Raphael Neelamkavil : It may be shocking to you and many of the readers, if the assertion is made that what we know as theoretical physics and cosmology since Isaac Newton up to the present; is actually metaphysics and what was known as metaphysics, since G.W. Leibniz; is in reality physics, in a reversed role! And since G.W.F. Hegel, both physics and metaphysics has been merged into one science, namely dialectics!

Please see the following RG question, which asks the following questions and answers are discussed:

What is Physics and what is Metaphysics?

Discussion

46 replies

1. Galileo, Newton, Einstein vs (dialectically corresponding) Kepler, Leibniz, Hegel: Which group was on the right side of science, but got the wrong side of history?

2. After Copernicus abolished medieval Geocentric cosmology; is modern cosmology of Newton and Einstein anything other than a Geocentric one?

3. What is at the root of the crisis in modern theoretical physics and cosmology?

4. Was Hegel justified when he said, “Newton gave physics an express warning to beware of metaphysics, it is true; but to his own honour, be it said, he did not obey his own warning”.

[As would be shown below, Newtonian metaphysics, assuming the same perfect circular orbits of planets like Galileo and Ptolemy; in essence brought back Geocentric cosmology with his law of universal gravitational attraction and Einstein just perfected this wrong notion with his general relativity (GR) - the epitome of all metaphysics!]

https://www.researchgate.net/topics

Abdul Malek,

Please do not shock us with claims like: "What we know as theoretical physics and cosmology since Isaac Newton up to the present; is actually metaphysics and what was known as metaphysics, since G.W. Leibniz; is in reality physics, in a reversed role! And since G.W.F. Hegel, both physics and metaphysics has been merged into one science, namely dialectics!"

Further, the following is shocking:

"Newtonian metaphysics, assuming the same perfect circular orbits of planets like Galileo and Ptolemy, in essence brought back Geocentric cosmology with his law of universal gravitational attraction and Einstein just perfected this wrong notion with his general relativity (GR) - the epitome of all metaphysics!"

To be frank: THESE SHOCKS ARE NOT INTERESTING FOR ME.

I have taught philosophy of physics, philosophy of cosmology, metaphysics, epistemology, etc. for a long time at university level.

Raphael Neelamkavil : I made this comment based on my published research. Sorry, I did not know that I need your prior approval to make comment in your forum, Sir! I will refrain from further participation in this forum and if you wish I will delete my previous comment.

If the philosophy of the sciences and its foundational attitude, namely, the attitude of seeking general foundations as in philosophy, together, can be a science, what would be the difference between PHILOSOPHY and PHILOSOPHY OF THE SCIENCES?

In my opinion non, only to give perspectives and to analyze the results concerning the ethics and the metaphysical extensions of them.

Theodore John Drizis, why should we have an ethics as the only part of philosophy, if theoretical deepening and broadening of notions and theories is already possible and if no special science does it as philosophy does?

Moreover, what do you mean by metaphysical extensions of ethics? What then is metaphysics in your opinion? Please take into consideration that today hundreds of books in metaphysics are being published by the best of publishers like Oxford, Cambridge University Presses, and a host of other such.

Theodore John Drizis, you mentioned that philosophy is "only to give perspectives". Where are these perspectives based? Then in that case, is there anything new in philosophy or philosophy of science?

Why should we then have ethics entrusted to philosophy? Is also ethics merely perspectives, or also a study of oughts in contexts and by the nature of human existence? From where do these derive? From the sciences?

Dear Raphael Neelamkavil, the perspectives are based on the profil and status of everybody independently of his education. The everyone's philosophy put some principles in ethics which this everyone by himself should follow, if he want to be consistent with himself. As metaphysical extensions I consider the ways which lead at the elaboration of the concepts of God and of the soul as did Saint Agostine, Socrates, Platon and others. New in philosophy is the elaborated old, as I think.

I have my philosophy, my view of the world, my system of beliefs and you have yours. I can’t speak like you from my vantage of what many believe or may believe. Hundreds of books by Oxford and Cambridge don’t impress me much either. Maybe some ideas in some of those books may however. As for those who believe philosophy is some kind of metaphysical talk I don’t know these people. I have my own ideas as to what philosophy is and it, philosophy, may be capable of clarifying the notions, methods etcetera of some so called sciences but that is merely my opinion. I can only speak for myself. As far as I’m concerned you are only able to do the same.

So, is philosophy of science any different from philosophy of art? Obviously they attend to two different domains of study but is the philosophical approach different for art as opposed to science? The answer I suggest would depend on your individual view as to what philosophy is. For me I am more comfortable with discovering what philosophy is not and, I most certainly do not believe it is a subcategory or inferior aspect of science.

I do not respond much to the first few paragraphs in your response. They are all your own absolutely private views; hence, none else can hold the same views.

If philosophy is not a sub-category or inferior aspect of science, it is at least a kind of science or art, or whatever else you think or decide. Well. Metaphysics may see hundreds of new publications the world over; but this is not important, because you have your own views.

How then can one be interested in some applied philosophy, modern philosophy, etc? All those who wrote something in these fields have expressed their own opinions, one takes a PhD because the dissertation has been filled with his own opinions without anything logically common with others, etc.

By the way, without any provocation you gave a nice worldview here. I thank you for this contribution. I think I have learned that each human being can hold only his own opinion, and hence, studying or reading is useless because all those things being studied or read are others' opinions which I cannot hold, .... I feel enriched by these consequences of what you said. Really. I have been compelled to think in a manner that a PhD holder can never make me think.

You say, “I do not respond much to the first few paragraphs in your response. They are all your own absolutely private views; hence, none else can hold the same views.”

I don’t understand your reasoning, in fact I don’t understand the sentence. You identify paragraphs of my private views with which you are free to hold or not hold, as you clearly do. There is no hence about it.

I won’t attend to your question or the veritable storm of metaphysical commentaries blocking good fiction at the publishing houses. I just spent a wonderful few weeks sharing musical skills with the Ede (Rhade, Degar) indigenous people of the Vietnamese Highlands. There are really only so many hours in a day and yes I do have my own views.

You say, “I think I have learned that each human being can hold only his own opinion,..”

You made reference to paragraphs of my private views and thanked me for my contribution. Does this explain how you ”learned that each human being can hold only his own opinion” from me, from the two of us sharing an opinion?

@Raphael Neelamkavil, in reply to your statement “...the dissertation has been filled with his own opinions without anything logically common with others.”

Philosophy is often supported by praxis. In addition, theory and practice can inform each other in such a way to hone both. When a theory is applied to accomplish a pragmatic goal—such as answering a research question—the results can be analyzed and evaluated. Independent variables can be manipulated; hypotheses can be refined. Working through the problem this way may help to distinguish between justified belief and opinion. There are ways to increase the likelihood that an investigative method is valid: adequate sampling, controlling for confounding variables, refining measurement techniques, reducing bias, etc. Findings are then reported with some degree of likelihood and margin for error. Epistemological foundations also require such reporting. Evidence does not explain itself. The researcher, rather, explains how the evidence answers the research question posed. The researcher does this not in absolute terms, but, rather, in reference to probability and error. Humanity will likely never stop needing to know the degree to which theories reflect real-world circumstances. Belief is a good thing in regard to the work that scientists and philosophers do, for belief promotes further investigation and collaboration. Belief implies that some degree of doubt remains, which becomes the bread and butter of ongoing inquiry as well as the ongoing refinement and development of theories and methods. And a given theory is not necessarily bounded by one discipline. Some innovative ideas can be developed through an understanding of cybernetics and process philosophy. Indeed some of the greatest discoveries have been made via collaboration across disciplines. In my opinion, philosophy is not complete without praxis and relevant feedback. Philosophy is not whole until it is put to work and evaluated on how well it works in an iterative and measurable way. Pragmatic theories of truth, for example, center on the link between truth and epistemic practices, primarily practices of inquiry and making claims. Moreover, the concept of truth plays a crucial role among an array of disciplines and discussions, including those of evidence-based research as well as ethics. It may also be interesting to consider what is meant by truth and how this might impact behavior. Choi & Pak (2006) have provided a useful clarification between what is meant by interdisciplinarity and transdisciplinarity in regard to real-world practices:

“Interdisciplinarity analyzes, synthesizes and harmonizes links between disciplines into a coordinated and coherent whole. Transdisciplinarity integrates the natural, social and health sciences in a humanities context, and transcends their traditional boundaries.”

