New answers tagged

0

In your first point where you say "everything came from nothing", we should be clear that what you're describing isn't really nothing. From the rest of your post, I think you understand this and meant something more like "nothing physical" but I just wanted to emphasize this. From nothing comes nothing. You talk about a "property of nothingness", but nothing ...


1

You might enjoy F.H.Bradley's Appearance and Reality, in which he analyses and sublates a list of everyday categories and distinctions. There is also G. S. Brown's Laws of Form, in which he presents a formal 'calculus of indications' where an 'indication' is a distinction or category-of-thought. There is also C.S Peirce, who did a great deal of work on ...


4

Interpreted narrowly, your question seems related to the problem of (data) fishing, where someone investigates hypothesis after hypothesis on the data until getting statistical significance on one (without correcting for the number of hypotheses considered), so that in all likelihood it was just a fluke. This is a well understood problem. Interpreted more ...


0

...that feeling that we are a separate entity from others and the world (even though many would say there is no real separation at all)... In eastern philosophies and spirituality it's mainly called "Non-duality" also Separateness or Connection duality and Duality to Oneness. According to this idea mind and consciousness are two separated entities ...


0

Scientific Explanation and Intelligibility or Understanding. I believe the former is grounded in the Metaphysics of Causation while the latter is grounded in Epistemology. You have good intuitions, but it's a little more complicated than that. For instance, the sciences are certainly concerned with argumentation forms such as abduction, explanation, and ...


-1

I don't know if this is the same as you are asking for, but in the Cartesian point of view there is a bifurcation, called cartesian bifurcation, between the res extensa e the res cogitans. The "res extensa" is the latin for the extended thing, or the "external world". The "res cogitans" is the thinking thing, or the minds.


1

This is closely related to the "Cosmological Argument" for the existence of God. In one form it says that everything has a cause, the chain can't go back for ever, so the primary cause of everything must be God. You are including God in the cosmos so as presented that argument isn't going to work out of the box. A way out of this might be the "Ontological ...


3

He did not. Like the rest of scholastics, he reified geometric points, which, according to Euclid's "definition" (possibly, spurious), "has no part", and hence extension. As for the immateriality of (intellective) soul, he has an independent argument for that, namely that the material is necessarily/essentially individual, and hence can not hold a universal, ...


0

First of all, you can't fix time travel by getting the philosophy right - that's a wrong understanding of the nature of both physics and philosophy. Neither do I think there is only 'the solution': I think you'll find another solutions include simply the impossibility of time-travel, the Novikov self-consistency principle, or the many-world theory. But, to ...


0

That thought experiment can be explained by Hinduism/Shaivism as taught by the vedas see Shvetashvatara Upanishad: God, who is one only, is hidden in all beings. He is all-pervading, and is the inner self of all creatures. He presides over all actions, and all beings reside in Him. He is the witness, and He is the Pure Consciousness According to ...


0

If a metaphysical system is to take the nature of a formal axiomatic system, considering it is metaphysics (ie "being qua being"), it must describe the nature of that axiomatic systems as logic is a part of being. In these respects you are left with the metaphysical system self referencing itself under it's own rules and it becomes a tautology through its ...


0

Lewis' resolution is based on the distinction that one 'could' (have the physical capacity to) kill his or her grandfather but, ultimately 'would not' be able to do so (without creating a paradox.) We could consider the Novikov self-consistency principle, which assumes that there is a single timeline (thereby avoiding the many-worlds theory,) in order to ...


-1

I just call it dualism but this can cause misunderstandings. 'Global', 'Metaphysical' or 'Absolute' dualism might work. The problem is that there doesn't seem to be a precise term in general use. This may be because this form of dualism is rarely contemplated or considered where mysticism is rejected, so there's no need for such a term in the tradition of ...


-1

I cannot think of any term expressing directly this separation. The term " ipseity" ( selfhood) expresses the fact of having a relation to oneself, the fact of identifying oneself as a distinct entity. Locke, in Essay, II, 27 describes this property of self : " being to oneself what one calls oneself". Some concepts refer to the relation between the self ...


4

I think a theory must take the form of a formal axiomatic system. (1) it has to be axiomatic, since not all propositions can be proved ( one has to start somewhere) (2) it has to be formal in order the deductions inside the theory to be purely logical. If one accepts whet precedes, any metaphysical theory, qua theory, has to possess these two features. ...


1

The body without organs is neither an image of the potentialities of a given organization of an empirical body, nor a phase space per se; it is rather the condition of openness that subtends every phase space endowing the self-organization of virtual structure with pliability, or plasticity (thus linking it with the eternal return as the global structure of ...


1

Is it even possible to time travel without causally affecting the past? Yes, in only one direction: forward. Backwards time travel is impossible. The proof for this is simple: Backwards travel unrolls to forward travel. This is necessarily true in order to preserve causality. If one were to reset all things (except oneself as the time-traveler) to the ...


0

As far as anyone is aware, the universe consistently acts according to predictable laws (and scientific inquiry exists to determine those laws). Is there any metaphysical reason for this? Is such a question even answerable? Yes, the Universe and everything in it operates according to eternal laws. The laws by which all things function are unchanging. ...


Top 50 recent answers are included