Yeah, and also people who think it witty to subjectivize everything, and claim nothing exists.

No wonder post modernism is a laughingstock. — Xtrix

Not that this is about postmodernism, but....Even Heisenberg said subjectivity can never be eliminated from the scientific experiment.

“First, each metaphysical question always encompasses the whole problematic of metaphysics and in fact is the whole of metaphysics. Secondly, to ask any metaphysical question, the questioner as such must also be present in the question, i.e., must be put in question. From this we conclude that metaphysical questions must be posed (1) in terms of the whole and (2) always from the essential situation of the existence that asks the question.” — Angelo Cannata

Sure, agree. Nothing controversial there.

Sure you can. But not twice. — jgill

Not three times.

This is exactly the problem of metaphysics: how can you say that something is a given, since, in order to say it, you need to use your brain?
— Angelo Cannata

No— in order to say it, or think it, you have to be. Anything we think, say, feel, or do presupposes existence.

I’ll repeat: unless change is nothing, it “has” being.

So again:

1) there is.
2) There is something.
3) Change is something.

Where does the disagreement lie?
— Xtrix

If you’re arguing that nothing exists— or knowledge of any kind, or statements of any kind are impossible, which is what it sounds like, then that’s your own business. I can’t argue with absurdities.

If change is a thing, it’s part of existence. This is logic— this is truism. — Xtrix

Makes sense to me. Not sure what Angelo is objecting to.

This is exactly the problem of metaphysics: how can you say that something is a given, since, in order to say it, you need to use your brain? — Angelo Cannata

Your position sounds similar to the ancient philosopher Cratylus, "you cannot step in the same river once."

That's the usual reaction of people who don't like to admit defeat. — Haglund

Rude. As has been said, we are done.

The many worlds. — Haglund

I am fine with you not subscribing to it.

I have provided evidence. You haven't refuted it. You haven't even responded to the substance of my argument. Your only response is "That's fantasy." That's not an argument.

No need to respond. I'm done with this. — T Clark

Your assessment is accurate.

So, can you prove they are there? No. — Haglund

Prove what are there?

There are even infinite many worlds in MWI. Right now you should be branching into a multitude of them. — Haglund

Okay.

Well, aren't there parallel worlds in the MWI? — Haglund

Not that I am aware of.

And that was in relation to the MWI? — Haglund

Yes.

Didn't you cite Sean Carroll? — Haglund

Yes.

Do you mean you have seen parallel worlds? — Haglund

I never mentioned parallel worlds.

Almost. God is true, the models are a fantasy, explaining nothing about the nature of quantum mechanics or inflation. The are metaphysical fantasies to bridge a gap in knowledge which themselves are not knowledge with observable features. No one has seen a parallel world or eternally inflating space, which is a totally ridiculous assumption. — Haglund

Okay. I do not agree with anything you said.

People make believe – tell themselves consoling stories (myths) – when they do not know; it is cognitively easier to pretend to know (à la placebo-effect) than to accept the unknown (or unknowable). In other words, "belief" seems a developmental and atavistic vestige of childhood magical thinking in adults. People also believe because they are socialized to believe that "belief" is more "socially acceptable" and more "moral" than to not believe. Raise and educated a Roman Catholic, this is how I understand (in a nutshell) "why people believe" after four-plus decades as an unbeliever, freethinker and reader of comparative religion. — 180 Proof

That is a pretty good explanation. People think being good means being religious.

Gods are the ultimate metaphysics. The MWI or eternal inflation fantasies pale in comparison, though gods are no fantasy, while eternal inflation and MWI are. — Haglund

Not sure I understood. Your belief in God is true but physicists talking about a multiverse is fantasy?

Thesis: Gods created spacetime and particles.
Observation: There are particles and spacetime
Thesis proven — Haglund

No one is talking about God on this thread. At least not me. Metaphysics need not even address the issue of God existing or not existing.

In other words, the question that your message gives rise to is: what is then the difference between science and metaphysics? — Angelo Cannata

I don't see any relation between science and metaphysics. Or, science and aesthetics. Or, science and ethics.

Saying “change is something” is a human conceptualization, which is, metaphisics. As such, it is exposed to criticism. It is humanly impossible to guarantee that our reasonings are true and correct: we never know if tomorrow we might discover an error in our reasoning. So, you have no way to guarantee that your statement “change is something” is true or correct; this applies all the same to the consequence that you think you can get: “therefore change is”. — Angelo Cannata

I don't agree with your definition of metaphysics that it only refers to absolute and unchanging objects.

For example? — bongo fury

Most of our life has nothing to do with physicality. Like our ambitions, hopes, memories, relations to friends.

Do you say that any things are non-physical? — bongo fury

Sure.

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

Many-Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics

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

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

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

Okay.

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

No, just the opposite.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Not a fantasy for him. Empirical.

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

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

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

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

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

But your example was

If all my thoughts are physical,
— Jackson

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

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

If you consider “being” as "something”, but not permanent, how are you able to give it a name, which is, the word “being”? It seems to me that we can use names only if we consider that something remains unchanged over time. For example, if what I call “sky” today is a “horse” tomorrow, it is completely impossible to me to give it a name, I cannot even figure what I am thinking about. But you call it “being”, which means that, in this something that you call “being”, something remains the same over time, so that today and tomorrow you can still call it “being”. This seems to me that actually you are not conceiving “being” as something really completely changing, really not permanent. — Angelo Cannata

Ontology comes from the Greek, ontos. When Aristotle is translated as talking about being, or beings, he really just means, "things." Nothing fancy, just things, ontos.

My recommendation: read Heidegger's "Introduction to Metaphysics." — Xtrix

I read it. I also read Being and Time cover to cover in grad school. Quite familiar.

I think it is obvious that metaphysics has different meanings in different times and different authors. As a consequence, the question in the title of the thread “What is metaphysics?” has not much meaning. How do you think to deal with the plurality of positions about the question? — Angelo Cannata

Why I started this thread, to have a discussion.

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

"All that physics gives us is certain equations giving abstract properties of their changes. But as to what it is that changes, and what it changes from and to—as to this, physics is silent. (Russell 1959: 18)"

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/russellian-monism/

I don't think he meant to posit the existence of non-physical stuff. Do you? — bongo fury

I did not say there is non-physical stuff. I said the very concept of the physical is incoherent.

But do you think positing non-physical stuff will help? — bongo fury

Even Bertrand Russell admitted that the very definition of matter was incoherent.

For example, there are readers of Hegel who call it the non-metaphysical interpretation. That is, making consistent with their idea of Kantianism. Then, there became a metaphysical school of Hegel to counter that.

What does tell you about the world? — Joshs

Almost anything. I know there is a physical world. I hardly think that explains reality.

Leibniz criticized mechanism in science and Newton's absolutes of time and space. Now, Leibniz did no
experiments to prove it, yet he is confirmed by Einstein. This, to me, means that science is just a how things are explained, not what they are.

This sounds to me more like meta-science , a questioning approach that takes for granted the main methodological assumptions operating within the sciences of its day. It seekes only to organize , categorize and clarify within a given set of overarching normative conventions. This is different from what the major continental philosophers throughout history have done, which is overturn these accepted assumptions. For instance, the shift from hypothetical inductive to deductive method as we move from Bacon to Popper. In order to embrace this definition of metaphysics one has to first recognize that there is no fixed definition of what science does or how it does it. — Joshs

I guess. Science actually means very little to me in terms of how I live and what I believe.
And I have a undergraduate degree in math and read about quantum physics and cosmology. Interesting, but does not itself tell me much about the world.