References

Choi B. & Pak, A. (2006). Multidisciplinarity, interdisciplinarity and transdisciplinarity in health research, services, education and policy: 1. Definitions, objectives, and evidence of effectiveness. Clinical and Investigative Medicine 29(6):351-64. PMID: 17330451.

Edward Beale,

That person said things to the effect that he has his opinions, he will just express them, and I can have my own. (These are not exactly his words, but the meaning.)

If that is the case, then there would be nothing common between two persons' thoughts! This is the essence of the Private Language Argument. See Wittgenstein and many specialists on him who have written on this problem.

I just wanted to argue that his position that his private opinion cannot be challenged or need not be challenged, is paradoxical. That is all.

I see. I agree that, in the tenor of Wittgenstein’s private language argument, such a means to develop and communicate a philosophical concept may likely be fruitless. The grounds upon which its inherent claims are based, at best, would be plagued by uncertainty. On a somewhat related note, some work on semiotics may help elucidate possible foundations for meaning within certain contexts—in particular, the logical dimensions of them. Ibri (2011) tackles this perspective:

https://www.academia.edu/5961334/Semiotics_and_Epistemology_the_pragmatic_ground_of_communication

References

Ibri, I. A. (2011). Semiotics and epistemology: the pragmatic ground of communication. New Perspectives on Pragmatism and Analytic Philosophy, 71–82. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789042033221_007

In addendum,

I was in agreement with what you proposed earlier. In reference to the hypothetical PhD candidate’s “private language,” for the grounds on which the candidate is intending to base the claims posited in his dissertation would be uncertain, and that is in accordance with Wittgenstein’s argument. Yes, I can see that meta-metaphysics are useful for grounding and ontological dependence.

I too am of the opinion that Wittgenstein has based his arguments on what I would happily call flimsy linguistic foundations, even as the discussion was on the question of private language.

I try to go beyond epistemology, pragmatism, and analytic philosophy, especially their metaphysics. The viewpoint is under constant development. I have tried to put it down in five books, all published in Europe. I do not prefer to do articles any more. Better some more books!

Dr. Neelamkavil,

Are you the author of Causal Ubiquity in Quantum Physics: A Superluminal and Local-Causal Physical Ontology? Impressive. It is a privilege to engage in dialogue in this academic forum. By “going beyond,” as you mentioned above, are you talking about meta-metaphysics? I believe that meta-metaphysics is significantly useful in the development of methodologies and the understanding of our access to knowledge, especially as these pertain to grounding and ontological dependence. However, other than its usefulness, I do not find meta-metaphysics to be as interesting as, say, attempting to delve into the substrate or hypostasis—if you will—of what might underlie language. I intuit there is something deeper that not only gives rise to language but also partakes in consciousness and the will to life. Perhaps this hypothetical substrate is linked to the very nature and structure of reality. Going out on a limb here.... What really fascinates me these days is studying concepts such as quantum nonlocality, entelechy, ontopoetics, conativity/conation, Nietzsche’s eternal return of the same, cybernetics, teleonomy, negentropy or syntropy, attractor networks, synergetics, and the like. Recently, I read The Ecological Self by the Australian philosopher, Freya Mathews. Fascinating stuff. But these topics I’m talking about now are purely for recreational purposes. I haven’t done any work in these areas. Congratulations on your five books (a remarkable accomplishment), and good luck on your sixth!

Thanks, Prof. Edward Beale.

It is my book. I think the basic insights on Causality even in the points of doubt about causality in quantum physics. That book is on this theme.

After that I have ventured into a sort of meta-metaphysics. The reason in comparison with concentration on the problems of language, ideas, etc. is this:

Whatever be the matter under ideation and linguistic expression, we all and all that are outside of us are primarily non-vacuous existents. If non-vacuous, existents are in Extension (the most general quality of having parts) and Change (the most general quality of finite inward and outward impact-generation). These two qualities define non-vacuous existence.

I build a physical ontology / metaphysics based on these. The notional bases of these and other related stuff may be termed the meta-metaphysical Ideals. I am into it, but have not published anything exclusively on it.

Now, please read this too: If anything is continuously existent Extension-Change-wise, this is nothing but existence in Universal Causation!

The physical ontology / metaphysics being worked out creates a system of other qualities which are called ontological universals, and Extension and Change are the highest of them -- because they are instantiated in everything, every part of everything, that exists. Using these universals and their occurrence in brain-like based consciousnesses in their concatenations, I interpret also thought, ideation, language, etc.

Currently the work is on a book of 160 pages on Causality in AI and BI Technology. (BI = biological intelligence). As you know, the "intelligence" in AI is a misnomer. I touch upon these matters, but move basically into Universal Causality and interpret the notion of information in AI and BI in the above-described manner.

My books are complex. This is because the problems being discussed are also such. I do not plan to get into the phenomena of language, speech, meaning, etc. because I want to remain in the philosophy of physics and of cosmology. My second doctoral work was on causality in cosmology.

Dr. Neelamkavil,

Thank you for taking the time to sketch out the basic tenets and aims of your evolving work. I am grateful for your contribution to philosophy, and I am highly interested in reading your book when it is complete. The work you are doing is extremely important. The topic is intriguing, and it is something that I have been progressively becoming more interested in over the years. I’m venturing far outside my limited knowledge here. But, hypothetically speaking, I wonder if there would be a way to map coordinates of a lower-dimensional reality or plane of existence onto coordinates of a higher-dimensional plane. As Cantor did with mapping infinite sets. I am picturing the logic of a holon-holarchy relationship, where the ‘part’ can function as a whole. I have been thinking of this lately and so I started looking into homomorphisms, arbitrary functions, vector spaces of linear algebra, conformal field theory, AdS/CFT correspondence, and so on. In a nutshell, I envision our reality as a 4-dimensional holon within the event horizon of a 5-dimensional black hole. Moreover, I imagine the singularities of black holes as ‘seeds’ for expanding universes. In my mind I have been calling this a ‘homomorphic perspective’ of reality. In my mind’s eye, I see the realization of this working hypothesis or concept-in-progress as a step towards furthering the evolution of human consciousness. None of these claims I am making can be backed by evidence and are purely the inklings of speculation. Asking “What if” and trying to conceptualize the ineffable is an insatiable drive. I wonder if it is the destiny of advanced biological intelligence to utilize the power of black holes and aim toward finding ‘refuge’ within ‘inner space’ as opposed to outer space. As an analogy, I envision the first creatures that adapted to breathing air and who crawled out of the sea. I do not think AI could ever realize true consciousness, so it is my guess that ultimately human survival will depend on the evolution of human consciousness.

In my mind I schematically picture the very center of a torus-vortex-sphere as an ongoing point of creation (which is the present moment), and it is dependent on all the energy of the cosmos to remain in flux yet maintain an ongoing negentropy towards ‘homeostasis.’ Then I picture the ‘extrinsic’ circumference of the model as a higher dimensional plane of existence. I put extrinsic in quotes because, in the torus-vortex-sphere, the extrinsic continuously ‘flows’ into the intrinsic at each moment. (Maybe there is some sort of thermodynamics behind this flow.) So. Maybe finding the method of unifying the consciousness we experience here in our lower dimensional homomorphic plane with the consciousness that exists in a higher dimensional homomorphic plane is the key to the evolution of human consciousness, and maybe doing so could inform a directionality towards ‘inner space.’ The intrinsic nodal point that is the center of the holon of our experienced reality could perhaps be mapped onto the so-called ‘extrinsic whole.’ Then, I also wonder if maybe there are points within a 4-D event horizon that have been entangled, primordially, when they existed within the 5-D singularity and remain entangled as the universe expands. I wonder if that might tie into the ‘spookiness at a distance’ of nonlocality.

