[Magnus] > To me, metaphysics has the same relationship to physics as metadata has to > data in a database. For example, if you have an address book, the metadata is > name, address, phone and email.
If you have an address book, the metadata is THE CATEGORIES OF 'name','address', 'phone' and 'email'. [Magnus] > Using metadata, you can describe all your friends. Using DATA that FALL INTO THE CATEGORIES OF THE metadata, you can describe all your friends. [Magnus] > However, IMO there's one crucial difference between the two: > If one of your friends gets one of those nifty things called mobile phone, > your metadata is insufficient to describe this friend. You have to add a > "Mobile phone" to your metadata. This is ok for metadata. > But, IMO, it's *not* ok to do that for a metaphysics. Of course we can do > that > with our understanding/model of the metaphysics, but not to the metaphysics > itself. I don't see the distinction between adding a new category to "ourunderstanding/model of the metaphysics" & adding one to "the metaphysics itself". (Compare, "understanding a word" with "understanding the meaning of a word".) Craig Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
