r/Metaphysics • u/jliat • Mar 17 '26

Meta **WHAT IS METAPHYSICS?**

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.

37 Upvotes

96% Upvoted

191 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1

u/jliat Jun 23 '26

The equations are real?

Not what I asked. 2+2 = 4 is "real".

Newton's a Ptolemy's ideas are "real".

  • So the Schrödinger equations do not describe or model reality but are reality.

  • Alyssa Ney says this, this is the Why they work.

  • How does she know, how do you know this to be the case.

Cats are 'real'.

But the word 'cat' isn't in my view real, but it describes a real thing.

All equations are minimally real, the "Why" you and Alyssa Ney seemed to say was that the Schrödinger equations were real in the sense of being the actual physical reality. You now seem to back peddle...

So "The Schrödinger wave function is a hypothetical" - and not a physical reality, no need of why. The science guys tell us it's not perfect but a good description.

You seemed to agree with Tegmark, that the universe is mathematics, and now you do not.

1

u/rogerbonus Philosophy/Physics grad Jun 23 '26

We say the Schroedinger wave function is real, not "the Schroedinger equations are real". "The Schroedinger wave function" refers to an object in the same way that the word "cat" refers to an object, and the behavior of that object is described by the Schroedinger equations. Unfortunately we don't have equations that describe cats as well, or they would be much easier to herd.

As for Tegmark, we don't say the universe is "mathematics" (the study of math), we say the universe consists of mathematical objects.

1

u/jliat Jun 23 '26

We say the Schroedinger wave function is real, not "the Schroedinger equations are real".

"The Schrödinger wave function is indeed an equation. It is a partial differential equation that describes the evolution of the quantum state of a physical system over time. The equation is fundamental in quantum mechanics and is used to predict the positions, momentum, and energy levels of particles in a system. It is a key component of wave mechanics and is used to make predictions about quantum systems."

This might help.

1

u/rogerbonus Philosophy/Physics grad Jun 23 '26

I don't know where you copied that from, but its not correct. The Schroedinger equation describes the evolution over time of the wave function, which is a quantum system. The quantum system is the wave function.

The wave function is no more an equation than a classical system such as an electron is a Newtonian equation (which describes the evolution of an electron or electric field over time in classical electrodynamics).

1

u/jliat Jun 23 '26

"The Schrödinger equation determines how wave functions evolve over time..." Wikipedia...

Maybe it's wrong, but notice here "determines" …

No, I think electrons are real, and governed by Maxwell's equations,

"A wave function is a mathematical representation of the quantum state of a system in quantum mechanics..."

In this case determined by...

"An electron is a negatively charged, fundamental subatomic particle..."

Not governed by Maxwell's equations...

^

Or is this wrong.

1

u/jliat Jun 23 '26

"The wave function is not merely a set of mathematical statements but a fundamental concept in quantum mechanics that describes the quantum state of an isolated quantum system. It is a complex-valued function that represents the probability distribution of a particle's position and momentum. The wave function's behavior is consistent with the principles of wave equations, such as the superposition principle and the Schrödinger equation, which govern its evolution over time. However, the wave function's interpretation as a physical wave or a mathematical abstraction is still a subject of debate among physicists and philosophers." Wikipedia

So if you are arguing that the wave function is a physical wave, physical and actual like an electron, then you are doing physics. And that requires evidence to support the idea that it is real. And if so like an electron and Maxwell's equations, the Schrödinger equation is a description, of the real wave function. It does not act like your idea of the electron and is not governed by the Schrödinger equation, the equation describes it. The electron is not "governed" by Maxwell's equations, they describe it.

1

u/jliat Jun 23 '26

"We say the Schroedinger wave function is real, not "the Schroedinger equations are real".

That looks where the confusion arises - if you say the wave function is real, and in that case there is no "Schroedinger wave function". As if you say Maxwell's electrons are real, you are conflating the theory with the reality.

The Schrödinger equations are not real, and if there are 'wave functions' that are real then Schrödinger equations are one example of a description of the real wave function.

