Physical Events, Physics and Metaphysics

[longknowledge]

In 1910, the Spanish philosopher José Ortega y Gasset gave a speech(1) in which he talked about physical events, physics and metaphysics:

The problem of pedagogy is not to educate the exterior man, the anthropos, but rather the interior man who thinks, feels and wants. Look, gentlemen, at the durable case that man offers: he moves himself in space, he goes from one place to another, and at the same time he carries within himself infinite space, the thought of space. His body is a physical body, but I ask, and physics itself, what is it? Physical bodies move, have weight, and decompose. Physics does not move, have weight, and decompose. Bodies gravitate one toward the other in inverse proportion to their distance: but the law of gravitation does not even weigh one adarme [1/16th of an ounce]. It's that physics, gentlemen, is beyond physical events: physics is a metaphysical event.

And later that year, in an article(2) regarding a polemic between two famous Spanish writers of the 19th century about the uselessness of metaphysics as compared with science, Ortega wrote:

The better biology describes our animal origin, the better the privilege that separates man from the rest of nature, because that will mean that biology is even more exact. Well now, biology is not a biological event; like physics is not physical, but rather both are precisely, supernatural events, metaphysical.

Recent discussions elsewhere in this Forum have focused on how physics differs from metaphysics. It has been said that physics talks about physical events or "phenomena" and that metaphysics, among other things, talks about talk about physical events or phenomena, i.e., metaphysics talks about physics, but not about physical events. But this could lead to an infinite regression, for in talking about metaphysics and its relationship to physics, are we engaging in talk about talk about talk about physical events, or metametaphysics, and so forth.

Ortega avoids this regression by regarding physics, and also biology, as "metaphysical events." Thus metaphysics could be defined as the study of metaphysical events, including physics and biology.

Now the point also has been raised that physics involves experiments, which are physical events. Experiments are physical events performed to test hypotheses. But what are hypotheses? Hypotheses, in the case of physics, are statements about physical events. This is the part of physics that is usually understood as involving talk about physical events.

And what about the experiments themselves? The purpose of the experiment is to test whether or not the statements about the physical events correspond to the physical events occurring during the experiment. But what is involved in designing the experiment; that is, in making the plan of the sets of physical events to be performed by the physicist during the experiment? Is designing an experiment a physical event? Is it talk about a physical event? Is it a metaphysical event?

And what is talk? Is it a physical event or a metaphysical event? Or both?
Comments welcome.

1. "Pedagogía social como programa político (Social Pedagogy as Political Program)," Conference given at the Sociedad "El Sitio", in Bilbao, Spain, March 12, 1910.
2. "Una polémica (A Polemic). II.," El Imparcial, October 6, 1910.

[Note: All translations were done by longknowledge.]

[kennethamy]

Originally Posted by longknowledge

In 1910, the Spanish philosopher José Ortega y Gasset gave a speech(1) in which he talked about physical events, physics and metaphysics:



And later that year, in an article(2) regarding a polemic between two famous Spanish writers of the 19th century about the uselessness of metaphysics as compared with science, Ortega wrote:



Recent discussions elsewhere in this Forum have focused on how physics differs from metaphysics. It has been said that physics talks about physical events or "phenomena" and that metaphysics, among other things, talks about talk about physical events or phenomena, i.e., metaphysics talks about physics, but not about physical events. But this could lead to an infinite regression, for in talking about metaphysics and its relationship to physics, are we engaging in talk about talk about talk about physical events, or metametaphysics, and so forth.

Ortega avoids this regression by regarding physics, and also biology, as "metaphysical events." Thus metaphysics could be defined as the study of metaphysical events, including physics and biology.

Now the point also has been raised that physics involves experiments, which are physical events. Experiments are physical events performed to test hypotheses. But what are hypotheses? Hypotheses, in the case of physics, are statements about physical events. This is the part of physics that is usually understood as involving talk about physical events.

And what about the experiments themselves? The purpose of the experiment is to test whether or not the statements about the physical events correspond to the physical events occurring during the experiment. But what is involved in designing the experiment; that is, in making the plan of the sets of physical events to be performed by the physicist during the experiment? Is designing an experiment a physical event? Is it talk about a physical event? Is it a metaphysical event?

And what is talk? Is it a physical event or a metaphysical event? Or both?
Comments welcome.

1. "Pedagogía social como programa político (Social Pedagogy as Political Program)," Conference given at the Sociedad "El Sitio", in Bilbao, Spain, March 12, 1910.
2. "Una polémica (A Polemic). II.," El Imparcial, October 6, 1910.

[Note: All translations were done by longknowledge.]

I really don't believe there is anything to avoid. Physics is talk about the world, philosophy (metaphysics) is talk about talk about the world, and metaphilosophy is talk about talk about talk about the world. I don't see that there need be more levels of discourse, so the regress is not vicious, but even if there are more levels, so what? All regresses are not infinite, and even if a regress is infinite, it need not be a vicious infinite regress. Recursive definitions are infinite, but not viciously infinite. They are benign infinite regresses.

[richrf]

Thanks for the quotes.

I think no matter where one draws the line it is going to have to vanish. There really is no distinction between metaphysics and physics since they are both attempting to describe the same thing via different means. For me, when Heraclitus says All is in flux, this is no different and equally valid as Quantum Mechanics equations that describe nature via wave/particle equations. However, both descriptions are useful for different aspects of life.

Be that as it may, it useful for discussion purposes to keep the metaphysics and physics somewhat separate, so as not to upset scientists who believe their art is the superior art. It is a matter of practicality.