For me, this thought process helps to answer the Fermi paradox. Entities harboring advanced biological intelligence have retreated into 'inner space' and therefore are out of harm's way, i.e. cannot be wiped out by AI.

“[A] time [will come] when one will regard not masses but individuals, who form a kind of bridge across the turbulent stream of becoming. These individuals do not carry forward any kind of progress but live contemporaneously with one another… No, the goal of humanity cannot lie in its end, but in its highest individuals.”

“Lo, I am a herald of the lightning,” he said, “and a heavy drop out of the cloud: the lightning, however, is the Übermensch.”

“Behold, I teach you the Übermensch: he is that lightning….”

“You great star….Like you must I go under….”

[Wie die Sonne – ‘untergehen und aufheben.’ Lassen Sie uns auf die nächste Evolutionsstufe zusteuern!]

Sehr gut. Sie haben viel Faszianation für Nietzsche. Nur, ich arbeite weit von Nietzsche, in der Philosophie der Physik und der Kosmologie.

Ja, aber vielleicht bist du der Blitz!

Entschuldigung, mein Deutsch ist nicht gut. Ich habe ein Fehler gemacht mit duzen. Ich soll sagen: "Sie sind" nicht "Du bist"

There is no problem in addressing me by 'du'. I feel honoured! I love the German language.

yes, I love German too. Initially because of Goethe and Schiller

When someone explains the concepts and theories of, say, mathematical physics, without the use of the equations but with concentration on the foundational concepts --- will it be a philosophy of physics or mathematical physics? I ask this question because some condemn such talk as mere philosophy, and they themselves do the same (say, in RG) sort of explanation, time and again, and consider it to be mathematical physics.

The most important general and implicit concepts being used by all sciences, litertuare, art, music, etc. and by common conversation seem to be space, time, matter, energy, causation, etc. I said these seem to be the implicit concepts behind all ideas that we use to express anything.

Can these notions be re-deepened in such a way that they are founded on a common source notion, namely, To Be?

The notion of causality and its connection to the notion of information cannot be merely scientific. It must be at the roots of all sciences and all experience. The science that treats of this region of theoretical breadth is what is termed philosophy. No specific science is beyond such a notion of philosophy, which is uniquely capable of constructing a notion of causality applicable to all sciences. It is not a hand-waving sort of theoretical stance. Any scientist who thinks that philosophy is just a hand-waving, is perhaps not sufficiently aware of the science-serving value of theoretical breadths that technically accurate expressions of philosophizing renders and has rendered to knowledge (scire) in general.

In short, philosophy can be considered as a science of general breadths and depths of notions, theorization, etc.

That would be metascience defining the sciences. I'm not sure any problem exists there that needs solving. Philosophy becomes very helpful in seeing the need for physics involvement in certain questions and then for interpreting physics.

Karl Sipfle,

Naturally, and if philosophy can be considered as a sort of science, philosophy will become a metascience. This is my long-considered opinion, after more than two decades of publication in the philosophy of science and metaphysics of sciences. I do not claim great achievements, but I have reflected enough on this theme so as to have the right to express my opinion on the possibility of philosophy being a metascience. It has always been.

Of course, among scientists who considered philosophy as a waste of time may be included personages like Stephen Hawking (a triumphalist who said that physics' major achievements will be over by the yr 2000, and then remained only precision work and applications), Roger Penrose (to an extent), and triumphalist scientists like Lawrence Krauss, Richard Dawkins, etc.

And of course, I feel that some on RG and Academia.edu hate philosophy due to their not having had exposure.

I love all sciences. I was actually the second (but unofficial) Guide of my brother's doctoral work in Ancient Indian Buddhist History -- although most of my works are in Western philosophy of physics.

Apropos: Recently a peer reviewer on board a famous publisher in Europe rejected an (only) article where my works were cited, because he thought I am a Vedaanta specialist!! All because he discovered the existence of an old article (in gist, Restructing the Foundations of Vedaantic Metaphysics) by me. I feel lucky that he did not discover my article on the Foundations of Mahaayaana Buddhism (also attempting a restructuring of it) and characterize me as a Buddist or Buddhism specialist.

I RESEPCT ALL SCIENCES. Although I venture now into the mathematical sciences, I remain an ardent fan of philosophy as the potential enhancer discipline of the sciences.

I think the parameters to be assumed in a unified theory OF THE MANY THEORIES OF THE UNIVERSE will in any case be different from those of ordinary physics. Such a unification might need slightly different starting points or assumptions. I have the following suggestion. Not elaborate enough to meet all possible questions on this, but a suggestion.

Experimentally, observationally, and observational-theoretically, some of the generalizations of any physical ontology of cosmology may, strictly speaking, be non-verifiable and non-falsifiable.

But the empirical method of the sciences is continuous with the theoretical. Both, together, form part of "reason". Please note also this: Reason is not equivalent to logic. There are many sorts of logic. Reason is the general set, and the various logics are sub-sets or members.

From this viewpoint, would you admit that there seems to be the possibility of obtaining SOME REASON from the suggestion that a physical ontology of cosmology be constructed?

I have developed an MMM (maximal-medial-minimal) method, where the approachable values are zero, finite, and infinite -- all others being strictly of the realm of positive sciences. Zero, finitude, and infinity may be available in the positive sciences. But in the case of zero and infinity, the attitude is that of limiting values.

Finitude is a general term. In the positive sciences there must be specific values, not generally finite values!

Of course, we do not know of infinite values in the strictest sense of the term. But on the same count we do not also know zero value except as the absence of WHAT WE CONSIDER at a given instance.

I feel that a sort of "axiomatization" is perhaps possible -- at least as a physical ontology of the cosmos.

FROM WITHIN SUCH A THEORY, PERHAPS A UNIFICATION IS THINKABLE.

The localization of anything -- including the minds / persons that cognize -- has so far been done in terms of the epistemic / cognitive / mental categories of space and time, and then space and time have been attributed as such to existent processes as if they were existent in space and time.

The question of localizability in the sciences is coupled with the measuremental aspects of cognized location. Hence, space and time continue to be physical-ontological categories. But the paradox of attributing epistemic categories to existent things / processes continues to baffle all.

Hence, we need primarily the physical-ontological Categories: Extension and Change, and secondarily also the epistemic categories parallel to them, i.e., space and time.

Existence in Extension (having parts) and Change (causing impacts) is itself causality, because only extended things and their parts can impact any other.

Now, if a portion of Causality is understandable as the very freedom that some beings exercise, then freedom is the ever growing distance from certain naural influences due to the intensification of certain types of activities in the subject. That is, this too is causation, but in a slightly different sense, and free actions are fully causal actions -- with the only difference that the causation in such cases of certain actions are induced more from within the subject's actions than from outside.

If such is freedom, then freedom is fully causal. This fact might cause the oft-hoped-for integration of the various sciences together into parts of one and the same scientific (and philosophical) enterprise.

It is here that the possibility of epistemic possibilization of physical ontology appears necessary.

MATHEMATICAL CONTINUITY IN NATURE Vs. CAUSAL CONTINUITY BETWEEN (PARTIALLY) DISCRETE "PROCESSUAL" OBJECTS. (Have patience to read till the end.)

Insistence on mathematical continuity in nature is a mere idealization. It expects nature to obey our idealization. This is what happens in all physical and cosmological (and of course other) sciences as long as they use mathematical idealizations to represent existent objects and processes.

But mathematically following nature in whatever it is in its part-processes is a different procedure in science and philosophy (and even in the arts and humanities). This theoretical attitude accepts the existence of processual entities as what they are.

