Philosophical musings on Quanta & Qualia; Materialism & Spiritualism; Science & Religion; Pragmatism & Idealism, etc.
7. Anomaly : • something that deviates from what is standard, normal, or expected. • One that is peculiar, irregular, abnormal, or difficult to classify.
11. Metaphor : “A metaphor is a figure of speech that describes an object or action in a way that isn't literally true, but helps explain an idea or make a comparison.”
Post 119. November 29, 2021 continued . . .
What is Meta-Physics?
Metaphysics is a Metaphor
Many of the problems addressed by modern philosophers and metaphysicians arise from anomalies7 in physical science. Perhaps a majority of professional and amateur wisdom-seekers base their worldviews on the latest models of reality produced by pragmatic scientists, practicing the reductive & analytical methods of empirical disciplines. Hence, any ideas that are not verifiable or falsifiable are irrelevant to the mission of manipulating the real world for the benefit of mankind. Unfortunately, that eliminative perspective omits most of what has been traditionally of interest to theoretical scientists, whose experiments are mathematical. For example, early Quantum researchers found evidence that Photons, assumed to be waves in an electromagnetic field, acted as-if they were inde-pendent particles in some setups, and as wave phenomena in other configurations. They called that anomaly : “wave-particle duality”8. So, they began to think in terms of mathematical Wave-Functions instead of physical Particles, and continuous Fields instead of dis-continuous Photons. Undeterred by the counterintuitive logical contradiction, they adjusted their paradigm to fit the evidence, since that seemed to be how Nature works on it’s most fundamental level.
I too, have been forced to accept that Nature doesn’t always conform to our intuitive sense of Classical Reality. But I am able to reconcile the apparent contradiction, by taking a BothAnd9 view of the world. Since the quantum foundation of reality behaves as both a Field and as a Particle, I label the first as Meta-Physical (mental ; mathematical10) and the latter as Physical (material ; atomic). Both sides of the Coin are Real, but one is also Ideal. I assume that your own subjective Ideas are real to you, even though you can only convey them to other minds as metaphors11 analogous to material objects. You may not think of your figures-of-speech as Meta-Physical, but if they were physical, you could give them to someone else in a beribboned box. With that duality in mind, can you accept that a Meta-Physical concept is not contradictory to a Physical object, but merely complementary? If so, you will understand that a Gravity Field is not a literal grid in space, but instead a meta-physical metaphor analogous to a grid of lines on paper.
The long-running forum thread that led to this blog post was a continuation of a philosophical failure to communicate. That’s because some thinkers are assuming that the word “meta-physics” refers to the Theological definition (gods & ghosts) that is standard in most dictionaries. But some philosophers have in mind the topical subjects in Aristotle’s encyclopedia of the state of Natural Science in the fourth century BC. A lot has changed since then, and few people today refer to Aristotle for authoritative information on Physical Nature. However, most philosophers still hark back to Ari as the authority on Meta-Physical Reality. He and Plato literally wrote the book on the fundamentals of human knowledge. Most of philosophy since then has been “footnotes to Plato” (A.N. Whitehead), and afterthoughts on Aristotle. His book included meta-physical topics (human ideas about nature) under the single heading of Physis (gk Nature). Yet, we could now label his two volumes as Physical Science and Theoretical Philosophy. Philosophy is mostly about Meta-Physics : ideas, not objects.
• “Well metaphysics is ANY claim that makes hypotheses beyond our current knowledge”. — Nickolasgaspar
• “Today we identify such "transcendent" type of metaphysics as pseudo philosophy when our new data do not offer evidence for such hypotheses.” — Nickolasgaspar
All men by nature desire to know. An indication of this is the delight we take in our senses; for even apart from their usefulness they are loved for themselves; and above all others the sense of sight. ― Aristotle, Metaphysics
PS__ rational inference is our meta-sense
The
Philosophy
Forum
“I don't believe your understanding that all mental phenomena are considered metaphysical is consistent with any generally accepted definition of the word”.
Do you wonder why philosophers are still arguing about the same old hypothetical questions, 2500 years after Plato? That’s because the topics are Subjective and Meta-physical, instead of Objective and Physical. Consequently, they can’t be answered empirically or certainly. The questions are also hard to answer because they are “transcendent” in the sense of Kant’s Transcendental Idealism. General (mankind vs a man) and Universal (GOD) concepts, for example, are hypothetical notions about possibilities, not direct observations of actual existing things. They are mental ideas or abstractions that transcend the scientific scope of physical things and material objects. They include the Big questions about Life, the Universe, and Everything. Aristotle called Metaphysics “First Philosophy” : 'the study of being qua being', or 'wisdom', or 'theology'
NEXT
BACK
Forum
