Is there more to reality than today's physical world?

Discuss any topics related to metaphysics (the philosophical study of the principles of reality) or epistemology (the philosophical study of knowledge) in this forum.
User avatar
Sculptor1
Posts: 7091
Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am

Re: Is there more to reality than today's physical world?

Post by Sculptor1 »

Steve3007 wrote: October 6th, 2021, 5:08 am
Sculptor1 wrote:Before the Big Bang?
This is a non question. It's not so much that I would want to insist that it is impossible for there to have been any thing before the BB, though that is what is likely to be the case since the proposition is that time itself began at that moment.
I agree, and I said the same thing in the passage that you quoted: If the theory holds that time itself came into existence with the BB then, as we've said, it would be self-contradictory to both agree with that theory and to propose that anything could have come before the BB.
No, my objection is more like the idea that the BB is essentially an end game for empirical evidence. There comes a time when all forensic evidence for what went before is wiped out.
Its a bit like trying to reconstruct the educational CV with only the ashes of a man who has just been cremated.
Yes, that seems like a reasonable point. I would add: In more familiar circumstances where we're reasonably confident that the laws of physics are consistent then even for situations where all forensic evidence has been wiped out, we can at least take a stab at what might have happened. But in the case of the BB we're reasonably sure that the laws of physics as we understand them to apply now are only special-case approximations. The special case being conditions where the universe is relatively cold and diffuse.
Gosh a rare case of agreement on a philosophy Forum.
It would seem to me that my remarks are a no brainer. And so puzzles me why people think they have anything to say on the matter.
I am perfectly happy to entertain the idea the the BB exploded into something, but it is beyond sense common sense to speculate upon what that might have been from a giant infinite cherry blancmange to a universe filled with flies.
stevie
Posts: 762
Joined: July 19th, 2021, 11:08 am

Re: Is there more to reality than today's physical world?

Post by stevie »

Belindi wrote: October 6th, 2021, 5:07 am
stevie wrote: October 6th, 2021, 2:23 am
3017Metaphysician wrote: October 5th, 2021, 12:46 pm
stevie wrote: October 2nd, 2021, 12:41 am
There are publically observable phenomena which can be categorized as 'materiality' and are accessible for the five senses of all humans with fuctioning senses and there are exclusively privately observable phenomena like emotions, feeelings, volition etc. which can be categorized as 'mentality' and are not accessible for the five senses - people usually agree to share this mentality although they cannot directly observe each others mentality.
Any assertion of phenomena beyond these two categories is necessarily merely a speculative fabrication.
stevie!

Is that speculation 'public' or 'private'?
This isn't a speculation. Why? Because it is a fabrircation of thought but not speculative fabrication. Why not a speculative fabrication? Because neither do I assert the thought to be or represent truth nor do I speculate that it might be true.
Metaphysician has broached a topic that needs investigating. All ideas are fabrications without, of course,the connotation of deliberate deceit! Fabrication goes without saying except as we know 'fabrication' is often used as a posh word for a lie.

Speculation, claim, heuristic, proposition, tentative claim, hypothesis, or theory each describe a different attitude towards the content of a proposition. A proposition is general and basic whereas the others are additional meanings and intentions.
:?: What is the intention of your remark? Do you want me to explain the intended meaning of one or several of my words?
mankind ... must act and reason and believe; though they are not able, by their most diligent enquiry, to satisfy themselves concerning the foundation of these operations, or to remove the objections, which may be raised against them [Hume]
Belindi
Moderator
Posts: 6105
Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm

Re: Is there more to reality than today's physical world?

Post by Belindi »

stevie wrote: October 6th, 2021, 7:55 am
Belindi wrote: October 6th, 2021, 5:07 am
stevie wrote: October 6th, 2021, 2:23 am
3017Metaphysician wrote: October 5th, 2021, 12:46 pm

stevie!

Is that speculation 'public' or 'private'?
This isn't a speculation. Why? Because it is a fabrircation of thought but not speculative fabrication. Why not a speculative fabrication? Because neither do I assert the thought to be or represent truth nor do I speculate that it might be true.
Metaphysician has broached a topic that needs investigating. All ideas are fabrications without, of course,the connotation of deliberate deceit! Fabrication goes without saying except as we know 'fabrication' is often used as a posh word for a lie.

