Meta-physics refers to the things we conceive with the eye of the mind. — 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.
I assert that this definition includes both quantum mechanics and the reason and rationale behind witch burning. I proved it. Now it's your turn to prove I made a mistake in the proof. — god must be atheist

Ouch! It hurts when you throw my words back in my face. But, I cannot deny that I wrote those words. So, I stand by them. :joke:

However, where in those quoted words does it say anything about "witch burning" or "sheer fantasy", "disproved fiction" and "intentional fraud".. Show me any of those words in my post, and I'll admit that you have proven your false accusation. That's your "assertion" not mine. And ad hominem accusations are not philosophical proof of anything. Maybe you can create a syllogism that leads from belief in Mental "Phenomena" to human atrocities of Faith. That would only prove that your personal conception of Metaphysics is warped by your animus concerning Religion & Magic & Ghosts.

I'm not as gullible as you think. I have subscribed to Skeptical Enquirer and Skeptic magazine and Scientific American magazine for over 35 years. So, I know about "sheer fantasy", "disproved fiction" and "intentional fraud". And I know just enough about Quantum Physics to be dangerous . . . to Materialists and Spiritualists. FYI, here's the last line of my glossary definition of "Meta-Physics" : I use a hyphen in the spelling to indicate that I am not talking about Ghosts and Magic, but about Ontology (science of being). Can you find any "witch burning" in that quote?

I usually find your comments on this forum to be calm and rational. But you are completely missing the point of my comments on Quantum Theory and Philosophy. And your "witch burning" accusations sound more like fearful medieval villagers bearing torches. Are you going to accuse me of consorting with Satan next? Apparently, your faith in Materialism is strong. So, You are putting meanings in my words that are not in my mind. BTW, did you interpret "mind's eye" as the Hindu "third eye"? I was referring to Reason & Imagination, which can see things that are not. Do you think Einstein actually saw the world stretching as he rode on a light beam? :cool:

"Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited, whereas imagination embraces the entire world, stimulating progress, giving birth to evolution." ___Einstein

Concepts in Metaphysics : Topics of metaphysical investigation include existence, objects and their properties, space and time, cause and effect, and possibility.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Concepts_in_metaphysics
Note : how many of those categories are physical objects that can be studied under a microscope? And how many can you see with the "eye of the body"? Is Space-Time a perceivable material object or an invisible mental metaphor?

Putting words into someone's mouth: a logical fallacy? ... I've always been told that it is giving your opponents worst argument so that you can defeat it easily, ...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk%3ALogical_fallacy

Here's another quote for you to parse :
Enformationism : a worldview or belief system, grounded in the assumption that mundane Information, not Matter, is the basic substance of everything in the universe. It is intended to be a successor to the 19th century paradigm of Materialism, and to the ancient worldview of Spiritualism.
http://enformationism.info/enformationism.info/page2%20Welcome.html
Evidence from 21st century science follows . . . .

Ironically, something similar to "Ectoplasm" and "Spiritual Energy" has been detected and analyzed, not in chemical or biological labs, but in modern computers — Gnomon

It's the same fundamental stuff that "Virtual Particles" are made of — Gnomon

Spiritual energy is a quantum fluctuation? This is similar to ectoplasm? This sounds a bit like quantum mysticism. But whatever rings your bell.

You need to accelerate first to get to free fall velocity. Your inner ear detects acceleration.

Spiritual energy is a quantum fluctuation? This is similar to ectoplasm? This sounds a bit like quantum mysticism. — jgill

No. That's not even close to what I said. I'm simply offering my opinion : that the phenomena ancient sages explained in terms of "Spirit" is now explained in terms of "Energy". But Energy can now be explained in terms of "Information" and "Enformation". Hence, Information can be a physical cause (verb -- "to enform"). But, before Shannon, that same word referred only to non-quantifiable meta-physical knowledge in the mind (noun -- "fact") . So now, most scientists think of "information" in quantifiable physical terms as "negentropy" (i.e energy). And they forget that it originally referred to qualitative Ideas in a Mind.

That's not "quantum mysticism", it's just Information Theory. But, since Information/Energy is an invisible Cause in the natural world, it serves the same causal function as ancient notions of Spirit, Soul, Chi, Ghosts, Ectoplasm. Since Atheists tend to be offended by such "forbidden" words, they try to pin the "Mystic" label on me --- like holding a silver cross to defend against a vampire. But I'm neither an Atheist, nor a Theist, nor a Vampire, nor a Mystic. So, I'm comfortable with whatever terminology suits the application. I think the next generation of informed people will be more familiar, and comfortable, with the dual roles of Information : Matter stuff, and Mind stuff. :nerd:


The mass-energy-information equivalence principle : https://aip.scitation.org/doi/full/10.1063/1.5123794.

