The higher orders are based on the function that is applied to the previous set, so essentially they are like the natural numbers: (X, X+1, X+2…)
It is a simple tautology that if the natural numbers are unlimited, then the number of natural numbers is undefined.
Sorry. I clearly missed this part, when I looked before. I think this makes the distinction I was asking about.
To be clear: you are contrasting any portion of reality that can be studied scientifically (objectively) with the sum total of reality, which is beyond the scope of study. Is that right?
Thanks.
That’s right. Only the philosophical position of naturalism presumes that these are the same thing. Rejecting naturalism does not mean we think that what science studies isn’t real, but only that this is not the limit of reality.
The fact that science doesn’t study reality also leaves open the possibility of taking an instrumental approach to the philosophy of science, which denies that any metaphysical claims are being made (i.e. claims about reality), but that it is only about predicting the results of measurements. While most scientists are not instrumentalist (myself included), most don’t think that science precludes such a possibility.
Thus reality remains a question for philosophy rather than science – more specifically the branch of philosophy called metaphysics. Though some might consider this a joining of science and philosophy because the attempt to do metaphysics without expertise in physics seems a bit foolish.
as I said - what toilet roll 
Distinguishing metaphysics (pure reason) from theology is also an important step.
I used to comment on the internet infidels forum a while back, and would explain to atheists who claimed metaphysics was meaningless, those three statements for the world. It’s hard to imagine a better introduction, and the trick is that all three are empirically unverifiable.
There was even one from there who claimed to have a PhD in math and argued at considerable length that it is logically possible to form an infinite set through successive addition.
Stuff like that just makes you wonder what people are thinking.
Some people would like the science to be limited to the investigation of the physical reality and hope that the study about the impact of intercessory prayer would never have been done. The point is that people say that the metaphysical can impact the physical world, thus it makes it subject to scientific study. The odd thing is that we use metaphysics to investigate the physical reality, such as mathematics and logic.
The problem is in the use of the word natural and supernatural as most people conflict this with natural and not natural e.g. unnatural subconsciously whilst to me the supernatural is perfectly natural.
The clash between science and religion comes from a similar confusion as religion, in particular Christianity, is often based on wishful thinking that our God manipulates reality in our favour. And this were it becomes embarrassing as it becomes logically incoherent. but then we declare our self-centred subjective reality to become a human right, leading reality ad absurdum by decree. “My will be done” is the core message of the fall as it sets self against self, thus guarantees conflict, the essence of sin.
English becomes a broken tool when multiple meanings of the same word are used. I prefer the primary academic definitions such as this one.
Metaphysics is the philosophical study of the nature of reality.
I am not sure what “pure reason” might be, I wonder if Kant defines it his “Critique of Pure Reason.” If it is as one definition I found: the faculty that embraces the a priori forms of knowledge and is the source of transcendental ideas. Then I don’t blame Kant for criticizing it. I don’t think I believe in such a thing.
The philosophy that metaphysics is meaningless is called logical positivism. I consider both this and the more recent philosophical claim that there is no such thing as meaning to be completely meaningless.
Science is limited to physical reality. There is no like about it. Science only works because of the space-time structure of the physical universe which make things which are a part of it measurable. Things outside that structure are not measurable and thus inaccessible to science. All the study of the impact of intercessory prayer shows is that it makes no alteration of natural law.
The use of “metaphysical” with multiple definitions renders this incoherent to me.
I would call that magical Christianity.
So would you classify prayer as a physical or a metaphysical activity?
This has been a favorite quote of mine from the CPR, “Without a contradiction, I have through mere pure concepts a priori no mark of impossibility.”
Most of the work I was unable to read. But that passage on the ontological argument I digested, and wrote a paper on how the argument works but doesn’t actually prove God apart from oneself. And as I think Kant said elsewhere, ‘we’ are unable to determine whether it is in us or not. This is, in my opinion, the critique of pure reason.
Metaphysics is the philosophical study of the nature of reality.
I don’t see how this has anything to do with prayer.
Prayer is a physical activity. That doesn’t mean its effects are only physical.
Marvin, you tag yourself Christian Sceptic. What is a Christian Sceptic for you?
I am a sceptic regarding claims of magic by Christians
is thinking a physical activity as well?
The word “physical” has more than one definition. There is “physical” meaning natural as in the physical sciences, and there is “physical” meaning bodily as in physical exercise. As a physicist I tend to default to the first definition. Taking a physicalist position in regards to the mind-body problem, I consider thinking to be a physical activity by the first meaning but not the second. But I am not a physicalist with regard to the entirety of reality or in a corresponding spirit-body problem. In that case I take an effective dualist position which is nearly epiphenomenal, meaning most of the causality is from the physical/natural to the spiritual, especially in the case of physical/natural and spiritual aspects of human beings (largely based on 1 Corinthians 15). I certainly reject the notions of classic dualism which has a non-physical/natural mind/spirit operating the body like a puppet.
Perhaps in the US people view the church as ‘anti-science’ but that is not true in the UK. A significant number of Christians are scientists themselves. And science is not ‘reality’ it is simply one method by which mankind attempts to understand the reality of the physical universe by using certain methodologies etc. And of course mankind’s understanding of the universe has changed over the centuries because of new scientific findings and theories. So science at any point in time could never be said to be ‘reality’. It may be an approximation.
Some Christians reject evolutionary theory and want to believe in a young earth etc. That’s just because of their own specific understanding of the Bible. But a significant number of Christians reject such an understanding of reality.
Thanks for this encouragement, Peter — like transmissions from a distant planet. It’s a disturbing time to be an American and an American Christian, as we watch (and participate in) what looks like an implosion of the church here and a massive fracturing of our society.
It’s heartening to know that there are still some sane places.
I see no reason for hope in the UK, we’ve just been doing this five times longer and are a tad more ‘refined’ about it. We’re run by very old money plutocrats whose ancestors stole the commons and make ■■■■ sure it isn’t taxed. All of our institutions are beneficiaries of that, including the church, Oxbridge, UK science, even the Labour Party; all, with no exception. UK Christian scientists are invariably fallacy mongerers from the late great Sir John on down.
Deleted post, see replies.
Who is that ‘third entity’?
Do you mean public education in the U.S. here? Or mainly post-secondary institutions? Even in the latter case, though, I’m not sure if I agree with your characterization that atheism is ‘predominant’. Certainly there are settings and professors that are loud and outspoken about that, but using the loud ones as an indicator of what an entire educational industry is all about is not a sound way to get at the truth. There may be many more educational settings in which the instructors do not try to pit science and religion against each other, but simply dwell on the science as is their job, leaving religion as up to the individual and their own faith communities.
But whether or not (or how much) it is a problem in educational institutions, it isn’t a contest to see who (between education industry and church) can harbor the most problems. Whatever problems or falsehoods are found in churches, it is in our interest to see them addressed. Besides, I think both church and classroom/lab have a greater common enemy at this point: our device-oriented entertainment culture. That has proven a more insidious influence against both learning and spiritual discipline than perhaps nearly any other type of threat.
Martin, I’m not familiar enough with the situation over there to really understand your account. Sorry. Can you give me some background, please? Even “the late great Sir John” is unfamiliar.
Really sorry.
Thanks for the context.
“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” -Colossians 4:6
This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.