This theoretical attitude accepts in a highly generalized manner that

(1) mathematical continuity (in any theory and in terms of any amount of axiomatization of physical theories) is totally non-realizable in nature as a whole and in its parts: because the necessity of mathematical approval in such a cosmology falls short miserably,

(2) absolute discreteness (even QM type, based on the Planck constant) in the physical cosmos (not in non-quantifiable “possible worlds”) and its parts is a mere commonsense compartmentalization (from the "epistemology of box-type thinking" -- Ruth Edith Hagengruber, Uni-Paderborn): because the aspect of the causally processual connection between any two quanta is logically and mathematically alienated in the physical theory of Planck’s constant, and

(3) hence, the only viable and thus the most reasonably generalizable manner of being of the physical cosmos and of biological entities is that of CAUSAL CONTINUITY BETWEEN PARTIALLY DISCRETE PROCESSUAL OBJECTS.

PHYSICS and COSMOLOGY even today tend to make the cosmos mathematically either continuous or defectively discrete or statistically oriented to epistemically logical decisions and determinations. Can anyone suggest here the existence of a different sort of physics and cosmology until today? A topology and mereology of CAUSAL CONTINUITY BETWEEN PARTIALLY DISCRETE PROCESSUAL OBJECTS, fully free of discreteness-oriented category theory and functional analysis, is yet to be born. Hence, causality in its deep roots in the very concept of To Be is yet alien to physics and cosmology till today.

LINGUISTIC PHILOSOPHY and even its more recent causalist child, namely, DISPOSITIONALIST ONTOLOGY are (1) overly discrete about “entities” without clearly reconciling the geometrical tendency to make every physical representation continuous, (2) comatose about the impossibility of linguistically definitional approach to the logical demands of existent physical objects without first analyzing and resolving the metaphysical implications of existent objects being irreducibly in EXTENSION and CHANGE, and (3) unable to get at the causally continuous nature of the partially discrete processual objects in the physical world.

PHENOMENOLOGY has done a lot to show the conceptual structures of ordinary reasoning, physical reasoning, mathematical and logical thinking, and reasoning in the human sciences. But due to its lack of commitment to building a physical ontology of the cosmos and its purpose as a research methodology, phenomenology has failed to show the nature of causal continuity (instead of mathematical continuity) in the only physically existent objects, namely processually discrete objects, in nature.

HERMENEUTICS has just followed the human-scientific aspect of Husserlian phenomenology and projected it. Hence, it was no contender to accomplish the fete.

POSTMODERN PHILOSOPHIES qualified all science and philosophy as being perniciously cursed to be “modernistic” – by thus monsterizing all compartmentalization, rules, laws, axiomatization, discovery of regularities in nature, logical rigidity, etc. as an insurmountable curse of knowing and as a synonym for all that are unapproachable in science and thought.

THE PHILOSOPHIES OF THE SCIENCES seem today to follow the beaten paths of linguistic-analytic philosophy, physics, mathematics, and logic, which lack a FOUNDATIONAL CONCEPT OF CAUSALLY PROCESSUAL PHYSICAL EXISTENCE.

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Mathematical_Continuity_in_Nature_Vs_Causal_Continuity_between_Partially_Discrete_Processual_Objects_Have_patience_to_read_till_the_end

MATHEMATICS AND CAUSALITY:

A SYSTEMIC RECONCILIATION

Raphael Neelamkavil

What are the bases of the problem of incompatibility of causality with mathematics and its applications? I suggest that it is the dichotomy between mathematical continuity and discreteness on the one hand and the incompatibility of applying any of them directly on the data collected / collectible from some layers of phenomena from some layers of nature. I clearly point at the avoidance, by expressions like ‘from some layers of phenomena from some layers of nature’, of the centuries of epistemological foolishness, because this is the point at which phrases and statements involving ‘data from observation’, ‘data from phenomena’, ‘data from nature’ etc. are very gross, without epistemological and ontological astuteness.

If causal continuity between partially discrete “processual” objects is the case, then the data collected / collectible cannot be the very processual objects or provide all knowledge about the processual objects. But mathematics and all other research methodologies are based on human experience and thought based on experience. Hence, it is important to define the limits of applicability of mathematics to the physics of data is the only way to approximate beyond the data and the methodologically derived conclusions beyond the data.

The same may be said also about logic and language. Logic is the broader rational picture of mathematics. Language is the symbolic manner of application of both logic and its quantitatively qualitative version, namely, mathematics, with respect to specific fields of inquiry. Here I do not explicitly discuss ordinary conversation, literature, etc. We may do well to instantiate logic as the formulated picture of reason. But reason is limited to the procedures of reasoning by brains. What exactly is the reason that existent physical processes undergo? How to get at conclusion based on but beyond data and methods? If we may call the universal reason of Reality-in-total with a name, it is nothing but Universal Causality.

How to demonstrate this as the case? ((To be developed further.))

A caveat is in place here: When I write anything here, you have the right to ask me constantly for further justifications. And if I have the right to anticipate some such questions, I will naturally attempt to be as detailed and as systemic as possible in my formulation. Each sentence is merely a part of the formulation. After reading each sentence you may pose me questions, which certainly cannot all be answered well within the sentences or after the sentences in question.

Hence, I tend to be as systemic as possible in each of the following sentences. Please do not accuse me of being too complex in my expressions. Your (and our) mathematics, physics, and logic can be very complex and prohibitive for some. But would we all accuse these disciplines or the readers if the readers find them all complex and difficult? I do not create such a state of affairs in these few sentences, but there are complexities here too. Hence, I express my helplessness in case any one of you finds these statements complex.

Insistence on mathematical continuity in nature is a mere idealization. It expects nature to obey our merely epistemic idealization where processes outside are vaguely presented primarily by the processes themselves in a natural manner, represented by the epistemic activity of the brain in a natural manner, and idealized via concepts expressed in words and sentences by the symbolizing human tendency to capture the whole of the object by use of a part of the human body-mind. The symbolizing activity is based on data, but the data are not all we have.

Insistence on mathematical continuity in nature as a natural conclusion by application of mathematics to nature is what happens in all physical and cosmological (and of course other) sciences insofar as they use mathematical idealizations to represent existent objects and processes. Logic and its direct quantitatively qualitative expression as found in mathematics are powerful tools. But, as being part of the denotative function of symbolic language, they are tendentially idealizational. By use of the same symbolizing tendency, it is perhaps possible to a certain extent to de-idealize the same symbols in the language, logic, and mathematics being used to symbolically idealize representations.

Merely mathematically following physical nature in whatever it is in its part-processes is a debilitating procedure in science and philosophy (and even in the arts and humanities), if this procedure is not de-idealized effectively. If this is possible at least to a small and humble extent, why not do it? Our language, logic, and mathematics too do their functions although they too are equally unable to capture the whole of reality in whatever it is, wholly or in in parts, too far beyond the data and their interpretations!

This theoretical attitude of partially de-symbolizing the effects of human symbolizing activity by use of the same symbolic activity accepts the existence of processual entities as whatever they are. Perhaps such a generalization can give a slightly better concept of reality than is possible by the normally non-self-aware symbolic activity in language, logic, and mathematics!

This theoretical attitude facilitates and accepts in a highly generalized manner the following three points:

(1) Mathematical continuity (in any theory and in terms of any amount of axiomatization of logical, mathematical, physical, biological, social, and linguistic theories) is totally non-realizable in nature as a whole and in its parts: because (a) the necessity of mathematical approval of any sort of causality in such a cosmology and by means of its systemic physical ontology falls short miserably in actuality, and (b) logical continuity of any kind does not automatically make symbolized representation activity adequate enough to represent the processual nature of entities as derivate from data.

