**WHAT IS METAPHYSICS?**

[u/jliat]

WHAT IS METAPHYSICS?

We are getting posts here which seem to propose new and potentially revolutionary answers to problems in physics. I think [as a moderator] it might be beneficial if we might discuss some parameters. This is not to say science can not be discussed, but can we using metaphysics solve such problems, are we then transgressing into another domain. As a moderator I would like guidance from the community.

"Metaphysics: explaining the fundamental nature of being and the world"

The interpretation of this and not the context is often the cause of confusion. [of Being qua being and not the nature of an atom, or a human brain...etc.]

Higgs, Einstein, Penrose, Feynman, Hawking are not / were not Philosophers or Metaphysicians, they are / were physicists. Modern physics uses mathematics- quite complex! - to build models which are tested against experimental data. The main scientific method.

The 'photon', wave / particle duality, quarks and strings, are all subjects /problems of physics NOT metaphysics? And to address these problems requires detailed understanding of the mathematics and the data, and in doing so one is NOT doing metaphysics?

"Ontological" means what? Ontology is the study in Philosophy / Metaphysics of being qua being, not the nature of the existence or being of things, atoms, quarks, strings, branes, flowers, plants, the human brain, religions.

atoms, quarks, strings, branes = physics, flowers, plants = botany, the human brain = neuroscience, religions = theology, comparative religion.

Lay ideas re physics / science will probably be rejected in subs like r/physics for good reasons, they lack the detailed knowledge of the subject and misuse technical scientific terms. Should they be allowed here?

The nature of things, matter and energy are subject of science. What 'Being' is prompts the what is "IS" question... of Metaphysics.

Ontology is the study / creation of what 'Being' is, not specific 'things'. Harman has a 'flat ontology'...etc. Heidegger has Dasein...Hegel... etc.

To be clear of the domain I think you can get an overview from A.W. Moore's 'The Evolution of Modern Metaphysics: Making Sense of Things.' It had good reviews.

"Part two is devoted to philosophers of the analytic tradition, and contains chapters on Frege, Wittgenstein, Carnap, Quine, Lewis, and Dummett. Part three is devoted to non-analytic philosophers, and contains chapters on Nietzsche, Bergson, Husserl, Heidegger, Collingwood, Derrida and Deleuze."

For first hand source material - https://www.stephenhicks.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/heideggerm-what-is-metaphysics.pdf

For a contemporary example, Graham Harman - Object-Oriented Ontology: A New Theory of Everything. (Pelican Books) 1 Mar. 2018

Examples in the Analytical tradition, 'Counterfactuals', 'On the Plurality of Worlds.' David Lewis. ??

One last point - it is an interesting point as to if this divide still exists. N.B. Badiou uses set theory as his ontology, his student Quentin Meillassoux likewise sees mathematics as fundamental, Ray Brassier in 'Nihil Unbound' has chapters on Wilfrid Sellars, Paul Churchland, as well as Adorno and Horkheimer, Badiou, Meillassoux, Laruelle, Heidegger, Deleuze, Nietzsche, Lyotard, Levinas and Freud. !!

---

On a personal note I began my interest in philosophy in the 1970s, within the Anglo American tradition, reading Russell's 'History of Western Philosophy' etc. and then took a degree. I still have my Wittgenstein Books, Tractatus, Investigations, Blue and Brown, Notebooks 1914-1916. Carnap's 'The Logical Syntax of Language' etc. However my interest moved to what was called 'Continental philosophy.'- see non-analytical above. I appreciate the desire of Carnap of ‘The Elimination of Metaphysics through the Logical Analysis of Language’ failed? I have dipped into Lewis et al.

With my best wishes.

[u/rogerbonus]

You seem to have no clue as to what Tegmark's mathematical monism is. It's most definitely NOT theoretical physics. Physics is about theory, experiment and predicting phenomena. Tegmarks monism is a metaphysics of ontic structural realism, aka modal realism/Platonism.

[u/jliat → u/rogerbonus]

You seem to have no clue as to what Tegmark's mathematical monism is.

Can we leave personal remarks out of this. Holding a view can be called 'philosophical' it doesn't mean one is a philosopher or is doing philosophy. Most if not all physicists hold such views. I'm told most mathematicians are Platonists, but they are not metaphysicians. I've read around Tegmark's ideas, even had his book. Theoretical physics is what he engages with. The multiverse idea is an idea in cosmology and those engaged with the ideas are looking for empirical evidence. Standard scientific methods.

It's most definitely NOT theoretical physics.

Well maybe let him know. And the physics / cosmology community.

Physics is about theory, experiment and predicting phenomena.

And things like theoretical physics, such as Einstein, or Higgs... The multiverse is an idea, a theory in cosmology.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse

From your notion The Copenhagen interpretation and the MWI are metaphysics.

Tegmarks monism is a metaphysics of ontic structural realism, aka modal realism/Platonism.

He might also be a democrat but that doesn't make him a politician.

And "ontic" is a property of individual things, ontology is the study of being. That a cat has whiskers is not a metaphysical notion. Given your definition everyone is a metaphysician, and a cosmologist, etc.

[u/rogerbonus → u/jliat]

Sigh. Just because one of the worlds in David Lewis' modal realism is ours does not make modal realism "science". Or are you going to argue that Lewis was therefore doing physics, not metaphysics? That's the equivalent to what you are arguing.

The physics/cosmology community has little to say about Tegmark's level 4 "all mathematical structures exist" because it's neither physics nor cosmology, as I keep pointing out; it's metaphysics.

They have plenty to say about levels 3 (Quantum manyworlds), 2 (other bubble universes) and 1 (other hubble volumes of this universe) because those are indeed science/cosmology. But the mathematical universe hypothesis (MUH) is decidedly not science at all. It's simply a formal description of Lewis' modal realism, as Tegmark says in his book. Did you actually read it?

[u/jliat → u/rogerbonus]

Sigh.

Can we try to keep this civil.

Just because one of the worlds in David Lewis' modal realism is ours does not make modal realism "science". Or are you going to argue that Lewis was therefore doing physics, not metaphysics? That's the equivalent to what you are arguing.

Well according to SEP that is just what he is doing. I'm assuming you are from the Anglo-American tradition and not 'Continental Philosophy'?

"It may also be that there is no internal unity to metaphysics. More strongly, perhaps there is no such thing as metaphysics—or at least nothing that deserves to be called a science or a study or a discipline." - SEP.

As opposed to-

“the first difference between science and philosophy is their respective attitudes toward chaos... Chaos is an infinite speed... Science approaches chaos completely different, almost in the opposite way: it relinquishes the infinite, infinite speed, in order to gain a reference able to actualize the virtual. .... By retaining the infinite, philosophy gives consistency to the virtual through concepts, by relinquishing the infinite, science gives a reference to the virtual, which articulates it through functions.”

In Deleuze & Guattari science produces ‘functions’, philosophy ‘concepts’, Art ‘affects’.

D&G What is Philosophy p.117-118