(Permalink)(Was chapter 19 in version 1)
Right, now that we got some tooling, we can start with serious business, and get into the topic itself.
(Permalink) To try to understand how our material universe works is physics, to try to understand why or how it appeared is metaphysics.
But, more practically, metaphysics especially allows for grasping at non-material objects or phenomenon, such as consciousness, ethics, etc. and assessing their relations with the physical objects.
(Permalink) Traditional science claims not to make metaphysics, for the motive that metaphysical statements would be untestable. It considers such statements as only beliefs.
This claim is false, and even hypocritical, as traditional science, as much as any other explanation of the world, can only be based on some metaphysical hypothesis, as much as Christianism or Dogon mythology. The implicit metaphysical basis of traditional science is:
«Matter exists in an absolute way, and only it».
The consequences come in a merciless way:
-Consciousness, emotions, happiness or suffering would not exist, and even numbers would not exist, after some.
-There cannot be non-physical cause to the physical world (No God creator, for instance).
-Consciousness would have no power on matter (other than with nerves and body).
-There would be no ethics, no need to respect human beings (Few scientists say this openly, but we can see this statement at work every days at the occasion of many administrative decisions, and even sometimes in research orientation).
These statements, as much arbitrarian and untestable than the Star Wars mythology, are however presented as «absolute» and «obvious» truths, and anybody who question them is called «nutter», «irrationnal», in the same ways questioners of the catholic metaphysics were called «heretics».
To place matter in the centre of the debate has the advantage to also place here, surrepticiously, the «economy constrains», understand the financial interests of business people, who hire their employees the politicians with the task of bringing a strong support to this materialistic science, while boycotting the others. Repression of dissident thought is no more done with stakes, but with the mind control methods seen in chapter II-6: as soon as we speak of justice, sharing, ethics, emotions, life, beauty, meaning of life, spirituality, we are called «irrational» rigged with «beliefs». Then, what we have to say has no more weight, compared to the «serious» and «rational» speech which puts the bulldozer into our flowery glens, to build here noisy and polluting thingies. Even if we speak of more theoretical matters, we always get a «rational» explanation which always comes to repair the «illusions» of the ones who witnessed a parapsychological phenomenon, or simply who had a spiritual experience.
In more of this obvious ideological bias, the metaphysical position of traditional science is just simply untenable. This is because, this science, which however showed excellent to describe the functioning of the universe with physics, is now stalled on a problem, which it is fundamentally unable to solve: the Big Bang, the time zero and what took place «before», when this physics was not existing yet. Obviously, the causes of this event, whatever they are, are necessarily beyond matter, that is… meta physical. This is precisely what this word means! To avoid engaging into a discussion on metaphysics, the physicists are now elaborating on an «hyper physics» (Branes, multiple universes… note 73) which does only pushing farther the mystery of the ultimate causes. These speculations however are as much physically untestable than the talks of Jesus, and with much less practical uses.
However, for any normal human person, it is obvious that we are conscious, that we have ideas, emotions, desires, and especially purposes, irreducible to economic motives, and even irreducible to any genetic program. The position of traditional science, especially pseudosciences like behaviourism, just looks offbeat and weird to the eyes of the vast majority of people. But these people are unable to explain why, by lack of concepts or words for this. Then, by lack of better explanation, they think that science is «complex» and inhuman. In the worse cases, they get lost in a dualistic refusal of science, accusing it of being the cause of all the evils which plague the world.
It is time to get out of these ideological pirouettes and to propose a science which can solve all our problems, instead of just inventing more machines. This is why the metaphysical question must be accepted and examined honestly, in the very first. This book proposes a metaphysical vision which much better accounts for the whole observable reality, not just of a small selection.
(Permalink) The previous issue does not prevent the classical physics of being perfectly valuable in its domain, where it does wonderful things. But if we want to speak of why and how the universe exists, it is better to start from something else. And without committing the same mistake: we must not suppose anything «sure» and «already known». Nothing «revealed» like the ancient religions, and nothing implicit like traditional science.
(Modified in August 22, 2018:) A common warning in science literature and philosophy is that a metaphysical statement cannot be tested. Hence the common claim of science, that metaphysics is only beliefs, and the indistinct rejection of this whole domain by mainstream science (While sweeping under the rug that physics does metaphysics too, as seen above).
(Modified in August 22, 2018:) Actually, what cannot be tested are arbitrary metaphysical statements. But some metaphysical statements may have observable consequences, allowing to apprehend them scientifically, see to demonstrate their reality (even indirectly). The only means to know if a metaphysical statement is true is to check if its implications into the physical world lead to something coherent, useful and complete. This is what we are doing in this third part.
The people who tried to build metaphysical systems often tried to base them on the observable physical world. This is absurd, because the existence of the world can only result from possible metaphysical facts, and not the opposite. In particular this approach cannot explain why the world exists, and even not what «to exist» means.
Of course, we shall be cautious, in all this part, never to start from «metaphysical principles» «already known» and stated a priori. We shall start only from logic, which is, as we saw in first part, the way which examined objects are related together.
Especially, nothing proves that the metaphysical domain obey Aristotelian logic. Paradoxes, singularities and actuation indeterminism may even play the first roles here. From there the relevance of giving them full chapters.
We shall voluntarily leave besides in this part the question of a possible divine creation or transcendent origin. If that exists, we shall find it one day or another, even without seeking it. We however shall not make the mistake of eluding this question all along this book, and we shall speak about this in the following parts.
Also we have the right to wonder, since we do not use material reality as a base, and even not God, then on what to found a metaphysics? Hey hey you wonder... surprise!
Ideas, texts, drawings and realization: Richard Trigaux.
Legal notice and copyright Unless otherwise noted (© sign in the navigation bar) or legal exception (pastiches, examples, quotes...), all the texts, graphics, characters, names, animations, sounds, melodies, programming, cursors, symbols of this site are copyright of their author and right owner, Richard Trigaux. Thanks not to mirror this site, unless it disappears. Thanks not to copy the content of this site beyond private use, quotes, samples, building a link. Benevolent links welcome. No commercial use. If you desire to make a serious commercial use, please contact me. Any use, modification, overtaking of elements of this site or the presented worlds in a way deprecating my work, my philosophy or generaly recognized moral rules, may result into law suit.