Metaphysics topics are boring and a waste of time

[Pattern-chaser]

"The concept of existence is probably basic and primitive in the sense that it is not possible to produce an informative definition of it in terms that are more clearly understood and that would tell us something important and revealing about what it is for something to exist."

I think science shed light on this dilemma. Fundamental elements and forces give rise to processes which are able to produce more complex processes (physical structures, entities, substances,agents etc) with complex properties, interactions and finite duration.
SO everything that we can point as real (in existence) is a product of this mechanism.

Sherlock Holmes exists, but would not be detected or detectable according to you. Anticipating your response, I can see that Sherlock is not 'real' in the same way that Mount Rushmore is 'real'. But Sherlock, and the gazillion-billion other creations of human culture (including science, but not its subject matter) play significant roles in the lives we experience in the real world. To us, they are more significant than planetary motion or entropy. Whatever you call their 'reality', your philosophy needs to accomodate them, n'est ce pas?

[Bluemist]

Quarks, fields, elementary particles of matter, gravity, dark matter etc. are not "entities" but observable processes. Our symbolic terms (i.e.particles) give the impression of a postulated entity....when its only a descriptive label of a observable process with specific qualities. i.e A fundamental particle its not a ...lets say a "thing", an entity, but a energetic "glitch" of a field with specific measurable qualities. Our language "creates" this idea of an entity, when such an postulation isn't necessary at all!

Theoretical physics develops coherent mathematical theories that are founded on already proposed older mathematical theories. All properly scientific theories will predict potential observables.

Actual observables are the work of observational science.

When you use ontological terms such as process, exists, object/entity, essence, or being you have switched to philosophical metaphysical terminology that is not defined and is therefore meaningless in physics. The only reason for doing so is that the mathematics of physics cannot be expressed in either philosophical or in just plain ordinary language.

Physicists use 'exist' for purely communicational purposes. For example, the physical relations of Heisenberg uncertainty principles such as position-momentum and time-energy 'exist', or that virtual photons flitting in and out of 'existence' produce a randomly fluctuating electric field.

[Consul]

Sherlock Holmes exists, but would not be detected or detectable according to you. Anticipating your response, I can see that Sherlock is not 'real' in the same way that Mount Rushmore is 'real'.

No, fictional persons such as Sherlock Holmes don't exist and aren't real either.

[Consul]

I understand that this is a common usage of the word entity.....but can be put forces and fields under that label, since they are phenomena that cause entities to exist....That is a good question!

Nonentities cannot cause anything.

Sure quantum field theory is our working hypothesis, but it is a product of our ability to detect physical interactions by quanta. So its not an arbitrary theoretical concept...it has empirical foundations. Even if QFT is falsified, we will still have to work with quanta!

Despite its name, there's also a particle interpretation of QFT: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/quan ... eory/#Part

To exist either means to be a product of a process or to be able to cause other processes, in short, to display physical properties and causal interactions through time.

No, that's not what "to exist" means. You're defining uncaused entities, causally impotent (epiphenomenal) entities, and nonphysical entities out of existence, which you shouldn't do.

The fact that a concept is fundamental doesn't limit our ability to describe it....but only the limitations in our observations. So this evaluation, again, is limited inside our physical world and we can only talk about this realm!

To say that a concept is indefinable is not to say that nothing can be said about it.
We certainly can and do talk about nonphysical entities.

[Pattern-chaser]

Sherlock Holmes exists, but would not be detected or detectable according to you. Anticipating your response, I can see that Sherlock is not 'real' in the same way that Mount Rushmore is 'real'.

No, fictional persons such as Sherlock Holmes don't exist and aren't real either.

...and yet, as I said, these 'unreal' things influence the real lives that we live and experience in the real world. I suggest your philosophy is incomplete if it can't deal with these things.

[Consul]

No, fictional persons such as Sherlock Holmes don't exist and aren't real either.

...and yet, as I said, these 'unreal' things influence the real lives that we live and experience in the real world. I suggest your philosophy is incomplete if it can't deal with these things.

We are influenced not by fictional persons or objects themselves but by our cultural representations of them, especially the texts written by Arthur Conan Doyle. The individual concept or idea of Sherlock Holmes exists, and so do our corresponding thoughts about him; but Sherlock Holmes himself doesn't exist.

[NickGaspar]

people believed that it was "possible" to turn lead in to gold....was that claim "possibly correct" ...ever?
Possibility need to be demonstrated in my opinion before we attempt to declare any claim possibly correct.

