Wayne Myrvold: Metaphysics Without Physics

The speaker begins by acknowledging the conference organizers and contributors, emphasizing the importance of the conference's main idea. They express gratitude to specific individuals and discuss the relevance of metaphysics in the context of modern science. The speaker critiques the disconnection between contemporary metaphysics and the science of the day, highlighting that metaphysics often lacks deep engagement with current scientific understanding, using David K. Lewis as a case study to illustrate this point.

The speaker delves into the concept of human supervenience as proposed by David Lewis, which suggests that all human experience supervenes on a mosaic of local matters of particular fact. They question the inspiration of this theory from classical physics, arguing that the fundamental relations and properties Lewis describes do not align naturally with the classical physics view. The speaker proposes an alternative view that considers fields and other physical properties as not fitting neatly into Lewis's supervenience framework.

The speaker explores the distinction between intrinsic and dynamic properties, using the concept of fields in physics as an example. They argue that dynamic properties, which describe the behavior of objects, are not intrinsic to space-time points but are instead properties of local neighborhoods. The speaker challenges the idea that fields or other physical phenomena can be considered as simple intrinsic properties, suggesting a more complex relationship between properties and the laws of physics.

The speaker continues the discussion on the nature of space occupation and the properties of objects, focusing on the philosophical implications of considering space occupation as a dynamic property. They address the idea that the occupancy of space might not be as straightforward as it seems, and that the behavior of objects in space could be more complex than traditional views suggest. The speaker also touches on the philosophical underpinnings of how we attribute size and shape to objects in modern physics.

The speaker reflects on Newton's concept of body and its relevance to modern physics. They discuss the idea that bodies can be defined by their extension and mobility, and that the properties we ascribe to objects, such as mass and charge, are not intrinsic but are instead related to how objects behave under certain conditions. The speaker suggests that the Newtonian view of bodies as having dynamical properties that are essential to their identity remains a viable concept even in contemporary physics.

The speaker concludes by emphasizing the importance of metaphysics in understanding the nature of reality. They argue that while physical theories may change, the metaphysical conclusions we draw should be robust enough to withstand these changes. The speaker encourages a cautious approach to metaphysics that respects the empirical methods of science while seeking to understand the fundamental nature of the world.

In this segment, the speaker engages with the audience, addressing concerns and questions about the relationship between metaphysics and physics. They discuss the role of fields in physics and the philosophical implications of viewing them as intrinsic properties. The speaker also touches on the distinction between intrinsic versus extrinsic properties and the importance of understanding the fundamental features of reality.

The speaker and the audience continue their discussion on the nature of properties, focusing on the distinction between intrinsic and dispositional properties. They explore the idea that properties like mass and charge might be considered intrinsic from a certain philosophical perspective, despite their dynamical nature. The conversation also delves into the epistemological aspects of how we understand and identify properties.

The speaker and the audience engage in a deeper exploration of how metaphysics can accommodate various aspects of physics. They discuss the viability of metaphysical theories that attempt to reduce complex phenomena to simpler, more fundamental properties. The conversation also addresses the importance of not taking the presentation of physics at face value and considering the actual role of concepts within physical theories.

The speaker discusses the tension between classical physics and modern theories, such as quantum field theory, and how metaphysics fits into this context. They explore the idea that classical physics might not provide a complete picture of the world and that modern physics challenges traditional metaphysical views. The conversation also touches on the importance of empirical evidence in shaping our understanding of the world.

In the final segment, the speaker and the audience discuss the relevance of dispositions and powers in the context of modern physics. They debate whether the language of causality and disposition is appropriate for describing physical phenomena or if a more mathematical and law-based description is needed. The conversation concludes with a reflection on the importance of empirical inquiry and scientific methods in understanding the nature of reality.