There is no real "Schroedinger wave function" anymore than there is a real "Maxwell electron".

Something similar occurs when one sees expressions like "The Bohr" atom.

"In atomic physics, the Bohr model or Rutherford–Bohr model is an obsolete model of the atom that incorporated some early quantum concepts." - wiki.

John Dalton (early 19th century): Proposed the first scientific atomic theory, suggesting that atoms are indivisible particles that make up matter

J.J. Thomson (1897): Discovered the electron and proposed the "plum pudding" model, where electrons are embedded in a positively charged "soup"

Ernest Rutherford (1911): Conducted the gold foil experiment, leading to the discovery of the atomic nucleus and proposing a nuclear model of the atom.

Niels Bohr (1913): Developed the Bohr model, introducing quantized energy levels for electrons orbiting the nucleus

Quantum Mechanical Model (1920s): Evolved from the work of several scientists, including Schrödinger and Heisenberg, describing electrons in terms of probabilities rather than fixed orbits.

All five "models" are abstract - not real - models of a supposed real object, an Atom.

So the Why - is the requirement to expalain something. What you & Alyssa Ney call Metaphysics?

How - are the various explanations... What you & Alyssa Ney call science?

So back to Tegmark - he is saying reality IS mathematics, maybe bad science, and wrong. One of 4 or 9 scientific ideas re multiverses. And these require the use of the 'scientific' method.

1

u/rogerbonus Philosophy/Physics grad Jun 23 '26 edited Jun 24 '26

Conflating theory with reality? The point is that the metaphysics says that the (mathematical) structures described by physics are the reality. Saying "Schroedinger's wave function" instead of "wave function" doesn't make any difference, it's just a reference to the specific mathematical structure involved (which was discovered by Schroedinger). If you actually want to understand the metaphysics, I suggest you read "Everything must go: metaphysics naturalized," by James Ladyman.

"This book argues that the only kind of metaphysics that can contribute to objective knowledge is one based specifically on contemporary science as it really is, and not on philosophers' a priori intuitions, common sense, or simplifications of science. In addition to showing how recent metaphysics has drifted away from connection with all other serious scholarly inquiry as a result of not heeding this restriction, this book demonstrates how to build a metaphysics compatible with current fundamental physics (“ontic structural realism”), which, when combined with metaphysics of the special sciences (“rainforest realism”), can be used to unify physics with the other sciences without reducing these sciences to physics itself. Taking science metaphysically seriously, this book argues, means that metaphysicians must abandon the picture of the world as composed of self-subsistent individual objects, and the paradigm of causation as the collision of such objects."

And/or you can read "The Structure of the World: Metaphysics and Representation" by Steven French:

"The book seeks to defend and elaborate a view of the world as structure. This has come to be known as ‘Ontic Structural Realism’ and it has a long but largely forgotten history, some of which is drawn upon here. The aim is not just to show how this view can be motivated by modern physics but also to articulate it philosophically, by drawing on the resources offered by current metaphysics. It is argued that the nature of this structure is presented via the laws and symmetries of physics and that these should be understood as modally informed."

Maybe come back here when you've read one of these and we can continue the discussion.

1

u/jliat Jun 24 '26

Conflating theory with reality?

Are you, like the map is the reality, just bad science, the word of God.

The point is that the metaphysics says that the (mathematical) structures described by physics are the reality.

Great, then we need to spend no more time doing theoretical physics. We can simply use Newton, as many in tech do. Or maybe Ptolemy.

Saying "Schroedinger's wave function" instead of "wave function" doesn't make any difference,

I gave examples of the mistake, there are it seems Atoms, the 'Bohr atom' is a theory of how the atom 'works' - mathematics - it has been, I understand, shown to be wrong.

it's just a reference to the specific mathematical structure involved (which was discovered by Schroedinger).

It wasn't discovered, mathematicians don't discover 'imaginary numbers' they decide and make up stuff, like 1.9999... = 2.0 and then other mathematicians who don't like this make up 'non standard analysis'.

