Why are ethics and metaphysics not all seen as unfalsifiable garbage?
Because you do not have a proper understanding of them.
Instead you have probably heard a bunch of college freshman ranting about
>WE CANT NO NUTHIN MANY WORLDS LITERALLY MEANS MANY WORLDS SO NUTHIN MATTERS
and so your understanding of those two things is limited to what you hear from those idiots.
>>856103
>implying ethics are claims about reality
Because they were never meant to be falsifiable in the first place
>>856103
>ethics and metaphysics depend on Popperian conceptions of science
>>856184
What the fuck? Are you not a modal realist?
>>856103
This would have seemed like a false flag if i didn't know how much intellectually inept STEMlords really are.
>>856192
>modal realism
>based in any fact
People who believe in this shit are as bad as the thiests they consistently look down on.
Do you believe in God even though there is literally no proof, and only believe it cannot actually be disproven, in flagrant disregard of all logical methods of proving a claim?
If not, then it would not make any sense at all for you to believe something that has equally little evidence.
They are theories for a reason, and that is because they cannot be proven. They may be in the future, but for now there is absolutely no reason to believe that mathematical reality is the same as physical reality.
>>856260
So what is mathematical reality?
>>856282
The idea that it is mathematically possible for Schrödinger's cat to be both alive and dead because we do not know if the poison killed it.
However in reality the cat can only be one thing when that box is opened.
Mathematical reality is the idea that a coin should land on heads 50% of the time, physical reality is that tails never fails
>>856349
So you're some kind of idealist?
>>856353
No?
In fact I think it's more idealistic to assume that human "choices" affect reality on a universal scale.
Again, I question the intelligence of people who so passionately defend theories like this. Do you really think whether you rose your left or right hand to ask a question in class was an event so cosmically significant that it broke all laws of physics and created a branching universe?
And even if you think all universes exist at that same time and no conservation laws are broken, you cannot prove it, and so it is still idiotic.
DUDE CAN'T TEST IT ROFLMFAO
>>856556
I don't think you understand modal realism
>>856103
They are.
Thats why you don't see any real science being done with it because there is no scientific way to approach it.
As far as I'm concerned it's all deepak chopra levels of BS
>>856592
I understand if just fine. There is no proof so I don't buy it
Just saying something that basically amounts to
>no u r wrong
Doesn't really help your case buddy
>>856103
You have absolutely no clue what the words "ethics", "metaphysics" and "unfalsifiable" in the Popperian sense means, do you?
So you thought you'd go ahead and make you look retarded on the one place on 4chan where people will call you out on your bullshit.
>>856599
I'm not a modal realist, I just don't think you understand it. It has little to do with physics, it's a matter of logic, as Lewis articulated it in its most famous form.
>>856603
Again I am fully aware of the implications of modal realism. Forgive me for jumping to conclusions about you but my point stands.
You claim it is a theory based on logic but logically it cannot be actually proven.
Remember, the op is asking why people think this isn't bullshit. I'm just saying that while many accept it as a theory, it is a misconception that any scientist actually believes it is real because there is no scientific proof.
These theories are called such for a reason
>>856634
>but logically it cannot be actually proven.
That isn't my point, my point is that the claims aren't based on quantum physics as much as they're based on modal logic.
>scientist
Yeah, I mean, sure, if you want to talk about the wrong kind of people. There are modal realists who aren't scientists. OP is asking why metaphysics and ethics are not seen as unfalsifiable garbage. The answer is that the appeal of these disciplines has nothing to do with Popperian concepts of falsifiability. I'm suggesting that your answer isn't strong enough.
>>856636
If you find my answers not strong enough how the fuck do you think modal realism is "strong enough"?
Fair enough about scientists and modal realists not always overlapping.
But once again I find it ridiculous that something that has logic in its name can be so decidedly illogical and yet still adhered to be people in the philosophical sphere.
>>856653
>how the fuck do you think modal realism is "strong enough"?
I haven't claimed it is.
>But once again I find it ridiculous that something that has logic in its name can be so decidedly illogical
Have you ever studied formal logic?
>>856656
Have you?
I've studied it enough to know that even at the basic high school level you would learn not to accept theories that cannot be proven. Regardless if it is based in philosophy or science, to just write off criticism by saying its intentionally impossible to prove scientifically or logically, which is what adherents to such theories do when challenged, is disingenuous and condescending.
I mentioned deepak chopra earlier and I think another comparison is warranted.
Calling it "modal realism" or "modal logic" is the same as chopra calling his bullshit "quantum healing"
There are no quantum physics behind chopras spiritual healing nonsense just the same as there is no real logic to modal logic.
>>856673
Modal realism just changes the definition of "real" to something silly to play around with other concepts. It's nowhere near Chopra-tier.
>>856673
>Calling it "modal realism" or "modal logic is the same as chopra calling his bullshit "quantum healing"
Modal realism and modal logic are not synonyms.
>>856692
fine, while that is true I fail to see how it challenges my point on the inherently misleading and intellectual dishonesty of modal realism
>>856103
Because they're not
>>856556
>He thinks that there are "laws" of physics.
lol
>>856699
How is it either of those things? Modal logic has various uses, it's a position worth considering. The point of philosophy is hardly just to know what the right answer is.
>>856711
theoretically it has various uses but theoretically is the key word.
An example i used previously was the whole alternate reality/possible worlds theory which is based in modal realism, and that op is wrong to assume it is unfalsifiable and that the only reason he thought so is because he was around chopra level retards who believe this to be actually scientifically true.
Which it is not
>>856673
>>856692
Just got to say, modal logic is totally legit or at least has legit applications. Modal realism is a bizzarro metaphysical theory. I'm sure you folks get this, but I've always understood modal logic as having to do with what's possible and necessary, and so forth. Modal realism had to do with how possible worlds are as real as the actual world (the world in which I didn't type this, but ate a salmon out of a rive like a fucking bear is as real as the actual world I'm inhabiting now where I'm typing this). Maybe I'm getting confused, but that's what I took to be modal realism, which involves far more substantive commitments than modal logic.
>>856722
Yeah, that's what I've been trying to get at.
>>856722
>real
prove to me that other world exists and we've got a discussion
>>856731
Why don't you read David Lewis' paper and confront the argument itself?
>>856734
ok so you cannot prove it.
As i recall David Lewis didnt actually prove it either.
>>856769
Like I've said, philosophy is hardly just about proving that you're right. I'm not sure what you expect from metaphysics but it shouldn't be as something like the scientific process verisimilitude is arrived at.
>>856774
>scientific process verisimilitude
scientific process by which verisimilitude
>>856774
forgive me then for being so argumentative.
I do not like metaphysics and i will leave it at that.
>>856103
If the only positions you see as legitimate are those that are falsifiable, you will inevitably become a nihilist.
