So I was thinking, somewhat loftily, that Metaphysics is consistent, but debates about it, the language around it, aren’t. Metaphysics is really just a more readily accessible and somewhat clairvoyant restatement of physics – I mean it can predict some of physics’ conclusions, but without the mathematical proofs, and so without the detail required for substantial action. Nonetheless it can provide an excellent groundwork or framework of understanding.

It’s funny though. That a field basically called “beyond reality” is all about discussing what’s real. It probably should just be called physics. Maybe the ‘meta’ is about having that emotional distance from something that lets you understand it better? But even there, physics seems to be better at that, certainly these days. Maybe more in terms of distance inward, rather than distance outward, but it’s still distance of a kind. Hmm, could be about proximity rather than distance? Being emotionally immersed. Filled to the brim with spirit and intuition.

Ah right, apparently it was only called metaphysics because ‘Arry Stotle’s editor named the metaphysics books literally chronologically “after” the physics books. Or maybe “beyond”. Also suggesting that the metaphysics had different topics than the basic study of the natural world. I guess subsequent philosophers just took that and really ran with it. Heck, I wanted to believe in a weird alternate world on top of our world too. But you can have alternate worlds within physics now, within what we understand of the natural world, so the distinction seems to have pretty substantially broken down.

Just call it physics maybe. Start teaching philosophy (and religion?) alongside algebraic formulae. Might make it tolerable for the ‘non-scientists’.

Maybe one day I’ll get on to the reason why ‘regular’ physics being so completely wild is pretty terrifying (and inspiring).