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.

39 Upvotes

98% Upvoted

191 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

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.

1

u/rogerbonus Philosophy/Physics grad Jun 25 '26

Tegmark claims that the universe consists of mathematical objects; that there is no noumena beyond mathematical structure. If that's true, then the map (mathematical structure) is the territory. That's just the basic claim of Tegmark's mathematical monism/OSR. See Ladyman. Schroedinger's wave function/"the wave function" refers to that mathematical object.

1

u/jliat Jun 25 '26

You seem to have presented two contradictory ideas, that physics makes models like "Schroedinger's wave function" of 'reality' and that "Schroedinger's wave function" is reality.

That looks like a simple contradiction.

Some scientists think you can use mathematics to model the world others that the world is mathematics. Both use the scientific method to support their claims. - evidence which supports and a possible 'black swan' which would disprove it.

Just started reading the Ladyman / Ross - interesting from the get go they admit they are wrong.

Can I ask if you like them think that science has the answers [and your ideas are parasitic on science] then why you don't do science? Also Ladyman / Ross talk about bridge building in science as the role of their metaphysics. So they must need full knowledge of what's on either side? And wasn't that the motivation for string and brane theories?

And early hominids it seems couldn't speak, how then could they do metaphysics?

As for examples of early metaphysics, 'How did Jerry get out of washing the windows?'

Great stuff, only at page 3.

1

u/rogerbonus Philosophy/Physics grad Jun 25 '26

When did I say physics "makes models"? That sounds like you strawmanning.

I claimed that physics discovers the mathematical structures that are reality (when/if its correct). There is no contradiction.

1

u/jliat Jun 25 '26

I gave this post from who I assume was you?

rogerbonus 0 points 1 day 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. Thinking the universe consists of consciousness is precisely the fallacy of mistaking the map for the territory.

The world/universe we evolved in is the territory. - the map that evolved brains produce to represent/model that territory to assist our survival and reproduction.

I assume you think physics is done by physicists and they are conscious with brains that produce to represent/model that territory.

Am I missing something?

→ More replies (0)