The relation between metaphysics and physics

[fakename]

The relation between metaphysics and physics is like the relation between math and music right (the one is merely a subset of the other)?

I think it is so since the existence of God is a metaphysical truth that is proved by physical means and this is only possible when the lower science is essentially connected with the higher one. Also, lots of metaphysical theorems are proved by physical means like how the fact of physical generation and corruption proves that there are no platonic forms and that the forms that are real are not composed of matter and how form and matter are not substances.

So this is only possible when physics is one with metaphysics. Also Aquinas called the proof for God a proof of fact but not a proof of reasoned fact. And this directly implies that physics is just a subset of metaphysics since the sub-science always proves the fact but the reasoned fact belongs to the higher science (in our case there is no reasoned fact though because God is too mysterious for us).

So are my intuitions correct here?

 

[levinas12]

The relation between metaphysics and physics is like the relation between math and music right (the one is merely a subset of the other)?

Not exactly (at least from an Aristotelian point of view).

This qualifier lets the cat out of the bag perhaps, i.e., there are different “metaphysical” systems.

Aristotle would distinguish metaphysics from physics based upon their subject matter.

 

[tomarin]

I thought metaphysics was the branch of philosophy that dealt with first principles. Therefore its relationship to physics is the same as that of all of philosophy to physics. Whatever that might be.

 

[Cristiano]

Physics is for control freaks that are too lazy to deal with metaphysics. Trust me, I am a physicist.

 

[tonyrey]

The relation between metaphysics and physics is like the relation between math and music right (the one is merely a subset of the other)?

Anyone who loves music would reject the notion that music is a subset of anything except a person’s creativity - which is derived from Divine creativity.

I think it is so since the existence of God is a metaphysical truth that is proved by physical means and this is only possible when the lower science is essentially connected with the higher one. Also, lots of metaphysical theorems are proved by physical means like how the fact of physical generation and corruption proves that there are no platonic forms and that the forms that are real are not composed of matter and how form and matter are not substances.

The evidence for metaphysical truths is physical but it is also personal and spiritual. Only materialists confine evidence to scientific conclusions.

So this is only possible when physics is one with metaphysics. Also Aquinas called the proof for God a proof of fact but not a proof of reasoned fact.

What are the facts which are not reasoned?

And this directly implies that physics is just a subset of metaphysics since the sub-science always proves the fact but the reasoned fact belongs to the higher science (in our case there is no reasoned fact though because God is too mysterious for us).

I agree with you that physics is a subset of metaphysics but the existence of the universe is also too mysterious for us. So mind as well as matter are evidence that there is a higher Reality.

 

[Mumbles140]

In all truthfulness, Metaphysics was the lecture notes by Aristotle that followed his lecture notes on Physics. Literally, it means “beyond-” or “after-Physics”, which was simply the term ascribed. As to the relation between them, I believe people can attempt to use any form of science or math to pick out defining characteristics of creativity or philosophy, but I could also explain Shakespeare using animals. Does this mean a relationship exists? I believe not.

 

[fakename]

In all truthfulness, Metaphysics was the lecture notes by Aristotle that followed his lecture notes on Physics. Literally, it means “beyond-” or “after-Physics”, which was simply the term ascribed. As to the relation between them, I believe people can attempt to use any form of science or math to pick out defining characteristics of creativity or philosophy, but I could also explain Shakespeare using animals. Does this mean a relationship exists? I believe not.

What do you mean?

Whatever you mean, I think that there is a relationship because Aristotle would never introduce a non-per se or indirect method of proving things mainly because he didn’t think that such proof was a proof. So if he is using physics to prove metaphysical principles (which I think he does on several accounts) he is implying that physics has a direct relationship, an essential relationship, to metaphysics just like math (a science of number) is essentially connected with music (a science of sonant numbers). This is opposed to the indirect relationship between animals and Shakespeare.

 

[fakename]

What are the facts which are not reasoned?

I think it goes like this: a proof of a reasoned fact proceeds from the very essence of the genus being discussed (its axioms) while a proof from a fact proceeds from some fact included under the genus but not as an axiom but only as a conclusion. It’s sort of like the difference b/t proving something directly and proving something through reductio ad absurdum.

Note the difference: in one we know the essence and deduce things from it and in the other we use data to infer something about the essence.

 

[empther]

Various groups claim the word “metaphysics” because it sounds intellectual.

The New Age crazies who often have their own section at the bookstore call their bizarre theories metaphysics.

Some religious cults claim metaphysics is part of their philosophy.

It’s impossible to define metaphysics to everyone’s satisfaction.

 

[Qoeleth]

The relation between metaphysics and physics is like the relation between math and music right (the one is merely a subset of the other)?

I would not think that music is a subset of maths. Music exists before mathematics, and at most musical theory could be called quasi-mathematical.

Now, an actual musical performance doesn’t have a precise relationship to musical theory- in practice, for example a perfect fifth is seldom in an exact relationship of frequencies of 3:2, and similarly, rhythms (if measured scientifically) hardly ever conform to the supposed relationships.

Not to mention other systems of music- where tuning is often ‘out’ but is not perceived as problematic, or there are subtlties of intonation not meaningful to Western ears.

