(March 15, 2012 at 5:14 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: Your statement is logical, however, I find the implied definition of “reality” as physical reality problematic. Our nomenclature may be slightly different and I would prefer not to bicker about semantics. I consider myself a layman and may not be up to date with conventions common in academic circles. I also attempt to use everyday language to the greatest extent possible.
You are correct in inferring the implication, but that position would be untenable even without it.
(March 15, 2012 at 5:14 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: Like you, I consider reality a given. My concerns revolve around the scope of various ways of talking/thinking about that reality. As I see it physics describes one aspect of reality (material interactions) and has provided powerful means of interacting with reality, i.e. stainless steel, the polio vaccine, transistors, etc. I understand metaphysics to include all other fundamental parts of reality that support the validity of physics and the integrity of the scientific method as it applies the parts of reality governed by physical laws.
There seems to be a certain equivocation between physics and physical laws here.
Physical reality (including the physical laws) would be at the very least, a fundamental part of reality. Physics - being the understanding of these fundamental parts - would necessarily rely on it for its validity.
Metaphysics is the understanding all fundamental parts of reality. If the reality is considered to only have a physical component - then there is no distinction between metaphysics and physics (other that a functional one). Thus, any fundamental distinction between physics and metaphysics requires the assumption of more parts to reality than physical ones.
However, this assumption does not automatically make any part of reality dependent on another - nor does it indicate which part of reality is independent of which. Your last statement indicated the assumption that it is the physical reality that is dependent on the other fundamental parts whereas, according to our current knowledge, it is only physical reality that can be taken as a given. However, this is a position you'd have to espouse in order to defend idealism.
(March 15, 2012 at 5:14 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: I’m not comfortable with the way you formulated this statement. I’ve been experimenting with alternate forms, such as…
1. A fact is a true statement about a thing that will be true even when the thing goes unobserved.
2. “P” is a true statement about a thing “E”.
3. Thing “E” goes unobserved, therefore…
4. Statement “P” cannot be a fact.
Incorrect formulation. The correct one would be:
1. A fact is a true statement about a thing that will be true even when the thing goes unobserved.
2. “P” is a true statement about a thing “E”.
3. Thing “E” goes unobserved, therefore…
4. Statement “P” can be a fact (from 1).