Speculation, claim, heuristic, proposition, tentative claim, hypothesis, or theory each describe a different attitude towards the content of a proposition. A proposition is general and basic whereas the others are additional meanings and intentions.
:?: What is the intention of your remark? Do you want me to explain the intended meaning of one or several of my words?
It wasn't a remark it was a suggestion that it may be useful for posters to explain the belief status of their ideas. This was not directed at you especially it was as also directed at myself and others.
Your post was Okay.
Steve3007
Posts: 10339
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm

Re: Is there more to reality than today's physical world?

Post by Steve3007 »

Sculptor1 wrote:It would seem to me that my remarks are a no brainer. And so puzzles me why people think they have anything to say on the matter.
I think one reason why these things are argued over so much is that there's so much muddled thinking and word-abuse when it comes to any discussion involving time. Obviously there's no logical reason why time shouldn't be finite. But equally obviously it's impossible to intuitively imagine what that's like, because it isn't like anything. So people naturally tend to say things like: "Yes but even if spacetime was created in the BB, something must have preceded that". They often don't seem to see the self-contradiction in that statement.
stevie
Posts: 762
Joined: July 19th, 2021, 11:08 am

Re: Is there more to reality than today's physical world?

Post by stevie »

Belindi wrote: October 7th, 2021, 4:21 am
stevie wrote: October 6th, 2021, 7:55 am
Belindi wrote: October 6th, 2021, 5:07 am
stevie wrote: October 6th, 2021, 2:23 am

This isn't a speculation. Why? Because it is a fabrircation of thought but not speculative fabrication. Why not a speculative fabrication? Because neither do I assert the thought to be or represent truth nor do I speculate that it might be true.
Metaphysician has broached a topic that needs investigating. All ideas are fabrications without, of course,the connotation of deliberate deceit! Fabrication goes without saying except as we know 'fabrication' is often used as a posh word for a lie.

Speculation, claim, heuristic, proposition, tentative claim, hypothesis, or theory each describe a different attitude towards the content of a proposition. A proposition is general and basic whereas the others are additional meanings and intentions.
:?: What is the intention of your remark? Do you want me to explain the intended meaning of one or several of my words?
It wasn't a remark it was a suggestion that it may be useful for posters to explain the belief status of their ideas. This was not directed at you especially it was as also directed at myself and others.
Your post was Okay.
To explain the belief status of one's ideas is a great suggestion. Referring to the tentative categorization I developed in here in another thread my verbally expressed ideas are "individual utterances" (i.e. verbal expressions of thoughts that I neither do believe to be or represent truths nor believe to be or represent falsehoods).
mankind ... must act and reason and believe; though they are not able, by their most diligent enquiry, to satisfy themselves concerning the foundation of these operations, or to remove the objections, which may be raised against them [Hume]
User avatar
Sculptor1
Posts: 7091
Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am

Re: Is there more to reality than today's physical world?

Post by Sculptor1 »

Steve3007 wrote: October 7th, 2021, 8:20 am
Sculptor1 wrote:It would seem to me that my remarks are a no brainer. And so puzzles me why people think they have anything to say on the matter.
I think one reason why these things are argued over so much is that there's so much muddled thinking and word-abuse when it comes to any discussion involving time. Obviously there's no logical reason why time shouldn't be finite. But equally obviously it's impossible to intuitively imagine what that's like, because it isn't like anything. So people naturally tend to say things like: "Yes but even if spacetime was created in the BB, something must have preceded that". They often don't seem to see the self-contradiction in that statement.
I suppose I ought not be surprised where we see on a daily basis several people arguing with personal certainty about the content of God's mind.
User avatar
3017Metaphysician
Posts: 1621
Joined: July 9th, 2021, 8:59 am

Re: Is there more to reality than today's physical world?

Post by 3017Metaphysician »

stevie wrote: October 6th, 2021, 2:23 am
3017Metaphysician wrote: October 5th, 2021, 12:46 pm
stevie wrote: October 2nd, 2021, 12:41 am
Is there more to reality than today's physical world?
There are publically observable phenomena which can be categorized as 'materiality' and are accessible for the five senses of all humans with fuctioning senses and there are exclusively privately observable phenomena like emotions, feeelings, volition etc. which can be categorized as 'mentality' and are not accessible for the five senses - people usually agree to share this mentality although they cannot directly observe each others mentality.
Any assertion of phenomena beyond these two categories is necessarily merely a speculative fabrication.
stevie!

