Possible worlds are metaphysical entities while the multiverse is, at least purportedly, science — T Clark

The multiverse is new age pseudo science on the same level as the god of the gaps to explain unexplained phenomena. "Purportedly" is a sophistry way to put it.

:up:

If you consider “being” as "something”, but not permanent, how are you able to give it a name, which is, the word “being”? — Angelo Cannata

Being is not a being.

But beyond that -- if what you say is true, and we cannot assign a name to anything that changes -- then we can't name anything, including change itself.

It seems to me that we can use names only if we consider that something remains unchanged over time. For example, if what I call “sky” today is a “horse” tomorrow, it is completely impossible to me to give it a name, I cannot even figure what I am thinking about. — Angelo Cannata

There are many words, in many languages, that express the same concepts. In fact, we know very well that using codes, like binary code, can convey all kinds of information. So if tomorrow we call the sun "horse," it won't change that bright ball in the sky.

I repeat myself: being is not permanence, and it's not change. I never made either claim. It's not a being, and it's not a property. It's not what's left over when you take everything else away, for example. It's not like water or matter -- which can change forms, etc.

But you call it “being”, which means that, in this something that you call “being”, something remains the same over time, so that today and tomorrow you can still call it “being”. This seems to me that actually you are not conceiving “being” as something really completely changing, really not permanent. — Angelo Cannata

I never said being was "completely changing," I said we should not equate being with permanence. I also said, at least twice now, that being is also not therefore "becoming." Permanence and impermanence is not what "being" means. Take "being" to mean "existence," if that's more helpful. That gets closer to what I mean. We wouldn't say "existence" is an object or a property -- we wouldn't say existence is "change" or "permanence."

I think we need to shake the traditional views of Parmenides and Heraclitus. This "being versus becoming" is a false one. Why should we presume that "being" means something opposed to "becoming"? This essentially equates being to permanence. — Xtrix

I think the quest was for 'the immortal' - that which is not subject to death and decay. And the motive for that is not hard to discern, as the human condition is blighted by awareness that all that we treasure will perish. The underlying motivation of Parmnides was (as one of the books about him is subtitled) to 'think like a God' - to attain a realm of being which is beyond the vicissitudes.

Briefly this is Russell's way of saying that science does not even define what physicality is:
— Jackson

Sure. A physicalist has no objection to that. Metaphysics as the philosophy of physics.

But your example was

If all my thoughts are physical,
— Jackson

Which appears to argue for the non-physics of mind. — bongo fury

I do not say mind is physical or non-physical. That is a dualism I do not subscribe to.

If we think that 2+2=4 is an eternal truth, indesctructible, unassailable, impossible to question, then you are thinking of it in a metaphysical way. As such, this kind of thought has the defect that not only tomorrow 2+2 might give a different result, but also our thoughts about it might change, because ideas are subject to time, change, becoming, as well as anything else. — Angelo Cannata

Generally I appreciate your perspective, but I don't think that is a valid line of argument. The reason the ancients valued logical and arithmetical truths was precisely because they are not subject to time, change and becoming. Furthermore, if you think it through, it is impossible to envisage a world where there are no necessary facts. So basically, what you're positing here is: chuck out philosophy entirely. Get rid of it. Your perogative, of course - but this is a philosophy forum.

The multiverse is new age pseudo science on the same level as the god of the gaps to explain unexplained phenomena. — Haglund

I disagree.

"Purportedly" is a sophistry way to put it. — Haglund

I used that word specifically to express my skepticism.

The multiverse is new age pseudo science on the same level as the god of the gaps to explain unexplained phenomena. "Purportedly" is a sophistry way to put it. — Haglund

The multiverse is new age pseudo science on the same level as the god of the gaps to explain unexplained phenomena. "Purportedly" is a sophistry way to put it. — Haglund

CalTech (now Johns Hopkins) physicist Sean Carroll believes in the multiverse. It is not fake science.

I think that metaphysics, whatever meaning you give to it, has the defect of being bound to being: in certain contexts it is almost a synonim of ontology. The consequence of being bound to being is that it ignores time and subjectivity. Along history metaphysics was criticized by historicists, because, by trying to understand how things are, it looses sight of the fact that things, rather than being, are becoming (Heraclitus). As a consequence, about any metaphysical system of ideas, we should never forget that it is itself conditioned by its own being immersed in the flowing of becoming, changing.
The problem raised by subjectivity is similar, because the fact that anything we think of is conditioned by our subjectivity makes our thoughts dependent on the variability, unreliability of subjectivity.
In other words, the defect of metaphysics is its intention to reach a system of ideas that is expected to be stable, definitive, ultimate, objective, reliable, solid. — Angelo Cannata

Several traditions of metaphysics start from the first-person subject perspective instead of the third-person "objective" perspective. The most prominent of which are among Husserl's Phenomenonology which regarded the study of phenomena as a science and its first philosophy, and perhaps Kitarō Nishida along with many, many others.

Moreover, it should be made clear that the philosophy of mind in itself, whether it was primary or peripheral, in various systems of metaphysics, was historically considered "specialized metaphysics" as opposed to "general metaphysics," concerned with the ontos in general.

