/lit/ - Literature

>>17453298
Use google nigger

Like physics, but meta. Instead of
>how does the universe work
In terms of physical laws, it's like
>where did the universe come from
>why is it here
etc.

>>17453298
The study of "Wait, I exist? What even am I?"

The nature of things that exist. Reality. How and why empirical science works at all. So if you see a redditor who says empirical science is testable therefore true and metaphysics isn't, you know he's an absolute idiot. You can't even being to have empirical science (which is gay and lame by the way) without metaphysics.

>>17453309
nah that's cosmology

>>17453511
This is 100% pure undilluted r/Catholicism

>>17453524
He means universe as in reality. What is reality? What is the essence of reality? What is existence and how does it function? How do we define reality?

>>17454472
But reality is the physical universe

>>17453309
>>17453383
>>17453511
>>17453524
>>17454472
>>17454493
OP said methaphysics. Not metaphysics.

>>17453298
You find yourself perceiving “the world” in a given time, space, scale, all of which is predicated on biological drives conditioned by evolution. Is the world really like this?

>>17454502
Ah. So it’s a shit thread. Har har

>>17454502
Same shit.

>>17453298
The study of first principles (i.e. what you assume to be brute facts)

Escapism for pseudo intellectuals

>>17453511
>descriptions that can never be proven wrong are totally reliable
This is peak tradcath

>>17453298
>methaphysics

>>17453298
religion explained by big-brains. i.e. COPE

>>17453298
There's two kinds:
1. The mystical kind that reveals "truths" about the universe, usually with its own cosmological system
2. The field within philosophy concerned with the fundamental nature of reality. Science is also concerned with that, but physics is more about quantifying and explaining particular phenomena based on observations, and not with the nature of it or that of reality itself. A scientist can tell you what the universe was like in its primordial state, but not why it came into being.

>>17455240
>A scientist can tell you what the universe was like in its primordial state, but not why it came into being.
You were doing so well

>>17455240
>Science is also concerned with that, but physics is more about quantifying and explaining particular phenomena based on observations
And testing stuff so that we can actually figure out whether it’s accurate or complete bullshit

>>17455246
It literally cannot. There's not a single scientist that can explain to you why the big bang happened or more simply why the strong force exists.

>>17455260
Have you even read Hume? Empirical data is flawed because induction doesn't really have that much of a logical basis. For instance, just because we've seen a thousand white swans doesn't mean all of them are white. It also cannot really reveal immutable truths and most scientific knowledge is provisory and open to debate. Even physicists acknowledge their models are crude, simplified representations of reality.
It doesn't mean science is useless or that we should throw it out of the window, it obviously helps us understand certain types of phenomena and it's useful in a practical sense as well, but people should be aware of its limitations so they don't become science-worshiping redditors.

>>17455275
The Big Bang is just a causal process resulting from the variables of the initial state + the laws of nature. It is an entirely scientific matter, unless you think the initial state was caused by God or some other supernatural force.

>>17455291
It does not explain how the initial state came to be or why the laws of nature exist and work the way they do. It can merely describe what said initial state was like and model its laws, but it cannot explain why they exist.

>>17455297
>It does not explain how the initial state came to be or why the laws of nature exist and work the way they do.
And neither does metaphysics, it just swaps one unknown with an even bigger unknown, and starts handwaving when we find zero evidence for what they propose by saying it all works in Superreality, and you’re just being closeminded by not accepting Superreality, for which we find an equal lack of evidence

>>17455312
It's not really the point though, I just used it as example of the limits of scientific inquiry. The point is that they are concerned with different aspects of reality.
Of course, metaphysics is still speculation.

>>17455297
>It does not explain how the initial state came to be or why the laws of nature exist and work the way they do. It can merely describe what said initial state was like and model its laws, but it cannot explain why they exist.
I am not sure I understand. I don't think there is any reason to think that the initial state has a causal explanation, but if it has, unless it is a supernatural cause, it will be studies by physics.
Unless you are talking about questions about eg. whether the initial state or the laws of nature are contingent or necessary, metaphysics don't enter into the picture.

>>17453298
I am a thing, a banana is a thing, harry potter is a thing, what do all these things have in common?

>>17455331
>It's not really the point though
Why should anyone care about it then?

>>17455333
>unless it is a supernatural cause, it will be studied under physics
I don't think you understand what metaphysics is.

>>17455383
(1) If the initial state doesn't have a cause, physics gives us a complete explanation of how the universe came to be. (2) If the universe has a physical cause, it will be studied by physics and hence science gives us a complete explanation of how the universe came to be. Now if the initial state has a supernatural cause, it can't be investigated by science and can only be demonstrated by something like the Kalam cosmological argument.
Therefore I don't see how the question "Why the universe came to being" would fall outside the purview of science unless we go with (3).

>>17455291
he said why not how retard

>>17455427
>Now if the initial state has a supernatural cause, it can't be investigated by science and can only be demonstrated by something like the Kalam cosmological argument.
Sorry, how do you know this? Proclaiming this doesn’t make it so