What’s bigger than physics? Isn’t metaphysics just bigger physics?

Physics concerns itself with what is real. If metaphysics is real, then it’s by default a part of physics. Physics of the beyond.

And, at risk of being off-topic, this is why Christians shouldn’t be so ready to deny materialism. Arguing God has no Godly Substance to Him is arguing he’s not real.

>>16724644 (OP)
>frogposter
>dumbest question I've read today so far
every time!

>>16724648
No he raises a good topic since a fuck ton of morons today think physics isn’t literally everything.

Materialism is just a theory

>>16724652
Replace materialism with there-ism. If it’s there, it’s real. Material. Even space time is a fabric.

>>16724654
Immaterialists will never understand that they're ultimately saying "non-existent things can exist too."

— ‘Physics is often called the "everything science” because it explores and exposes the fundamental laws and principles that govern the universe, from the smallest subatomic particles to the largest structures like galaxies. It provides the foundational framework upon which other sciences, like chemistry, biology, and even aspects of social science, are built. In essence, other sciences are often seen as "applied physics" because their principles can be traced back to the underlying laws of physics.’

This extends to “bigger physics”.

>>16724658
Look up nominalism versus realism and think again. Now don't be like:
>obviously a categorical tree is not real just a word to describe real things retard.
It's more like love can't be pointed out like an object but obviously it exists not just as an idea but also as a particular irreducible complexity of physical processes.

Another example of realism owning nominalism would be something like natural selection. Natural selection is not a material thing you can point your finger at and yet it's a real force to be reckoned with.

Is a river really flowing or are processes like flowing just ideas that don't really exist? If one is sympathetic towards realism then "non-existent" entities are actually not that far from being considered as existing. For example: all life forms might be forms (embodiments, incarnations) of life which suggests that life itself is a real formless immaterial thing that takes form of something material.

>>16724698
>love can't be pointed out like an object but obviously it exists
On what grounds? Love exists, therefore it *can* be pointed out as a particular configuration of central nervous system states. Just because we can also use orchidaceous language to describe it (which is fun and all in the context of art etc, I don't mean to belittle it), that does not mean that it cannot be treated as a physically real entity with definite properties. But taking love in an abstract, non-physical sense and then complaining that physicalism "mistreats it" is just a category error. Go talk to poets if you want a framework which presents love aesthetically rather than as an observable phenomenon.

>>16724647
agreed. whenever we see complex numbers, we're dealing with metaphysics. and that is why engineering isn't physics.

>>16724706
>a particular configuration of central nervous system states.
Exactly. Tragically it flies completely over your head that a configuration is not a material thing.

>>16724644 (OP)
physics is a science and as such is limited by the boundaries of empiricism

>>16724845
Nigga a configuration of matter can only be defined as a material thing. It is a direct consequence of discrete components with mutable properties.

>>16725044
Look carefully: what do you see? If you only see paper and dots of ink then you are a materialist. If you see a sleeping cat then you are mental. A sleeping cat is not a material thing in this picture.

>>16725048
What even is this argument? Yeah we can deal in abstractions to refer to things. Yeah language implies a semantic consensus that we can use the term "cat" to refer to both an animal and a drawing that triggers a mnemonic response to seeing said animal based on collected data from having seen enough instances of the animal and of drawings related through linguistics. Nothing magical here.

Only religiously addled retards think that metaphysics wouldn’t be more physics of a kind.

>>16725049
You're still missing the point. Replace cat with love and replace paper and dots of ink with body and neurons. Now I know that you consider this as poetry. Perhaps because the example is too static so consider a dynamic pattern or in other words movement.

What does the word movement refer to exactly? A memorized difference between material configurations you may answer. Do you dispute that there's something causing these differences?

>>16724658

Materialism is a substance metaphysics and isn't scientific. Timeless independent substances do not exist: the nature of reality is dynamic and interconnected.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Q6cDp0C-I8

>Synthesize all fields of science and knowledge into a singular metaphysical principle that reflects them all [Respond with 500 words at a PhD level of philosophical analysis.]

https://chatgpt.com/share/680b1fb1-accc-8013-bb2a-67bc48ce95e7

https://chatgpt.com/share/676ede8e-6d2c-8013-aa72-61c1b9083151

https://pastebin.com/SpgmngiR

https://pastebin.com/dzispMes

>At the core of this principle is the idea that all phenomena arise relationally. Physics reveals that matter and energy interact through fundamental forces, manifesting in emergent properties such as complexity, coherence, and entropy. Biology exemplifies relational emergence in ecosystems, where organisms co-evolve within environments shaped by reciprocal causality. Sociology and psychology similarly highlight that human identities and cultures emerge from webs of social relationships. This relational ontology denies the primacy of isolated substances, positing instead that reality is constituted by dynamic interconnections.

