METAPHILOSOPHY—A Philosophizing through logical consequences
CAUSALITY & LOGICAL CONSEQUENCES
Cause and effect are not universal, but relative.
On the other hand, the universality of cause and effect is only relative, not absolute, because wherever it is (universally)
RELATIVELY ADAPTABLE
So something is relative, which does not mean that it is doubtful whether it is right or wrong, but that something is relative, which means you need to be aware of how to adapt to it which is relative
RELATIVE DIVERSITY
That’s why relative does not mean there are no limits, but rather its flexibility emphasizes the diversity of possibilities that are still within limits
LIMIT OF RELATIVE
This also means that there is a relative range of how far the relative cannot exceed a certain limit. And a certain limit that cannot be exceeded by pure possibility
ABSOLUTE AS A FOUNDATION OF RELATIVE
It also means that because the absolute is the furthest limit to relative possibilities, the absolute becomes the basis for the relative.
THE FOUNDATION OF ABSOLUTE
Then how to understand absolutes rationally? Absoluteness is rationally realized in “logical consequences”. Why? Because of the sequence in consequences
SCIENTIFIC—EMPIRICAL
Empirical evidence involves causal observations or attempts to find causal relationships.
SCIENTIFIC LOGICAL CONSEQUENCES
Because logical consequences underlie the cause-effect relationship so that if a logical consequence is realized, then without observation it is already knowledge
METAPHYSICS
When a logical consequence is felt to be strange, or seems metaphysical beyond reason, it is actually not beyond reason, but they think it needs observation because they think it is still in the realm of cause-and-effect that requires observation. This is because generally they cannot distinguish between the cause-and-effect underlying empiricism and the logical consequences underlying cause-and-effect.
Scientists and philosophers generally cannot distinguish between cause-and-effect and logical consequences.
PPOPER PHILOSOPHIZING
That is the need for rational and objective philosophy based on logical consequences. It’s just that they generally find it difficult to distinguish the boundaries that are considered blurry between cause and effect and consequence
PHILOSOPHICAL EQUALITY—With Expert Scientists (Physics & Mathematics)
If one is able to philosophize rationally and objectively, it is akin to positioning philosophy on par with physics and mathematics. Where physics and mathematics have modular formulas that can be synchronized among physicists and mathematicians.
Then philosophy, with its many logical consequence formulas, is also able to synergize scientifically (and even surpass) with physicists and mathematicians.
Please don’t just downvote based on karma or other values, as this is still something new. Downvoting might not be beneficial for ongoing discussions where we could potentially inspire each other without stopping in unnecessary mid-discussion.
Feel free to discuss for days; it’s better than rushing to judgment.
Is this supposed to sound a little crazy? I’m reading it with the assumption that it might be some fully formed field of expertise with its own jargon etc that i haven’t heard about yet...
You’re seeing a thing and trying to get it across and, as I can tell from checking your profile’s karma, not communicating in a way that’s making people feel like they’re learning or understanding something valuable to them from your words.
So… philosophizing rationally and objectively elevates philsophy, in some abstract ranking space, to become equal to physics and math. In that ranking space, philosophy is implied to have been below math and physics before, or else nobody would be lauding having brought it to their level.
In that ranking space, physics and maths are composed of operations that are repeatable between practitioners of the field. Repeatable operations like any machinist should be able to build an exact machine from a sufficiently detailed set of blueprints.
But the machinist doesn’t have to be the inventor. They might, but they don’t have to. The skills of doing a thing and the skills of deciding what thing to do are discrete. Solving a test, versus choosing which problems are the appropriate difficulty to include on the test. They’re at completely different levels. Call those levels insight and execution, maybe. The skillsets are separate. Under scarcity pressures, we often try to get both skillsets in the same individual, like in hiring and careers. But outside of scarcity pressures, like in many hobby organizations and recreational collaborations, people who are missing insight or missing execution can nevertheless thrive and contribute.
I think philosophy, physics, and mathematics are already all the same, in each comprising the separate insight and execution layers. Is there some cognitive or intellectual difference between a straight-A philosophy student, and the philosophers they study? Is just knowing about philosophy sufficient to actually do it?
Like how we spend years painstakingly copying other peoples’ words and letters to develop the handwriting skills to write something brilliant, or even to write something mundane but unique and personal, math and physics and philosophy all have some amount of sloggy grind at the very beginning before you can start making art with them as paints upon experience’s canvas.
And regarding synchronized among physicists and mathematicians… Some elements of philosophy can already be synchronized as well, as evidenced by our ability to make up grading systems for philosophy classes. Maybe that’s not a good way to teach philosophy… but then again, who said it was a good way to teach physics or maths?
What does “synergize scientifically” or “surpass” mean in this context?
When we use logical consequences, it means we have gone one step beyond reasoning with cause and effect, because logical consequences are the gateway to universal truth. and that is what actually happens in the phenomena of quantum physics, revealing truths beyond the cause-and-effect relationships of induction or deduction. By delving into the logical consequences behind cause and effect, it enables us to perceive universal truths.
This is where quantum physics comes into play, in the realm of simplicity, which, from a logical standpoint, falls under the category of truth based on universal logical consequences.
Unlike commonly known deduction, where conclusions are drawn from premises that may not be universal, here the deduction involves universally true premises, albeit arranged differently. Each syllogism doesn’t necessarily consist of two premises, but the relationship between one premise and another is also a universal truth.
The synergy lies in the fact that philosophy has its own formulation of universality (through non-mathematical axiomatic statement), similar to mathematics and physics
Hence, among physics, mathematics, and philosophy, there can be a mutual conversion of understanding without any gaps.
Do you believe that there’s currently a “mutual conversion of understanding without any gaps” between mathematics and physics?
There must be as part of a process, but basically it can be solved in the sense that mathematic essential in physics for formulating theories, making predictions, and quantifying relationships between variables
But not for philosophy in the sense that philosophy mostly abstract, not objective
Somehow philosophy must have its own formula, a rational & objective statement(s), so there won’t be a gap in between philosophy to both (mathematic & physics)
It was a yes or no question, friend.
RELATIVE ANSWER
The yes or no answer is multi-dimensional. Not only from a certain point of view, but broadly there are certain aspects of achievement and certain failures, so that from a time point of view, currently there are two answers in different contexts.
YES, because many people use calculus mathematics to calculate changes
NO, because mathematics cannot yet reconcile general relativity & quantum mechanics
When you ask for a definitive answer, I also have to answer objectively. And that’s a close to objective answer. Why?
In a level of causality. It has a degree of functionality that gives different results (between yes or no)
So in this case I answered objectively.
DEFINITE ANSWER
UNLESS THE QUESTION ABOUT ABSOLUTE UNIVERSAL TRUTH, there has to be a definite answer (YES OR NO)