Is that speculation 'public' or 'private'?
This isn't a speculation. Why? Because it is a fabrircation of thought but not speculative fabrication. Why not a speculative fabrication? Because neither do I assert the thought to be or represent truth nor do I speculate that it might be true.
stevie!

Thanks. Sorry it took so long to get back to you. Your reply kind of reminds me of Subjective Idealism: "Subjective idealism is a fusion of phenomenalism or empiricism, which confers special status upon the immediately perceived, with idealism, which confers special status upon the mental. Idealism denies the knowability or existence of the non-mental, while phenomenalism serves to restrict the mental to the empirical. Subjective idealism thus identifies its mental reality with the world of ordinary experience... ."

If I'm correct in that interpretation of your reply (please correct me if I'm wrong) then it implies that one's own subjective truth (thoughts coming from experiences) is all that really matters. And the reason I interpreted this that way is because you are using the concepts of "fabrication of thought". And so, back to the OP, does this also lead to a similar metaphysical theory concerning your "fabrication of thought" process relative to sentient phenomena?

(The reason I ask that last question, is because you had used the concepts of "private" "feelings" "emotions" "volition" etc. which I understand those things-in-themselves to be metaphysical in nature... .)
“Concerning matter, we have been all wrong. What we have called matter is energy, whose vibration has been so lowered as to be perceptible to the senses. There is no matter.” "Spooky Action at a Distance"
― Albert Einstein
stevie
Posts: 762
Joined: July 19th, 2021, 11:08 am

Re: Is there more to reality than today's physical world?

Post by stevie »

3017Metaphysician wrote: October 26th, 2021, 1:08 pm
stevie wrote: October 6th, 2021, 2:23 am
3017Metaphysician wrote: October 5th, 2021, 12:46 pm
stevie wrote: October 2nd, 2021, 12:41 am
There are publically observable phenomena which can be categorized as 'materiality' and are accessible for the five senses of all humans with fuctioning senses and there are exclusively privately observable phenomena like emotions, feeelings, volition etc. which can be categorized as 'mentality' and are not accessible for the five senses - people usually agree to share this mentality although they cannot directly observe each others mentality.
Any assertion of phenomena beyond these two categories is necessarily merely a speculative fabrication.
stevie!

Is that speculation 'public' or 'private'?
This isn't a speculation. Why? Because it is a fabrircation of thought but not speculative fabrication. Why not a speculative fabrication? Because neither do I assert the thought to be or represent truth nor do I speculate that it might be true.
stevie!

Thanks. Sorry it took so long to get back to you. Your reply kind of reminds me of Subjective Idealism: "Subjective idealism is a fusion of phenomenalism or empiricism, which confers special status upon the immediately perceived, with idealism, which confers special status upon the mental. Idealism denies the knowability or existence of the non-mental, while phenomenalism serves to restrict the mental to the empirical. Subjective idealism thus identifies its mental reality with the world of ordinary experience... ."

If I'm correct in that interpretation of your reply (please correct me if I'm wrong) ...
Neither do I confer "special status upon the immediately perceived" nor do I confer "special status upon the mental". However in everday life it appears to me that people tend to come to agreements easier when the topic is about publically observable phenomena that are accessible for the five senses of all humans independent of beliefs and dissent does occur very often when the topic is about mere conceptual thought the affirmation of which seems to depend on beliefs. So across all ideologies, religions and philosophies people generally seem to confer more reliability to sense perceptions which again is the reason for the dominance of scientific knowledge in todays world.
The appropriateness of verbal expressions can be tested by everbody when these verbal expressions refer to sense perceptions but the appropriateness of verbal expressions that refer to mere conceptual thought cannot be tested unless these verbal expressions belong to the convention of a particular community of believers the hearer or reader of these expressions belongs to. Therefore every public utterance of verbal expressions that exlusively refers to mere conceptual thought doesn't make sense to me but is necessarily of speculative (mere belief) nature.
3017Metaphysician wrote: October 26th, 2021, 1:08 pm then it implies that one's own subjective truth (thoughts coming from experiences) is all that really matters. And the reason I interpreted this that way is because you are using the concepts of "fabrication of thought". And so, back to the OP, does this also lead to a similar metaphysical theory concerning your "fabrication of thought" process relative to sentient phenomena?