Given a process or mechanism that uses radioactive decay, or something similar, to manipulate the lead atoms, turning them into gold atoms, we can see (with our current understanding) how such a thing could be possible.

But asking for such possibilities to be demonstrated is just another way of saying "I will not tolerate speculation until or unless someone can prove it possible, falsifiably so." The issues we are discussing are speculative. To consider them at all, we need to be willing to suspend our disbelief, just as we do at the cinema, or while reading Winnie the Pooh or Ursula LeGuin.

We are in an (intellectual) area where evidence is scarce or non-existent, and we have only logic - "logic" used in a wide, general and everyday sense - to guide us. No analysis. No verification or falsification. Not even any estimates of probability, for those also need evidence to work with. No certainty. Just philosophical interest and curiosity, and nothing more.

- Well I specifically stated "people believed",so I was referring to the hypothetical mechanism of the past known as "Chemical transmutation of elements " assumed as" possible" by Alchemists. Now we know that it is impossible through chemistry.
This is a great example why the term "possibly correct" should not be used on metaphysics claims. The same is true for invisible substances previously held responsible for phenomena with specific properties(Phlogiston).

The fact is that we can not say which metaphysical concept is possibly correct/incorrect and by avoiding to do so I can not see why you think that we are blocked from speculating. We are honest and satisfied by just addressing the "What if" aspect of an idea ...not to pretend to know what is possible.
That is a logical fallacy (Appeal to Possibility which includes the Argument from ignorance fallacy).
Its all about logic and how should we use its rules to construct our claims.

[NickGaspar]

I think science shed light on this dilemma. Fundamental elements and forces give rise to processes which are able to produce more complex processes (physical structures, entities, substances,agents etc) with complex properties, interactions and finite duration.
SO everything that we can point as real (in existence) is a product of this mechanism.

Sherlock Holmes exists, but would not be detected or detectable according to you. Anticipating your response, I can see that Sherlock is not 'real' in the same way that Mount Rushmore is 'real'. But Sherlock, and the gazillion-billion other creations of human culture (including science, but not its subject matter) play significant roles in the lives we experience in the real world. To us, they are more significant than planetary motion or entropy. Whatever you call their 'reality', your philosophy needs to accomodate them, n'est ce pas?

Well now we are confusing the "existence" of mental concepts with the existence of physical processes giving rise to entities.

[Pattern-chaser]

Well now we are confusing the "existence" of mental concepts with the existence of physical processes giving rise to entities.

Oh no we aren't. There is no confusion. Both exist, and both are real, but certainly not real in the same way. If something influences my real life, it's real to me. But there is no confusion about these different shades of reality. They are, and remain, different from one another in simple, obvious and significant ways.

[Pattern-chaser]

Its all about logic and how should we use its rules to construct our claims.

It is. And we should use our logic informally, as the issues we are addressing are often imprecisely defined and lack evidence. Logic is there for us to use, but not formal logic, such as that found in syllogisms, and not Boolean logic either. The logic we use reduces to common sense ... in the eyes of some.

[NickGaspar]

Quarks, fields, elementary particles of matter, gravity, dark matter etc. are not "entities" but observable processes. Our symbolic terms (i.e.particles) give the impression of a postulated entity....when its only a descriptive label of a observable process with specific qualities. i.e A fundamental particle its not a ...lets say a "thing", an entity, but a energetic "glitch" of a field with specific measurable qualities. Our language "creates" this idea of an entity, when such an postulation isn't necessary at all!

Theoretical physics develops coherent mathematical theories that are founded on already proposed older mathematical theories. All properly scientific theories will predict potential observables.

-Correct, the Higgs Boson is a great example of this.

Actual observables are the work of observational science.

-Correct. The Atlas experiment is an example of an observation following a 60yo mathematical prediction.

When you use ontological terms such as process, exists, object/entity, essence, or being you have switched to philosophical metaphysical terminology that is not defined and is therefore meaningless in physics. The only reason for doing so is that the mathematics of physics cannot be expressed in either philosophical or in just plain ordinary language.

-Correct. This is exactly what I tried to explain in my previous paragraph. Our Language has huge limitations and it can only guide our concepts through ideas we are familiar with.

Physicists use 'exist' for purely communicational purposes. For example, the physical relations of Heisenberg uncertainty principles such as position-momentum and time-energy 'exist', or that virtual photons flitting in and out of 'existence' produce a randomly fluctuating electric field.
[/quote]
- COrrect. This is why I tend to use words like "exist" "manifest" "emerge" "thing" "entity" "glitch"...... in "_"

[NickGaspar]

I understand that this is a common usage of the word entity.....but can be put forces and fields under that label, since they are phenomena that cause entities to exist....That is a good question!

