Probably beyond metaphysics — jgill
I have no clue what metaphysics is. It is not defined unambiguously. — god must be atheist
So...is gravity meta-physics? — god must be atheist
Meta-physics refers to the things we conceive with the eye of the mind. — Gnomon
There is no rule on creating schools on a misunderstanding or on complete ignorance. I don't support the concept, of doing just that, personally, and I am only saying that for the record.Meta-physics refers to the things we conceive with the eye of the mind. — Gnomon
Yes. As indicated in some my links above, modern Quantum Physics has crossed the line between absolute Newtonian physics, and relative Einsteinian physics. Your confusion is understandable, because the traditional definition of "Metaphysics" referred to "spiritual" concepts instead of physical percepts. Now, that formerly-clear distinction is blurred. For example, a quantum particle is believed to do something only ghosts could do before : pass through solid objects (quantum tunneling).So...is gravity meta-physics? It is very real to me. And yet it is not something you can see, touch, smell or taste. — god must be atheist
I'll try to disambiguate it for you. Are abstract ideas in the mind physical? If not, what are they? Is gravity a physical object, or a geometric warping of empty space? Is "Geometry" physical & empirical. or an abstract & mental concept? Ideas & concepts are literally meta-(beyond)-physics. :smile:I am not saying metaphysics is nonsense. I say that the definition given renders it nonsense.
I have no clue what metaphysics is. It is not defined unambiguously. I can't deal with that. — god must be atheist
You can feel gravity. — EricH
How do you do that. — god must be atheist
No. The common vernacular definition of "metaphysics" is "supernatural". But that is not the philosophical definition, nor how I use the term in my thesis. The metaphysical Mind is a product of natural evolution, but it is not an empirical object, or a tangle of neurons. Instead, the Mind is the function of the brain. It's what brains do --- a goal-directed activity. It can't be studied under a microscope, only by rational inference from behavior. The metaphysical Mind is not physical, but it is Real and Natural. :smile:Is this how everyone understands what metaphysics is? — god must be atheist
Newton's gravity was imagined as a pulling force, that was different from all other forces, which push. Einstein's gravity is not a "force", so you can't sense it directly. Instead, you "feel" the effects of that geometric change of direction on your body. For example, technically, the centrifugal "force" you feel when whirling in circles, is not gravity, but internal stresses due to non-straight-line motion. Modern, Einsteinian Physics is counter-intuitive, because much of it is Meta-physical. :cool:I could be mistaken, but I believe the sensations you will experience from these experiments are the result of gravity acting on your arms (#1) or your whole body (#2) — EricH
Which do you prefer : the simple vernacular definition of MP, or the various abstruse mathematical definitions? I post links to the definitions used by physicists. But most viewers don't click the links. So they are not aware that "Gnomon's definition" is completely compatible with modern quantum physics. My ad hoc disambiguation definition above is intended to make a clear distinction between the vernacular definition and the technical definition, in terms that are easy to understand. Besides, even Newton's physics was grounded on supernatural assumptions : God was an axiom. The whole point of "Gnomon's definition" is to disambiguate a murky concept. :nerd:So instead of arguing with Gnomon, I suggest that whoever is interested in carrying on a meaningful conversation, must create a different defintion from Gnomon's for "MP". — god must be atheist
Einsteinian Physics is counter-intuitive, because much of it is Meta-physical. — Gnomon
These statements have no literal meaning. They are very much like all religious statements, they are a type of imaginative poetry.When we look for matters of fact, we see physics. But when we search for meaning, we find meta-physics. — Gnomon
I have no training in Physics, beyond 101 courses, and 50 years of reading science. So, I am aware that, officially, the science of Physics does not concern itself with "meaning". But this is a Philosophy forum, and that discipline does concern itself with meaning and human values. When the OP titled this thread, he, perhaps unwittingly, included the Search for Meaning in the topic. And that's what got my attention. Modern Philosophy is inherently Metaphysical, because Modern Science took on the task of understanding the physical world, and left the non-physical topics for feckless philosophers to debate endlessly, while science actually made progress on many fronts.These statements have no literal meaning. They are very much like all religious statements, they are a type of imaginative poetry. — EricH
However, I resent the implication that I understand talking to spirits, only because I understand wave function — god must be atheist
I could be mistaken, but I believe the sensations you will experience from these experiments are the result of gravity acting on your arms (#1) or your whole body (#2) — EricH
Gnomon's definition" is completely compatible with modern quantum physics. — Gnomon
Which do you prefer : the simple vernacular definition of MP, or the various abstruse mathematical definitions? — Gnomon