(The reason I ask that last question, is because you had used the concepts of "private" "feelings" "emotions" "volition" etc. which I understand those things-in-themselves to be metaphysical in nature... .)
The connotation of my use of "fabrication of thought" is 'mere construction' or 'mere synthesis' which doesn't necessarily impute falsehood but the affirmation of these seems to depend on individual beliefs.
"feelings" "emotions" "volition" is a linguistc convention to talk about phenomena that are conventionally held to be common to all humans but cannot be publically observed. So there is no metaphysical connotation.
As to your question: A theory applicable to my use of "fabrication of thought" might be one of behaviour theory or cognitive science (psychology) which deals with learning 'verbal behaviour'.
mankind ... must act and reason and believe; though they are not able, by their most diligent enquiry, to satisfy themselves concerning the foundation of these operations, or to remove the objections, which may be raised against them [Hume]
stevie
Posts: 762
Joined: July 19th, 2021, 11:08 am

Re: Is there more to reality than today's physical world?

Post by stevie »

3017Metaphysician wrote: October 26th, 2021, 1:08 pm

This expression needs to be corrected:
stevie wrote: October 27th, 2021, 3:52 am ....Therefore every public utterance of verbal expressions that exlusively refers to mere conceptual thought doesn't make sense to me but is necessarily of speculative (mere belief) nature.
While in the post you have quoted I have written "Any assertion of phenomena beyond these two categories is necessarily merely a speculative fabrication." I have forgotten to mention the important aspect 'assertion' here. Appropriately expressed the wording should be:
Therefore every public assertive utterance of verbal expressions that exlusively refers to mere conceptual thought doesn't make sense to me but is necessarily of speculative (mere belief) nature.
mankind ... must act and reason and believe; though they are not able, by their most diligent enquiry, to satisfy themselves concerning the foundation of these operations, or to remove the objections, which may be raised against them [Hume]
User avatar
3017Metaphysician
Posts: 1621
Joined: July 9th, 2021, 8:59 am

Re: Is there more to reality than today's physical world?

Post by 3017Metaphysician »

stevie wrote: October 27th, 2021, 3:52 am
3017Metaphysician wrote: October 26th, 2021, 1:08 pm
stevie wrote: October 6th, 2021, 2:23 am
3017Metaphysician wrote: October 5th, 2021, 12:46 pm

stevie!

Is that speculation 'public' or 'private'?
This isn't a speculation. Why? Because it is a fabrircation of thought but not speculative fabrication. Why not a speculative fabrication? Because neither do I assert the thought to be or represent truth nor do I speculate that it might be true.
stevie!

Thanks. Sorry it took so long to get back to you. Your reply kind of reminds me of Subjective Idealism: "Subjective idealism is a fusion of phenomenalism or empiricism, which confers special status upon the immediately perceived, with idealism, which confers special status upon the mental. Idealism denies the knowability or existence of the non-mental, while phenomenalism serves to restrict the mental to the empirical. Subjective idealism thus identifies its mental reality with the world of ordinary experience... ."

If I'm correct in that interpretation of your reply (please correct me if I'm wrong) ...
Neither do I confer "special status upon the immediately perceived" nor do I confer "special status upon the mental". However in everday life it appears to me that people tend to come to agreements easier when the topic is about publically observable phenomena that are accessible for the five senses of all humans independent of beliefs and dissent does occur very often when the topic is about mere conceptual thought the affirmation of which seems to depend on beliefs. So across all ideologies, religions and philosophies people generally seem to confer more reliability to sense perceptions which again is the reason for the dominance of scientific knowledge in todays world.
The appropriateness of verbal expressions can be tested by everbody when these verbal expressions refer to sense perceptions but the appropriateness of verbal expressions that refer to mere conceptual thought cannot be tested unless these verbal expressions belong to the convention of a particular community of believers the hearer or reader of these expressions belongs to. Therefore every public utterance of verbal expressions that exlusively refers to mere conceptual thought doesn't make sense to me but is necessarily of speculative (mere belief) nature.
3017Metaphysician wrote: October 26th, 2021, 1:08 pm then it implies that one's own subjective truth (thoughts coming from experiences) is all that really matters. And the reason I interpreted this that way is because you are using the concepts of "fabrication of thought". And so, back to the OP, does this also lead to a similar metaphysical theory concerning your "fabrication of thought" process relative to sentient phenomena?