(2) Absolute discreteness in nature, which, as of today, is ultimately of quantum-mechanical type based on Planck’s constant, continues to be a mathematical and physical misfit in the physical cosmos and its parts (may not of course be so in non-quantifiable “possible worlds” due to their absolute causal disconnection) and is a mere common-sense mathematical compartmentalization: (1) because the aspect of the causally processual connection between any two quanta is logically and mathematically alienated in the physical theory of Planck’s constant, and (2) by reason of the “epistemology of box-type thinking” (see Ruth Edith Hagengruber, Uni-Paderborn) implied by the non-self-aware symbolic activity of body-minds.

(3) Hence, the only viable and thus the most reasonably generalizable manner of being of the physical cosmos and of biological entities is that of existence in an extended (having parts) and changing (extended entities and their parts impacting a finite number of others in a finite amount) manner. Existence in Extension-Change-wise manner is nothing but causation. Thus, every existent is causal. There is no minute measuremental iota of time wherein such causal existing ceases in any existent. this is CAUSAL CONTINUITY BETWEEN PARTIALLY DISCRETE PROCESSUAL OBJECTS.

The attitude of treating everything as causal my also be characterized by the self-aware symbolic activity by symbolic activity itself, in which certain instances of causation are avoided or increased or avoided incrementally. This is at the most what may be called freedom. It is fully causal, but causal not in a specific set of manners and causal in some other specific set of manners.

PHYSICS and COSMOLOGY even today tend to make the cosmos either (1) mathematically presupposedly continuous, or (2) discrete with defectively ideal mathematical status for continuity and with perfectly geometrical ideal status for specific beings, or (3) statistically indeterministic, thus considered partially causal, or even considered non-causal in the interpretation of statistics’ orientation to epistemically logical decisions and determinations based on data. If not, can anyone suggest proofs for an alleged existence of a different sort of physics and cosmology until today?

A topology and mereological physical ontology of CAUSAL CONTINUITY BETWEEN PARTIALLY DISCRETE PROCESSUAL OBJECTS, fully free of discreteness-oriented category theory, geometry, functional analysis, set theory, and logic, are yet to be born. Hence, the fundamentality of Universal Causality in its deep roots in the very concept of the To Be (namely, in the physical-ontological Categories of Extension and Change) of all physically and non-vacuously existent processes, is yet alien to physics and cosmology till today.

LINGUISTIC PHILOSOPHY and even its more recent causalist child, namely, DISPOSITIONALIST CAUSAL ONTOLOGY (1) attribute an overly discrete nature to “entities” without ever attempting to touch the deeply Platonic (better, geometrically atomistic) shades of common-sense Aristotelianism, Thomism, Newtonianism, Modernism, Quantum Physics, etc., and without reconciling the diametrically opposite geometrical tendency to make every physical representation continuous, (2) logically comatose about the impossibility of linguistically definitional approach to the processual demands of existent physical objects without first analyzing and resolving the metaphysical implications of existent objects irreducibly being in finite EXTENSION and CHANGE, and (3) hence, unable to get at the CAUSALLY CONTINUOUS (neither mathematically continuous nor geometrically discontinuous) nature of the physical-ontologically “partially discrete” processual objects in the physical world.

PHENOMENOLOGY has done a lot to show the conceptual structures of ordinary reasoning, physical reasoning, mathematical and logical thinking, and reasoning in the human sciences. But due to its lack of commitment to building a physical ontology of the cosmos and due to its purpose as a research methodology, phenomenology has failed to an extent to show the nature of causal continuity (instead of mathematical continuity) in physically existent, processually discrete, objects in nature.

HERMENEUTICS has just followed the human-scientific interpretative aspect of Husserlian phenomenology and projected it as a method. Hence, it was no contender to accomplish the said fete.

POSTMODERN PHILOSOPHIES qualified all science and philosophy as being perniciously cursed to be “modernistic” – by thus monsterizing all compartmentalization, rules, laws, axiomatization, discovery of regularities in nature, logical rigidity, etc. as an insurmountable curse of the human project of knowing and as a synonym for all that are unapproachable in science and thought. The linguistic-analytic philosophy in later Wittgenstein too was no exception to this nature of postmodern philosophies – a matter that many Wittgenstein followers do not notice. Take a look at the first few pages of his Philosophical Investigations, and the matter will be more than clear.

THE PHILOSOPHIES OF THE SCIENCES seem today to follow the beaten paths of extreme pragmatism in linguistic-analytic philosophy, physics, mathematics, and logic, which lack a FOUNDATIONAL CONCEPT OF CAUSALLY CONCRETE AND PROCESSUAL PHYSICAL EXISTENCE.

Hence, it is useful for the growth of science, philosophy, and humanities alike to research into the CAUSAL CONTINUITY BETWEEN PARTIALLY DISCRETE “PROCESSUAL” OBJECTS.

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Mathematical_Continuity_in_Nature_Vs_Causal_Continuity_between_Partially_Discrete_Processual_Objects_Have_patience_to_read_till_the_end

I believe it is common knowledge that mathematics and its applications cannot prove causality directly. What are the bases of the problem of incompatibility of physical causality with mathematics and its applications in the sciences and in philosophy? The main but general explanation could be that mathematical explanations are not directly about the world but are applicable to the world to a great extent. Hence, mathematical explanations can at the most only show the ways of movement of the processes and not demonstrate whether the ways of the cosmos are by causation.

No science and philosophy can start without admitting that the cosmos exists. If it exists, it is not nothing, not vacuum. Non-vacuous existence means that the existents are non-vacuously extended. This means they have parts. Every part has parts too, ad libitum, because each part is extended. None of the parts is an infinitesimal. They can be near-infinitesimal. This character of existents is Extension, a Category directly implied by To Be.

Similarly, any extended being’s parts are active, moving. This implies that every part has impact on some others, not on infinite others. This character of existents is Change. No other implication of To Be is so primary as these. Hence, they are exhaustive.

Existence in Extension-Change is what we call Causality. If anything is existent, it is causal – hence Universal Causality is the trans-science physical-ontological Law of all existents. By the very concept of finite Extension-Change-wise existence it becomes clear that no finite space-time is absolutely dense with existents. Hence, existents cannot be mathematically continuous. Since there is change and transfer of impact, no existent can be absolutely discrete in its parts or in connection with others.

Can logic show the necessity of all existents being causal? We have already discussed how, ontologically, the very concept of To Be implies Extension-Change and thus also Universal Causality.

What about the ability or not of logic to conclude to Universal Causality? In my argument above and elsewhere showing Extension-Change as the very exhaustive meaning of To Be, I have used mostly only the first principles of ordinary logic, namely, Identity, Contradiction, and Excluded Middle, and then argued that Extension-Change-wise existence is nothing but Universal Causality if everything existing is non-vacuous in existence. For example, does everything exist or not? If yes, let us call it non-vacuous existence. Hence, Extension as the first major implication of To Be. Non-vacuous means extended, because if not extended the existent is vacuous. If extended, everything has parts.

A point of addition now has been Change. It is, so to say, from experience. Thereafter I move to the meaning of Change basically as motion or impact. Naturally, everything in Extension must effect impacts. Everything has further parts. Hence, by implication from Change, everything causes changes by impacts. Thus, we conclude that Extension-Change-wise existence is Universal Causality. It is thus natural to claim that this is a pre-scientific Law of Existence.

In such foundational questions like To Be and its implications we need to use the first principles of logic, because these are the foundational notions of all science and no other derivative logical procedure comes in as handy. In short, logic with its fundamental principles can help derive Universal Causality. Thus, Causality is more primary to experience than the primitive notions of mathematics.

We do not find process-oriented Categories and theorization in the philosophy of sciences today.

