Belindi wrote: ↑March 11th, 2019, 5:15 am
BigBango, it would be stupid to ignore science in our philosophising. QM and relativity aren't' metaphysical' in the word's popular sense of 'other-worldly'. I sort of understand popular descriptions of such great theories as relativity and the Standard Theory, in physics or those of biology such as natural selection,nevertheless I have only my own sense of what is due to scepticism to evaluate novel ideas such as yours. I respect you and your creating imagination but have yet to understand what your idea is about. I have so far failed to understand any descriptions of dark matter.
eyesofastranger and devens99: I will be getting back to you shortly, stay tuned.
Belindi said, " QM and relativity aren't' metaphysical' in the word's popular sense of 'other-worldly'." Nothing could be further from the truth than the popular misuse of the word metaphysics. It gets interpreted as other worldly or beyond physics because the word looks like Latin when it is actually Greek, or vice versa. It actually means "meta", after and "physics", meaning what Aristotle wrote about after he wrote the section "The Physics".
In truth and in proper usage in philosophy, it is one of the huge two basic pillars of philosophy which are Epistemology and Metaphysics. Epistemology being one's thesis about "how we know things" and Metaphysics being the description of "The nature of objects in our thesis".
Given that less well known but fundamentally correct use of the term "metaphysics" we see that the "Standard Theory" is essentially pure metaphysics.
QM is a complicated mix of the two pillars.