Probably beyond metaphysics — jgill

I have no clue what metaphysics is. It is not defined unambiguously. — god must be atheist

Much of the confusion arises from frequent time honored conflation of realist ontology with metaphysics. Ontology is perfectly adequate to the study of what there is or what there could be given realist philosophical axioms. Metaphysics is the appropriate term for examining all philosophical axiomatic systems as systems rather than what can be derived or speculated in each philosophy.

Metaphysics is analogous to pure mathematics in that both are purely abstract and have abstract applications as well. Meta-metaphysics is to metaphysics (in plural) as meta-mathematics is to mathematics (also plural).

You can feel gravity. — EricH

How do you do that.

So...is gravity meta-physics? — god must be atheist

Is talking to spirits in seances meta-physics? Yes. Is gravity meta-physics? If you consider, and only consider the definition that Gnomon has used, then yes. To refresh:

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

Is this how everyone understands what metaphysics is?

I think Gnomon is right, if you consistently apply the definition quoted. "Things we can only infer, but but not feel" is what I think "things we can only see with the eyes of our mind" means. And if you accept this definition, then Gnomon is absolutely, irrefutably right in calling QM and physical properties that are theorized all MP (metaphysics).

However, I resent the implication that I understand talking to spirits, only because I understand wave function. If the expression "MP" as Gnomon suggests were acceptable universally, then it would be clear that I understand some MP concepts yet I don't understand some other MP concepts, furthermore, I declare they are not believable (such as seance parties).

I think Gnomon's definition is a subset of the definition of theoretical physics and a subset of the definition what must be truly metaphysics. Both have this part. But it's not enough; the phenomenon is not exclusively worded for its definition. A good definition will not only say one or another or a few parts of the quality of a concept; it will state all properties, that are part of the concept, but they also delineate the concept from all other concepts we have in our minds.

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".

I understand that metaphysics means "after physics" only denoted by Aristotle for the readers that it is a section in his book that comes after the section "physics". I don't know what Aristotle wrote in the chapter "metaphysics". All I know that it is not a unified concept, such as physics or chemistry or biology; it is, instead, thoughts on regularities and observations about the world, that do not fit in the chapter "metaphysics" as a topic.

However, posterity, as a trend, does not speak Greek, and they wrongly figured that metaphysics is a concept of something, and that something is included in the chapter "metaphysics". This is a misconception. The contents of metaphysics is a mish-mash, a junkyard of disparate pieces of thougts. It contains parts that are not related to other parts at all and whatsoever; however, modern English language distorted the meaning of "metaphysics" and thus distorted the philosophy of Aristotle.

This is a shamble, a bimmbele-bammbele, a durr-bele, but I can't help it as a person alone all by myself.

Subsequently, many people started to IMAGINE what metaphysics as a full concept means; they created schools of thought on what they thought MP meant; one of the schools of thought is to define MP as

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.

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

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).

Moreover, the notion of "Superposition" would have been characterized as "Supernatural" by Newton. The current ambiguity of the distinction between Physics & Metaphysics, is why I chose to define them in a new way in my thesis : "Physics is what you perceive with your physical senses, and Metaphysics is what you conceive with your non-physical Mind" (mind is an immaterial process, not a material object). There's more discussion of that notion in my blog. :nerd:

Quantum Metaphysics : The line between metaphysics and physics is often blurry, but as a rough guide, one can think of a theory's metaphysics as those foundational assumptions made in its interpretation that are not usually directly tested in experiment.
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-540-70626-7_119

Particles Walk Through Walls While Physicists Watch : https://www.livescience.com/20380-particles-quantum-tunneling-timing.html

Supernatural Entanglement : https://oss.adm.ntu.edu.sg/bleow001/supernatural-entanglement/

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

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:

Abstractions : something which exists only as an idea --- Ideal.

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.

Is Math Metaphysical? : Math is not physical (composed of matter/energy), though all physical things seem to conform to it.
http://www.askphilosophers.org/question/24527

Metaphysical Geometry : Thus, we believe and we can show that metaphysical truths, which are entirely independent of the concepts of god, creation, divine, etc. ... In other words, geometry is the reflection of intelligible truths in the plane of human mind which can understand things only in terms of the conditions of time and space.
https://tomajjavidtash.com/2016/03/13/metaphysics-geometry/

You can feel gravity. — EricH
How do you do that. — god must be atheist

Hmm - off the of of my head I can think of a few simple tests.

1) Lift your arms up and then relax them. You will feel your arms falling back to your sides.