(The reason I ask that last question, is because you had used the concepts of "private" "feelings" "emotions" "volition" etc. which I understand those things-in-themselves to be metaphysical in nature... .)
The connotation of my use of "fabrication of thought" is 'mere construction' or 'mere synthesis' which doesn't necessarily impute falsehood but the affirmation of these seems to depend on individual beliefs.
"feelings" "emotions" "volition" is a linguistc convention to talk about phenomena that are conventionally held to be common to all humans but cannot be publically observed. So there is no metaphysical connotation.
As to your question: A theory applicable to my use of "fabrication of thought" might be one of behaviour theory or cognitive science (psychology) which deals with learning 'verbal behaviour'.
If we were trying to arrive at some sense of physical/meta-physical truth or understanding (first principles of Being), that is associated with your concepts of cognition, then you would not be correct. The "fabrication of thought" in and of itself is not physical. Unless of course, you were able to explain and describe them as such. The/your fabrication structure , in this case, would be coming from the Will (see Voluntarism).

However, since you were able to explain/describe as a "construction" that act of cognition (the cognitive process itself) one is still left with the concept of metaphysically abstract structures to help describe your mental phenomena that you seem to be suggesting. Hence, Structuralism may/may not help you in this case:

Structuralism: The belief that phenomena of human life are not intelligible except through their interrelations. These relations constitute a structure, and behind local variations in the surface phenomena there are constant laws of abstract structure.

Please share some clarification if you can.
“Concerning matter, we have been all wrong. What we have called matter is energy, whose vibration has been so lowered as to be perceptible to the senses. There is no matter.” "Spooky Action at a Distance"
― Albert Einstein
stevie
Posts: 762
Joined: July 19th, 2021, 11:08 am

Re: Is there more to reality than today's physical world?

Post by stevie »

3017Metaphysician wrote: October 27th, 2021, 9:36 am
stevie wrote: October 27th, 2021, 3:52 am
3017Metaphysician wrote: October 26th, 2021, 1:08 pm
stevie wrote: October 6th, 2021, 2:23 am

This isn't a speculation. Why? Because it is a fabrircation of thought but not speculative fabrication. Why not a speculative fabrication? Because neither do I assert the thought to be or represent truth nor do I speculate that it might be true.
stevie!

Thanks. Sorry it took so long to get back to you. Your reply kind of reminds me of Subjective Idealism: "Subjective idealism is a fusion of phenomenalism or empiricism, which confers special status upon the immediately perceived, with idealism, which confers special status upon the mental. Idealism denies the knowability or existence of the non-mental, while phenomenalism serves to restrict the mental to the empirical. Subjective idealism thus identifies its mental reality with the world of ordinary experience... ."

If I'm correct in that interpretation of your reply (please correct me if I'm wrong) ...
Neither do I confer "special status upon the immediately perceived" nor do I confer "special status upon the mental". However in everday life it appears to me that people tend to come to agreements easier when the topic is about publically observable phenomena that are accessible for the five senses of all humans independent of beliefs and dissent does occur very often when the topic is about mere conceptual thought the affirmation of which seems to depend on beliefs. So across all ideologies, religions and philosophies people generally seem to confer more reliability to sense perceptions which again is the reason for the dominance of scientific knowledge in todays world.
The appropriateness of verbal expressions can be tested by everbody when these verbal expressions refer to sense perceptions but the appropriateness of verbal expressions that refer to mere conceptual thought cannot be tested unless these verbal expressions belong to the convention of a particular community of believers the hearer or reader of these expressions belongs to. Therefore every public utterance of verbal expressions that exlusively refers to mere conceptual thought doesn't make sense to me but is necessarily of speculative (mere belief) nature.
3017Metaphysician wrote: October 26th, 2021, 1:08 pm then it implies that one's own subjective truth (thoughts coming from experiences) is all that really matters. And the reason I interpreted this that way is because you are using the concepts of "fabrication of thought". And so, back to the OP, does this also lead to a similar metaphysical theory concerning your "fabrication of thought" process relative to sentient phenomena?

