RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PHYSICS AND METAPHYSICS
INTRODUCTION
In the late 18th and 19th century some scientific albeit technological concepts was seen as unrealistic, crazily ambitious and perhaps was another science fiction thriller on the big screens of cinemas. But then came physics and subsequently metaphysics with a conscious attempt to fix this. Their simultaneous appearance would make it seem like the are birds of a feather but in modern reality this two have a mutually exclusive relationship. Putting a lid on the relation between these two concepts as just mutually exclusive would be a fallacy. Before one can understand why, how, and where physics and metaphysics relate with each other, one must understand exactly what is meant by physics and metaphysics.
Physics is “the study of matter, energy, and the interaction between them”, but what that really means is that physics is about asking fundamental questions and trying to answer them by observing and experimenting.
The Greek word meta can mean either "after" or "beyond." Metaphysics is a term coined by Aristotle, who used it to mean simply the facts he wrote after he wrote about physics.
Metaphysics is not easily defined. The term itself can mean "beyond physics" but it's tricky to get more precise without inviting controversy. In modern usage, however, metaphysics has come to refer to the study of objects outside the scope of purely scientific knowledge. The central questions of metaphysics include questions about ontology, the study of existence, and epistemology, the study of how humans acquire knowledge.
This brief but rich volume tries to elucidate the relationship between the two concepts by resolving contradictory physics concepts that negate metaphysical beliefs.
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………add a summary of how yo do yours if any………………………………….
Metaphysics as a branch of Philosophy.
Philosophy as a search of wisdom in science
For the ancient Greeks, philosophy was more an attitude or an activity of people looking for wisdom than a "discipline" to be taught or learned. Disciplines were properly the sciences, or the organized content of sciences such as mathematics or physics (remember that mathematics etymologically means discipline or teaching).
For Aristotle, studies which we can call empirical, like biology or mineralogy, at a certain level are engaged in a specific empirical inquiry wherein they deserve the name of quia science. Today we would say that they are sciences concerning the how and not the why. This preliminary level of research is meant to record the facts, in order to ascertain "what it is" (it is concluded quia est, that something is). Real science is the propter quid science that tells us why something is in this way and not otherwise. Nevertheless, Aristotle was flexible and acknowledged the existence of quia sciences, which await some fuller understanding in a higher propter quid science. A descriptive science can be "explained" by an etiological science.
The clue to the concept of subordination between sciences in Aristotle and Aquinas is just this point: a higher etiological level affords insight into the deeper reasons of a more phenomenological level of research. The beautiful sounds of music are due to some mathematical proportions, since order is more beautiful than disorder. The thunder as a "sound in the clouds" is scientifically understood as a "sound caused by the extinction of fire in the clouds", according to Aristotle. This is the transition, operated by demonstration, from phenomena to their cause, and only at this last level do we properly "understand" the thing or the events (scire): when we know why they are produced, keeping in mind that this why has several meanings (a point which was lost in modern science).
Not unlike Plato, Aristotle in the Posterior Analytics placed mathematical reasoning on a propter quid level, referring to plain descriptive physics. The cause of the physical structure of the rainbow, for example, is to be found in the laws of geometrical optics. From this point of view, as professor Wallace has validly demonstrated(1), the Aristotelian epistemological causal paradigm is not discordant with modern science, particularly with the science of Galileo and Newton. The reason is that Aristotle is open to the Pythagorean vision of science.
In this epistemological framework there is no place for a distinction between science and philosophy as we understand it today. It makes no sense. The relevant distinction is rather between sciences concerned with different areas of being, like celestial bodies, earthly substances, mathematical entities, and the "science that is being sought," which would provide for Aristotle, as we know, the ultimate explanation of everything, the first philosophy that seeks to attain the principle and the first cause of beings, God as the pure self-understanding Intellect, separate in esse .
In this respect, the ancient and medieval distinction concerns the group of particular sciences dealing with particular principles of the several parts of the universe, on the one hand, and the "meta-science" of metaphysics, on the other hand, dealing with the most universal and intelligible aspects of the world which can be directly related to the ultimate explanation of everything. Theology adds to metaphysics the revelation of God in Himself, particularly if theology is understood in continuity with the speculative insights of the human mind and with its peculiar tension to the vision of God. Both metaphysics and theology can be considered to be a wisdom, though metaphysics, in the Socratic fashion, could be called rather a search for wisdom, which is the philosophical enterprise. In a certain way, we could say here that metaphysics is identical with philosophy, but the other particular sciences are likewise philosophical, inasmuch as they are not closed in themselves but include the dynamic search for the ultimate truth, rooted in the heart of the wise man or woman.


