Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site psivax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!prls!amdimage!amdcad!amd!pesnta!pertec!scgvaxd!trwrb!sdcrdcf!psivax!friesen
From: friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen)
Newsgroups: net.physics
Subject: Re: meta-physics
Message-ID: <572@psivax.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 24-Jul-85 11:15:05 EDT
Article-I.D.: psivax.572
Posted: Wed Jul 24 11:15:05 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 28-Jul-85 07:20:13 EDT
References: <455@busch.UUCP> <9161@ucbvax.ARPA>
Reply-To: friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen)
Organization: Pacesetter Systems Inc., Sylmar, CA
Lines: 42

In article <9161@ucbvax.ARPA> rimey@ucbmiro.UUCP (Ken rimey) writes:
>
>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.
>
	You are essentially right. A little history is usefull here.
The term means "after physics" and is due to the fact that when (I
believe) Aristotle wrote his treatise on All Knowledge(I forget the
actual title) he couldn't think of a name for this subject and since
it was the chapter following the chapter on physics he calle the
chapter "After Physics" = Metaphysics. The closest "modern" field is
probably Parapsychology(which likewise has nothing to do with
Psychology). It is the 'study" of the supernatural/divine world.

>
>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.)
>
>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

	What is the name of this field? There is at least *some*
material written on it, so the field "exists". Is there a name for it?
-- 

				Sarima (Stanley Friesen)

{trwrb|allegra|cbosgd|hplabs|ihnp4|aero!uscvax!akgua}!sdcrdcf!psivax!friesen
or {ttdica|quad1|bellcore|scgvaxd}!psivax!friesen