Please be careful as you perform this next test.
2) Stand on a low chair or stool. You will feel a brief sense of acceleration as you are falling down. You will also feel some sudden de-acceleration as your feet hit the floor. To get the maximum experience of this effect, go sky diving (be sure to take a parachute. :razz:

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)

Is this how everyone understands what metaphysics is? — 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:


Metaphysics : Derived from the Greek meta ta physika ("after the things of nature"); referring to an idea, doctrine, or posited reality outside of human sense perception. As such, it is concerned with explaining the features of reality that exist beyond the physical world and our immediate senses. ...
https://www.pbs.org/faithandreason/gengloss/metaph-body.html

Function : kind of action or activity proper to a person, thing, or institution; the purpose for which something is designed or exists; role.

Physics & Metaphysics :
Two sides of the same coin we call Reality. When we look for matters of fact, we see physics. But when we search for meaning, we find meta-physics. A mental flip is required to view the other side. And imagination is necessary to see both at the same time.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page14.html

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

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:


Feeling of Gravity : Locally you cannot feel a gravitational field. In ordinary life, as you walk across the earth, you don't feel gravity. What you feel is the mechanical stresses that are exerted by the earth against your feet, and then transmitted throughout your body.
https://www.av8n.com/physics/gravity-perception.htm

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

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:

Newton’s Metaphysics of Space as God’s Emanative Effect : https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00016-014-0142-8

Einsteinian Physics is counter-intuitive, because much of it is Meta-physical. — Gnomon

I was a physics major in college. I make no claims to being very good at it, but once you accept the two basic premises that that nothing can go faster than c and that the laws of physics are invariant in all frames of reference? There is nothing counter intuitive about it.

The math is indeed very hard (my stumbling block), but there is nothing "meta" about it. Special & general relativity are real & measurable. They have no intrinsic "meaning".

When we look for matters of fact, we see physics. But when we search for meaning, we find meta-physics. — Gnomon

These statements have no literal meaning. They are very much like all religious statements, they are a type of imaginative poetry.

But don't let my grousing stop you - as far as these things go it's relatively harmless. . .

These statements have no literal meaning. They are very much like all religious statements, they are a type of imaginative poetry. — EricH

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.

Ironically, three big steps in that progression of knowledge have raised embarrassing questions about the Materialist assumptions that physics, since Aristotle, was based on. That quantum leap opened doors for Philosophical progress, which were closed since Galileo. Physics asks specific questions about Particular things, and reasons by reductive analysis. Philosophy though, asks general questions about Universals, and reasons by synthetic theories. Hence, when empirical scientists produce General theories about Universals, such as Evolution and Theories of Everything, they are inadvertently doing philosophy.

Those 20th century diversions into philosophy were Quantum Physics, Systems Theory, and Information Theory. Together, they have revealed that the foundations of Reality are not Material, but Mathematical, Holistic & Informational. The 21st century role of Leucippus' "Atom" is now filled by a "bit" of Information, as noted above. The "queer" worldview painted by those new fields of study has been quickly adopted by Theologians, New Agers, and Mystics. Hence, it has been rejected by those who favor the ancient theory of Materialism. Yet, although I fit in none of those categories, I have accepted the philosophical implications of 21st century Science, that still make some philosophers uncomfortable. I didn't intend to discomfit the OP with a 21st century worldview. But I was not completely surprised at his closed-minded reception. :joke:


Philosophy : (from Greek: φιλοσοφία, philosophia, 'love of wisdom') is the study of general and fundamental questions about existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language. ... Philosophical methods include questioning, critical discussion, rational argument, and systematic presentation.

The Meaning of Life : https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/life-meaning/

Meta-Physics : [ Physicist, Cosmologist, Astrobiologist ] Paul Davies makes a provocative claim. ''The new physics,'' he writes, ''has overturned so many commonsense notions of space, time and matter that no serious religious thinker can ignore it.''
https://www.csmonitor.com/1983/1104/110407.html

Information and the Nature of Reality: From Physics to Metaphysics : Many scientists regard mass and energy as the primary currency of nature. In recent years, however, the concept of information has gained importance. Why? In this book, eminent scientists, philosophers and theologians chart various aspects of information, from quantum information to biological and digital information, in order to understand how nature works. Beginning with an historical treatment of the topic, the book also examines physical and biological approaches to information, and its philosophical, theological and ethical implications.
https://books.google.com/books/about/Information_and_the_Nature_of_Reality.html?id=0k6oQq8lN-YC

"If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don't understand quantum mechanics."
___Richard Feynman

However, I resent the implication that I understand talking to spirits, only because I understand wave function — god must be atheist

Thanks for this gem. Makes reading these threads worthwhile. :smile:

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

You're right that that the feelings are the results of gravitational force. But the result is an interpretation of why you feel these feelings. If you see green, you immediately identify it. If you feel hot, you immediately identify it. If you feel pain, or hunger, you immediately identify it. No interpretation is needed.

