jjg wrote:To understand why physics is out of its context when dealing with these First Cause arguments, the following sound principles of philosophy should be recalled:
What do you mean by "dealing with"? Do you mean affirming, refuting or both
Also it's a rare treat indeed to be presented with a sound principle of philosophy! I hope what follows lives-up to the promise
There is a hierarchy of sciences or a subordination of the various disciplines of the mind.
I see this hierarchy is a set of arbitrary lines we draw on nature to make school time-tabling possible.
The divisions of the sciences into ranks is not based soley upon the different objects which the sciences study, but is principally justified by their intellectual dependance, one on another, and presumptions of one another.
Biology is dependant in part on chemistry and chemistry in part on physics. This extends beyond mere data; music assumes mathematics and mathematics assumes metaphysics.
The basis of the differences of the sciences is the degree of abstraction involved. Admidst the flux of sensible things, the mind is presented with, it may limit itself to the consideration of material things and their properties, which are experimentally observable. This is physics.
The mind can also abstract so it can concern itself with quantity and extent which is apart from sensible manifestations in material things which is the science of mathematics..
You left out Art, History, Geography, Domestic science, etc... but I get your drift.
The mind can also deal with things not inasmuch as they are quantitative, but inasmuch as they are or have being. The qualitative aspect of knowledge
There are certain objects of knowledge that we can not only conceive without matter, but which can also exist without matter such as truth.
This third science is metaphysics.
Shouldn't this be in mathematics? After all, what you're talking about is set theory.
The basis for judging a heirarchy of science is the universality of the science.
All the science disciplines are concerned with being, for that is the common element in which all knowledge bathes. Every particular science adds something to being. Biology adds organism to being. Anthropology adds human origin to being and physics adds matter or energy to being.
The one supreme science whose object is not limited to being of a particular category, but being as being, is metaphysics.
A science of Supreme Being? A universal set? Doesn't this fall foul of The Librarian Paradox?
Because the sciences are differentiated by the degree of abstractions in which a particular aspect of being is studied, the methods used in each science is different.
Sciences that are more restricted in their study of being cannot have their methods applied to more universal sciences.
Math can be applied to physics but not vice versa.
This is why physics cannot apply its methods to the most supreme science of metaphysics.
You promised a sound principle of philosophy. When was Platonism elevated to such a high status?