6

What is the "mainstream metaphysical view"? According to the only more or less reliable source I am aware of, which is the PhilPapers survey of philosophy professionals, the mainstream view is Accept or lean toward: non-skeptical realism 760 / 931 (81.6%) This assumes that you take metaphysics to mean ontology. If you follow the Kantian ...


5

Emergence isn't necessarily about smaller to bigger, although it is a property of groups or interactions. It is something that happens in intermediate states between absolutely chaotic behaviour and rigidly ordered systems. It can occur from very small scales, like whirlpools/vortices, or crystal nuclei, or ripples, beginning with half a dozen molecules, but ...


4

I think there is a dialog with Socrates that has to do with this somewhat. It's called the tale of the ring of Gyges. In Republic, the tale of the ring of Gyges is described by the character of Glaucon who is the brother of Plato. Glaucon asks whether any man can be so virtuous that he could resist the temptation of killing, robbing, raping, or generally ...


2

Non-reductive materialism is simply a combindation of substance monism and property dualism. There are two highest types of property, physical and mental (property dualism), inhering in one and the same type of substance, material (substance monism). Monisms (1), dualisms (2), nihilisms (0) and pluralisms (3+) generally have the unit that they count in their ...


2

The features that a system exhibits, which are not present on individual constituent subsystems, are called emergent. For example, any point in a group of points that define a simple geometric form, like a square or a triangle, can't have a dimension. But a set of points can. So, dimensions are an emergent property of systems made by points. Equivalent ...


2

The version of the Cosmological Argument you present is a caricature that no significant philosopher ever defended. This isn't your fault. The version you describe is basically the version that is presented in most modern books and classrooms; it is what most modern philosophy professors think is the cosmological argument, but it isn't a serious argument ...


1

'Something can’t come from nothing.' This is true. Otherwise we'd better give up logic and reasoning. You know this empirical world we perceive is the effect of our five senses and mind. You might have felt that we, humans, are not better than some creatures in the case of certain perception. The reality must be something else; we can certainly say so. ...


1

Emergence is a general concept and it seems you're concerned with it as a specific philosophical position regarding natural or social phenomena which is termed as Emergentism usually employed in philosophy of mind and related living creatures, self-organising systems, and complex systems: Other varieties see mind or consciousness as specifically and ...


1

Supernatural claims have evidence against them from the outset of the claim these days. We have seen the history of many similar claims never having been proven. Ever since Thales and the birth of science, deity based explanations for things have been shrinking. Science has never been overturned by a supernatural explanation, whereas the reverse happens ...


1

‘Good’ science treats all claims equally: if the claim can be proven to be correct then our understanding of science is enlarged or refined to accommodate it. The vast majority of observations fit in with existing knowledge and will receive little scrutiny, while those that don’t fit are scrutinised carefully to see what can be learned.


1

This is not a very well-defined question. Essentially, you are asking to compare two infinities, that is, to find their ratio: inf/inf. In general, the answer -- well known to mathematicians -- is to examine the processes that caused you arrive at infinity -- to examine the limit: lim (x -> inf, y -> inf) x/y = ? Without further specifying what kind of ...


1

The harmonic ratios in music are a consequence of the fact that when you set up conditions to support a standing wave of frequency f (such as a string under tension or a closed or half-closed tube of air), it will also support two standing waves of frequency 2f, three standing waves of frequency 3f, etc. For example if you pluck a string, the middle of the ...


1

The possibility that something causes itself should be excluded as a cause would need to exist first before it could cause anything. This would apply also to the notion of creation. The idea that A causes B is essentially ordinary physical causality, which is irrelevant here. Thus, the notion of cause should be further specified as A causes B to exist, i.e., ...


1

"In philosophy, supervenience refers to a relation between sets of properties or sets of facts. X is said to supervene on Y if and only if some difference in Y is necessary for any difference in X to be possible. Here are some examples: Whether there is a table in the living room supervenes on the positions of molecules in the living room. The truth ...


1

Not only is there, some philosophers and it seems most physicists say the original PSR is invalidated by quantum mechanics. Only a weaker version can be defended. One that says roughly "if there is no sufficient reason, there is a sufficient reason for why there is none". R. Kane A philosopher "Not every sub-atomic event has a sufficient, i.e.,...


1

It sounds like Haecceity may be a philosophical term for your concern: Haecceity is a term from medieval scholastic philosophy, first coined by followers of Duns Scotus to denote a concept that he seems to have originated: the discrete qualities, properties or characteristics of a thing that make it a particular thing. Haecceity is a person's or object's ...


1

You mean like, how subatomic particles have quantum properties that disappear at the macroscopic scale? That's also emergence. Specifically, the classical properties emerge from the quantum ones. See the composition fallacy.


1

Obviously nothing is not a thing that can exist, and what does exist is nature (Gk: Physis) -- existence that "changes form" as you write, or "goes back into itself even as it unfolds" as Heidegger interprets Aristotle as he defines nature, (Sheehan 1998). From section V. Even theories like quantum fluctuation and universal heat death do ...


1

You are asking about the validity of the permanence of existence. So you can confirm at least your existence from your question even though nothing exists except you. If you still deny your existence, there must be a cause (another existence) that controls you. And it can never be a non-existent thing even if it changed its form. As in the case of existence, ...


1

MUH does sound exactly like what you're looking for in your OP. Regarding your remaining concern: Tegmark they didn't write anything about substances and abstract/concrete objects, his arguments are mostly from a scientific perspective. First of all MUH is entirely math based thus it describes anything from a fully scientific perspective, not even mostly. ...


1

Tegmark really does go as far as claiming reality is ontologically only a set of abstract entities with relations between them. These entities have no intrinsic qualities. He believes physics and eventually biology and neuroscience will eventually have equivalent "baggageless" descriptions of reality and subjective experience that will live purely ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible