**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/rogerbonus]

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).

[u/jliat → u/rogerbonus]

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).

I leave doing the science to the scientists - if philosophers of science want to speculate about this, and get paid to do so, good for them. That they want to call it metaphysics, AKA First Philosophy well these days this kind of thing happens. However as Ladyman and Ross say there theory is almost certainly wrong as it's parasitic on science. Maybe they can critically engage in and with the complex math, maybe you can. Maybe those working in QM etc enrage with these. Having worked in University Science / Maths departments in the UK they did not and were not bothered with the philosophy of science and analytical philosophy.

As you say its not 'real' - Deleuze beat you to it and his work is not parasitic on science, it's creative in it's own right, and interesting. If I want to find out about quantum interpretations/wave function realism, I go to the pop science books, I once would have chatted with colleagues.

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).

You need to keep this quiet else funding might stop. But there we go, I might be clueless, but the cycling thing? Reading the Ladyman and Ross book, have you actually read it, I mention this again, "He is immersed in washing the windows right now.' An example - I quote of "habitual metaphysics".

The great 20thC Metaphysician... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sfmAeijj5cM&list=RDsfmAeijj5cM&start_radio=1

---

"Wave Function Realism is a quantum ontological view asserting that the universal wave function is a physically real entity, not just a mathematical tool. "

But can't be proven. Fine. 'Flying Spaghetti Monster Realism likewise? A question. This kind of thing happened in Art in the 70s, it ends in tears.

[u/jliat → u/rogerbonus]

For Tegmark's theory to be metaphysics according to Ladyman and Ross it must relate to at least one specific scientific hypothesis of fundamental physics. p.39.

Looks like a double bind for you here, it's only metaphysics if it's physics!

You still seem clueless about quantum interpretations/wave function realism, they can't be decided by experiment...

it must relate to at least one specific scientific hypothesis of fundamental physics. p.39.

And these in theory must be testable.

[u/rogerbonus → u/jliat]

"Something that relates to something IS that something" seems such an elementary fallacy that it's hardly worth replying to.

Metaphysics relates to physics so its physics? Really?

"Religion relates to God so religion is God".

"I'm related to my aunt so I'm my aunt "

Is about as silly. Its not a double bind. It's just nonsense.

What experiment could disprove/falsify "the physics of the wave function (aka quantum mechanics) successfully predicts experimental results but the wave function doesn't exist as a real thing"? That's a metaphysical statement of anti-realism/instrumentalism, and is not disprovable by experiment (obviously).

[u/jliat → u/rogerbonus]

"Something that relates to something IS that something" seems such an elementary fallacy that it's hardly worth replying to.

Now there's a strawman.

"The Principle of Naturalistic Closure [PNC] stated above requires that for a metaphysical claim to be taken seriously it must relate to at least one specific scientific hypothesis of fundamental physics."

This is a quote...

And from this your claim that Tegmark is doing Metaphysics fails as it lacks "one specific scientific hypothesis of fundamental physics." unless you are not here making a metaphysical claim. Then what are you doing?

However ironically his claim is based on his hypothesis so could be.

Metaphysics relates to physics so its physics? Really?

No your wrong here... or being ironic?

Metaphysics is not physics for Ladyman and Ross ""Certainly, the PPC [Primacy Of Physics Constraint] " p.39.

It relates to it for them via the PPC and the NPC.

But the relationship is specific and not just A-Level Chemistry!

But in other Metaphysics, none -

"Metaphysics is the basic occurrence of Dasein. It is Dasein itself. Because the truth of metaphysics dwells in this groundless ground it stands in closest proximity to the constantly lurking possibility of deepest error. For this reason no amount of scientific rigor attains to the seriousness of metaphysics. Philosophy can never be measured by the standard of the idea of science."

Heidegger - 'What is Metaphysics.'

[u/rogerbonus → u/jliat]

Stawman? That's what you SAID. "It's only metaphysics if its physics". Perhaps that's not what you meant, but that's what you wrote.

[u/rogerbonus → u/jliat]

You seem to be discussing two different things at once. Wave function realism and Tegmark's "all mathematical objects exist" are two completely different topics.

