I think the object of metaphysics is rather blurry. Plato said that numbers are not part of the forms because they are imperfect (is 4 big or small? he asked). Physical objects for Plato were like shadows of another reality, and are imperfect as well. I've been reading Sartre's Being and Nothingness and am struck by his anti-Kantian approach. The world is there! he says. However, we know from relativity that's it's only "there" in a sense and in a certain respect. So we seem back be back to Plato and maybe Kant, wondering what is behind the whole thing. And that is metaphysics

And there is some relevance to my tangent here, in that modern physicists don't focus too much on metaphysical claims of what something "really" is. — Mijin

Yes. I'm aware that most physicists don't do metaphysics. But philosophers do. And this is a philosophical forum, is it not?. So, why not consider Metaphysical interpretations of Quantum Theory? Classical physics was turned upside-down by quantum queerness. That's because the substructure of reality was no longer viewed as solid little balls of stuff. The foundations of Reality are now described as invisible formless Fields of abstract intangible mathematical Information. As noted in my post above, those waving fields of nothingness cannot be seen in microscopes, but only in the form of abstract equations.

So, if physicists now think of particles as continuous waves in "fields" (wholes), why do some on this forum insist on referring to waves-in-an-empty-ocean as "parts" (particles)? A Field is sometimes defined as a "physical quantity", but it's actually a Quality, quantified in terms of metaphysical numbers (what color is four?). Quantum phenomena such as Entanglement are Holistic, not particularistic. I suspect that even analytical physicists are human, and can't relate realistically to amorphous generalities. Besides, they need measurable specifics (countable things) in order to do their math.

If philosophers, including us amateurs, are not allowed to focus on "metaphysical claims", what's left for us to argue about : second principles? :cool:

Metaphysics : the branch of philosophy that deals with the first principles of things, including abstract concepts such as being, knowing, substance, cause, identity, time, and space.

Ontology : the branch of metaphysics dealing with the nature of being.

Ontic : relating to entities and the facts about them; relating to real as opposed to phenomenal existence.
Note : Ontic investigations ask "what something really is". Particles are "phenomenal" (appearances), while Fields are "noumenal" (fundamental). Perhaps, both are "Real", but viewed from different perspectives.

According to Kant, it is vital always to distinguish between the distinct realms of phenomena and noumena. Phenomena are the appearances, which constitute the our experience; noumena are the (presumed) things themselves, which constitute reality.
http://www.philosophypages.com/hy/5g.htm

If we started allowing metaphysics into quantum physics we will get the same thing that metaphysics has yielded for the past thousand years, nothing.

IMO Metaphysics is the most useless branch of philosophy.

If we started allowing metaphysics into quantum physics we will get the same thing that metaphysics has yielded for the past thousand years, nothing. — Darkneos

I'm not proposing that philosophers start meddling in Physics, but that they stick to their specialty : Metaphysics. Besides, if it's "nothing, why are we still debating Metaphysics after all these millennia? Is it possible that there is more to reality than Physics? What does modern philosophy do, if not Meta-physics? If it's useless, why are you posting on a Philosophy forum, instead of a Physics forum? Apparently, some philosophers on this forum are motivated by Physics Envy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physics_envy

Could it be because Physics, after 5 centuries, still has not found the key relationship between Mind & Matter, or between Quantitative Substance & Qualitative Attributes, or between the Potentiality of Invisible fields & the Actuality of tangible objects? Could it be because Physics has atomized the world down to sub-atomic "particles" that are described as a "virtual" essence or simulation? Maybe it's because Physics has found that the foundation of the world is Mathematical instead of Material? Or that Gravity is no longer a physical Force, but a metaphysical mathematical "curvature" of empty space? If Quantum Physics, only statistically real, is not downright "spooky", as Einstein called it, it is literally Meta-Physical : beyond the scope of classical Physics. Yet, it remains within the scope of modern Philosophy. :nerd:

Metaphysics : Metaphysics is the branch of philosophy that examines the fundamental nature of reality, including the relationship between mind and matter, between substance and attribute, and between potentiality and actuality.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysics

Virtual :
1.The adjective "virtual" is used to describe something that exists in essence but not in actuality.
2. Computer science : a simulation of reality.
3. Physics : a virtual particle is a transient quantum fluctuation that exhibits some of the characteristics of an ordinary particle, while having its existence limited by the uncertainty principle.

