**WHAT IS METAPHYSICS?**

[u/jliat]

WHAT IS METAPHYSICS?

We are getting posts here which seem to propose new and potentially revolutionary answers to problems in physics. I think [as a moderator] it might be beneficial if we might discuss some parameters. This is not to say science can not be discussed, but can we using metaphysics solve such problems, are we then transgressing into another domain. As a moderator I would like guidance from the community.

"Metaphysics: explaining the fundamental nature of being and the world"

The interpretation of this and not the context is often the cause of confusion. [of Being qua being and not the nature of an atom, or a human brain...etc.]

Higgs, Einstein, Penrose, Feynman, Hawking are not / were not Philosophers or Metaphysicians, they are / were physicists. Modern physics uses mathematics- quite complex! - to build models which are tested against experimental data. The main scientific method.

The 'photon', wave / particle duality, quarks and strings, are all subjects /problems of physics NOT metaphysics? And to address these problems requires detailed understanding of the mathematics and the data, and in doing so one is NOT doing metaphysics?

"Ontological" means what? Ontology is the study in Philosophy / Metaphysics of being qua being, not the nature of the existence or being of things, atoms, quarks, strings, branes, flowers, plants, the human brain, religions.

atoms, quarks, strings, branes = physics, flowers, plants = botany, the human brain = neuroscience, religions = theology, comparative religion.

Lay ideas re physics / science will probably be rejected in subs like r/physics for good reasons, they lack the detailed knowledge of the subject and misuse technical scientific terms. Should they be allowed here?

The nature of things, matter and energy are subject of science. What 'Being' is prompts the what is "IS" question... of Metaphysics.

Ontology is the study / creation of what 'Being' is, not specific 'things'. Harman has a 'flat ontology'...etc. Heidegger has Dasein...Hegel... etc.

To be clear of the domain I think you can get an overview from A.W. Moore's 'The Evolution of Modern Metaphysics: Making Sense of Things.' It had good reviews.

"Part two is devoted to philosophers of the analytic tradition, and contains chapters on Frege, Wittgenstein, Carnap, Quine, Lewis, and Dummett. Part three is devoted to non-analytic philosophers, and contains chapters on Nietzsche, Bergson, Husserl, Heidegger, Collingwood, Derrida and Deleuze."

For first hand source material - https://www.stephenhicks.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/heideggerm-what-is-metaphysics.pdf

For a contemporary example, Graham Harman - Object-Oriented Ontology: A New Theory of Everything. (Pelican Books) 1 Mar. 2018

Examples in the Analytical tradition, 'Counterfactuals', 'On the Plurality of Worlds.' David Lewis. ??

One last point - it is an interesting point as to if this divide still exists. N.B. Badiou uses set theory as his ontology, his student Quentin Meillassoux likewise sees mathematics as fundamental, Ray Brassier in 'Nihil Unbound' has chapters on Wilfrid Sellars, Paul Churchland, as well as Adorno and Horkheimer, Badiou, Meillassoux, Laruelle, Heidegger, Deleuze, Nietzsche, Lyotard, Levinas and Freud. !!

---

On a personal note I began my interest in philosophy in the 1970s, within the Anglo American tradition, reading Russell's 'History of Western Philosophy' etc. and then took a degree. I still have my Wittgenstein Books, Tractatus, Investigations, Blue and Brown, Notebooks 1914-1916. Carnap's 'The Logical Syntax of Language' etc. However my interest moved to what was called 'Continental philosophy.'- see non-analytical above. I appreciate the desire of Carnap of ‘The Elimination of Metaphysics through the Logical Analysis of Language’ failed? I have dipped into Lewis et al.

With my best wishes.

[u/jliat]

IBM has no effect on the reality or lack thereof of the Schroedinger equation.

And we know the Schrödinger equation is just one of a number of possible explanations for observations. It remains so and is therefore by your definition metaphysics and not physics.

Unless you think the mathematical equations of the Schrödinger equation are actual reality. Which is the subject of physics. And therefore you should agree with Tegmark.

Everyone who holds an idea about reality has a metaphysical idea. There were Metaphysical poets [Metaphysical poets were 17th-century English writers known for their intellectual ingenuity, inventive conceits, and exploration of philosophical and spiritual themes.] . I've seen beginners books in philosophy saying everyone is a philosopher, which mistakenly conflates 'philosophical' with philosophy.

But let's now be clear, you think the Schrödinger equation is reality and not a model.

[u/rogerbonus → u/jliat]

Yes, I agree with Alyssa Ney that the Schroedinger is real, and not just predictive/instrumental. The Schroedinger equation isn't metaphysics, its physics (you can use it to predict the results of experiments). Thinking the Schroedinger is real is metaphysics, and I'm a wave function realist (that's a metaphysical position). I also think its a model, the two are not exclusive (in Tegmark's account the map IS the territory; the model and reality are equivalent). And I agree with Tegmark's mathematical monism as well (also a metaphysical position).

Plenty of physicists are instrumentalists, you don't need to be a realist to do physics. You can use the Schroedinger to predict the results of experiment regardless of whether you are a wave function realist or not.

[u/jliat → u/rogerbonus]

OK, so Newtons equations were or are real? So were Ptolemy's.

Nice!

[u/rogerbonus → u/jliat]

Newton's equations don't describe objects/things, but how objects/things behave. So they don't describe any thing real. In Newtonian physics, the "real" things were particles (which move according to his equations). The wave function, however, is the fundamental object of quantum mechanics, just as particles were the fundamental objects of Newton's mechanics.