That is metaphysics in itself. ''When we run over libraries, persuaded of these principles, what havoc must we make? If we take in our hand any volume; of divinity or school of metaphysics, for instance; let us ask, Does it contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number? No. Does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact and existence? No. Commit it then to flames: For it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion.''—David Hume, Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding. In order to make any experiments concerning matter of fact and existence one must engage in metaphysical beliefs first that Hume has already committed to the flames. In effect, even if one is even to go so far as to posit that it is impossible for metaphysics to exist, one has already engaged in them at that point. Because one is making an assumption about how the Universe is that is not rooted within empirical evidence. So from this it necessarily follows that Hume’s polemics against metaphysics belong in the flames along with all the other metaphysical books in the pile. In the grand scheme of things, I find for materialism to be unacceptable. For the reasons above and the final clause that without a subject, there could not be an object, as it would be impossible for the object to be given rise to. And finally materialistic cosmology of reductionism makes it impossible for there to be a principle of individuation, as any object could be reduced ad infinitum. And essentially the existence of God can explain the nature of the noumenal world. As one of the main purposes of this concept of Kant was to show the inevitability of the human mind being finite and mystery being present within the Universe. The human mind can exist independently of the body, it will not be confined to the laws of space, matter and time, albeit it will not be endowed with infinite knowledge, because in order for this to be accomplished one must be at one with God.


Richard Dawkins invokes a Platonic notion of the soul. He argues that the soul is just an intellectual property of man. Much like Plato believed that the soul is where ideas are storied and this is what a man will become after having abandoned his crude body and has obtained sufficient knowledge. According to Dawkins religion reinforces a dogmatic mentality that tolerates strange superstition, and this is diametrically opposed to critical thought, which is essential to one’s intellectual growth. As intellectual growth is the defining entity of having a soul, religions must be abandoned because they stultify one’s growth as an intellectual and being non-religious is more conducive to the cultivation of one’s soul than being religious.


Steven Pinkie argues that materialism ( supposedly as endorsed by science, but this is a crude mistake. Science is ontologically neutral. It does not concern itself with metaphysics at all, even though it only works with empirical evidence. This by no means does not commit it to materialism. Science can not concern itself with questions like : is the ultimate reality Ideal or Material. It has to remain agnostic to them. Though it can make very light suppositions in this regard, and there is nothing within the contemporary scientific method that would make it favorable to materialism over idealism. It can endorse materialism, idealism, dualism, monism… etc… however in most cases scientific inquiry does not pose such questions at all. Science’s purpose should be to tell us what is, not what is not. It can only deal with the world that we have the most experience with, it has no access to what we have little experience with. Hence it tends to work with empirical evidence the most because these are the entities that pertain a manifest existence. One is not in the position to explore metaphysical questions with a scientific method.), in essence materialism (which is ontologically untenable) necessitates a non-existence of a human soul in a Christian sense. This is true as man is perceived to be an object and not a subject. This is a very literal approach how ‘science’ endorses a negation of the soul. Materialism may, but science has no relationship to materialism. Individual scientists may be materialists, though one can not make a plausible scientific doctrine that necessitates materialistic ontology while retaining intellectual honesty. A more complex way to look at science in terms of its propensity to kill the human soul should be allegorical. One should say that scientific inquiry is a very thought-oriented enterprise. It leaves very little room for personal values. The soul is traditionally associated with having a subjective side. A scientific mindset can encourage one to dismiss subjectivity because it can give rise to superstitious beliefs. This could be an unintentional influence science may have on the common man. But this should be far from its purpose. Science’s task should be to endorse the use of reason. The use of reason does not necessitate exclusive adherence to thought-based ideas and a dismissal of what is subjective or feeling-oriented. David Hume, a very eminent Scottish philosopher once said that reason should only be a slave of the passions. This sounds like a very reasonable claim. The reason why we wish to know the truth, and we use reason to discover it is because we have an inner drive to find meaning in our lives. This is purely subjective and indeed feeling-oriented. This is where all sciences have started in the first place. Their task should be to reinforce this subjective side of being human, not neglect it. If it really goes so far to say that the subjectivity should not be taken seriously, not only will it subvert its own initial purpose, but it will also necessitate its own non-existence. A great deal of scientific inquiry involves apriori assumptions that are subjective by definition, and many of us are motivated by subjective urges that we may or may not have full awareness of. Freud’s discovery of the subconscious mind is the case in point. Honest science should not kill the soul, it should be a tool for man to find meaning in his life. Only a perversion of what honest scientific inquiry should be like could truly have this happen to us, as this is frequently diametrically opposed to what science was meant for hitherto.

 

[logan235711]

paragraph breaks ZOMG!!!

I'll try to respond later, but good luck can't wait to see everyone's responses

 

[reason]

Clear as mud, as usual.

Judging from your comments on the other forum, you are more concerned with criticism of your theories, rather than your presentation. However, your presentation makes such criticism very difficult, since before anyone can begin criticism, they must first spend considerable effort figuring out what you are saying.

I agree that science is not intrinsically materialistic, or as I would say it: science has no naturalistic presupposition. Though you get into a right muddle when claiming that science presupposes order in the universe, or that science is dependent on, but cannot influence, metaphysics.

 

[SolitaryWalker]

It was clear enough to be understood.

 

[reason]

It was clear enough to be understood.

No, BlueWing.

Try providing examples, analogies, metaphors or comparisons. Try saying 'i.e.', 'in other words' or 'to summarise' every now and then.