Isn't that how philosophy is done : first define your terms, then make your argument? I was forced to define the concept of "non-physical" or "virtual" reality, precisely because it's a debatable topic. Besides, those other definitions have no bearing on my argument. If my definition is not faulty, and it is pertinent to my topic, why call it "useless"? I am simply using the literal meaning of the word, beyond physical nature, instead of the supernatural accretions over the years. Those who think of Metaphysics as supernatural may "disregard" my definition. But they can't thereby claim to "defeat" my argument. My thesis stands or falls on its own definitions, not irrelevant notions. Metaphysics : the abstract side of reality.You, Gnomon, were kind enough to provide your own definition. It is not a faulty definition, since no consensus has been reached. But it is a rather useless definition, because it allows you to claim the presence of metaphysics in quantum mechaincs. Per your definition, it is perfectly valid. However, many people immediately conjure concepts of what metaphysics are, and disregard your defintion, and they therefore reject your claim. — god must be atheist
Isn't that how philosophy is done : first define your terms, then make your argument? — Gnomon
How does Aristotle define metaphysics? :
What is known to us as metaphysics is what Aristotle called "first philosophy." Metaphysics involves a study of the universal principles of being, the abstract qualities of existence itself. Perhaps the starting point of Aristotle's metaphysics is his rejection of Plato's Theory of Forms. — Gnomon
Do you think it's "objectionable" for a philosopher to disambiguate an ancient term with centuries of misleading accretions? I doubt that precision-of-definition is what you find objectionable. Instead, it's the materialist dogma that dismisses any hint of preternatural phenomena. Yet my definition says that Meta-physical Information (ideas, meanings, concepts) is indeed non-physical, but is completely Natural. Aristotle apparently thought it was an important distinction, even though he didn't give it a name. Personally, I think the name "Meta-physics" is descriptive & apt. So it shouldn't be offensive to anyone who acknowledges Ari's division of Science into the physical (volume 1) and the non-physical (vol 2) aspects of Natural Reality.objectionable for one reason and one reason only. You take a term that has been given some kind of aura, that is pervasive in its usage. Then you give it a very restrictive meaning, — god must be atheist
The answer to your questions is in the Enformationism thesis. I give many examples to show how Information (e.g. Energy) can be both physical (matter) and non-physical (mind). It's the Prime Substance of our world. That "insight" is my minor contribution to the progress of philosophy. The "usefulness" of that insight may result in the reconciliation between estranged Philosophy & Science.So... QM is full of instances of things visible only with our minds' eyes. True. Then what?
Where is the insight in this? What is the usefulness of stating this? — god must be atheist
You are actually almost right about that.I doubt that precision-of-definition is what you find objectionable. Instead, it's the materialist dogma that dismisses any hint of preternatural phenomena. — Gnomon
Stand on a low chair or stool. You will feel a brief sense of acceleration as you are falling down. — EricH
How did you get those medieval notions from my definitions of Meta-Physics? I suspect that's your definition, and you are ignoring mine.On the other hand you define metaphysics that allows interpretation of sub-particle activities to be of the same value and service to mankind, as witch burning and seances. THIS is why I object to your definition. Never mind my dogma. In my books the two are separate systems of thought, and one describes reality, the other does not. The two have no common things in their mechanisms. Yet your definition allows that. Therefore it is not a good definition, because it equates disparate, non-related elements in this world: solid, observed elements (QM) to another element that is sheer fantasy, disproved fiction and intentional fraud. — god must be atheist
On the other hand you define metaphysics that allows interpretation of sub-particle activities to be of the same value and service to mankind, as witch burning and seances — god must be atheist
Ironically, something similar to "Ectoplasm" and "Spiritual Energy" has been detected and analyzed, not in chemical or biological labs, but in modern computers : Information Processors. However, it's not what psychics and mediums think it is. Computer data is Information, and Energy is enformation. It's the same fundamental stuff that "Virtual Particles" are made of. But it's not supernatural; it's not some ghostly goo, or green slime. It's merely the mundane mathematical relationship that powers Thermodynamics.Good point. However, should ectoplasm be detected and analyzed in a laboratory your perspective could have merit. — jgill
How did you get those medieval notions from my definitions of Meta-Physics? I suspect that's your definition, and you are ignoring mine. — Gnomon
You wrote this. Your definition. Your words. Verbatim. Please don't deny this, because even the reference is there that it was penned by you.Meta-physics refers to the things we conceive with the eye of the mind. — Gnomon
Good point. However, should ectoplasm be detected and analyzed in a laboratory your perspective could have merit. :chin: — jgill
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.