TIME MUST ALWAYS BE THE MEASURE OF MOTION / CHANGE. THIS IS WHAT ARISTOTLE AND THOMAS HAVE HELD. BUT TODAY PHYSICISTS AND COSMOLOGISTS MAKE RATIOCINATIONS USING TIME AND SPACE AS IF THESE WERE SOME EXISTENT STUFF. SOME EVEN SPEAK OF SPACE-TIME CURVATURE, AND NOT OF CURVATURE OF PHYSICAL PROCESSES THAT ARE IN EXTENSION-MOTION:

All impact transfers within and between entities are extended-changing. Impact transfer is nothing but the activity called Causation. Existents are in extended-changing causal process. The relation of one impact transfer process towards the constitution of another is Causality. Hence, everything is in causal process. If anything non-causal exists, it must lose contact with causal processes and cannot be connected with anything else so to result from causal processes or non-causal processes.

That is, Causality is a derivative Category pertaining to all existents. It is derived from putting together Extension and Change. Causality (the relation) and causation (the action / activity) are act-based. In general, without direct reference to the causal aspect, and with direct reference to the entity-aspect, one can say denotatively: everything is an extended-changing process. (“Everything is in process” means adjectivally: “Everything is processual”) In fact, Causation and Processuality are interchangeable; the manner of definition alone differs. But a unit process is a set of cause and effect.

Richard Marker: One more point:

So far we have been speaking of the various laws of science / natural laws. Just one among them was causality. Now, if the very physical existence is Extension-Change-wise, and if Extension-Change-wise existence is itself Causality, then every existent must be causal. This is Universal Causality, and it becomes a pre-scientific Law. I call it a metaphysical / physical-ontological Law because IT IS THE LAW OF THE VERY POSSIBILITY OF BEING TAKEN AS PHYSICALLY EXISTENT. Extension and Change are the only and the exhaustive meanings of To Be. In that case, these two Categories must have a superior Categorial position in both philosophy and the sciences.

DOES LINGUISTIC PHILOSOPHY HAVE ANYTHING SO FOUNDATIONAL AS THESE? ANY FUNDAMENTAL CATEGORIES LIKE THESE? OR THE PHILOSOPHIES OF SCIENCE HAVE HAD ANYTHING LIKE THEM?

Existents have some Activity and Stability. This is a fully physical fact. These two categories may be shown to be subservient to Extension-Change. Pure vacuum (non-existence) is absence of Activity and Stability. Thus, entities, irreducibly, are active-stable processes in Extension-Change. Physical entities / processes possess finite Activity and Stability. Activity and Stability together belong to Extension; and Activity and Stability together belong to Change too. That is, Stability is not merely about space; and Activity is not merely about time. But the tradition still seems to hold so. We consider Activity and Stability as sub-categories, because they are based on Extension-Change, which together add up to Universal Causality; and each unit of cause and effect is a process.

These are not Categories that belong to merely imaginary counterfactual situations. The Categories of Extension-Change and their sub-formulations are all about existents. There can be counterfactuals that signify cases that appertain existent processes. But separating these cases from useless logical talk is near to impossible in linguistic-analytically tending logic, philosophy, and philosophy of science.

Today physics and the various sciences do something like this in that they indulge in particularistically defined terms and procedures, blindly thinking that these can directly represent the physical processes under inquiry. Concerning mathematical applications too this is the majority attitude among scientists. Hence, without a very general physical ontology of Categories that are applicable to all existent processes, all sciences are in gross handicap.

The best examples are mathematical continuity and discreteness being attributed to physical processes, which are continuous and discrete only in their Causality. This is nothing but Extension-Change-wise discrete causal continuity. At any time causality is present in anything, hence there is causal continuity. But this is different from mathematical continuity and discreteness.

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Epistemology_of_Pushing_the_Systemic_Axioms_Ever_Backwards

WHAT ARE VIRTUALS IN SCIENTIFIC THEORIES?

CRITERIA TO DIFFERENTIATE THEM?

Raphael Neelamkavil, Ph. D., Dr. phil.

Existents in Extension and Change are physical, not virtual. Space and time are just the epistemic notions of the physical-ontological Extension and Change respectively.

A DENOTABLE has reference to something that either (1) has physical body (physically existent processes), or (2) is inherent in bodily processes but are not themselves a physical body (e.g., potential energy), or (3) is non-real, non-existent and just a mere notion (say, a non-physical possible world with wings, or one with all characteristics absolutely different from the existent physical world).

(1) belong to existents. They are existent Realities. They are matter-energy in content. (2) belong to non-existent but theoretically necessary Realities. (3) are nothing, vacuous!

DIFFERENCE between non-existent, real virtual, and existent denotables:

Non-existents have no real properties, and generate no ontological commitment. Real virtuals have the properties that theoretically belong to the denotables that are lacunae in theory, but need not have Categorial characteristics. Existent denotables have Categories (characteristics) and properties. These are Extension and Change.

Hence, virtuals are versions of reality different from actual existents. They are called unobservables. Some of them are non-existent. When they are proved to exist, they become observables and are removed from membership in virtuals.

Theories yield unobservables (elctrons, neutrinos, gravitons, Higgs boson, vacuum energy, spinors, strings, superstrings …). They may be proved to exist, involving detectable properties.

Note: properties are not physical-ontological (metaphysical) characteristics (Categories). Instead, they are concatenations of Ontological Universals.

Virtual unobservables fill the lacunae in theoretical explanations.

As is clear now, the tool to discover new unobservables is not physical properties, but the physical-ontological Categories of Extension and Change. Virtuals are non-existent as such, but are taken as solutions to lacunae in rational imagination.

Discussion in ResearchGate:

https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_Are_Virtuals_in_Scientific_Theories_Criteria_to_Differentiate_them

I believe that this discussion will convince you of the use of philosophy in the sciences: ((https://www.researchgate.net/post/Criteria_to_Differentiate_between_Virtuals_and_Existents_in_Scientific_Theories))

CRITERIA TO DIFFERENTIATE BETWEEN VIRTUALS AND EXISTENTS

IN SCIENTIFIC THEORIES

Existents are in Extension (each having a finite number of finite-content parts) and Change (existents possessing parts exerting finite impacts on others, inclusive of exertion on some parts within). Hence, existents are physical, not virtual, and therefore physical-ontologically real generalities must be about, or pertinent to, existents. Space and time are just the measurement-based epistemic notions of the more generally physical-ontological Extension and Change respectively. The latter two are generalities of all existence, because nothing can exist without these two Categories. Hence, space and time are not physical-ontological, not real about, not pertinent to existents.

We can speak not merely of existents but also about their qualities and about non-existent “beings”. All of them are denotables. Thus, a denotable has reference to something that either (1) has a physical body (physically existent processes), or (2) is inherent in groups of physical processes but are not themselves a physical body (pure universal qualities of all description), or (3) is non-real, non-existent, and hence just a mere notion (e.g., a non-physical possible world with wings, or one with all characteristics – i.e., Extension and Change – absolutely different from the existent physical world).

Denotables of type (1) belong to existent Realities. They are of matter-energy in content, because Extension-Change determine them to be so. To denotables of type (1) belong also theoretically necessary realities, which are composed theoretically of methodical procedures using properties of existents, which, as a rule, (a) may be proved to be existing (i.e., existent unobservables) or (b) may not be proved to be existing (non-existent unobservables, which are just virtual objects) but are necessary for theory (e.g., potential energy).

To type (2) belong those universals that are never proved to exist but belong to all existents of a group as the general qualities of the members. These are termed ontological universals. The denotables of (1b) are the sub-types that are either fully virtual or partially virtual but are necessary for theory. Both are theoretically useful, but are often mistaken as being existents. Denotables of type (3) are nothing, vacuous. These are pure imaginations without any success in being proved to be in existence.

The DIFFERENCE between non-existent, real, virtual, and existent denotables is this:

Non-existents have no real properties, and generate no ontological commitment to existence via Extension and Change. Real virtuals have the properties that theoretically belong to the denotables that are lacunae in theory, but do not have the Categorial characteristics, namely, Extension and Change. Existent denotables (a) have these Categories (characteristics), (b) generate ontological commitment to existence, and (c) possess also properties that are conglomerations of many ontological universals. All ontological universals are under obedience to Extension and Change.