(The reason I ask that last question, is because you had used the concepts of "private" "feelings" "emotions" "volition" etc. which I understand those things-in-themselves to be metaphysical in nature... .)
The connotation of my use of "fabrication of thought" is 'mere construction' or 'mere synthesis' which doesn't necessarily impute falsehood but the affirmation of these seems to depend on individual beliefs.
"feelings" "emotions" "volition" is a linguistc convention to talk about phenomena that are conventionally held to be common to all humans but cannot be publically observed. So there is no metaphysical connotation.
As to your question: A theory applicable to my use of "fabrication of thought" might be one of behaviour theory or cognitive science (psychology) which deals with learning 'verbal behaviour'.
If we were trying to arrive at some sense of physical/meta-physical truth or understanding (first principles of Being), that is associated with your concepts of cognition, then you would not be correct. The "fabrication of thought" in and of itself is not physical. Unless of course, you were able to explain and describe them as such. The/your fabrication structure , in this case, would be coming from the Will (see Voluntarism).
"physical/meta-physical truth or understanding (first principles of Being)" belongs to a universe that is alien to me (metaphorically speaking).
3017Metaphysician wrote: October 27th, 2021, 9:36 am However, since you were able to explain/describe as a "construction" that act of cognition (the cognitive process itself) one is still left with the concept of metaphysically abstract structures to help describe your mental phenomena that you seem to be suggesting. Hence, Structuralism may/may not help you in this case:

Structuralism: The belief that phenomena of human life are not intelligible except through their interrelations. These relations constitute a structure, and behind local variations in the surface phenomena there are constant laws of abstract structure.

Please share some clarification if you can.
When I say that a theory might be "one of behaviour theory or cognitive science (psychology) which deals with learning 'verbal behaviour'" then this refers exclusively to the way of "speaking about" and does not refer in any way to conceived "truth(s)" or a conceived "reality". Maybe this aspect of non-belief is incompatible with your metaphysical outlook that there would be always lurking some "truth" or "reality" behind what one says ...?
mankind ... must act and reason and believe; though they are not able, by their most diligent enquiry, to satisfy themselves concerning the foundation of these operations, or to remove the objections, which may be raised against them [Hume]
User avatar
3017Metaphysician
Posts: 1621
Joined: July 9th, 2021, 8:59 am

Re: Is there more to reality than today's physical world?

Post by 3017Metaphysician »

stevie wrote: October 27th, 2021, 9:58 am
3017Metaphysician wrote: October 27th, 2021, 9:36 am
stevie wrote: October 27th, 2021, 3:52 am
3017Metaphysician wrote: October 26th, 2021, 1:08 pm

stevie!

Thanks. Sorry it took so long to get back to you. Your reply kind of reminds me of Subjective Idealism: "Subjective idealism is a fusion of phenomenalism or empiricism, which confers special status upon the immediately perceived, with idealism, which confers special status upon the mental. Idealism denies the knowability or existence of the non-mental, while phenomenalism serves to restrict the mental to the empirical. Subjective idealism thus identifies its mental reality with the world of ordinary experience... ."

If I'm correct in that interpretation of your reply (please correct me if I'm wrong) ...
Neither do I confer "special status upon the immediately perceived" nor do I confer "special status upon the mental". However in everday life it appears to me that people tend to come to agreements easier when the topic is about publically observable phenomena that are accessible for the five senses of all humans independent of beliefs and dissent does occur very often when the topic is about mere conceptual thought the affirmation of which seems to depend on beliefs. So across all ideologies, religions and philosophies people generally seem to confer more reliability to sense perceptions which again is the reason for the dominance of scientific knowledge in todays world.
The appropriateness of verbal expressions can be tested by everbody when these verbal expressions refer to sense perceptions but the appropriateness of verbal expressions that refer to mere conceptual thought cannot be tested unless these verbal expressions belong to the convention of a particular community of believers the hearer or reader of these expressions belongs to. Therefore every public utterance of verbal expressions that exlusively refers to mere conceptual thought doesn't make sense to me but is necessarily of speculative (mere belief) nature.
3017Metaphysician wrote: October 26th, 2021, 1:08 pm then it implies that one's own subjective truth (thoughts coming from experiences) is all that really matters. And the reason I interpreted this that way is because you are using the concepts of "fabrication of thought". And so, back to the OP, does this also lead to a similar metaphysical theory concerning your "fabrication of thought" process relative to sentient phenomena?

(The reason I ask that last question, is because you had used the concepts of "private" "feelings" "emotions" "volition" etc. which I understand those things-in-themselves to be metaphysical in nature... .)
The connotation of my use of "fabrication of thought" is 'mere construction' or 'mere synthesis' which doesn't necessarily impute falsehood but the affirmation of these seems to depend on individual beliefs.
"feelings" "emotions" "volition" is a linguistc convention to talk about phenomena that are conventionally held to be common to all humans but cannot be publically observed. So there is no metaphysical connotation.
As to your question: A theory applicable to my use of "fabrication of thought" might be one of behaviour theory or cognitive science (psychology) which deals with learning 'verbal behaviour'.
If we were trying to arrive at some sense of physical/meta-physical truth or understanding (first principles of Being), that is associated with your concepts of cognition, then you would not be correct. The "fabrication of thought" in and of itself is not physical. Unless of course, you were able to explain and describe them as such. The/your fabrication structure , in this case, would be coming from the Will (see Voluntarism).
"physical/meta-physical truth or understanding (first principles of Being)" belongs to a universe that is alien to me (metaphorically speaking).