Physics : relating to things perceived through the senses as opposed to the mind; tangible or concrete.
Note : Quantum Physics is neither concrete, nor perceivable by the five senses. It is conceivable only in the Mind, and describable only in mathematical language.

Does Science Need Metaphysics? : Science is anti-metaphysical. It doesn't care about the ultimate nature of what it is observing and measuring. Its models, its particles, forces, and fields, are not models of fundamental reality. They are useful abstractions that provide a common language for discussing relationships and measurements nothing more.
https://broadspeculations.com/2020/04/05/does-science-need-metaphysics/

"Where our scientific knowledge is insufficient and where theological answers fail to compel
and convince us, philosophy remains a useful endeavor."
___Ethan Siegel, astrophysicist,

Metaphysicians might try to formulate and discuss ways of comprehending and envisioning the fields of physics. As a math person I easily perceive fields as vector fields - usually 2-D - with functions giving vector values at each point. But when a physicist talks of "excitations" of a field that's a different matter, and one that is highly intriguing. Physicists use the word "particle" differently than does the average person, as KK has mentioned. Waves, particles, fields - how they can be consolidated in the mind, now there's a challenge for metaphysics. Or is this in the same category as visualizing four dimensional space? (I once knew a topologist who claimed to be able to!) :cool:

Could it be because Physics, after 5 centuries, still has not found the key relationship between Mind & Matter, or between Quantitative Substance & Qualitative Attributes, or between the Potentiality of Invisible fields & the Actuality of tangible objects? Could it be because Physics has atomized the world down to sub-atomic "particles" that are described as a "virtual" essence or simulation? Maybe it's because Physics has found that the foundation of the world is Mathematical instead of Material? Or that Gravity is no longer a physical Force, but a metaphysical mathematical "curvature" of empty space? If Quantum Physics, only statistically real, is not downright "spooky", as Einstein called it, it is literally Meta-Physical : beyond the scope of classical Physics. Yet, it remains within the scope of modern Philosophy. :nerd: — Gnomon

Mind does not exist, neuroscience killed dualism there. Qualia from what I have heard is a meaningless attribute that caries no real worth.

Physics has not found that the foundation of the world is mathematical, it's still material just not in the way we thought it was. But it literally does not impact our day to day, and metaphysics even less so. Gravity is still a physical force. It's not Meta-Physical, it's not beyond the scope of classical physics, that's like calling biology that. It is a branch than deals with phenomenon at the quantum level of particles. Classical physics still works at our level but not quantum physics.

I know you WANT metaphysics to be useful but it's not. Quantum physics is not even in the same league as metaphysics so it's fallacious to think there can be an association between the two.

The reason we are still debating the same metaphysics as in the beginning is because there is no solution to metaphysical questions. It just boils down to what people want to believe and that's it. None of your definitions change any of that.

Waves, particles, fields - how they can be consolidated in the mind, now there's a challenge for metaphysics. — jgill

This is an error in the interpretation of the Copenhagen interpretation. Consciousness does not play a role in QM. The term "observation" just means any sort of interaction with the system, not a conscious agent.

But when a physicist talks of "excitations" of a field that's a different matter, and one that is highly intriguing. — jgill

This is just the physicist's way of saying we know there's some energy there but we don't know what form it has.

This is just the physicist's way of saying we know there's some energy there but we don't know what form it has. — Metaphysician Undercover

I'm thinking in terms of pure mathematics. Excitation in the complex vector field. I'm wondering how that might be interpreted, devoid of physics. (I'm sure someone will tell me :roll: )

Waves, particles, fields - how they can be consolidated in the mind, now there's a challenge for metaphysics. — jgill

This is an error in the interpretation of the Copenhagen interpretation — Darkneos

I'm speaking of envisioning these three things as a single entity, not necessarily associated with QM. Probably beyond metaphysics. Like visualizing four dimensions.

Mind does not exist, neuroscience killed dualism there. Qualia from what I have heard is a meaningless attribute that caries no real worth. — Darkneos

I'm sorry you feel that way. It's difficult to have a dialog with a mindless zombie. :joke:

If you are a practicing Physicist, Chemist, or Biologist, you may have no practical need for Qualia, or Mind. If you are non-empirical Psychiatrist or Sociologist, you do need the concept of "Qualia", although you might call it by a different name. If you are any of the above though, why are you posting on a worthless Philosophy forum? Do you enjoy wasting your time on meaningless drivel? Or, do you "feel" duty-bound to set us errant "Mystics" straight?