Understanding Metaphysics
There seems to be an eternal gray area between the realms of what physics can explain and what spirituality terms as logic. This land will always be dominated by the insatiable thirst for knowledge of how, or rather why, things are the way they are, and why do some acts in the universe leave us with our mouths open. Such is the concept of metaphysic
When put in paradigm, physics is the understanding of what we see, while metaphysics is the attempt to understand what we don't. Physics tells you the 'How' of all that you see around you. Metaphysics deals with the 'Why' of all things, around you and within you. Metaphysics aims to provide the definitive link between the apparent and the spiritual, without making concepts overly religious. Physics will define to the fullest, what can be observed and changed; anything beyond the observable, doesn't exist. The answer to the exactness of metaphysics is not describable, but can be understood from the classic question: "If a tree falls deep within a forest with no one around, does it still make a sound?". Whenever something happens within our surrounding, we may notice it with our senses. But when something happens outside this circle of knowledge, do we, or should we, believe that it has indeed happened? Now, if this occurrence from the unknown somehow affects the state of something within our circle of knowledge, how can we explain the chain of events? It is this that metaphysics wants to solve. So, while physics rules the plane of all known, physically realized phenomenon, metaphysics and all its branches sew together the universe of obscure and the phenomenon unexplained by physics. Physicist Stephen Hawking, who yearns to be in the know, said, "My goal is simple. It is a complete understanding of the universe, why it is as it is and why it exists at all". A point to be noted here is that metaphysics, or even ontology (the study of 'being') is not to be related or confused with the deviant sciences like occultism (the study of 'Forbidden knowledge') or esotericism (the study of alternative or secretive knowledge).

Physics
Physics is what has been defined, disproved and restated through ages of human research of all things around us, the keyword being around. People concur or debate over everything under, inside and far away from the Sun. They will deduce theorems and when found logical, term them as axioms. Then every once in a while, there comes along a thought or a phenomenon previously unaccounted for. It tinkers with the shackles with which we bind all happenings we know and understand. A classic example would be the statement on the earth being flat, later being evidently disproved and concluded with the new statement that the earth is indeed, round. There are so many similar comments and theories that have been cemented as fact, waiting for a 'spirited' sprite to set release them, only to have a new one to be found out and bound down.