As long as you need some interpretation to identify the source of a feeling, you don't actually feel it... you feel the effect of the sounce, not the source directly.

And that's precisely what makes gravity not a feeling, but a thing we see with our minds eye.

In my opinion, anything that you need your mind's eye to see because otherwise you wouldn't see it, is not a feeling you directly experience.

This is exemplified in the case of gravity by realizing that mankind lived with gravity since day one, but it was only conceptualized as a concept in the sixteen hundreds.

Thanks, jgill. Impressing you I consider a real accomplishment. It's accomplishments like these makes participating on this forum worthwhile for me.

Gnomon's definition" is completely compatible with modern quantum physics. — Gnomon

I agree. So totally agree with you. And that's why I stated that your definition is not exclusive. You must read Aristotle to see this.

Which do you prefer : the simple vernacular definition of MP, or the various abstruse mathematical definitions? — Gnomon

As I pointed it out in the next post by me, I think metaphysics as a field of study does not exist. Therefore it defies definition. Metaphysics in the Classical sense is a collection of thoughts that were not proper to include in the physics section, but were mentioned in the after-physics section; and they are not related to each other.

In modern times metaphysics has gained a meaning of its own, detaching itself fromi its original etimology. But because there is no metaphysics, the new definitions vary, and have different scopes and meanings.

There is chaos on the metaphysics' interpretation, because defining metaphysics is anyone's game. There is no consensus.

Therefore I reject any claim of metaphysics before a definition is given for it.

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.

You claim is valid as long as your reader accepts your definition.

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? 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.

Apparently, Aristotle thought "beyond-physics" was an important aspect of reality, because he devoted a whole volume to topics that didn't fit into the category of Physical Science. In volume 2, he was no longer discussing "facts" of physical reality, but human ideas or opinions about Reality. He even referred to it as "First Philosophy". Not merely after Physics, but prior to Physics in philosophical importance. When Quantum Physics refers to "Virtual" particles, are they materially real, or merely a not-yet-real (potential) aspect of "being as being"? Ghost particles, Entanglement, Tunneling , Spooky-action-at-a-distance. Do you deny that Quantum Physics is dabbling in Philosophy?

If you don't like my application of "Metaphysics" to Quantum Physics, just substitute "Philosophy" in its place. Is that still a "useless" definition for a thread entitled : "Quantum Physics and Philosophy"? What does philosophy study, if not the non-physical abstract qualities of human experience? One of those qualities is the non-physical property we call "Mind". Do you, like Darkneos, deny the existence of Minds, just because they can't be examined under a microscope? Is non-physical "Mind" (below) a "useless definition"? :nerd:


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.
https://www.sparknotes.com/biography/aristotle/section7/

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. An example of virtual is a world created by a computer video game.
https://www.yourdictionary.com/virtual

Mind : (in a human or other conscious being) the element, part, substance, or process that reasons, thinks, feels, wills, perceives, judges, etc.: the processes of the human mind. ...
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/mind

Isn't that how philosophy is done : first define your terms, then make your argument? — Gnomon

Yes, you're right. There is agreeable philosophy, and then there are disagreeable definitions. I find yours -- pardon me, this is not personal, at all, we are arguing concepts here, not personal preferences or personalities -- 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, which is very far removed from the generally accepted consensus of its meaning.

But that is not my objection. Freud had his ID, Ego and Superego, Plato had his Ideals, Kant had his Kategorical Imperative. Fine, you have your Metaphysics. The problem is, that your definition has no implication outside its immediate implication. "Metaphysics are things we can only see with our minds eyes. Therefore quantum mechanics is replete with metaphysical ideals." It is true, very true, I wouldn't argue against it; but it does nothing else but state the obvious in a way different from the normally accepted way of saying the same obvious thing.

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?

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

To my knowledge (and please correct me if you are sure I am wrong) Aristotle does NOT define his use of the word "Metaphysics". It is the name of a chapter in his book, and he lists a bunch of relationships between things, but these relationships are not a coherent unit, they contain disparate, from each other independent elements. He named this chapter metaphysics because it literally followed the chapter "physics" in his book, and metaphysics meant to him, "after physics" which had no meaning, other than "this chapter is after the chapter "physics"". It's only his posterity who give reason to believe that he meant some certain thing with the name "metaphysics."