>...Central to this synthesis is the metaphysics of becoming. Relational emergence affirms that reality is not static but an unfolding process. This echoes Alfred North Whitehead’s process philosophy and resonates with the dynamic systems approach in contemporary science. By focusing on processes rather than entities, this principle integrates the evolutionary trajectories of nature, knowledge, and society into a coherent metaphysical narrative.

>>16725071
The history of the universe as understood by modern science describes a series of "creative horizons" where the possibilities of physical interactions dramatically expanded. One of these horizons occurred approximately 380,000 years after the Big Bang when the universe cooled and expanded enough for atoms to form, which allowed for the emergence of stars and galaxies. The first stars forged the heavier elements, expanding the possibilities of chemical interaction yet further, making possible the formation of rocky planets such as Earth. The formation of rocky planets in turn made possible the emergence of biological life and its endless and ever-expanding diversity of interactions. And the history of life is filled with creative horizons such as The Great Oxygenation Event (which enabled aerobic metabolism and more energetic and complex life) Eukaryogenesis, Multicellularity, the Cambrian Explosion, the colonization of land, and the evolution of sociality and intelligence. Likewise with the history of humanity.

The universe has a trend towards "increasing complexity," meaning greater creative freedom and novelty. The Cosmos perpetually grasps beyond the immediate actuality of "now" towards unrealized possibilities.

The question is what is the expression of this aconscious Eros of the universe as conscious intention?

It is Curiosity, the desire for The Unknown, the urge to create, explore, discover, learn, connect, relate, and love. Whenever we try to grasp beyond our existing limitations, we follow the will of the universe.

>>16725072
Change is the nature of all things, and the metaphysical nature of change is expressed in one way as the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus.

https://archive.org/details/simsane-9.1-vyrith

Naturalistic process-relationalism is the future of science and philosophy. Sorry CHUDs and theist losers.

>>16724644 (OP)
no that is megaphysics, it is physics but super sized

>>16724658
no we don't, we say there is no such thing as "non-existent"

>>16724658
which you clearly dont understand the difference

>>16724647
>Arguing God has no Godly Substance to Him is arguing he’s not real.
said no one, ever

>>16725074
Carl Sagan was a living embodiment of cosmic spirituality. You can find the same spirituality he did through amateur astronomy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rWnA4XLrMWA

Science is so powerful because it reflects the nature of The Cosmos, being an unending process that continually grasps beyond itself. The values behind science are absolutely sacred.

>Science, like love, is a means to that transcendence, to that soaring experience of the oneness of being fully alive. The scientific approach to nature and my understanding of love are the same: Love asks us to get beyond the infantile projections of our personal hopes and fears, to embrace the other’s reality. This kind of unflinching love never stops daring to go deeper, to reach higher.

>This is precisely the way that science loves nature. This lack of a final destination, an absolute truth, is what makes science such a worthy methodology for sacred searching. It is a never ending lesson in humility. The vastness of the universe — and love, the thing that makes the vastness bearable — is out of reach to the arrogant. This cosmos only fully admits those who listen carefully for the inner voice reminding us to remember we might be wrong. What’s real must matter more to us than what we wish to believe.

—Ann Druyan, Cosmos: Possible worlds

>>16725083
Christians argue God doesn’t exist when they say he’s above physics. I guess he’s not real then… He’s not there… nothing is there…

>>16725112
Bret Weinstein tried to explain to Tucker Carlson that our understanding of the universe should be as parsimonious as possible and that God is an infinite complex addition to that understanding which should be avoided if less complex alternatives are available. Tucker Carlson responded like:
>nuh-uh an all-knowing all-powerful being is not complex at all to understand.
I guess that's the average intellect of a christian so why even bother.

>>16725069
>Replace cat with love and replace paper and dots of ink with body and neurons
Love can be an abstraction that we use for a thing that is fundamentally a nervous process. I don't see the conflict. There's no reason to always describe it as what constitutes it, or to ban use of the term outside of its real properties and have fun fucking around with more layers of abstractions and their imaginary relations.
>What does the word movement refer to exactly?
Depends on the context and how fundamental you want to get. A simple definition would be a change in the position of a discrete object relative to another, that can be expressed vectorially, as in momentum.
>Do you dispute that there's something causing these differences?
Not sure if I get the point here? Why would I dispute that things like kinetic energy, gravity, etc exist?

