How [to] justify a search for "the real" outside of Nature, beyond the Universe? — Ciceronianus

[re @Gnomon & Herr Heidi] Creating new words is not an issue so much as misusing or redefining words commonly used, thereby promoting confusion and uncertainty. — Ciceronianus

I would equate Nature with the Universe. We are parts of Nature. Our interactions with the rest of the world (including other humans and animals and objects) are parts of Nature--they take place in the Universe. What we create become parts of the Universe when they're created (just as anthills are parts of Nature/the Universe). It happens our interactions with the rest of the Universe encompass language and culture; they're not separate from the Universe; they take place in it.

For example, I define it as "the study of that which is beyond the possibility of experience". — Bob Ross

IME, metaphysics has always been the reflective study of the most general prerequisites (i.e. ontology) for rationally making sense – interpreting the paradigm changes, research programs & provisional results – of physics (i.e. the counter-intuitive, defeasible study of nature (i.e. ontics)).

What you [@Gnomon] were doing was making false claims. I don't know why you would consider that to be a valuable contribution to a philosophical discussion.

Harry Frankfurt has a different name for what you refer to as "addressing a philosophical question": — wonderer1

Can you please define what you mean by ‘metaphysics’? — Bob Ross

Because, to me, metaphysics is ‘“beyond” premises’

Would you say, then, that metaphysics is informed by physics, and never vice-versa? — Bob Ross

... for how could an abstraction from experience necessarily pertain to that which is beyond it?

... a style of naturalism that acknowledges the irreducibility of the first-person perspective. — Wayfarer

fence.

↪180 Proof :up: Is that the best icon we can muster for "Right on, Brother!" — Vera Mont

I am not worried about AI being anti-human. I am worried about us being anti-human. — Athena

T.L. Austin
— Gnomon

J. L. Austin, you mean. — Ciceronianus

Perhaps you're using words like "nature" and "real" in a peculiar manner, though.

What Austin and others were doing (including Wittgenstein) was pointing out that the misuse of language_--the contrived use of it--leads us to make unwarranted conclusions and sends us on expeditions without purpose.

Correct me if I am wrong, but it seems like you are saying ‘metaphysics’ is the over-arching means of determining ‘physics’ ... — Bob Ross

Illusions are real.
Hallucinations are real.
Fantasies are real.
Copies and forgeries are real.
Appearances are real. — unenlightened

I'm simply saying that science is no improvement on philosophy/religion when it comes to the big questions — EnPassant

Well, how has science answered the big questions such as the ones I pointed out? — EnPassant

Of course science only solves empirical problems and does not answer philosophical questions [ ... ] you make a category mistake, EnPassant, when you criticise science for not doing philosophy ... — 180 Proof

Overall I think it's a mistake to dismiss metaphysics. — Wayfarer

Given what you know about robotics and machine learning, do you think that there are jobs that can't be automated? — Josh Alfred

Are there one's that are going to be harder to automate than others? What are those jobs?

To be precise, science explains nothing ... — EnPassant

The universe must have some kind of fundamental level of existence. In other words, it can't be reduced beyond a certain point. — AlienFromEarth

A metaphysics is not a piece of evidence or a collection of facts to be compared against scientific claims. It’s the meta-framework within which scientific claims, facts and evidence are intelligible. Change the metaphysics and we don’t ‘disprove’ a science’s facts, we change their sense and relevance. — Joshs

To me, that describes what true spirituality is, when it is directed against injustice. — universeness

Flourish By Minimizing Harm.

Liberty By Minimizing Injustice. — 180 Proof

Metaphysics is a discipline; imagination is a faculty. — Mww

As even though you are prepared for, or perhaps even expect the worse, you will continue to strive for the best, why is that? Is it more than mere forlorn hope? — universeness

You are basically saying, and correct me if I am wrong, that metaphysics doesn't actually get at ontology (like Plato, Spinoza, Leibniz, Hegel, etc. thought): instead, it just is a useful model for experience. — Bob Ross

Metaphysics is not theoretical. — 180 Proof

Do you not feel connected to those in the past that fought/died/failed/succeeded to do what they could to change peoples lives for the better? — universeness

Or do you think they should not have bothered trying as our species is doomed anyway?

Metaphysics, again as I understand it, proposes criteria for discerning 'impossible worlds' (i.e. ways actuality necessarily cannot be) from 'possible worlds' (i.e. ways actuality can be) - btw, I'm an actualist, not a possibilist - thereby concerning the most general states of affairs; unlike the sciences, which consist of testing models of how possible transformations of specific, physical (class, or domain, of) states of affairs from one to another (can be made to) happen, and thus is explanatory (even if only approximative, probabilistic), metaphysics explains only concepts abstracted from, and therefore useful for categorizing, (experience of(?)) 'how things are', and does not explain any facts of the matter. Metaphysics is not theoretical. — 180 Proof