I think your quote is a mistaken interpretation. I could be wrong, I stand corrected if you can show I am wrong.

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

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.
* Note 1 -- Energy is a mysterious & immaterial Ontological Cause that creates (enforms) & transforms tangible Matter. Yet Cause & Effect are erroneously lumped together under the heading of "Physics". But, for the purposes of my thesis, and Aristotle's, Causes are Meta-Physical. (Hume)
* "All of our experiences in life can be attributed to Energy. Metaphysical causes are a result of the energy manifesting its self as a physical outcome."
https://www.isygrigg.com/metaphysical-causes/

* Aristotle divided the theoretical sciences into three groups: physics, mathematics, and theology. He does, however, recognize the branch of philosophy now called metaphysics: he calls it “first philosophy” and defines it as the discipline that studies “being as being.” ...
https://www.britannica.com/biography/Aristotle/Physics-and-metaphysics
* Note 2 -- In my thesis, I combine all of the non-physical groups under the heading of Meta-Physics. But, Information actually manifests in two forms : material and mental. If you are not familiar with cutting edge Information Theory, that statement may sound "objectionable". But the thesis attempts to ease the mental transition from either/or Materialism to both/and Enformationism.

The last part of my glossary definition says : "5. I use a hyphen in the spelling to indicate that I am not talking about Ghosts and Magic, but about Ontology (science of being)."

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

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.

Prime Substance : The philosophical term ‘substance’ corresponds to the Greek ousia, which means ‘being’, transmitted via the Latin substantia, which means ‘something that stands under or grounds things’. . . .
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/substance/
Prime matter is matter with no substantial form of its own
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hylomorphism
* Note 3 -- Aristotle's "Prime Substance" and Spinoza's "Universal Substance" are what I call "Enformation" -- the power to give form to the formless. One aspect is "Energy".

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.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html

Enformationism :
A philosophical worldview or belief system grounded on the 20th century discovery that Information, rather than Matter, is the fundamental substance of everything in the universe. It is intended to be the 21st century successor to ancient Materialism. An Update from Bronze Age to Information Age. It's a Theory of Everything that covers, not just matter & energy, but also Life & Mind & Love.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html

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

You are actually almost right about that.
I reject any hint of supernatural explanations of phenomena.
And you're right, it is my beleif and if you like, dogma.

It is useful dogma. If I did not have that dogma, and most people did not have it, then we would still be burning old ladies as witches at the stake. We'd tie women into immobility, if they were suspected of being witches, and throw them into the sea; and we'd beleive that if they float, they are witches, and if they sink and die, they are not witches.

Furthermore we'd believe in the existence of the Holy Grail, in the existence of the Stone of the Wise, that turns everything into gold. We would believe that seances produce a conversation between the living and the dead. We would believe in many, many things that scientists who start with nothing but believeing my dogma also, have many times debunked each time completely.

So yes, you're right, it is my dogma that is driving me, but this dogma is useful, has proved to be useful and true.

-------------------------

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.

Stand on a low chair or stool. You will feel a brief sense of acceleration as you are falling down. — EricH

Actually, in freefall you feel weightless. What you feel is some air resistance and then the floor hitting you.

Science agrees with idea that lies at the core of metaphysics.

There is the actual world which is made out of huge amounts of fundamental particles arranged into what we perceive as trees, lakes other people and other galaxy, operating in accordance with the fundamental realities of nature which we call physics.

We survey this world using our seances and we build a representation of it in our heads that consists of neurons and it is to this representation have access to. We would traditionally call this representation reality. Although this is not the world it contains information about the world as the word representation would suggest. A map of the earth is a representation of the earth, but it is not the earth. The map talks a lot of liberties in how it represents things, a living breathing city of millions of people may for example be represented by a small black dot and the words London, or Mexico City or Tokyo. Similarly, the massive Mississippi river is often represented by a small blue line.

We represent different combinations of photons with different energies as color when they are photons and even the best physicists idea of a photon is a representation of what the things actual are. Smell is a representation of volatile, mostly organic chemicals and sound is how we represent the physical phenomena of compression waves.

I don't know about the precise definition of metaphysics but science tells us what we perceive as reality can only ever be a distorted representation of the actual physical world. Science is the process of trying to find more about the worlds underling reality using some combination of specialized observation and rigorous logic. Science is also about generating a framework in which we can connect all the things we find out together by building a scientific model with the scientific model it’s self simply a different type of representation of the universes underlying reality.

