As natural as QFT seems today, my understanding is that in 1960, before many of the classic texts in the domain were published, the ideas still seemed quite strange. We would do well to remember that when we set out to search for other truths which we do not yet grasp.
:p
I give up. Good night.
Well then the term reptile is somewhat deceptive in evolutionary biology, and based more on some consensus about appearance. Fine. Whatever. The point is that the word metaphysics isn’t evocative in that way or any way, except in the context of its historical usage. As such, it cannot inform us in any way about any subject that isn’t the phenomenon of its acceptance as a field, and is not even a useful subject heading, being a hodgepodge. We can choose whether to continue to use it, and I don’t see why we should.
“X is a metaphysic” becomes “X is somehow a model (of something), but I’m not sure how”. “Y is metaphysical” becomes “Y is about or related to a model (somehow)”. I assume my understanding is correct, since you didn’t correct it. “sloppily-general” is then indeed kind of far from the intended meaning, but that’s just because it’s a terrible coinage.
Elsewhere, somebody posted a link to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy’s definition of metaphysics. They say right in the intro that they haven’t found a good way to define it. The Wikipedia article on metaphysics’s body implies a different definition than its opening paragraph. In common parlance, it’s used for some vague spiritualish thing. And your definition is different from all of these. Do you think that the term could reasonably be expected to be understood the way you intended it to?
“Metaphysical” isn’t vague in a somewhat precise way. It isn’t even evocative, as its convoluted etymology prevents even that. It’s just vague and used by philosophers.
The greatest common factor of readers isn’t even here. The point is more to be understood by readers at all. Don’t make your writing more obscure than it needs to be. Hard concepts are hard enough as is, without making the fricking idea of “somehow a model” worth 3 hours’ worth of discussion.
My claim was not about the general lack of utility of buckets. Briefly, the reptile bucket is useful because reptiles are similar to one another, and thus having a way to refer to them all is handy. There is apparently no such justification for “metaphysics”, except in the sense that its contents are related by history. But this clearly isn’t the use you want to make of this bucket.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but “They are probably making some implicit metaphysical claims about what it means for some object(A) to be a simulation of some other object(B).” and “They are probably making some implicit claims about what it means for some object(A) to be a simulation of some other object(B)” mean exactly the same thing.
Why would generality be opposed to falsifiability? Wouldn’t having a model be more general lead to easier falsifiability, given that the model should apply more broadly?
In order to tell whether something is performing a computation, you try to find some way to get the object to exhibit the computation it is (allegedly) making. So—if I understand correctly—then a model is metaphysical, in the things you write, if applying it to a particular phenomenon requires an interpretation step which may or may not be known to be possible. How does this differ from any other model, except that you’re allowing yourself to be sloppy with it?
If you just replace “metaphysic” by “model”, “metaphysical assumptions” by “assumptions about our models and their applicability”, “metaphysical speculation” by “speculations based on our models”, I think the things you’re trying to say become clearer. If a bit less fancy-sounding.
If the thing I understood is the thing you tried to say.
Well that at least makes some sense. I was noticing that Wiki’s definition and the definition implied by its examples were in conflict. I don’t particularly see why the metaphysics bucket is convenient, though.
Is there any point in discussing metaphysics as anything other than a cultural phenomenon among philosophers?
If you would be so kind as to try and tell me what you mean by “metaphysic”, I would be much less confused.
You might be better off studying mathematics, then.
What?
If you’ve read a couple dozen pages of that and didn’t like it, you’re probably not going to like the rest.
A couple dozen pages of Dresden Codak is almost a third of the entire thing...
Perhaps it’s just me, but I think it’s sufficiently short that the naïve strategy (start at the beginning, click next until you get to the end) would work in this case.
(Incidentally, when you get to Hob #9, remember to read the description at the bottom of the page.)
Extremely large numbers.
(among other things)
Metaphysics can’t even be a thing in a web of belief! It’s more a box for a bunch of things, with a tag that says “Ooo”. Unless you want to define it otherwise, or I’m more confused than I think I am. So the category only makes sense if you want to use it to describe your feelings for some given subject. Why would that be a good way to frame a field of study?
That’s what I suspect is problem with metaphysics; not the things in the box, which are arbitrary, rather that the box messes up your filing system.
Ok, so now I’ve read the Wikipedia article, and now I’m unconvinced that when people use the term they mean what it says they mean. I know at least some people who definitely used “metaphysical” in the sense of “spiritual”. What do you mean by metaphysics?
Also unconvinced that it has any reason to be thought of as a single subject. I get the impression that the only reason these topics are together is that they feel “big”.
But I will grant you that given Wiki’s definition of metaphysics, there is no reason to think that it is in principle incapable of providing useful works. I revise my position to state that arguments should not be dismissed because they are metaphysical, but rather because they are bad. Furthermore, I suspect that “metaphysics” is just a bad category, and should, as much as possible, be expunged from one’s thinking.
As an experiment, replace ‘metaphysics’ and ‘metaphysical’ with ‘theology’ and ‘theological’ or ‘spirituality’ and ‘spiritual’. Then the confusion is obvious.
Unless I don’t understand what you mean by metaphysics, and just have all those terms bunched up in my head for no reason, which is also possible.
Just as there are odors that dogs can smell and we cannot, as well as sounds that dogs can hear and we cannot, so too there are wavelengths of light we cannot see and flavors we cannot taste. Why then, given our brains wired the way they are, does the remark, “Perhaps there are thoughts we cannot think,” surprise you?
Richard Hamming
Don’t just read it; fight it! Ask your own questions, look for your own examples, discover your own proofs. Is the hypothesis necessary? Is the converse true? What happens in the classical special case? What about the degenerate case? Where does the proof use the hypothesis?
Paul Halmos
Pedantry and mastery are opposite attitudes toward rules. To apply a rule to the letter, rigidly, unquestioningly, in cases where it fits and in cases where it does not fit, is pedantry. … To apply a rule with natural ease, with judgment, noticing the cases where it fits, and without ever letting the words of the rule obscure the purpose of the action or the opportunities of the situation, is mastery.
George Pólya, How to Solve It
Essentially, yes. They just happened to have had a string of sixes when they threw the dice, culminating in prominence. If you suppose that the crank-susceptible scientists significantly outnumber the crank-immune, you get predictions which resemble our observations that many prominent scientists are susceptible to crank.
Where by crank-susceptible I mean, approximately, susceptible to infection by crank...