Hence, virtuals are versions of reality different from those that have been proved as actual existents. They are called in general as unobservables. Some of them are non-existent. When they are proved to exist, they become observables and partial observables, and are removed from membership in virtuals. Some partial observables may yet be considered as not yet proved to be existent. They happen further to be called unobservable virtuals. Some of them do not at all get the status of existent observables or existent partial observables. They belong to group of purely vacuous notions (3) above.

Theories yield unobservables (electrons, neutrinos, gravitons, Higgs boson, vacuum energy, dark energy, spinors, strings, superstrings …). They may be proved to exist, involving detectable properties.

Note that properties are not physical-ontological (metaphysical) characteristics, which latter I call ontological universals, the two most important of which are the Categories: Extension-Change. Instead of being ontological universals, properties are concatenations of ontological universals.

Virtual unobservables fill the lacunae in theoretical explanations, and most of them do not get proved as existent.

As is clear now, the tool to discover new unobservables is not physical properties of which physical and social sciences speak a lot, but instead, the physical-ontological Categories of Extension and Change. Mere virtuals are non-existent as such, but are taken as solutions to the lacunae in rational imagination. The sciences and many philosophies of the sciences seem not to differentiate between their denotables in the above manner.

My claim here is also that properties are also just physical virtuals, if we have the unobservables (say, vacuum energy, dark energy, etc.) behind them not fully steeped in physical existence in terms of EXTENSION and CHANGE through experimentally acceptable proofs of existence.

You show me any scientist or philosopher who ridicules philosophy or religion, and I shall show you in his or her writings childish misinterpretations of philosophy and religion. The worst of them is Stephen Hawking. He was religiously derisive of philosophy. He must be questioned on the validity of the philosophy of science and we will obtain other ex cathedra pronouncements as if his reason about philosophy is all that we can have!

He even concluded in 1999 that all that physics has to achieve has already been reached theoretically, and hence only some experimental and minor theoretical elaborations remain! If persons of such ideas pronounce statements on philosophy, would these statements be acceptable?

How to philosophize? How to philosophize in the sciences?

https://www.researchgate.net/post/How_to_philosophize_How_to_philosophize_in_the_sciences

Scientific Metaphysical Categories beyond Heidegger

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Scientific_Metaphysical_Categories_beyond_Heidegger

“A new scientific truth does triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.”

– Max Planck, Scientific Autobiography and Other Papers, London: Williams and Norgate Ltd., 1950, pp. 33-34.

But rather than of a new scientific “truth”, it may be true of a new scientific-systemic “revolution”. This true also of philosophy and the philosophies of various sciences.

Examples are what some scientists, technologically oriented philosophers of science, and linguistic analysts have done in a century or more to the contributions of Alfred North Whitehead and Edmund Husserl – all in the name of the triumphalist purity of science and self-sufficiency of language analysis – and of Plato and Aristotle in the name of interpretations. These sciences and their philosophies must be reborn through new theoretical re-examinations of the concepts of space, time, causality, matter, energy, etc.

I believe that relativising induction and deduction and connecting them with one another under some very general framework of thought will be a grand starting point to revolutionize the foundations of the whole of philosophy and science, and of logic and linguistic analytic philosophy in particular.

Induction or Deduction: Mutually Exclusive in Logic, Science, Mathematics, and Philosophy of Science?

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Induction_or_Deduction_Mutually_Exclusive_in_Logic_Science_Mathematics_and_Philosophy_of_Science

Perception is from objects, through a few layers of these objects (not of the whole object in whatever it is), which transpires through some layers of radiations or other transfers of energy from the few layers of the object, of which only a few are captured by our body, out of which only a few are received into brain-level conceptual operations, and of which only a few get transformed into data, of which a few become concepts.

Can we systematize these facts in the epistemology and metaphysics of the process of knowing?

Minimal Metaphysical Physicalism (MMP), Panpsychisms, and Monisms

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Minimal_Metaphysical_Physicalism_MMP_Panpsychisms_and_Monisms

A Trans-Pragmatic Truth Paradigm for Science, Technology, and Philosophy

https://www.researchgate.net/post/A_Trans-Pragmatic_Truth_Paradigm_for_Science_Technology_and_Philosophy

I have been revising this short discussion paper of mine in RG. It is an attempt to correct some basic attitudes in physics. Just now I have written an introduction to it. Please read it here. In a few days I shall upload the whole lead-text of this discussion for your reading and comments. Here please find only the introduction:

FOUNDATIONS OF AXIOMATIC PHILOSOPHY AND SCIENCE

1. INTRODUCTION

I get surprised each time when some physicists tell me that either the electromagnetic (EM) or the gravitational (G) or both the forms of energy do not exist, but are to be treated or expressed as waves or particles propagated from material objects that of course exist. Some of them put in all their energies to show that both EM and G are mere mathematical fields, and not physically existent fields of energy propagations from bodies.

This is similar in effect to Newton and his followers thinking honestly and religiously that gravitation and other energies are just miraculously non-bodily actions at a distance without any propagation particles / wavicles.

Even in the 21stcentury, we must be sharply aware that from the past more than 120 years the General Theory of Relativity and its various versions have succeeded in casting and maintaining the power of a terrifying veil of mathematical miracles on the minds of many scientists – miracles such as the mere spacetime curvature being the meaning of gravitation and all other sorts of fields.

A similar veil has been installed on the minds of many physicists by quantum physics too. We do not discuss it here. Hence, I have constructed in four published books a systemic manner of understanding these problems. I do not claim perfection in any of my attempts. Hence, I keep perfecting my efforts in the course of years. The following is a very short attempt to summarize in this effort one important point in physics and in the philosophy of physics.

I BELIEVE THAT THE TRADITION OF LAPPING UP WHATEVER THEY SAY BASED ON THEIR MANNER OF USING MATHEMATICS SHOULD STOP FOREVER. PHYSICISTS ARE NOT TO BEHAVE LIKE MAGICIANS, AND THEIR READERS SHOULD NOT PRACTICE RELIGIOUS FAITHFULNESS TO THEM.

How to Ground Science and Philosophy Together Axiomatically?

https://www.researchgate.net/post/How_to_Ground_Science_and_Philosophy_Together_Axiomatically

Symmetry: A Subset of Universal Causality. The Difference between Cause and Reason

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Symmetry_A_Subset_of_Universal_Causality_The_Difference_between_Cause_and_Reason

This discussion-text is just 2.5 pages, but intense. Meant for those who are interested in a clear presentation of what symmetry and symmetry breaking are, and of how physicists and mathematicians tend to misunderstand and/or misuse these concepts.

The Universally Causal context of the concept of symmetry is explained in terms of a solidly founded system of differentiation between cause and reason.

The Fallacies of Space, Time, and Spacetime in Physics

https://www.researchgate.net/post/The_Fallacies_of_Space_Time_and_Spacetime_in_Physics

Physical and Exact Sciences and Axiomatic Philosophy: Introducing Grounding (long text)

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Physical_and_Exact_Sciences_and_Axiomatic_Philosophy_Introducing_Grounding_long_text

Causality and Statistics: Their Levels of Effect and of Explanation

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Causality_and_Statistics_Their_Levels_of_Effect_and_of_Explanation

Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Paradox and Non-Locality: Is Einstein a Monist?

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen_Paradox_and_Non-Locality_Is_Einstein_a_Monist

Spacetime Curvatures, Gravitational Waves, Gravitons, and Anti-Gravitons: Do They All Exist?

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Spacetime_Curvatures_Gravitational_Waves_Gravitons_and_Anti-Gravitons_Do_They_All_Exist

The Fate of “Source-Independence” in Electromagnetism, Gravitation, and Monopoles

https://www.researchgate.net/post/The_Fate_of_Source-Independence_in_Electromagnetism_Gravitation_and_Monopoles

If anyone wants to read about a fantastic concept of the existence of consciousness and non-existence of the cosmos, see the comments till today here, by L Kurt Engelhart.......!!! Here you can learn the meaning of solipsism.... similar to mathematical platonism creating ideas / notions into objects.

https://www.researchgate.net/post/How_to_philosophize_How_to_philosophize_in_the_sciences

Essential Reason in Physicists’ Use of Logic: And in Other Sciences Too!