Nonentities cannot cause anything.

- It depends from our definition. IF you mean that which doesn't "exist" can not cause anything,then you are correct. But again as Bluemist stated "When you use ontological terms such as process, exists, object/entity, essence, or being you have switched to philosophical metaphysical terminology that is not defined and is therefore meaningless in physics."

Sure quantum field theory is our working hypothesis, but it is a product of our ability to detect physical interactions by quanta. So its not an arbitrary theoretical concept...it has empirical foundations. Even if QFT is falsified, we will still have to work with quanta!

Despite its name, there's also a particle interpretation of QFT: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/quan ... eory/#Part

-And how is this relevant to our discussion? Maybe I missed something!

To exist either means to be a product of a process or to be able to cause other processes, in short, to display physical properties and causal interactions through time.

No, that's not what "to exist" means. You're defining uncaused entities, causally impotent (epiphenomenal) entities, and nonphysical entities out of existence, which you shouldn't do.

-No I don't need to included them. They first need to be demonstrated in order to be included in the discussion and maybe "change" our definition of "existence". This is logic 101 (Default positions/Nul Hypothesis, Burden of proof).
How can you show the difference between nonexistence and nonphysical entities ?
causally impotent (epiphenomenal) entities? can you give an example?
uncaused entities? Again anexample!

The fact that a concept is fundamental doesn't limit our ability to describe it....but only the limitations in our observations. So this evaluation, again, is limited inside our physical world and we can only talk about this realm!

To say that a concept is indefinable is not to say that nothing can be said about it.
We certainly can and do talk about nonphysical entities.

-So what exactly limits your ability to provide a definition about existence?

[NickGaspar]

Well now we are confusing the "existence" of mental concepts with the existence of physical processes giving rise to entities.

Oh no we aren't. There is no confusion. Both exist, and both are real, but certainly not real in the same way. If something influences my real life, it's real to me. But there is no confusion about these different shades of reality. They are, and remain, different from one another in simple, obvious and significant ways.

-Sorry but I can not see that. They two different "things". Mental concepts may affect reality but they do not "exist" as physical entities in reality(even if they are products of physical brain patterns). They manifest/emerge throught our brain chemistry and brain function and they have a subjective nature. Reality is objective and mental concepts may be part of it but that doesn't mean that reality has "shades". This is "dangerous" language" mode and it's doesn't advance our understanding of the world.Again its all about how you define "existence" and what you allow in the category.

[NickGaspar]

Its all about logic and how should we use its rules to construct our claims.

It is. And we should use our logic informally, as the issues we are addressing are often imprecisely defined and lack evidence. Logic is there for us to use, but not formal logic, such as that found in syllogisms, and not Boolean logic either. The logic we use reduces to common sense ... in the eyes of some.

That sound like special pleading which has an serious impact on our Philosophy and its goals. But I am ok if such ideas are not incorporated in Worldviews that can affect the way we think reason and act.

[Pattern-chaser]

It is. And we should use our logic informally, as the issues we are addressing are often imprecisely defined and lack evidence. Logic is there for us to use, but not formal logic, such as that found in syllogisms, and not Boolean logic either. The logic we use reduces to common sense ... in the eyes of some.

That sound like special pleading which has an serious impact on our Philosophy and its goals. But I am ok if such ideas are not incorporated in Worldviews that can affect the way we think reason and act.

Special pleading? To ask that we consider each issue in the most appropriate way? If there is no evidence, and we still wish to consider a particular issue, then we must use what is available. And simple everyday logic - common sense, if you will - seems to be the most appropriate tool in this case. Do you know of a better way?

Oh no we aren't. There is no confusion. Both exist, and both are real, but certainly not real in the same way. If something influences my real life, it's real to me. But there is no confusion about these different shades of reality. They are, and remain, different from one another in simple, obvious and significant ways.

-Sorry but I can not see that. They two different "things". Mental concepts may affect reality but they do not "exist" as physical entities in reality(even if they are products of physical brain patterns). They manifest/emerge throught our brain chemistry and brain function and they have a subjective nature. Reality is objective and mental concepts may be part of it but that doesn't mean that reality has "shades". This is "dangerous" language" mode and it's doesn't advance our understanding of the world. Again its all about how you define "existence" and what you allow in the category.

It seems you need another word, then, to allow you to consider socially-derived human mental concepts. Or are you content to leave your philosophy incomplete, addressing only issues that can be dealt with by (for example) science?