Quantum Physics is simply a framework that allows for particulate underlying realities of the universe to be represented in a way that those with training can understand. I do think that any framework by which we seek to understand “philosophic questions” should at least be consistent with well-established scientific models including those produces by physicists. In honesty I think science is the most powerful tools we have when it comes to producing a more useful, less distorted representation of the world.

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

How did you get those medieval notions from my definitions of Meta-Physics? I suspect that's your definition, and you are ignoring mine.

I understand your conventional position. If we were talking about "Scholastic Metaphysics", I might agree with you. But I'm talking about the unconventional notion of "Naturalized Metaphysics". It's based on cutting-edge Science and Philosophy. The hypothesis that everything, including Matter & Mind, consists of polymorphous Information, is a novel idea. And it challenges both the ancient notion of Materialism, and the current doctrine of Physicalism. So I don't expect it to become common knowledge until older scientists and philosophers die off. And I doubt that the credentialed scientists at the Santa Fe Institute (complex systems), who are studying the endless applications of Information, obtain their information from Seances. :joke:

Everything Must Go : Ladyman, Ross, et al.
https://www.amazon.com/Every-Thing-Must-Metaphysics-Naturalized/dp/0199573093

Naturalized Metaphysics : Every Thing Must Go argues that the only kind of metaphysics that can contribute to objective knowledge is one based specifically on contemporary science as it really is, and not on philosophers' a priori intuitions, common sense, or simplifications of science.
https://www.amazon.com/Every-Thing-Must-Metaphysics-Naturalized/dp/0199573093

One Funeral at a Time : “A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.”
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-10-10/science-advances-one-funeral-at-a-time-the-latest-nobel-proves-it

Information and the Nature of Reality : From Physics to Metaphysics
https://www.amazon.com/Information-Nature-Reality-Metaphysics-Classics/dp/1107684536

From Matter to Life -- Information and Causality :
https://www.amazon.com/Matter-Life-Information-Causality/dp/1107150531

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

Good point. However, should ectoplasm be detected and analyzed in a laboratory your perspective could have merit. :chin:

This will be by no means a popular perception, however the fundamental difference between Quantum Physics and Philosophy is that philosophy doesn’t involve pretending ones perceptions to be truth, yet rather questions them. Quantum physics is imagination run amok. philosophy is much the same, except it doesn’t involve creating mathematical equations to back up ones perception. Nor is philosophy about claiming truth. The legitimacy of physics is one of mankind’s greatest delusions.

Good point. However, should ectoplasm be detected and analyzed in a laboratory your perspective could have merit. — jgill

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.

Religious believers were quick to pick-up on the parallels between Quantum Science and Spiritualism. But Atheist scientists are now getting on board, and writing books on Physics & Metaphysics, risking ridicule from their peers. Theists and Atheists can adapt "Information" to their disparate needs. But believing in Ectoplasm doesn't prove the existence of ghosts. :nerd:

Ectoplasm : (from the Greek ektos, meaning "outside", and plasma, meaning "something formed or molded") is a term used in spiritualism to denote a substance or spiritual energy "exteriorized" by physical mediums.

"The legitimacy of physics is one of mankind’s greatest delusions."

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

Physics is just people doing there best to generate a framework that as accurately represents the rules that the universe flows based on observation and logic.

Much of physics is backed up by evidence, E=MC squared was demonstrated to be a reasonable representation of realty by the advent of the nuclear bomb. Our ability to produce much of modern technology you use was made possible by the framework that physicists have provided. You should not call into question the legitimacy of physics.

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

Not at all. Your initial defintion of metaphysics is this:

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.

To wit, Gnomon, for a long time you were hailing my support that your definition is valid, as definitions go, You said there is nothing wrong with going away from customary defintiions when a philosopher defines a term. You were happy and revelled in the fact that your definition was proven to include quantum mechanics.

But now you are protesting like an obstreperous child to the claim that your definition includes witch burning as well.

It is not a question of protesting or denying. Your definition includes that (Read your own definition if you don't believe me.)

You are welcome now to desing a new definition, if you are willing to abandon this earlier defintion.

Please be careful how you word it. I am awaiting with interest how you will word it. You are a smart person, there is nothing stopping you from writing a good definition. I hope you agree with this opinion.

Good point. However, should ectoplasm be detected and analyzed in a laboratory your perspective could have merit. :chin: — jgill

I am sorry, jgill, I don't understand your objection... mainly because you did not support it with well-researched quotation from the Internet, which prove of course nothing, but look very important and pompous. Without those I am like a lost child in a desert when it comes to understanding opinions.