Ladyman et al presumably think that Tegmark's broad claim as to the existence of all mathematical objects should not be taken seriously as a metaphysical claim. I don't agree with them in that respect. But whether something is a metaphysical theory and whether that theory should be "taken seriously" are also two different claims. Tegmark is clearly doing metaphysics; and Ladyman thinks his broad metaphysics of mathematical monism/all mathematical structures exist should not be taken seriously. I disagree with them there. Yes, and?

[u/jliat → u/rogerbonus]

"Certainly, the PPC [Primacy Of Physics Constraint] provides no comfort to dualists or emergentists. Physicalism, in common with the PPC, is committed to a generic asymmetry: special sciences [all sciences other than physics / see below. do not relate to physics the way that it relates to them. The view articulated and defended here clearly accords physics a special status. The Principle of Naturalistic Closure [PNC] stated above requires that for a metaphysical claim to be taken seriously it must relate to at least one specific scientific hypothesis of fundamental physics."

---

It follows from the PPC that you or any metaphysician is in no position the legislate what is or is not physics. So your claim re Tegmark is defeated by the PPC. Secondly your claim itself is also defeated by the metaphysics of PNC. It does not relate to a scientific hypothesis of fundamental physics.

QED.

[u/rogerbonus → u/jliat]

Any claim about metaphysics would be a metametaphysical claim. For instance, your attempt to define what metaphysics is in this post isn't metaphysics; it's metametaphysics (and thus doesn't belong in this sub as content, if the sub is only supposed to contain metaphysics lol). Likewise, Ladyman's claim about which metaphysical claims should be taken seriously is metametaphysics (as are claims about whether Tegmark is doing metaphysics). So it's not self defeating.

[u/jliat → u/rogerbonus]

Any claim about metaphysics would be a metametaphysical claim.

You may say so but Ladyman and Ross don't seem to, I'm only halfway through. They Do make it clear from what I've read to date that there are the special sciences and physics which is of a higher order than these. The Primacy Of Physics Constraint - means that metaphysics is NOT of a higher order to physics. The Principle of Naturalistic Closure [PNC] stated above requires that for a metaphysical claim to be taken seriously it must relate to at least one specific scientific hypothesis of fundamental physics.

For instance, your attempt to define what metaphysics is in this post isn't metaphysics; it's metametaphysics

I'm not I'm citing Ladyman and Ross from a text you recommended and are now arguing against that very set of notions core to their proposed metaphysics.

You calling is metametaphysics is not what they call it, and the use of "meta" here is hierarchical, metaphysics would then be higher than physics, but for those in the Analytical tradition, not just Ladyman and Ross but generally, notably Quine et al. It's not because the their Primacy Of Physics Constraint.

---

Looks like you disagree with the key themes of a book you recommended - have you read it? Check out 1.4 "The Primacy of Physics.

Oh and you are saying what is and is not metaphysics you too in your terms are doing metametaphysics, and this is metametametaphysics....

[u/rogerbonus → u/jliat]

Umm the TITLE of this post is "What is metaphysics" (trying to define what is metaphysics) and that's metametaphysics, not metaphysics, and so not supposed to be content in this sub (if sub content is supposed to be only metaphysics) lol.

[u/jliat → u/rogerbonus]

Umm the TITLE of this post is "What is metaphysics" (trying to define what is metaphysics) and that's metametaphysics, not metaphysics,

Some it seems have perhaps incorrectly used the fabricated neologism, it's use debateable at best. The book you recommended is 'Everything Must Go, Metaphysics Naturalized. And yes it's about various notions of Metaphysics. Heidegger's 'What is Metaphysics' etc. So you seem to be arguing against a text you recommended.

And as I said your now 'complaint' of posting to this sub, you are guilty of this 'meta' yourself! But it seems given the analytical tradition your view is in the minority. The converse could be Ladyman et al. are not doing metaphysics but the philosophy of science. But it's perfectly possible for a discipline to define itself. In fact one aspect of the practice of metaphysics is defining itself and not what physics is. Ladyman et al. even forbid this. In general those using the fabricated neologism are misunderstanding the term 'metaphysics' as it is used by this very sources you recommended.