For the record, I am not a Mystic in any sense. I have no Religion, and belong to no Cult. I don't believe in spooky ghosts or disembodied spirits, or mindless zombies. But I do believe that the immaterial Mind is the Function of the material Brain. It's what brains do. Brain functions are defined in terms of Qualia : what it feels-like to experience the world. If the Mind does not exist, then Brains are useless lumps of meat. I assume that you have a Brain, but based on your comments, I'll have to take you at your word, that you don't have a Mind. :cool:

Mind : the element of a person that enables them to be aware of the world and their experiences, to think, and to feel; the faculty of consciousness and thought.

The mind is the set of faculties including cognitive aspects such as consciousness, imagination, perception, thinking, intelligence, judgement, language and memory, as well as non-cognitive aspects such as emotion and instinct. ___Wikipedia
Note : is this what you believe does not exist? Or is the spiritual Soul that you deny? If the latter, I'd have to agree with you. In place of the ancient notion of "Soul", I prefer the concept of "Self-image", which exists as an immaterial pattern of neural activity. What substance are Faculties & Functions made of? In what sense do such non-entities exist?

Faculty : A faculty refers to any of your mental or physical abilities. If you lose your faculties, you are powerless.

Function :
1. the kind of action or activity proper to a person, thing, or institution; the purpose for which something is designed or exists; role.
2. Function, in mathematics, an expression, rule, or law that defines a relationship between one variable (the independent variable) and another variable (the dependent variable).

Waves, particles, fields - how they can be consolidated in the mind, now there's a challenge for metaphysics. — jgill

There's no metaphysical mystery to such immaterial notions : they are all imaginary. :wink:

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

Imagination : the faculty or action of forming new ideas, or images or concepts of external objects not present to the senses.

PS__"not present to the senses" = non-empirical; theoretical; meta-physical

Waves, particles, fields - how they can be consolidated in the mind, now there's a challenge for metaphysics. — jgill

There's no metaphysical mystery to such immaterial notions : they are all imaginary. :wink: — Gnomon

So how would you visualize them being one (imaginary) thing?

So how would you visualize them being one (imaginary) thing? — jgill

Sorry. I don't understand the question. Unless you are inadvertently referring to my Enformationism hypothesis. From that perspective, "waves, particles, fields" are various forms of fundamental Information : the power to enform; to create and to change. Moreover, everything in the natural world is a specific form of that general enforming power -- which you may be more familiar with in the form of Energy : the power to cause change.

For the science behind that theory, you can refer to the website & blog. Mental Information is indeed imaginary : images & meanings created by the brain in the form of abstract mental patterns. But physical Information is what we call Matter : concrete enformed stuff. These notions may sound far-out, but they are integral to the cutting-edge science of Information Theory. :nerd:

Information Realism : https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/physics-is-pointing-inexorably-to-mind/

Energy :
Scientists define “energy” as the ability to do work, but don't know what energy is. They assume it's an eternal causative force that existed prior to the Big Bang, along with mathematical laws. Energy is a positive or negative relationship between things, and physical Laws are limitations on the push & pull of those forces. So, all they know is what Energy does, which is to transform material objects in various ways. Energy itself is amorphous & immaterial. So if you reduce energy to its essence of information, it seems more akin to mind than matter. I call that creative energy : EnFormAction.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html

Information :
* Claude Shannon quantified Information not as useful ideas, but as a mathematical ratio between meaningful order (1) and meaningless disorder (0); between knowledge (1) and ignorance (0). So, that meaningful mind-stuff exists in the limbo-land of statistics, producing effects on reality while having no sensory physical properties. We know it exists ideally, only by detecting its effects in the real world.
* For humans, Information has the semantic quality of "aboutness" , that we interpret as meaning. In computer science though, Information is treated as meaningless, which makes its mathematical value more certain. It becomes meaningful only when a sentient Self interprets it as such.
* When spelled with an “I”, Information is a noun, referring to data & things. When spelled with an “E”, Enformation is a verb, referring to energy and processes.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page11.html