Information (quality) : noun. knowledge communicated or received concerning a particular fact or circumstance; news.
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/information

Information (quantity) : Shannon defined the quantity of information produced by a source--for example, the quantity in a message--by a formula similar to the equation that defines thermodynamic entropy in physics.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/claude-e-shannon-founder/

Ironically, something similar to "Ectoplasm" and "Spiritual Energy" has been detected and analyzed, not in chemical or biological labs, but in modern computers — Gnomon

It's the same fundamental stuff that "Virtual Particles" are made of — Gnomon

Spiritual energy is a quantum fluctuation? — jgill

No. That's not even close to what I said. — Gnomon

Wiki: In physics, a virtual particle is a transient quantum fluctuation

Admittedly, you did say "something similar" to spiritual energy, so that lets you off the hook.

You need to accelerate first to get to free fall velocity. Your inner ear detects acceleration. — EricH

Free fall is not a velocity. It is an acceleration where the gravitational force acts on your mass, and your mass inertia provides the counter force to the gravity that causes acceleration.

Wiki: In physics, a virtual particle is a transient quantum fluctuation
Admittedly, you did say "something similar" to spiritual energy, so that lets you off the hook. — jgill

Thanks, but I wasn't biting anyway. :wink:

Do virtual particles actually physically exist? : Thus virtual particles exist only in the mathematics of the model used to describe the measurements of real particles . To coin a word, virtual particles are particlemorphic , having a form like particle but not a particle.
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/185110/do-virtual-particles-actually-physically-exist
Note 1 -- Is an "unreal", "metaphysical" [my words] virtual particle similar to a Platonic Form?

Virtual Particle or Disturbance? : " . . .A virtual particle is not a particle at all. It refers precisely to a disturbance in a field that is not a particle. A particle is a nice, regular ripple in a field, one that can travel smoothly and effortlessly through space, like a clear tone of a bell moving through the air. A “virtual particle”, generally, is a disturbance in a field that will never be found on its own, but instead is something that is caused by the presence of other particles, often of other fields.. . ." https://profmattstrassler.com/articles-and-posts/particle-physics-basics/virtual-particles-what-are-they/
Note 2 -- is a "disturbance in a field" similar to a "disturbance in the Force"? Is "The Force" something like Spiritual Energy?

Quantum Fluctuation : Quantum fluctuation is the temporary appearance of energetic particles out of nothing, as allowed by the Uncertainty Principle.
https://universe-review.ca/R03-01-quantumflu.htm
Note 3 -- Some Cosmologists theorize that our world was created-out-of-nothing due to a Quantum Fluctuation. Does that sound like Magic to you? And you think I'm a Mystic?

Virtual : The definition of virtual is something that exists in the mind, exists in essence but not in fact or created by a computer. An example of virtual is an imaginary friend.
Note 4 -- Why did Physicists call those " transient disturbances" by the ghostly term "virtual"? Is a Virtual Particle like an imaginary friend? Do ghost-hunters search for "transient disturbances"? I'm not making this stuff up. I'm quoting the words of Atheist Physicists.
Note 5 -- Mundane natural "Information" exists in the Mind, and in Matter. Yes?
Note 6 -- In view of all this spooky scientific language, do you now agree that Quantum Theory is dabbling in Philosophy --- in Meta-physics? And getting dangerously close to Mysticism. :cool:

Right - I was thinking of parachuting where you hit wind resistance. Perhaps I'm mistaken, but when you jump out of a plane, your inner ear detects acceleration (or so I've been told).

“The legitimacy of philosophy (where it isn't just science in disguise) is one of mankind's greatest delusions.”

I wasn’t aware philosophy possessed legitimacy. Exactly how much legitimacy can a field possess when all it does is question everything around it? Since when did a question require legitimacy?

Physics, like most else of human perception, is derived of labels and stories applied to what is observed through combinations of vastly limited senses. No different than when our ancestors worshipped the sun or created mythology out of the stars. Observations given labels and stories. Unquestioned in their time. Throughout our history different stages of humanity perceived themselves in possession of the unarguable truths of reality. The superior to every stage of existence prior and all yet to come. Despite this well-known recurring cycle of perceptual misconceptions of what is, what was, and what will be existing within our “highly evolved” minds we find ourselves falling victim to the same delusions even today.

The widely utilized, yet vastly overestimated perception of “evidence” plays a large part in this never ending cycle of fallacy. Everything is “evidence”. On its own it means nothing. Where upon it obtains the measure of validity resides solely within the limited and highly skewed perceptions of those who give them life. Everything can be evidence of anything. It’s what happens to exist within ones perception that ends up weaving the tale that serves as its answer.