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Essential_Reason_in_Physicists_Use_of_Logic_And_in_Other_Sciences_Too

Preprint ESSENTIAL REASON IN PHYSICISTS' USE OF LOGIC: IN OTHER SCIENCES TOO

How Does Physics Know? The Epistemology Presupposed by Physics and Other Sciences

https://www.researchgate.net/post/How_Does_Physics_Know_The_Epistemology_Presupposed_by_Physics_and_Other_Sciences

Preprint MATHEMATICAL SOURCE OF FLAWS IN COSMOLOGICAL THEORIES: MATHE...

Preprint THE EPISTEMOLOGY PRESUPPOSED BY PHYSICS AND OTHER SCIENCES R...

PHYSICAL-PROCESSUAL REPRESENTATION OF IRRATIONAL NUMBERS

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Physical-Processual_Representation_of_Irrational_Numbers

THE ONTOLOGY BEHIND PHYSICS

3.1. Traditional Physical Categories

https://www.researchgate.net/post/The_Ontology_behind_Physics

Henry Margenau in his article “Einstein’s Conception of Reality” in Paul Schilpp’s collection Albert Einstein: Philosopher-Scientist (1970) suggests the relationship between physicists and philosophers: “Every discoverer of a new physical principle makes an important contribution to philosophy, even though he may not discuss it in philosophical terms.” (Margenau 1970: 246)

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Grounded_Physical-Ontological_Categories_behind_Physics

Grounded (New) Physical-Ontological Categories behind Physics

Preprint THE ONTOLOGY BEHIND PHYSICS: CRITIQUE OF TRADITIONAL PHYSICA...

A SIMPLE GAME-CHANGER CAUSALITY FOR PHYSICS: Beyond the Two Millennia

https://www.researchgate.net/post/A_SIMPLE_GAME-CHANGER_CAUSALITY_FOR_PHYSICS_Beyond_the_Two_Millennia

https://www.researchgate.net/post/DEFINITION_OF_THE_ONTOLOGY_BEHIND_PHYSICS_5_Paragraphs

DEFINITION OF THE ONTOLOGY BEHIND PHYSICS (5 Paragraphs)

THE ANOMALY IN MATHEMATICAL / THEORETICAL PHYSICS (Short Text)

https://www.researchgate.net/post/THE_ANOMALY_IN_MATHEMATICAL_THEORETICAL_PHYSICS_Short_Text

Here a serious and somewhat complex matter to discuss:

NON-FOUNDATIONS OF ‘WAVICLES’ IN EINSTEIN-PODOLSKY-ROSEN PARADOX: Bases for Quantum Physics to Evolve (Maybe a physical-ontological Breakthrough)

https://www.researchgate.net/post/NON-FOUNDATIONS_OF_WAVICLES_IN_EINSTEIN-PODOLSKY-ROSEN_PARADOX_Bases_for_Quantum_Physics_to_Evolve_Maybe_a_physical-ontological_Breakthrough

Preprint A SIMPLE GAME-CHANGER CAUSALITY FOR PHYSICS Beyond the Two Millennia

AGAINST COSMIC ISOTROPY, CONFORMAL CYCLIC COSMOS, ETERNAL INFLATION, etc.: A Critique of Identity, Simultaneity, Cosmic Repetition / Recycling, etc.

https://www.researchgate.net/post/AGAINST_COSMIC_ISOTROPY_CONFORMAL_CYCLIC_COSMOS_ETERNAL_INFLATION_etc_A_Critique_of_Identity_Simultaneity_Cosmic_Repetition_Recycling_etc

Preprint ESSENTIAL LOGIC, EPISTEMOLOGY, AND ONTOLOGY BEHIND PHYSICS, ...

WHAT IS THE MYSTERIOUS STUFF OF INFORMATION? A Short but Clear Definition

https://www.researchgate.net/post/WHAT_IS_THE_MYSTERIOUS_STUFF_OF_INFORMATION_A_Short_but_Clear_Definition

Preprint COSMIC ISOTROPY, CONFORMAL CYCLIC COSMOS, ETERNAL INFLATION:...

THE PLANCK ERA / QUANTUM ERA and “DISAPPEARANCE” OF PHYSICAL CAUSALITY: “OMNIPOTENCE” OF MATHEMATICS

https://www.researchgate.net/post/THE_PLANCK_ERA_QUANTUM_ERA_and_DISAPPEARANCE_OF_PHYSICAL_CAUSALITY_OMNIPOTENCE_OF_MATHEMATICS

Preprint PLANCK ERA or QUANTUM ERA,and ”DISAPPEARANCE” OF CAUSALITY. ...

Preprint IS THE VELOCITY OF LIGHT SACROSANCT?

Preprint CAUSAL HORIZONAL RESEARCH: A METHODOLOGY IN PHYSICS Raphael ...

https://www.researchgate.net/post/WHAT_IS_INFORMATION_WHAT_IS_ITS_CAUSAL_OR_NON-CAUSAL_CORE_A_Discussion

https://www.researchgate.net/post/LINGUISTIC_HERESY_BEHIND_SELF-ORGANIZATION_SELF-REFERENCE_INTENTIONALITY_PHYSICAL_AND_BIOLOGICAL_SELF-INTERACTION_etc

Deleted research item The research item mentioned here has been deleted

Preprint LINGUISTIC HERESY OF DENOTATIVE ABSOLUTISM: PHYSICAL-BIOLOGI...

https://www.researchgate.net/post/ONTOLOGICAL_DIFFERENCES_OF_CHARACTERISTICS_OF_ARTIFICIAL_AND_BIOLOGICAL_INTELLIGENCE_ALGORITHMS_AND_PROCEDURES_Against_Exaggerations

https://www.researchgate.net/post/WHY_EXACTLY_THE_WAVE-PARTICLE_DUALITY_Phenomenal_Ontological_Commitment_POC_as_the_Solution

https://www.researchgate.net/post/UNTENABLE_REIFICATION_OF_CONCEPTS_IN_PHYSICS_With_Examples

Preprint WHY EXACTLY WAVE-PARTICLE DUALITY? Phenomenal Ontological Co...

https://www.researchgate.net/post/DO_PHYSICAL_QUANTA_EXIST_Why_Should_CONSCIOUSNESS_Be_Treated_Quantum-Biologically

https://www.researchgate.net/post/HEIDEGGER_How_a_Philosopher_Destroys_His_Own_Thoughts_Coherence_and_Adequacy

Preprint FROM PHYSICAL ONTOLOGY TO LINGUISTICS AND INFORMATION

Preprint UNIVERSAL CAUSALITY AND THE PHYSICAL-ONTOLOGICAL DEFECT OF N...

Preprint DIFFERENCES IN THE CONCEPTS OF CAUSALITY IN METAPHYSICS AND ...

Preprint BEYOND CAUSAL ITERATION QUANTIFIABILITY IN LINGUISTIC SPACE-TIME

Preprint BEYOND THE CAUSAL ITERATION METHOD. Short Text (Beyond Judea Pearl)

Preprint REFERENCE, APPLICABILITY, AND ADEQUACY OF UNIVERSALS, INFORM...

Preprint DENOTATIVE ABSOLUTISM. A 20TH CENTURY LOGICAL AND LINGUISTIC HERESY

Preprint INEVITABILITY OF COSMOLOGICAL, ONTOLOGICAL, AND EPISTEMOLOGI...

Preprint Introducing GRAVITATIONAL COALESCENCE PARADOX: COSMOGENETIC CAUSALITY

Preprint Chapter 6. COSMOGENESIS IN QUANTUM COSMOLOGY