[/i]
3017Metaphysician wrote: October 27th, 2021, 9:36 am However, since you were able to explain/describe as a "construction" that act of cognition (the cognitive process itself) one is still left with the concept of metaphysically abstract structures to help describe your mental phenomena that you seem to be suggesting. Hence, Structuralism may/may not help you in this case:

Structuralism: The belief that phenomena of human life are not intelligible except through their interrelations. These relations constitute a structure, and behind local variations in the surface phenomena there are constant laws of abstract structure.

Please share some clarification if you can.
When I say that a theory might be "one of behaviour theory or cognitive science (psychology) which deals with learning 'verbal behaviour'" then this refers exclusively to the way of "speaking about" and does not refer in any way to conceived "truth(s)" or a conceived "reality". Maybe this aspect of non-belief is incompatible with your metaphysical outlook that there would be always lurking some "truth" or "reality" behind what one says ...?
1. Metaphysics: the branch of philosophy that deals with the first principles of things, including abstract concepts such as being, knowing, substance, cause, identity, time, and space.


Existentially, I will submit that we are unable to escape the dichotomy of both the physical and meta-physical constructs of mental phenomena.

2. With respect to the point about "speaking about", some argue (Deconstructionist) that the written word is secondary to the spoken word. And just like say, music theory 'itself' is secondary to the phenomenon of music 'itself' (with minor exception, the sound of music came first, then another mentally figured it out and wrote it down and created structure known as sheet music) we are left with the actual cognitive phenomena itself that drives or causes the logic of written language. And so that thing-in-itself that moves a thought forward (advances any thought at all) we can at least understand its truth to be associated with the Will, which is metaphysical. In either case, language itself is another abstract structure that is developed/created/ by conscious creatures. (Again, check out Voluntarism.)

And so all I'm saying there is that by going back to your notion of 'public v. private' we have this 'truth' about sensing our reality that seems to utlize both. It's 'private' in the sense of its subjective idealism, and it's' public' because most everyone feels their own Will/volition to be the driving force behind cognition, feeling and the expression of same.

One simple takeaway is that, if there is more to physical reality itself, that reality resides in the phenomena of consciousness and self-awareness. With respect to the OP, mental activity can only exist as a transcendent phenomena. All the while, the Structuralist might be more comfortable using the concept of 'abstract structure' to describe its existence.

Those are just some more interpretations of what is "behind what one says"...
“Concerning matter, we have been all wrong. What we have called matter is energy, whose vibration has been so lowered as to be perceptible to the senses. There is no matter.” "Spooky Action at a Distance"
― Albert Einstein
stevie
Posts: 762
Joined: July 19th, 2021, 11:08 am

Re: Is there more to reality than today's physical world?

Post by stevie »

3017Metaphysician wrote: October 27th, 2021, 11:25 am ...
And so all I'm saying there is that by going back to your notion of 'public v. private' we have this 'truth' about sensing our reality that seems to utlize both. It's 'private' in the sense of its subjective idealism, and it's' public' because most everyone feels their own Will/volition to be the driving force behind cognition, feeling and the expression of same.
I think what I expressed in the context of 'public v. private' does not correspond with what appears to me as your expression of your understanding of what I expressed. Especially I would not associate the concepts of "truth", "reality" and "will" with what I have expressed. To me it appears as if you have studied quite a few different philosophical perspectives and are trying to subsume verbal expressions you encounter under these perspectives because these are familiar to you. But that's fine because from my perspective the purpose of posting here and having conversations is that the words of one user inspire thoughts of [an]other user[s] which then are expressed verbally in writing depending on the conceptual framing(s) available and applied. Our conceptual framings might be quite different.
3017Metaphysician wrote: October 27th, 2021, 11:25 am One simple takeaway is that, if there is more to physical reality itself, that reality resides in the phenomena of consciousness and self-awareness. With respect to the OP, mental activity can only exist as a transcendent phenomena. All the while, the Structuralist might be more comfortable using the concept of 'abstract structure' to describe its existence.

