Colin Geoffrey Hales wrote:
>>As Brent Meeker has pointed out, physical theories are just models to make
>>predictions about how the world works*. If physists get carried away and
>>"this is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth" then they
>>talking metaphysics, not physics.
>>Stathis Papaioannou
> The archaic usage of the word metaphysics, which became a pejorative
> somewhere around the time of Kant, is no longer viable or productive. The
> modern usage of the term Meta = about... far more productive.
> meta-chemistry example...table of elements
> meta-data ... computer science term
> meta-mathematics ... 'about' a mathematics

I agree, let's write it meta-physics.
> I'd like to eliminate the older usage of the term. It doesn't work as a
> descriptor, especially in physics!
> You're right about the physicists, though... they are the most
> 'model-bound' in all science. Their beliefs about what they effect
> a theology of mathematical models... is worst in cosmology. To continue to
> believe in the intractability of any formulation of an underlying reality
> in spite of glaring evidence to the contrary...and that it is deserved of
> a pejorative label is.....

You have a formulation of an underlying reality which is not only tractable, 
but for 
which you have glaring evidence of its tractability?  Is it also correct?  I'd 
to see it.

Brent Meeker

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at

Reply via email to