What are /r/Metaphysics' favorite Products & Services?

From 3.5 billion Reddit comments

If you have Audible or some other access to The Great Courses, I recommend these lectures

New Age mythology, as others have mentioned, is not metaphysics, it has only stolen the name.

https://www.amazon.com/Grimoire-Apprentice-Wizard-Oberon-Zell-Ravenheart/dp/1564147118

Is an amazing book that has introductory information on almost every aspect of magick/metaphysics.

On another note radionics is something that could definitely be used in most magic systems in books.

Are you looking to build a magick system or add real practices to your books?

I am very sorry for your loss. My brother died unexpectedly 2,5 yrs ago, I know the shock and pain. Hope you are well and let be what is and not force anything that doesn’t work for you right now.

The method of science is not as a metaphysical philosophy. In simple terms, science is the proces to predict “how” something happened, but not “what” reality is. It is descriptive not explanatory. And when science tries do to be explanatory in the metaphysical field, it runs in many problems. It requires magic to explain the what. Therefore it is very hard to do exact scientific study on subjective experiences like dreams, perception and consciousness.

So in regards of your question your best bet are philosophers (what) with an understanding how nature works (how) that try to combine/make sense of it all.

In regards to dreams, consciousness, meaning etc. I really would advice you to read the book “Dreamed up Reality” by Bernardo Kastrup (2 times doctorate in Philosophy and Computer Science).

https://smile.amazon.com/Scientific-Illuminism-Paul-Joseph-Rovelli/dp/1514251485/ref=sr\_1\_1?crid=1I7NK93L8UIZ2&keywords=rovelli+scientific+illuminism&qid=1644249460&s=books&sprefix=rovelli+scientific+illumini%2Cstripbooks%2C2073&...

>there's no actual evidence whatsoever

Evidence of life on Venus, evidence of life on Mars.

>the natural laws of physics themselves always dictate an arrow of time.

This isn't true, hence Loschmidt's paradox.

>You seem to have a strong interest in 'not agreeing on this', but insist on mistaking what the "this" is.

"This" is materialism, which earlier in this thread you misdefined. It's about the belief that the material cosmos is all there is. You seem to believe it equates to metaphysical natural or scientific realism, and it doesn't. We need to be very clear about the differences between these things.

I'll leave you with a link to the best book I know about exactly that topic:

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Taboo-Subjectivity-Science-Consciousness-Towards/dp/0195173104

>This book takes a bold new look at ways of exploring the nature, origins, and potentials of consciousness within the context of science and religion. Alan Wallace draws careful distinctions between four elements of the scientific tradition: science itself, scientific realism, scientific materialism, and scientism. Arguing that the metaphysical doctrine of scientific materialism has taken on the role of ersatz-religion for its adherents, he traces its development from its Greek and Judeo-Christian origins, focusing on the interrelation between the Protestant Reformation and the Scientific Revolution.

> What do we have left? I lost my belief in physicalism for a few months but I have no idea what view it most likely would be true.

I think the best option is neutral monism, but actually it doesn't matter. Who cares what reality is made of? What actually matters is how it behaves -- whether or not naturalism is true.

> Can we really deny physicalism while accepting naturalism? I feel that if physicalism is wrong then it seriously increases the likelihood that naturalism could be wrong

If physicalism were true then it seems obvious that naturalism is true. If physicalism is accepted to be false then naturalism might be true, but it is not longer obviously true.

Thomas Nagel has ruled out physicalism but still defends naturalism. https://www.amazon.co.uk/Mind-Cosmos-Materialist-Neo-Darwinian-Conception/dp/0199919755

If we deny physicalism then the only thing holding up naturalism is skepticism ("So long as we have no evidence for supernaturalism, I choose to believe naturalism").

This might also help:

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Mindful-Universe-Mechanics-Participating-Collection/dp/3642180752

The classical mechanistic idea of nature that prevailed in science during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries was an essentially mindless conception: the physically described aspects of nature were asserted to be completely determined by prior physically described aspects alone, with our conscious experiences entering only passively. During the twentieth century the classical concepts were found to be inadequate. In the new theory, quantum mechanics, our conscious experiences enter into the dynamics in specified ways not fixed by the physically described aspects alone. Consequences of this radical change in our understanding of the connection between mind and brain are described. This second edition contains two new chapters investigating the role of quantum phenomena in the problem of free will and in the placebo effect.

>Not if we're talking about what we're committed to by science, in this case, all we have to consider is "a contention from science".

But it isn't a contention from science. If we are going to take into account claims made by science, then we need to examine those claims carefully. And in this case, which involves quantum randomness, then we have to conclude that science has to be very careful what it is claiming.

Science is not committed to any one particular account of the metaphysics of quantum randomness. Some scientists might be.

>2) according to the science, that living things attain sophistication requires randomness

Yes, but science doesn't distinguish between objective and subjective randomness in quantum mechanics. This is one of the things this book is about:

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Mind-Cosmos-Materialist-Neo-Darwinian-Conception/dp/0199919755

​

>4) according to the science, there can only be free will if deterministic theories are false

This claim is metaphysical, not scientific. Science has nothing to say about free will. Again, it boils down to metaphysical interpretations about quantum randomness. We cannot get away from this.

I learned about metaphysics in a transpersonal psychology class in high school. Some of the biggest lessons that stuck out were the seven centers of consciousness, based off this book, Handbook to Higher Consciousness.

There are seven centers of consciousness, and probably 98% of the world still operates at the three lowest centers, outdated centers which were required by our ancestors tens of thousands of years ago to survive in the jungle, but not really necessary today. The four higher centers, are more "spiritual" centers where peace can be found, and where fear/depression/anxiety ceases to exist. Life changing book.

the same symbol is on my copy of the Kybalion https://www.amazon.com/Kybalion-Centenary-Three-Initiates/dp/0143131680/ref=sr_1_3?keywords=Kybalion&qid=1551460512&s=gateway&sr=8-3

​

So maybe something to do with Hermetic Philosophy.

Also, this was the text book for when I took Metaphysics.

You may dig Occult America, though the author doesn't really explore deeply into any one subject. More of a surface-level overview, but it gives you a sense of what's evolved in esoteric and occult study/practices over the last 200+ years (though he doesn't get into secret societies).

This is the textbook we're using for my Metaphysics class. It's great for metaphysical material, but incredibly dense and difficult to read.

https://www.amazon.ca/Metaphysics-Anthology-Jaegwon-Kim/dp/1444331027