Those are just some more interpretations of what is "behind what one says"...
Thanks.
mankind ... must act and reason and believe; though they are not able, by their most diligent enquiry, to satisfy themselves concerning the foundation of these operations, or to remove the objections, which may be raised against them [Hume]
User avatar
paradox
Posts: 89
Joined: November 1st, 2021, 12:32 pm

Re: Is there more to reality than today's physical world?

Post by paradox »

3017Metaphysician wrote: October 1st, 2021, 12:10 pm I was inspired by some other threads about the question of what was happening before the Big Bang
Scientifically BB creation theory includes beginning of time not jut matter, therefore asking what was there before, is an invalid question because there couldn't have been anything because there was no time for anything to be.

This is however limitation of the physical laws (and inherently BB theory), but not necessarily a limitation of our consciousness.
That's where theory of nothing fits in because it goes beyond beginning of time "but not too far", it goes not only beyond physical laws but also beyond our consciousness, I would say, it goes out of reach, out of human reason.
3017Metaphysician wrote: October 1st, 2021, 12:10 pmand wanted to post another wonderfully lucid video that spoke to me.
The end of this video alludes to God and that's where paradox of our (common) consciousness manifests it self, can "nothing" really be God?
If yes then how can nothing do anything? :? (that's self-contradictory)
Is there more to reality than today's physical world?
I would say that the answer "I don't know" would be an insult to human intelligence.
User avatar
3017Metaphysician
Posts: 1621
Joined: July 9th, 2021, 8:59 am

Re: Is there more to reality than today's physical world?

Post by 3017Metaphysician »

paradox wrote: November 2nd, 2021, 7:40 am
3017Metaphysician wrote: October 1st, 2021, 12:10 pm I was inspired by some other threads about the question of what was happening before the Big Bang
Scientifically BB creation theory includes beginning of time not jut matter, therefore asking what was there before, is an invalid question because there couldn't have been anything because there was no time for anything to be.

This is however limitation of the physical laws (and inherently BB theory), but not necessarily a limitation of our consciousness.
That's where theory of nothing fits in because it goes beyond beginning of time "but not too far", it goes not only beyond physical laws but also beyond our consciousness, I would say, it goes out of reach, out of human reason.
3017Metaphysician wrote: October 1st, 2021, 12:10 pmand wanted to post another wonderfully lucid video that spoke to me.
The end of this video alludes to God and that's where paradox of our (common) consciousness manifests it self, can "nothing" really be God?
If yes then how can nothing do anything? :? (that's self-contradictory)
Is there more to reality than today's physical world?
I would say that the answer "I don't know" would be an insult to human intelligence.
Paradox! Love the handle!

No, I think you'd be mistaken on that one. The BB doesn't posit where the matter (Singularity) came from. Philosophically, one alternative in the theory, is that if mathematics (metaphysics) describes initial conditions before the BB, then a causational super-turtle (mathematical super-turtle) could be the first cause. Otherwise, using logic, we are back to either 'I don't know' or infinite regress.

In other words , in cosmology/metaphysics/logic, think about explaining whether 'all events must have a cause' is true judgement or not.

With respect to the 'nothingness' and 'I don't know' are you thinking human intelligence is infinite (instead of finite) in some way? (What do you mean by 'insult'?)

Welcome!
“Concerning matter, we have been all wrong. What we have called matter is energy, whose vibration has been so lowered as to be perceptible to the senses. There is no matter.” "Spooky Action at a Distance"
― Albert Einstein
Post Reply

Return to “Epistemology and Metaphysics”

2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise
by John K Danenbarger
January 2023

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023

The Unfakeable Code®

The Unfakeable Code®
by Tony Jeton Selimi
April 2023

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
by Alan Watts
May 2023

Killing Abel

Killing Abel
by Michael Tieman
June 2023

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead
by E. Alan Fleischauer
July 2023

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough
by Mark Unger
August 2023

Predictably Irrational

Predictably Irrational
by Dan Ariely
September 2023

Artwords

Artwords
by Beatriz M. Robles
November 2023

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope
by Dr. Randy Ross
December 2023

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes
by Ali Master
February 2024

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
November 2022

The Smartest Person in the Room: The Root Cause and New Solution for Cybersecurity

The Smartest Person in the Room
by Christian Espinosa
December 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021