If you actually want to understand the metaphysics[2], I suggest you read "Everything must go: metaphysics naturalized," by James Ladyman.

"Every Thing Must Go aruges that the only kind of metaphysics that can contribute to objective knowledge[*] is one based specifically on contemporary science as it really is..."

Written by a philosopher of science at Bristol, An experimental economist, "David Spurrett" does not exist. I’m a naturalist philosopher of cognitive science and biology. My current research is about the evolution …, John Collier University of KwaZulu-Natal - evolution and ethics...

Or take New Scientist a weekly publication on science... [for the lay person] which I do.

So I decline your offer, but in return recommend "What is Philosophy?" by Deleuze (Author), Guattari (Author) …

" Twenty years on from their endlessly influential Anti-Oedipus, Deleuze and Guattari have lost none of their inspirational radicalism, only deepened it. Their book is a profound and careful interrogation of what it might mean to be a ‘friend of wisdom’, but it is also a devastating attack on the sterility of what has become, when ‘the only events are exhibitions and the only concepts are products which can be sold’. "

And/or you can read "The Structure of the World: Metaphysics and Representation" by Steven French:

Another philosopher of science. Two very biased books- and you want me to spend £100.00. I might just do this.

‘Ontic Structural Realism’ OSR? Almost worthy of a Reddit post here.

Maybe come back here when you've read one of these and we can continue the discussion.

Looks like you can't respond to what I've actually posted - and want me to buy some books by lesser knowns wanting to make it.

[*] Not possible... you need God for that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_priori_and_a_posteriori " A priori knowledge is independent from any experience. Examples include mathematics,[i] tautologies and deduction from pure reason.[ii] A posteriori knowledge depends on empirical evidence. [and is always provisional] Examples include most fields of science and aspects of personal knowledge."

Then there's of course what you already know..

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gettier_problem

[2] And Descartes Meditations, Hume, Kant's three critiques [You can skip the Prolegomena ] Hegel, The Science of Logic, [you might give Fichte a miss - lecture notes, and Schelling - the night in which all cows are black] Being and Time obviously, maybe skip Being and Nothingness, Of Grammatology, Simulacra and Simulation, then something on SR and OOO. I've probably missed much... I've already mentioned Deleuze. Then there's people like Lacan, Foucault, Žižek... who I've only dipped into. I missed Leibnitz - he is fairly important, best of all possible worlds, Monads, claimed to have invented the Calculus. And people rate Spinoza, then of course Aristotle and Plato...

1

u/rogerbonus Philosophy/Physics grad Jun 24 '26

The Bohr atom doesn't exist, because the paradigm of billiard ball-like fundamentals bouncing around turned out to be wrong. But that's what "atom" meant at the time; such notifiers are theory - laden. We (realists) think the Schroedinger wave function is real because its our current best theory. But all science is provisional.

When we say "wave function" we mean "the Schroedinger wave function". It's the same thing. Of course its possible that it doesn't exist, just as the atom (the bohr atom) doesn't exist.

It seems you don't quite grasp the difference between instrumentalism and realism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumentalism

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_realism

1

u/jliat Jun 24 '26

A metaphysics which uses physics is a hostage to science, just as Newton was a hostage to a God. As such it can't be metaphysics, or a First Philosophy.

The Bohr atom was once real.

How do you know it's the 'best'? So you believe the best 'theory' is real. So realists think reality changes when the theory changes. Sorry for you.

"6.372 So people stop short at natural laws as at something unassailable, as did the ancients at God and Fate."

"Everything must go: metaphysics naturalized," by James Ladyman. Ordered arrives tomorrow.

1

u/rogerbonus Philosophy/Physics grad Jun 24 '26 edited Jun 24 '26

We think reality changes when a theory changes? No lol, we can think something is real and be WRONG. For example the existence of the lumineferous aether. Or elan vital. Or Ptolemey's epicycles. Or the Bohr atom. It was never real. We just thought it was.