Rich

[kennethamy]

Originally Posted by richrf

. For me, when Heraclitus says All is in flux, this is no different and equally valid as Quantum Mechanics equations that describe nature via wave/particle equations. However, both descriptions are useful for different aspects of life.


Rich

Sorry, but "for me' is not an argument.

[richrf]

Originally Posted by kennethamy

Sorry, but "for me' is not an argument.

For me it is. It is one of the primary ways I communicate my feelings about the stock market to people, with great success. Much more so than any syllogism.

What one feels is often the only argument. For example, if someone says that they enjoyed playing tennis with me. I feel good. That is it.

Feelings are probably the most important factor in human development.

Rich

[Rubix Cube]

If Ortega defines metaphysics as the study of metaphysical events, and metaphysical events include (and contain) physical studies, such as physics and biology, which discuss physical events, then by Ortega's definition of metaphysics, experiments and hypotheses are metaphysical and relating to physics. The Experiment is posing a question to a question about a physical event, talking about talk about something physical, IE: metaphysical. The hypothesis is talk about something physical, however, and therefore it is neither a physical event nor metaphysical. It is simply physics. The hypothesis, however, is not being further discussed. An experiment attempts to recreate a physical event, not achieve the hypothesis, this is why a hypothesis is not considered metaphysical.

Talk in general can be either a metaphysical event or a physical event, but never both at the same time. When expressing an emotion, feeling, thought, or anything else from within oneself, the act of speaking can be considered physical. When a discussion ensues about metaphysics v physics, however, it can be considered a metaphysical discussion.

This is my interpretation of the quotes and descriptions you provided. I may be missing something in my analysis. What do you think?

[kennethamy]

Originally Posted by richrf

For me it is. It is one of the primary ways I communicate my feelings about the stock market to people, with great success. Much more so than any syllogism.

What one feels is often the only argument. For example, if someone says that they enjoyed playing tennis with me. I feel good. That is it.

Feelings are probably the most important factor in human development.

Rich

What one feels is not an argument in any sense of the the word, "argument" I am familiar with. The purpose of arguments is not to communicate feelings. The purpose is to establish a proposition as true. Perhaps you ought to look up the word in a good dictionary. You seem to be uncertain of its meaning. Words do not mean anything you please them to mean. You might notice that the people who have just won Nobel prizes did not win them for their feelings.

[Rubix Cube]

Originally Posted by kennethamy

What one feels is not an argument in any sense of the the word, "argument" I am familiar with. The purpose of arguments is not to communicate feelings. The purpose is to establish a proposition as true. Perhaps you ought to look up the word in a good dictionary. You seem to be uncertain of its meaning. Words do not mean anything you please them to mean. You might notice that the people who have just won Nobel prizes did not win them for their feelings.

I think what was meant here is that what one feels can be an effective tool to use in an argument, not an argument within itself. You can't refute the feelings of some one else. Say, for example, that you and I go and see a movie. When we walk out of the movie you say "I liked that movie." and I say "I disliked that movie." I can't tell you that you dislike the movie no matter how much I want to, because you did enjoy the movie. I can certainly give reasons as to why I disliked the movie to try and change your mind, but it's much harder to argue against when it's opinionated and not logical. Rich simply gave his opinion, opinions can be argued against, it's just not as easy when there's no clear cut answer to how a person should feel about a subject. And also, while Rich may not have been originally arguing with his initial two cents, you made it into an argument the moment you called it into question.

[richrf]

Originally Posted by Rubix Cube

I think what was meant here is that what one feels can be an effective tool to use in an argument, not an argument within itself. You can't refute the feelings of some one else.

Yes, I agree. And more than this, for me life and philosophy is not simply a set of logical syllogisms, that are pieced together with the purpose of winning some argument. It is about understanding life, and one does this by understanding one's own feelings and those of others. How are they similar? How are they different? Why is this so?

Feelings tap into an aspect of life that thinking alone cannot.

Rich

[kennethamy]

Originally Posted by Rubix Cube

I think what was meant here is that what one feels can be an effective tool to use in an argument, not an argument within itself. You can't refute the feelings of some one else. Say, for example, that you and I go and see a movie. When we walk out of the movie you say "I liked that movie." and I say "I disliked that movie." I can't tell you that you dislike the movie no matter how much I want to, because you did enjoy the movie. I can certainly give reasons as to why I disliked the movie to try and change your mind, but it's much harder to argue against when it's opinionated and not logical. Rich simply gave his opinion, opinions can be argued against, it's just not as easy when there's no clear cut answer to how a person should feel about a subject. And also, while Rich may not have been originally arguing with his initial two cents, you made it into an argument the moment you called it into question.

I don't think I follow you. How can my feelings be an effective tool in an argument? The question is not how one should feel about anything. The question is what feeling have to do with argument.

I think that opinions can be argued against too. But opinions are not just feelings. Or, at least they should be backed up by more than feelings, which are no support at all. Hitler was a bad person because I feel he was a bad person can only get the reply, "so what?". Feelings are not reasons.

---------- Post added 10-08-2009 at 09:29 PM ----------

Originally Posted by richrf

Yes, I agree. And more than this, for me life and philosophy is not simply a set of logical syllogisms, that are pieced together with the purpose of winning some argument. It is about understanding life, and one does this by understanding one's own feelings and those of others. How are they similar? How are they different? Why is this so?

Feelings tap into an aspect of life that thinking alone cannot.

Rich

That may be true, for all I know. But you seem to have switched views. You are, at least, no longer saying that feelings are arguments. And that is an improvement.