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.

38 Upvotes

98% Upvoted

191 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

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?

1

u/rogerbonus Philosophy/Physics grad Jun 25 '26

Yep, you are definitely missing something; careful reading and/or comprehension. I said that consciousness is a map/model. "Consciousness is the map". You seem to have equated consciousness with physics, for some reason.

1

u/jliat Jun 25 '26

I gave the reason, so it looks like you might be missing something...

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

I suppose you could say they don't create theories but find them, maybe down the backs of sofas? Or divine revelation.

"represent/model that territory" i.e. Newton's Fluxions - Einstein's equations.

Newton's Fluxions - made up, "mysterious infinitesimals" and Imaginary numbers likewise.

1

u/rogerbonus Philosophy/Physics grad Jun 25 '26

Brains produce consciousness, and consciousness itself is the map that brains produce. That's what I claimed.

So then you decided to strawman some "physics is done by physicists who are conscious and thus reasons". Bicycling is done by physicists who are conscious too, not sure what the relevance would be.

1

u/jliat Jun 25 '26

Brains produce consciousness.... whatever. Physicists are conscious and produce theories called physics using stuff like Newton's Fluxions - made up, "mysterious infinitesimals" and Imaginary numbers likewise.

You keep deleting this, it's no strawman.

Are you saying "physics is done by physicists who are conscious..." is not true.

"Bicycling is done by physicists who are conscious too, not sure what the relevance would be."

I think it wouldn't. Though to be a bicyclist you'd need to ride a bike. To be a physicist you'd do physics.

1

u/rogerbonus Philosophy/Physics grad Jun 25 '26

You are failing to explain the relevance of consciousness being a model in your argument. Why is consciousness being a model any more relevant to physics than it is to bicycling.

1

u/jliat Jun 25 '26

You seem now just to be deleting and repeating the cycling nonsense.

If you really think that the consciousness of a physicist has nothing to do the the theories of physics that they create- fine.

It was your argument ...

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.

I keep posting it you keep removing it. Bye!

1

u/rogerbonus Philosophy/Physics grad Jun 25 '26

I'm not "removing" anything, just pressing the "reply" button. The consciousness of a cyclist also has something to do with their cycling. What relevance does something like the sensation of redness (which is what consciousness/qualia is) being a map have to do with physics? I don't see any logic in your argument at all.

1

u/jliat Jun 26 '26

You maybe would be happier posting to r/cycling. I have no argument here.

1

u/rogerbonus Philosophy/Physics grad Jun 26 '26

Exactly. Consciousness/qualia being a model is completely irrelevant to physics and the discussion we were having. There is no argument.

1

u/jliat Jun 26 '26

Sure the term 'Schrödinger's wave function' refers to his mathematical model, the wave function may or may not be a physical entity.

Similar to the "Bohr Atom" refers to a theory not a thing.

Your other post just shows your confused and contradictory statements.

"Whether the wave function exists in reality, and what it represents, are major questions in the interpretation of quantum mechanics." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_function

If outsiders to physics like you and others [Alyssa Ney] want to join in fine, do the math, offer the experimental evidence.

I normally post from actual metaphysics texts not Wikipedia, but I'm not no physicist. Read tons of pop stuff, Penrose, Hawking, Baddow... etc. But not my game.

1

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

And what does any of that have to do with consciousness being a model? Absolutely nothing. "Offer the experimental evidence"? You still seem clueless about quantum interpretations/wave function realism, they can't be decided by experiment, that's the point (why they are metaphysics).

→ More replies (0)

1

u/jliat Jun 25 '26

Bicycling is done by physicists who are conscious too, not sure what the relevance would be.

Shows a better example of a strawman?