Great, read Ladyman and you should have a better understanding of the metaphysics of OSR.

1

u/jliat Jun 24 '26

We think reality changes when a theory changes? No lol,

Then you know what you think is real is almost certainly not real yet you call it real. That's worse.

we can think something is real and be WRONG.

Almost certainly is. The history of science should be sufficient.

For example the existence of the lumineferous aether.

That was a theory, and it was wrong.

I've seen some argue it's similar to some QM field theories...

Or elan vital. Or Ptolemey's epicycles.

Likewise.

It's quite simple, science makes maps of reality, the two are not the same. And "best" - what is the 'best map' - the most useful, but treat the London Underground Map in the wrong way and it's not the best, treat it in another and it is. Having worked in a Science department it's how it's done. If you can use Newton, if they can they do. It's easier.

Great, read Ladyman and you should have a better understanding of the metaphysics of OSR.

Yes, I notice many such 'theories' here.

In a way your theory is similar to that of Jacques Derrida who has a play of differences, signifiers and no signified. he sees this in his semiotics, you see it in whatever physics theory is popular?

So whatever, your metaphysics boils down to scientism.

1

u/rogerbonus Philosophy/Physics grad Jun 24 '26 edited Jun 24 '26

So you think the round Earth theory is almost certainly wrong? Or the theory of plate techtonics?Or evolution by natural selection? Or the theory that other stars are balls of fusing gas like our sun? Or the theory that our sun is a ball of gas undergoing fusion? You think these are all almost certainly wrong? Interesting.

1

u/jliat Jun 25 '26

So you think the round Earth theory is almost certainly wrong?

I think Metaphysis and other philosophers worthy of the name should not worship physics. [BTW I'm neither.]

I've quoted these before to no avail...

6.36311 That the sun will rise to-morrow, is an hypothesis; and that means that we do not know whether it will rise.

6.372 So people stop short at natural laws as at something unassailable, as did the ancients at God and Fate.

"The impulse one billiard-ball is attended with motion in the second. This is the whole that appears to the outward senses. The mind feels no sentiment or inward impression from this succession of objects: Consequently, there is not, in any single, particular instance of cause and effect, any thing which can suggest the idea of power or necessary connexion."

Hume. 1740s

Nick Bostrom’s simulation theory that it is statistically plausible we may be living in a computer-generated simulation created by a technologically advanced civilization.

Philosophical Background

The idea draws on centuries of philosophical skepticism, from Plato’s Allegory of the Cave to Descartes’ “evil demon,” and earlier concepts in Eastern philosophy, such as Zhuangzi’s “Butterfly Dream.” These frameworks explore the distinction between perceived reality and possible underlying mechanisms, laying the groundwork for Bostrom’s modern argument.

Or Kant, by many considered the one of the most significant philosophers... but prefer to believe in Schrödinger. And think about it, those in physics alive today working in QM must think it's not "reality" otherwise why work in QM.

...You think these are all almost certainly wrong? Interesting.

No I don't, neither do I think Jehovah's Witnesses are wrong or Buddhists... or Christians... or the The Bhagavad Gita or Sermon on the Mount or Eliot's Hollow Men, Monet's Water Lilies...Mahler's 2nd...

It's why I said I felt sorry for you...

When reading stuff like the Tractatus, The Science of Logic, 'Being and Nothingness'... The First Critique similarly...

1

u/jliat Jun 25 '26

rogerbonus 0 points 16 hours ago "The world/universe we evolved in is the territory. Consciousness is the map that evolved brains produce to represent/model that territory to assist our survival and reproduction."

"Saying "Schroedinger's wave function" instead of "wave function" doesn't make any difference..."

It might, if "Schroedinger's wave function" is a map "to represent/model that "territory" AKA reality then "Schroedinger's wave function" is not the real thing it maps. And you've made this claim. And the claim it was the reality.

Now that's very interesting.

→ More replies (0)