E=MC2 is a fabrication derived of a term that means nothing and everything at the same time equated to a fictional set of measurements. Putting aside the fact nobody knows what the hell “light” is or if it even exists in the way we perceive it, there is nothing existing of a concrete nature in which a concocted measurement of traversal for “light” has any connection whatsoever in regards to mass or energy, nor anything else. Energy isn’t even an actual thing. It’s an observation of change. The way it’s defined everything is energy. What this ultimately means is that E=MC2 is an “equation” that can literally be used to serve up as evidence of anything. It’s the equivalent to gravity. Perceptual labels to observations that don’t actually mean anything at all nor provide anything tangible in way of explanation nor understanding beyond the misperceptions they hold within this current period of human history.

If physics never came to be, technology would still exist in much the same way it does today. We would just use different labels and stories to explain the existence behind them.

I wasn’t aware philosophy possessed legitimacy. Exactly how much legitimacy can a field possess when all it does is question everything around it? Since when did a question require legitimacy? — JackBRotten

Let's for a moment accept that philosophy possesses no legitimacy. Then the question "Does philosophy possess legitimacy" can't be answered philosophically without creating a paradox.

Therefore the question loses legitimacy, because a negative answer to it (no it does not) renders the anwer illegitimate too, which renders the question regitimate, which renders the answer legitimate, which renders the question illegitimate... a vicious paradox.

So the only reasonable answer that avoids chaos and disorder is to answer the quesiton "does philosophy possess legitimacy" is yes.

“The legitimacy of philosophy (where it isn't just science in disguise) is one of mankind's greatest delusions.” — JackBRotten

This I contest. Philosophy is not a madman's phantasm, and it is not a sane person's misinterpretation of reality. Philosophy is not delusion, although it does not provenly grasp reality. It is not delusion, but flight of fancy, a creative game of playing with puzzle pieces of reality and putting the puzzle together which can create an infinite valid varieties of answers on reality, which are nevertheless not proven. This is not delusion. You delude yourself if you believe this is delusion.

The statement “The legitimacy of philosophy (where it isn't just science in disguise) is one of mankind's greatest delusions.” is not only negative and reflects negativism and pessimistic naysaying, it is also untrue.

Exactly how much legitimacy can a field possess when all it does is question everything around it? — JackBRotten

What you propose is not the only funcion of philosophy. You are cherry-picking. To condemn a field because of one aspect of it, and because of a false claim that that one aspect encompasses the entire field, whereas it does not, is a logical fallacy. It resembles a Strawman argument, but it must be a named subset of the Strawman.

Wiki: In physics, a virtual particle is a transient quantum fluctuation — jgill

Actually, in Physics there are many disparate definitions of fundamental Particles. And the bottom line is that "we don't know" what they are. "We" don't know, because "we" are materialists, who can't see anything but Atoms & Void. Where does invisible Energy fit in that worldview?

My thesis proposes that "everything in the universe reduces to Information (the power to enform). And some scientists have reached that same conclusion (It from Bit). For example, in the article below, the "traits" of particles, "change & mass", are not physical objects but meta-physical Information about dimensionless points. Once you grasp the notion that the foundation of Reality is immaterial, then the Enformationism thesis will begin to make sense. It will still be counter-intuitive, like Quantum Theory itself, but you will begin to "see" invisible Information at all levels of Reality. :nerd:

“What are the fundamental building blocks of the universe on its most fundamental scales?” — a more sophisticated phrasing of my question,“What is a particle?”
In the meantime, Engelhardt said, “‘We don’t know’ is the short answer.”

Given that everything in the universe reduces to particles, a question presents itself: What
are particles? The easy answer quickly shows itself to be unsatisfying. Namely, electrons, photons, quarks, and other “fundamental” particles supposedly lack substructure or physical extent. “We
basically think of a particle as a pointlike object,” . . . . and yet particles have distinct traits, such as charge and mass. How can a dimensionless point bear weight?
https://www.quantamagazine.org/what-is-a-particle-20201112/

Universal Information : similar to Energy, but also to Mind & Matter. It's omnipotential.

You’ve misrepresented quite a lot of what I wrote via your own act of “cherry-picking”. First though, you incorrectly attributed the quote about philosophy being a delusion to me when it was quoted in my post from another mind. Furthermore, I never proposed in any way whatsoever that the only purpose or function of philosophy is to question. You merely assumed that. A flaw within human perception.

All of that aside, the notion that something not having legitimacy somehow creating a paradox upon asking if it has legitimacy would seem to indicate either a perception of legitimacy that exists far different than the way it is defined, or a misperception of what a “paradox” indicates. The way you applied it makes the very notion of “legitimacy” non-existent. If the answer to a question of whether something possesses legitimacy collapses upon itself whenever the answer is perceived as a “no”, then the varying perceptions of what and what does not possess legitimacy creates a scenario where nothing does. In which case the concept itself ceases to function losing any reason exist.