Note : Regarding the existence of imaginary things : Photons are the closest to bits of physical energy we know of. But on Quora, someone asked : "do photons actually exist?', and a physicist replied :
"Well, on the one hand, photons most certainly produce observable effects, and that would seem to indicate that they exist. . . . On the other hand, photons cannot be associated with certain fundamental properties that we would expect any physically existing object to possess."
https://www.quora.com/Do-photons-actually-exist/answer/Armin-Nikkhah-Shirazi?ch=99&share=421fcb4e&srid=ozk3M

So how would you visualize them being one (imaginary) thing? — jgill

Sorry. I don't understand the question. — Gnomon

Think of this as a secular counterpart to The Holy Trinity: Father, Son, and Holy Ghost - all are one and there may be Christian mystics who can envision the three as one imaginary entity. :chin:

Your posts are like someone who doesn't understand Quantum physics trying to explain what it is.

Not to mention the article you linked is full of errors in reasoning, not to mention that the author of the article does not have a degree in physics. He tries to peddle idealism as truth when it was debunked long ago and tries to use "mind" as a thing that exists when neuroscience has debunked it. Also mindless does not mean zombie.

Seriously, not sure how Scientific American greenlit that article.

I also forgot to mention that the guy you cited is essentially arguing for solipsism so.....good job.

"Waves, particles, fields - how they can be consolidated in the mind, now there's a challenge for metaphysics."

Think of this as a secular counterpart to The Holy Trinity: Father, Son, and Holy Ghost - all are one and there may be Christian mystics who can envision the three as one imaginary entity. — jgill

Some scientists and philosophers think that "The Holy Trinity" of quantum phenomena are reducible to pure Mathematics. And some think that Mathematics is Metaphysics. Personally, I think that they all boil down to Ideal Platonic Information (Forms). That is a Metaphysical concept, but not necessarily a Mystical notion. Regarding Metaphysics, I am like the Argentine writer, Jorge Luis Borges : "Attracted by metaphysics, but accepting no system as true . . ." :smile:

"Bohr regarded the "duality paradox" as a fundamental or metaphysical fact of nature."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave%E2%80%93particle_duality

Mathematical Metaphysics : https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/platonism-mathematics/

Waves, Particles and Fields : https://www.amazon.com/Waves-Particles-Fields-Introducing-Quantum/dp/0367198789

Your posts are like someone who doesn't understand Quantum physics trying to explain what it is. — Darkneos

Ha! I could match your snarky remark with : "your posts are like someone who doesn't understand Philosophy . . ." But I won't. :joke:

I know enough about philosophy to know that you are essentially trying to argue for solipsism.

I know enough about philosophy to know that you are essentially trying to argue for solipsism. — Darkneos

Sorry Darkness. I don't believe in extreme philosophical Solipsism, as you imply. But then, Descartes' radical skepticism began from that starting position. He concluded that all else is uncertain to some degree. So, the point of his philosophy was to determine -- via reasoning from that foundation of certainty -- what was believable. Once underway though, most philosophers abandon that radical attitude and adopt a more pragmatic view.

Apparently, from previous comments, you doubt that even You have a Mind! But, you seem to act as-if you are certain of your own mental/brain powers -- whatever you call them. Do you believe that other people have similar faculties? On what empirical basis? Do you know anything for sure, outside the direct experience of your own mind/brain/senses? On what empirical basis? Have you directly experienced all the "facts" of Science, or do you accept the testimony of those who have personal (solipsistic) experience with the pertinent experiments?

Do you believe that a few of the posters on this forum have reasoning abilities equivalent to your own? Are you sure of that? Or is it just an inference based on your own solipsistic experience? Speaking of Empiricism, do you believe in the "Uncertainty Principle" of the Quantum foundation of Reality? :joke:

Solipsism : Solipsism, in philosophy, an extreme form of subjective idealism that denies that the human mind has any valid ground for believing in the existence of anything but itself.

Uncertainty Principle : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle
Note -- Does the "Observer Effect" imply Solipsism?