This is the first part of why subjectivity is not ignored. As for time, with all respect intended, you could not have been more incorrect. Time is one of the more important topics in metaphysics, and has been investigated in particular among Heidegger's Being and Time, McTaggart's Unreality of Time and most importantly the tradition of process philosophy itself with Whitehead and others who focus on time as a central notion with static being as accident to the actual entities.

So I'm of the opinion this is no critique of metaphysics.

I disagree. — T Clark

That's fine by me. If you consider it science, feel free. I think it's a wild unfounded fantasy on equal footing with a god of the gaps. A fantasy inspired by lack of a better theory. There is no evidence for many or parallel worlds.

CalTech (now Johns Hopkins) physicist Sean Carroll believes in the multiverse. It is not fake science. — Jackson

Because he uses it it's no fake science? Scientists use fantasies too. There is no evidence to support many worlds.

Because he uses it it's no fake science? Scientists use fantasies too. There is no evidence to support many worlds. — Haglund

Not a fantasy for him. Empirical.

There is no evidence to support many worlds. — Haglund

Cosmic inflation is indirect evidence.

Not a fantasy for him. Empirical. — Jackson

It's a fantasy of the gaps. Where is his evidence?

Because he uses it it's no fake science? Scientists use fantasies too. There is no evidence to support many worlds. — Haglund

Sean Carroll:
"Quantum mechanics says that an electron can be in a superposition of all possible locations. There’s no such thing as the position of an electron. But when you observe the electron, you see it in one location. This is the fundamental mystery of quantum mechanics. Its description when no one is looking is different from what you see.

Many Worlds says, why don’t we just treat you, the observer, as your own quantum mechanical system? You’re made of quantum mechanical particles also. So what happens when you, the observer, looks for the electron? The electron starts in a superposition of many possible locations. When you look, you evolve into a combined system of you and the electron in a superposition. The superposition consists of the electron being here and you seeing it here, plus the electron being there and you seeing it there, and so on. Hugh Everett’s brilliant move was to say that the different parts of the superposition really exist. It’s just that they’re in separate, non-interacting worlds."

https://www.wired.com/story/sean-carroll-thinks-we-all-exist-on-multiple-worlds/

It's a fantasy of the gaps. Where is his evidence? — Haglund

I don't know what you mean by "gaps."

Cosmic inflation is indirect evidence. — T Clark

So you can say that the universe is indirect evidence of God. Cosmic inflation is no indirect evidence BTW. But this is not the place to go into technicalities.

don't know what you mean by "gaps." — Jackson

Like in god of the gaps. A fantasy used to explain something you haven't a good explanation for yet.

Like in god of the gaps. A fantasy used to explain something you haven't a good explanation for yet. — Haglund

No, just the opposite.

No, just the opposite — Jackson

Then where is the direct evidence? I can just as well state that our universe inflated in a stationary 4D space with the right properties.

Then where is the direct evidence? I can just as well state that our universe inflated in a stationary 4D space with the right properties. — Haglund

Okay.

You see? Also cosmologists use things there is no evidence for. Like theists do.

Then where is the direct evidence? I can just as well state that our universe inflated in a stationary 4D space with the right properties. — Haglund

Many-Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-manyworlds/

I am not a scientist. But the entry in the SEP discusses it in more detail. Point is, it is not a "fantasy."

The MWI no fantasy...? Then where is the evidence? Maybe there are hidden variables...

But feel free to believe it! If you feel good with it...

I don't know anymore. I've been broken on this topic.

Sean Carroll:
"Quantum mechanics says that an electron can be in a superposition of all possible locations. There’s no such thing as the position of an electron. But when you observe the electron, you see it in one location. This is the fundamental mystery of quantum mechanics. Its description when no one is looking is different from what you see."

That last sentence is his metaphysics. According to a different metaphysics (or interpretation) the electron always has a well-defined place and momentum. The electron has an accompanying pilot wave. In Copenhagen it was once decided though (to the dislike of Einstein) that the more parsimonous path of chance should be followed. Had they decided to take the pilot wave course, then the QM books wouldn't have looked much different but there would be no talk about interpretation. MWI would probably not have been invented. In principle experiment can decide if they're there.

So if tomorrow we call the sun "horse," it won't change that bright ball in the sky — Xtrix

I didn't say that we just call it differently. That would not be a real change. I said "is": if what we today call "sky" tomorrow stops being sky, but rather is really, objectively, as a fact, a "horse", I cannot give it a name, it is impossible to give it a name.

if what you say is true, and we cannot assign a name to anything that changes -- then we can't name anything, including change itself. — Xtrix

We assign names because we see that, together with elements that change, there are elements that don't. If all elements of an object change, we cannot give it a name, it is impossible.

it is impossible to envisage a world where there are no necessary facts. — Wayfarer

This is your opinion, your philosophy, other philosophers don't think so.

Oh yes? Like who?

My description of metaphysics is not history of philosophy: since there are so many concepts about metaphysics, I already hinted that the title of this thread is not so correct: it is impossible to answer, because of the plurality of concepts about it, unless you want just to describe a history of how metaphysics has been conceived over time. My description of metaphysics is a choice to build a philosophy of metaphysics that opens perspectives of research, rather than just describing passively how the different philosophers have conceived it.