Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site spar.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!decwrl!spar!michael
From: michael@spar.UUCP (Not Bill Joy)
Newsgroups: net.physics
Subject: Re: meta-physics
Message-ID: <408@spar.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 20-Jul-85 07:29:45 EDT
Article-I.D.: spar.408
Posted: Sat Jul 20 07:29:45 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 21-Jul-85 21:40:45 EDT
References: <455@busch.UUCP> <9161@ucbvax.ARPA>
Reply-To: michael@spar.UUCP (Not Bill Joy)
Organization: Schlumberger Palo Alto Research, CA
Lines: 50
Summary: 

In article <9161@ucbvax.ARPA> rimey@ucbmiro.UUCP (Ken rimey) writes:
>>	May I cordially request, without any reference to 
>>unscientifically proven matters, some explanation as to what
>>the study of meta-physics concerns and all relevant details.
>> -- Moshe Eliovson
>
>The term meta-physics does not mean what you think it does.  Usually
>written without the hyphen, it refers to a particular school of (non-modern)
>philosophy that has no particular relationship to physics.  Perhaps
>someone else can give us an authoritative definition.
>
>"Meta" is often prefixed to the name of discipline, to indicate the
>study of the language, assumptions, or methods of the discipline.
>"meta-mathematics" has this kind of meaning.
>
>It would be nice to have a term for speculation on questions like
>
>	1.  Does there exist a finite theory that completely describes the
>	fundamental behavior of matter in the universe?
>
>	2.  Is there a simple and elegant mathematical formulation of this
>	theory?  Why should there be?
>
>	3.  Can we guess constraints on what this theory must be like?
>	(Many general relativity enthusiasts would say yes.)
>
>Meta-physics would seem the appropriate term, but it has already been taken.
>As a kid, I was delighted to find zillions of entries for "metaphysics" in
>our public library's card catalog.  But when I looked up the books on the
>shelves, I found that they had nothing to do with physics or science.
>
>(Actually, it was particularly disappointing because I hadn't been aware
>of what non-modern philosophy was really like.  These books were full of
>debates on mind vs. body, the nature of God, and the like.)
>
>Maybe the interesting observation is that there just isn't much written
>on questions like mine above.  People who actually know physics seem to
>find that their time is better spent actually doing physics. -- Ken Rimey

    Actually, meta-physics is simply the book that Aristotle wrote FOLLOWING
    his physics.

    A modern interpretation is that it refers to things independent of 
    rigorous OBJECTIVE thought and especially scientific induction, though
    stuff like Chuang Tzu rarely makes it to the sunday supplement in this
    or any other culture.

    SMASH CAUSALITY!!

-michael