The Difference Between Physics and Metaphysics
• So what would be the primary point of distinction between the two? The answer has already been mentioned above, it is the difference between asking 'How' and 'Why'. Physics will always relate itself strictly to the functioning of a concept or a phenomenon, no matter its magnitude. Metaphysics will wrap itself around the reason of a concept's existence. It will keep asking, "What is the need of its creation?"; "What is its purpose?"; and "How will the matter affect other matter in the spiritual sense?". Or simply, thinking about the concept of thought itself. Metaphysics can also be called the study of the relationship between mind and matter.
• This point might be thought as ironic: religion. Ironic, because both physics and metaphysics refrain from going too close and actually fathom the deep end of religion. Religious discourses point to the existence of a Greater entity - God, and the purpose and reason of the existence of life - Creationism. Physics will refuse to acknowledge (or simply be indifferent towards) theology (the rational study of religion) altogether, concentrating on simply the nature and existence of all things. Physics may even disbar religion from its inner sanctums. Metaphysics will accept certain words from religion, in an attempt to explain what physics cannot. But even metaphysics will not accept the totality of God or the deviance from the theory of evolution.
• The set of rules that govern each side are a far cry from each other. While physics depends on reductionist laws and formulas, metaphysics is bound (or rather unbound) by its own rules; like the law of control (where the level of self-esteem of a person is directly proportional to the person's level of control over something), or the law of accident (where self-esteem depends on whether we are the victim of an occurrence uncontrolled by us).
• Physics will never jump outside a defined boundary of reason in search of a solution. Instead, it will make do with the things at hand and make the most of them, deriving a result agreeable by all within the boundary. But it's not that physics, by itself cannot expand its own boundaries. You can see breakthroughs that redefine classical physics everywhere. And then you'll also have metaphysics that always tends to push its own boundaries in search of truth, consequently establishing a new line of sight beyond what was initially imagined. This, in turn, creates even more questions about the new boundary, thereby requiring new answers. The cycle may never end and will probably encompass all aspects of knowledge, from the logical to the subconscious unknown, to the very ends of the universe itself.
• The definitive nature of physics that we know today rarely allows much miscalculations, making some theorems absolute (until of course, we know better). Metaphysics may always fall into a state of constant revision, until a final answer is attained or a new question poses itself. Metaphysics will always be an ever changing field due to its nature.
Conflicts and Points of Convergence
In the Western world prior to the scientific revolution, metaphysics was considered the primary source of knowledge about the world. Any theories in physics that seemed to contradict metaphysical knowledge — in this case religion — was considered heretical. The most famous example of this conflict between physics and metaphysics was in the life of the 16th century scientist Galileo Galilei, who proposed that Earth revolved around the sun, rather than the other way around. He spent much of his life under house arrest as a result of this belief. Since that time, however, there has been a greater acceptance of scientific ideas that may seem to contradict experiences and metaphysical beliefs. The work of Galileo and of later physicists, such as Isaac Newton, has held up relatively well under further scrutiny. As a result, of many metaphysicists are willing to modify their beliefs, without fully discarding them, in response to scientific advances.
The discovery of quantum particles, special relativity and other modern physics phenomena have caused many people to re-evaluate their understandings the relationship between physics and metaphysics. Quantum particles, unlike larger units of matter, behave in ways that are unpredictable and that stretch preexisting categories of light and matter. Some theorists have argued that the existence of quantum particles negates deterministic metaphysics, though others disagree. Many people have drawn ideas from modern physics about the interconnectedness of all objects, which may inform their metaphysical assumptions or spiritual experiences. Most scientists, however, regard these simply as metaphors rather than as realities.


Despite the differences, there are some angles from which physics and metaphysics do seem alike. Physics may be hard-and-fast, but it will still be growing and changing. There can only be so long till when the laws of Newtonian physics will suffice. When you reach that point, you enter the world of modern physics. This is where all aspects of metaphysics that can be explained by physics fall under. Of course, the more things we try to prove something right, the more amendments we make. Modern physics too will fall against metaphysics at certain points. This cannot be helped though, knowledge and wisdom will always be counterparts of a larger mechanism. Some will believe the truthfulness of the EPR paradox, while some won't. While one half will state that man possesses free will, the other half asks where in the process of evolution did we gain it (Hawking and Mlodinow, The Grand Design). Some will claim that there is an ultimate purpose of all life, while some will say that there is nothing beyond matter. Stephen Hawking, in an interview with 'The Guardian' newspaper, compared the human brain to a computer, that it will stop working when its components fail. He said: "There is no heaven or afterlife for broken down computers; that is a fairy story for people afraid of the dark."

Whatever be your point of view, it is important to keep moving forward, for I believe there will be the discovery of the truth in due time. There are still many things we need to learn and understand about what goes on within us and around us. So, when Einstein can say, "The man of science is a poor philosopher", Aristotle might say, "The Gods too, are fond of a joke".

Thanks for these sir,I wholeheartedly appreciate you for taking the time to make this post making me learn further building upon my previous knowledge.
Althought its in the wrong section but I would sure bookmark this page on my phone to study and reflect on it the more,I'm a seeker of knowledge so as you for taking out time to put these out,primitive and weak minds wouldn't know the importance of this intellectual work you just put out that's why I'm thanking you for such a job well done. #xinchen

your welcome, i did chose the erong section knowingly, didnt want people copying and pasting it etc. And its to help someone though....

Capnd143:
your welcome, i did chose the erong section knowingly, didnt want people copying and pasting it etc. And its to help someone though....

Any school of metaphysics in Nigeria ?
Does metaphysic teach law and logic or is it in philosophy ?