What metaphysical claims have been definitively disproven?

[trenton]

I have been trying to build my own metaphysical framework from scratch without simply believing sources like Leo who claims I am God. However, I discovered that metaphysics is very difficult and it is hard to make progress when there are multiple plausible frameworks. I often start running into the limits of logic when encountering plausible unfalsifiable claims.

That said, I am exploring how far logic can get us in terms of understanding the nature of reality. The progress seems worthy of our attention because although difficult and rare, it is possible to refute some metaphysical claims. This doesn't tell us what reality is, but it can tell us what it is not if some frameworks are known to be wrong on their own terms.

Meanwhile, there is this persistent foundational problem of selecting axioms from which ground or guide a logical system. It starts to look like logic is fundamentally groundless if it cannot verify the axioms from which it stands. What then grounds those axioms without becoming subjectivism?

That all said, we can start naming metaphysical claims that I believe are clearly refuted on their own terms.

Vitalism is an example of a refuted metaphysical stance. It held that organic matter was animated by a life force such that it was impossible to generate organic matter from inorganic matter. Chemistry proved that this was possible, creating a counter example to this framework despite it being logically consistent.

 

Preformationism was the claim that a miniature human existed inside of a sperm and an egg. This was refuted through microscopes and prenatal tests which verified how a sperm and an egg develop into an embryo without a miniature human existing in the zygote.

Newtonian physics claimed that time and space were absolute. This one was famously refuted by general relativity which holds that there is no privileged now for all observers.

Aristotle claimed that nature abhors a vacuum. Science has demonstrated that it is possible to create vacuums through various experiments which changed assumptions about how reality functions.

Spontaneous generation held that living matter such as mice and maggots were spontaneously created from non-living matter such as meat and bread. This was refuted by sealing a flask such that the mice and maggots couldn't get into it. It suggests that it was difficult to store food away properly in ancient times to the point that people thought the food just turned into animals rather than animals getting into the food through openings in the storage.

Logical positivism is self defeating because it claims that all claims need to be analytically true or verifiable. This claim is not analytically true or verifiable, therefore logical positivism refuted itself.

Water monism claimed that water was the fundamental substance underlying all of reality. This is refuted by modern chemistry, atoms, and molecules. These can be manipulated into forming water through a more fundamental substance than water. This then runs into a common problem of pushing the problem down one layer.

The next part I get mixed on is the unfalsifiable claims or unverifiable claims. Oftentimes unfalsifiability is treated as a sign that a frame should be rejected or as if it holds less weight. I don't think this is the correct attitude because there are definitely true things which cannot be proven, verified, or falsified. In fact if something were definitely true, then it shouldn't be falsifiable by nature of not being false. At the same time it is possible to have unfalsifiable falsehoods, meaning it becomes very hard to navigate this terrain in practice once I try to grapple with this.

In my experience, I have seen things that cannot be proven or verified. This happens in criminal justice all the time. It includes he said she said scenarios, proving intent, plausible deniability, frame ups and set ups to corrupt evidence, evidence degrading over many years, and so on. From this point of view victims of crime know very well that what happened to them isn't necessarily provable or verifiable. It can include organized criminals using coded language to suppress evidence by hiding their identity so you can't prove it was them.

In my worldview truth is therefore greater than what evidence can account for. This was mentioned in Leo's video about proof being a subdomain of truth as an extension of godels incompletes theorem.

It seems to be proven that evidence and logic are insufficient for proving all possible truths. In terms of what logic can get us regarding metaphysics, it seems to be capable of refuting narrow metaphysical claims on their own terms through counter examples which are supposed to be impossible. Once a metaphysical claims becomes all encompassing and accounts for all possible experience, logic reaches its limits. This is why the most difficult philosophical debates involve claims which cannot be clearly falsified through more proof. I then start to hit a wall in terms of where to go next once I have multiple plausible metaphysical frameworks.

Logic can refute narrow claims, but I struggle to adjudicate between multiple plausible positions which account for all observations. Leo's position is one example of such a position which cannot be falsified and in some cases cannot be verified due to genetics preventing someone from experiencing God consciousness.

What do you think of finding refuted metaphysical frameworks? Can you find other examples? What are the limits of logic in this domain? Refuting metaphysical frameworks is difficult and rare, but sometimes possible.

[Joseph Maynor]

What do you think developing your own metaphysics will give you besides just the fun of building one?

[trenton]

2 hours ago, Joseph Maynor said:

What do you think developing your own metaphysics will give you besides just the fun of building one?

This is closer to foundationalism in logic. I can use logic in many different ways, but metaphysics is what informs my axioms in terms of what is. The nature of reality or truth, answers the problem of how do I know what anything is. What exactly are any of my beliefs or worldviews grounded in, if I can't answer what the nature of anything is? If I have metaphysical assumptions shaping my beliefs, and I noticed that changing the assumptions can alter my relationship with reality, then I don't want to leave these assumptions unexamined.

For example, how would changing your metaphysical presuppositions change your understanding of morality? There are plenty of examples like this with free will, determinism, solipsism, relativism, and so forth. How will it change your relationship to what you think you are, and therefore your relationship with others? The self-concept is malleable in a way that can alter this relationship with reality, and therefore the logic that flows from it as a consequence of these presuppositions. The downstream changes to everything else in life seems significant enough that it is worth exploring.

Ultimately, I am exploring different relationships with the self and reality. Metaphysics is hard though. The first thing that comes to mind for me is what I call "Idunnoism." Sometimes I just don't know. It is the philosophy of metaphysics is hard and we don't really know what reality is. I think this one would be relatable for a lot of people.

[Joseph Maynor]

One paradigm shift is to think of metaphysics as a branch of aesthetics.  This is very powerful when you think of creation or the creator as being fundamental.  It flips the ordinary way we think about the order and hierarchy of philosophy subjects around.  

[trenton]

I did some further self-reflection and contemplation regarding Godel and other significant proofs related to it.

In terms of what it implies for my worldview, so long as I try to map out the self, the map becomes part of the self and therefore requires mapping. This creates an infinite regress with no end. This is one of the limitations of self-analysis. It seems to explain why my thoughts go in circles over the same things looking for an answer where my thoughts can never be a perfect map by their nature as part of the mind. Self-knowledge is therefore incomplete through maps.

It seems that foundationalism in logic ultimately fails if it is fundamentally impossible to have a fully grounded worldview due to the nature of thought and belief being self-referencing. There is no system complex enough to not have any gaps. This would be a limitation of belief as by design it is another map. The foundation is therefore imagined.

I think this does seem practical in terms of understanding the limitations of analysis as a means of finding self-knowledge through systems and maps. I kept running through the same loops because a perfect map would need to account for itself as part of the territory. This is what I was already doing as I mapped my mapping of myself.