The Philosophical Uncertainty Principle : The PUP establishes that: “It is impossible to know if some observation, measure or perception corresponds in fact to reality”.
http://www.genismo.com/englishtext_07.htm

Of Superposition and Solipsism : https://prizedwriting.ucdavis.edu/superposition-and-solipsism-survey-quantum-mechanical-approaches-addressing-%E2%80%9C-hard-problem%E2%80%9D

Radical Empiricism : a philosophical doctrine put forth by William James. It asserts that experience includes both particulars and relations between those particulars, and that therefore both deserve a place in our explanations. In concrete terms: Any philosophical worldview is flawed if it stops at the physical level and fails to explain how meaning, values and intentionality can arise from that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_empiricism

Yes. I'm aware that most physicists don't do metaphysics. But philosophers do. And this is a philosophical forum, is it not?. So, why not consider Metaphysical interpretations of Quantum Theory? — Gnomon

I'm not trying to shut the conversation down, I was replying specifically to posts about what physicists say and how physics is taught.

So, if physicists now think of particles as continuous waves in "fields" (wholes), why do some on this forum insist on referring to waves-in-an-empty-ocean as "parts" (particles)? — Gnomon

(Emphasis added)

I can't parse this question. Seems you are saying both groups are aware of wave particle duality but tend to have a preferred description. Even assuming you're right about that...I don't see any conflict or inconsistency.

I'm not trying to shut the conversation down, I was replying specifically to posts about what physicists say and how physics is taught. — Mijin

That's OK. I get the "Physics is Truth" treatment a lot, when I discuss Metaphysical topics. I'm familiar with the Materialist worldview of most Physicists. And that's OK, as long as they are doing Empirical Science. But when physicists cross-over into Metaphysics, they become speculative Philosophers.

For example, Einstein's early theories of "curved space" sounded like nonsense. But eventually, physicists were forced by the evidence to accept the weird notion of space-time imagined metaphorically as an immaterial "fabric". Idealistic Metaphysics is necessarily discussed in metaphors & analogies of "real" (i.e. concrete) objects. That's because abstract notions have no matter for the 5 senses to relate to. Only the sixth sense of Reason can imagine such "unreal" (i.e. metaphysical) things as ideas & concepts.

Einstein's Metaphysics : A knowledge of the historic and philosophical background gives that kind of independence from prejudices of his generation from which most scientists are suffering.
https://www.spaceandmotion.com/metaphysics-albert-einstein.htm

Fabric of Space-Time : The mass has got to curve spacetime, but it isn't actually a fabric: it's simply the nothingness that makes up the empty Universe itself.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2018/08/11/ask-ethan-is-spacetime-really-a-fabric/?sh=5c47c36097fc

I can't parse this question. Seems you are saying both groups are aware of wave particle duality but tend to have a preferred description. Even assuming you're right about that...I don't see any conflict or inconsistency. — Mijin

Don't worry about it. The remark was directed to those who think of Mathematical Fields as-if they are clouds, or oceans, of minuscule material particles, rather than of statistical mathematical "points", or "excited states" in "state space". Those abstract immaterial "points" are metaphorical, not physical. :smile:

State : State is a general word, often with no concrete implications or material relationships:

Fields : QFT treats particles as excited states (also called quanta) of their underlying quantum fields, which are more fundamental than the particles.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_field_theory

What Are Quasiparticles?: The Real “Fake” Particles of the Universe : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sC8Qym570m8

Apparently, from previous comments, you doubt that even You have a Mind! But, you seem to act as-if you are certain of your own mental/brain powers -- whatever you call them. Do you believe that other people have similar faculties? On what empirical basis? Do you know anything for sure, outside the direct experience of your own mind/brain/senses? On what empirical basis? Have you directly experienced all the "facts" of Science, or do you accept the testimony of those who have personal (solipsistic) experience with the pertinent experiments? — Gnomon

I don't know what you think pulling dictionary definitions prove or support in your arguments as nothing you have so far shows that quantum physics is on par with metaphysics. The two are not related no matter how much you want them to be.

To your first question, no I don't. I don't even know what a mind actually is yet the term is used often, I don't act though as if I am certain of anything I just act. The rest of your questions are all meaningless. The point of science is that one can test the claims being put forth. Considering science has brought planes, miracle drugs, tvs and other such gadgets I see no reason to doubt their testimony. I could but why? Unlike religion they actually deliver. I have experienced plenty of the facts of science, considering I have a major in the field.

If you are asking on what empirical basis, it's that I see it and feel it, etc. But one cannot know anything for sure and science doesn't claim to have certainty, hence it has evidence and not proof. I mean science acknowledges it's limits, other schools don't. I mean I can't be certain of my direct experience either, I have no choice but to take it as a given. I can't be sure of my mind or brain either. If you want to play the game of skepticism then we can play but neither of us is going to win out.

