Why do we think that existence pursues something? And why would existence pursue coming into existence (becoming?)? I didn't think evolution had a driving force... More of a, stuff happened, the stuff most successful at surviving survived. Can DQ ever be anything other than something to which we refer retroactively, after which it already is SQ? In what sense is this concept of any use?
Sorry for the put-down. But so far the "Metaphysics of Quality" seems mostly like a bunch of trivial statements, and some other ones that are just plain weird. All held together by evocative yet vague and ambiguous vocabulary. "That which exists exists". How could I disagree? Of what use is this model? How does it function? What do I do with it?
Sure it's a model: but IMHO it's a better model in the way it addresses Reality than the one that the Greeks came up with - ie the "Subject/Object" Metaphysics we take for granted.
What you can do with it, I suspect,(and if you are clever enough - which I know I'm not!) is to completely reinvent virtually every field of academic study from the ground up.
Starting with Economics, which is is currently in the process of being irretrievably discredited by events, I suspect.... "Any economic unit can emit money. The serious problem is to get it accepted" Hyman Minsky
That presumes that such studies are underpinned by metaphysics rather than empirical reality. That may be true for economics, but it's a non-starter in science.
- Jake If you only spend 20 minutes of the rest of your life on economics, go spend them here.
As J A Wheeler said: "Reality is defined by the questions you put to it". Metaphysics concerns these questions we ask of Reality.
And as for it being a non-starter in Science, I would have said Science is actually founded upon it. Why else use the word....."meta" physics?
As I understand it, it is the inadequacy of its metaphysical foundations that leads Science into difficulties of interpretation. eg the Copenhagen Interpretation. "Any economic unit can emit money. The serious problem is to get it accepted" Hyman Minsky
As for science being founded on metaphysics, I would say that science is a method of investigation. It is neither more nor less founded on metaphysics than your conclusion that the sun will rise tomorrow.
Lastly, I do not see how the Copenhagen interpretation represents a failure of the metaphysics of science or an attempt to paper over its difficulties. The equations are what they are. The experimental data is what it is. The latter strongly supports the former. If you go beyond that, you venture into the realm of philosophy.
But the validity of the equations themselves are not in doubt just because there are different possible philosophical interpretations of them. Just as apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air pending the outcome of the philosophical discussions provoked by Newton's theories, entangled photons do not await the philosopher's permission before they carry out spooky action at a distance.
Because at the end of the day, engineering trumphs philosophy when it comes to being convincing.
If you go beyond that, you venture into the realm of philosophy
Of course: metaphysics is a part of philosophy.
it sounds rather like hubris to presume that it is the questions we ask that shape the world
But that is exactly what happens, I think. "Any economic unit can emit money. The serious problem is to get it accepted" Hyman Minsky
Well thats going to need some justifying, or at the very least some further explaination. Any idiot can face a crisis - it's day to day living that wears you out.