I am quite sure everything you wrote made sense to you, but half the time I have difficulty simply disentangling what you think from what the many philosophers you reference.

 

[Jonny]

I agree BlueWing, sometimes it is very difficult to navigate through your walls of text. It is essentially as if we're having to read a difficult to understand philosopher, without the foreknowledge that what he is saying is logically sound and worthwhile. You're a gamble.

 

[Lark]

I really liked reading this, I'm not exactly sure what I think yet since I'd like to read it a second time, the breaks are good but I use shorter paragraphs myself. I'll confess I'll want to get a hold of a theasarus or dictionary too, there is some language which I'm only used to reading in more dense philosophy books and I usually can conclude what they mean by their context, I want to be doubly sure though.

You're suggesting, if I'm right that there's substance to the christian ideas on the basis of individuality existing as a fact and a metaphysics which relates to scientific physics? I thought you were the arch athiest so I could be wrong about this. That was a joy to read even if I've not understood it correctly.

 

[RaptorWizard]

[MENTION=235]SolitaryWalker[/MENTION] , you should write a book about your new cosmic theory of philosophy! To reconcile philosophy with physics is a task very few intellects have succeeded in accomplishing, fact fused theories.

 

[Lexicon]

[MENTION=235]SolitaryWalker[/MENTION] , you should write a book about your new cosmic theory of philosophy! To reconcile philosophy with physics is a task very few intellects have succeeded in accomplishing, fact fused theories.

Pretty sure that guy hasn't been here in years...
you new guys keep reviving dead threads.. this place is starting to resemble excavated ruins of times long past.

 

[The Outsider]

Pretty sure that guy hasn't been here in years...
you new guys keep reviving dead threads.. this place is starting to resemble excavated ruins of times long past.

The bones of the long dead should not bother you, Akhilleus.

 

[Lexicon]

The bones of the long dead should not bother you, Akhilleus.

..you know not what you speak of, child.
who knows what sleeping evil might be awakened- what plagues shall be unleashed upon man..

*ominous clouds gather on the horizon*

*eerie music*

..you've been warned.

 

[Blank]

FWIW: The whole argument is contingent on belief in the Christian god; however, there is nothing in the essay which necessitates the Christian god be involved at all. It is entirely possible for an apathetic god, multiple gods, (or no god) to exist for there to still be compatibility with the idea of the noumenal world. Furthermore, I would argue that [MENTION=235]SolitaryWalker[/MENTION]'s claims of a noumenal world are nothing more than arguments for skepticism, or that we cannot know anything beyond what we experience through the five senses. If this is true, then we should reject any claims to explain, describe, or conjecture about the noumenal world since (a.) it would be impossible to falsify those claims, (b.)it would be fruitless to describe something one has no knowledge of and can obtain no knowledge of.

Of course, one would argue that the word of god would be enough to supersede and allay these concerns; however, one must then consider what the word of god may be and how it could be proven to mankind. If it exists purely in the noumenal world, then it would be impossible for humans to interpret or understand. If it exists in the physical world, then it still must be proven to come from god--an arduous task indeed, for if we cannot experience the noumenal world, then how would it be possible to verify the word of god? No human could do it--it would take nothing less than divine intervention to prove it. Even then, according to the constructs built up within the essay, it's arguable as to whether or not man could experience divine intervention even if it happened to him directly. I would argue that he could not, and thus skepticism is the only reply a man could make in regard to metaphysical inquiries.

In conclusion, your argument, which I argue is the argument for skepticism, is groundless because you make claims to knowledge on which you can never have knowledge of. Furthermore, your arguments are not contingent on the Christian god.


P.S. Your concept of relativity is backwards. The faster an object travels, the slower time is around it. Thus, if you speed up, you will perceive yourself to age at the same rate while the world around you ages more rapidly and vice-versa.

 

[RaptorWizard]

RaptorWizard's responce to SolitaryWalker's My Metaphysical System thread:

The pursuit of physics, as SolitaryWalker’s article says, should be able to solve the ultimate questions of cosmology, those being: what is the world, how does it work, who made the world, what is the purpose of the world, what is our purpose, what is the ultimate nature of reality, what is the mind, does it exist independently of the body, what is the ultimate stuff they are made of, and how does this fit into the larger cosmological framework? These questions could finally answer the mystery of what life is, what the universe is, how cosmology works, and how we are related to it. Clearly there is purpose to such questions, as they show that there is mystery in life, these things being currently incapable for reliable knowledge, and that these great life mysteries are identifiable, and although we do not know the nature of these mysteries, they can be speculated upon, even if reliable knowledge of them eludes us. These metaphysical questions could perhaps be experienced and understood within the realm of human imagination. Hence, there is epistemology, the study of knowledge, and metaphysics, the study of ultimate reality. We must have metaphysical beliefs in order to ask meaningful questions, which can be verified into epistemology by science. Though the ultimate reality may possess a changeless stability, there may be a mysterious, ever changing force trapped within the essence of things, constantly in motion. The ever-vibrating force of entities seems immune to change. In order to grasp the changeless then, one must have access to infinite and eternal vision. In our phenomenal world then, it seems we have a combination of change and changelessness, though a more sophisticated sight could consist in constant change. The way force vibrates could also be a diagram of how our minds that are within time tend to perceive what is changeless and outside of time. Perhaps materiality is just a construct of the way our minds perceive the ultimate reality of immateriality. Our real selves then may receive salvation with God in the kingdom of heaven as we break away from the phenomenal world and unite with our real beings. Through science man should find meaning.