I'm not sure where you are going with your line of reasoning, but spouting dictionary terms seems to reflect your inability to put a good argument together. If you are trying to cast doubt on senses and empiricism then you don't have any grounds for trying to tie quantum physics with metaphysics.

If you are trying to cast doubt on senses and empiricism then you don't have any grounds for trying to tie quantum physics with metaphysics — Darkneos

Never Mind. Sorry my philosophizing got your scientific rigor riled-up. But your topic sounded like it was right down my metaphysical alley. :cool:

I just don't see doubting as a valid form of argument because the same thing can be done right back to you to the point that no one really gets anywhere. Once you start doubting the senses then you don't really get to claim science for support for whatever claim you have.

I just don't see doubting as a valid form of argument because the same thing can be done right back to you to the point that no one really gets anywhere. Once you start doubting the senses then you don't really get to claim science for support for whatever claim you have. — Darkneos

I never said that I doubt the physical senses or the physical world. That notion is in your imagination. My arguments have nothing to do with doubting the validity of physical sciences. Your prejudice against Metaphysics seems to be the source of your erroneous attributions.

I enjoy discussing both Physics (science) and Metaphysics (philosophy). But we seem to be speaking different languages. I am especially interested in the topic of this thread : Quantum Physics and Philosophy. I'm not qualified to discuss the technical or mathematical topics of Quantum Theory, but I am generally familiar with the philosophical issues, such as Quantum Information, Ontology of quantum states, quantum state realism, the Measurement Problem, Entanglement-nonlocality-nonseparability. These are Metaphysical questions. As the quote below says, I see these issues as "a resource to be developed", not a problem to wish away. :smile:


Quantum Philosophy : Quantum mechanics has not only given rise to interpretational conundrums; it has given rise to new concepts in computing and in information theory. Quantum information theory is the study of the possibilities for information processing and transmission opened up by quantum theory. This has given rise to a different perspective on quantum theory, one on which, as Bub (2000, 597) put it, “the puzzling features of quantum mechanics are seen as a resource to be developed rather than a problem to be solved”
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qt-issues/

It's not really a prejudice when it's a known "fact" that metaphysics is a useless branch of philosophy.

Introducing that into QM is likely to cause more problems and confusion in an already dense field of study.

↪Gnomon
It's not really a prejudice when it's a known "fact" that metaphysics is a useless branch of philosophy. — Darkneos

Sounds like intolerant prejudice to me. :smile:

As far as I can tell, opinion is divided on the alleged weirdness of Quantum mechanics and it's the weirdness that's sent philosophers into a tizzy, right.

Take Schrodinger's cat for example.

Just yesterday I came across a video that claims that quantum superposition (Schrodinger's cat) is foundational to modern computer technology, in essence validating it.

Yet, some say, Schrodinger created the thought experiment just to show that there's something deeply flawed with quantum mechanics, in short invalidating the theory. Coming from one of the founders of quantum theory - Erwin Schrodinger - this needs to be taken seriously, right? Schrodinger eventually gave up - if that's the right way to see it - and took up biology. :chin:

So, yeah, we're, at least I am, very, very confused as to what the quantum world is all about.

Meta-physics refers to the things we conceive with the eye of the mind. — Gnomon

So...is gravity meta-physics? It is very real to me. And yet it is not something you can see, touch, smell or taste.

Is the physics concept of force, or capacity, or electrical resistance, or wave frequency a metaphysical concept? I would be hard pressed to believe that.

The explanation you gave is not sufficient for me to conceptualize what metaphysics is. I still don't know what it is. It is NOT your fault, and I don't hold you responsible for its existence, and I don't hold you liable to teach me what it is.I have NO CONCEPT what to think when others talk about metaphysics.

So when you say

Quantum mechanics, like any physical theory, comes equipped with many metaphysical assumptions and implications. — Gnomon

then I don't know if it's true or not. Because it contains a phrase which I do not have a clue what it means.

I am not pulling your leg and I am not being obstreperous by purposefully acting stupid. I don't know what metaphysics is, precisely because its definition as per above includes things that I consider real, physical. If it's not physical, and it's physical, then obviously it is nonsense.

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.

I relate to your comments. One little nit-picking detail:

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

You can feel gravity.