I suggest music has a much closer relationship to language than to mathematics (in the sense that words are recognised as conveying a meaning, but not being actually the same as sounds, and where articulation, agogic and timbre convey expression in a type of wordless language).

 

[atheistgirl]

So are my intuitions correct here?

Physics = real.

Metaphysics = made up stuff for the intellectually bored.



Happy to help

Sarah x

 

[tonyrey]

Physics = real.

Metaphysics = made up stuff for the intellectually bored.

Physics: based on Metaphysical principles

Metaphysics = facts ignored by the intellectually misguided

 

[Mumbles140]

What do you mean?

Whatever you mean, I think that there is a relationship because Aristotle would never introduce a non-per se or indirect method of proving things mainly because he didn’t think that such proof was a proof. So if he is using physics to prove metaphysical principles (which I think he does on several accounts) he is implying that physics has a direct relationship, an essential relationship, to metaphysics just like math (a science of number) is essentially connected with music (a science of sonant numbers). This is opposed to the indirect relationship between animals and Shakespeare.

My point was that you can use physics to help explain metaphysics, but the two were never meant to be ‘related’: i.e. he didn’t teach physics as a lead in to metaphysics. He had developed philosophies and studies on both, and simply in the name are they linked. Again, that isn’t meant to say you couldn’t use one to explain/rationalize the other, but I would call that relationship tangential at best. I do not believe Aristotle meant for them to be compared, contrasted, or one as a tool for aiding the other.

That was my animal-Shakespeare reference. One can draw connections between them, but that doesn’t really mean a relationship exists any more so than the fact that a higher power (God) exists and created a world bound by laws (physics). I would say physics can not prove the existence of God (although they can and do suggest it) any more than the existence of God can be used to prove a theory in physics.

 

[TheAtheist]

My point was that you can use physics to help explain metaphysics, but the two were never meant to be ‘related’: i.e. he didn’t teach physics as a lead in to metaphysics. He had developed philosophies and studies on both, and simply in the name are they linked. Again, that isn’t meant to say you couldn’t use one to explain/rationalize the other, but I would call that relationship tangential at best. I do not believe Aristotle meant for them to be compared, contrasted, or one as a tool for aiding the other.

That was my animal-Shakespeare reference. One can draw connections between them, but that doesn’t really mean a relationship exists any more so than the fact that a higher power (God) exists and created a world bound by laws (physics). I would say physics can not prove the existence of God (although they can and do suggest it) any more than the existence of God can be used to prove a theory in physics.

I see someone read their Aristotle carefully enough

 

[tonyrey]

Various groups claim the word “metaphysics” because it sounds intellectual.

The New Age crazies who often have their own section at the bookstore call their bizarre theories metaphysics.

Some religious cults claim metaphysics is part of their philosophy.

It’s impossible to define metaphysics to everyone’s satisfaction.

The generally accepted definition is that metaphysics is the interpretation of reality.

 

[JDaniel]

Physics = real.

Metaphysics = made up stuff for the intellectually bored.

Physics concerns itself with real things, i.e., physical things. Metaphysics concerns itself with the real as real.

As physics looks at real things, it cannot tell us what it means to be real. It tells us that real things consist of space, and fundamental particles, which it also rather poorly defines, and because it rather poorly defines examples of reality, it very poorly defines matter, energy and motion. It always defines these by giving example after example.

So, it looks like your definition of “metaphysics” might actually be the definition of “physics!”.

However, metaphysics and physics together appear to provide us with the best symbiosis for the intelligibility of real things as real.

God bless,
jd

 

[tomarin]

It’s impossible to define metaphysics to everyone’s satisfaction.

It’s the branch of philosophy that deals with first principles. That’s what it means to philosophers, at least.

 

[Qoeleth]

Physics = real.

Metaphysics = made up stuff for the intellectually bored.



Happy to help

Sarah x

I agree, in principle- but would like to think of metaphysics more positively. Yes, it is dealing wholly with invented concepts and is impractical. Therefore metaphysics is an activity of literary creativity. In a way, metaphysics is like creating myths.

Now, look at the metaphysical writing of Plotinus, Schopenhauer, Heidegger, Levinas, Derrida- some of the most beautiful writings we have. It is a kind of poetry.

 

[tomarin]

I agree, in principle- but would like to think of metaphysics more positively. Yes, it is dealing wholly with invented concepts and is impractical. Therefore metaphysics is an activity of literary creativity. In a way, metaphysics is like creating myths.

Now, look at the metaphysical writing of Plotinus, Schopenhauer, Heidegger, Levinas, Derrida- some of the most beautiful writings we have. It is a kind of poetry.

What about Kant? Isn’t the Critique of Pure Reason an attempt to “save” metaphysics?

 

[Qoeleth]

What about Kant? Isn’t the Critique of Pure Reason an attempt to “save” metaphysics?

It could also be veiwed as one of the writings which made metaphysics more difficult to pursue convincinly. The C.P.R. arguably reduces ‘metaphysics’ to epistemology (or makes only an epistemological [quasi-]metaphysics viable), having argued that the noumenal world is wholly inaccessible.