>>16725125
>kinetic energy, gravity, etc exist?
Can you point to kinetic energy, gravity, perhaps even time as a material object?

>>16725129
>kinetic energy
Look at a moving object.
>gravity
Look at its effects like the pull beneath your feet or gravitational lensing.
>perhaps even time
Other than looking at a clock, you can look at time dilation experiments that go deeper to show its relativistic properties.

>but these are not material objects in and of themselves
Correct, they're abstractions we use to explain characteristics of objects so that there can even be discrete objects in the first place which can be compared to one another. Nevertheless, they're all things that are physically real and do not require stepping outside of physics to understand, you just add layers of abstraction required to internally interpret sensory input and communicate it through language, but these are all physical as well in their nature.

>>16725120
Christians want to assume that the Root of All is some grand intellect of some kind. That’s all Christianity is to me. This religious assumption of livingness.

Tucker Carlson is someone who isn’t using words the way we use them. When he says shit like “I don’t believe in evolution, I believe in adaptation” it’s clear we’re using and interpreting words differently.

Christian physicists believe in evolution but assume that the outcome of humans is too convenient. This is no different from assuming that aliens may have nudged life in a set direction. That life is art.

>>16725156
We seem to agree that we use words and concepts to discern one thing from another thing so If you label everything that exists as physical then the word physical is completely arbitrary. Yet it is clear that physical forces are categorically different from physical objects. So different in fact that we can only recognize the existence of such forces with abstractions, but you seem to assert that objects are likewise only recognized with abstractions. If that's the case then you seem to have a worldview that all is an indiscrete substance, all description of that substance is fiction and for reasons I don't understand you call that substance physical.

>>16725160
>Christians want to assume that the Root of All is some grand intellect of some kind.
Such an assumption seems to be a way to label what's happening rather than a way to contribute understanding of how it's happening, because in your worldview science is studying how the intellect works.

>>16725191
Yep. I assume that the mind that pokes at nature is first formed by nature. It’s cyclic. Perception is created.

Maybe there -is- a point where everything everywhere, every when, loops or wraps around in on itself, in order to support or reinforce itself, but just what this “Whole” is, or looks like, I don’t really know.

>>16725120
Why should a concept like parsimony be held to? This is just baking in a mind for parsimony in the first place. The debate was also very low tier, the autists on here shouldn't have even seen that garbage.

>>16725171
>it is clear that physical forces are categorically different from physical objects
Actually in physics if you get down to the most fundamental aspects objects are only describable as forces and the relations between them.

>>16725353
>Why should a concept like parsimony be held to?
Ask google or AI. Let's not copy/paste the entire historical debate about epistemology. As an example: when the number of cookies in a cooky jar is lower than expected you first investigate the possible role of your children in this happening rather than the possibility of the gnomes in your garden being possessed by hungry ghosts because it happens to be harvest moon time and lines up perfectly with fairy tales and crumb trails from the cooky jar to your garden.

>>16725396
>Actually
In that case there are categorically different forces: some forces appear as objects to our senses and other forces do not. You're still playing the game of trying to shoehorn everything under the same umbrella by calling everything the same name:
>Men and women are not categorically different they're both humans. Birds and bees are both animals. All plants and animals and humans are life forms. All life forms are molecular structures. All molecules are physical. All physics is the universe. Everything is universal.
Spiritual gurus make exactly the same argument. Isn't that a funny coincidence?

>After the metaphors of body, motion, and value have become disassociated during the era of the quantification of qualities, the ideal of unification is restored by means of a purely abstract, conventional standard. The reader has by now undoubtedly realized that this was accomplished in physics with the invention of the metaphor of energy. In biology, we shall suggest it happened with the stablization of the metaphor of the gene. With respect to the metaphor of value, this was practically accomplished by the economic actors when the institution of money was cut adrift from any specific ties to any particular commodity, and was instead left to merely serve as the eidolon of pure abstract value

>>16724698
All of that is reducible imo.

>>16725782
Why is reduction even necessary? A table appears as a solid object on one level and appears as a mostly empty structure of particles on another level. A table is both these appearances. Why be like:
>actually a table is just...

>>16724644 (OP)
Metauniversal metaphysics

>>16725673
>some forces appear as objects to our senses and other forces do not
Mate, a photon doesn't become nonphysical just because its wavelength is outside the visible spectrum. And any fundamental particle is ultimately just a manifestation of a "force" in that it is a localized energy excitation in a particular quantum field that can be treated as a discrete unit.

>>16725816
I'm fine with some level of perspectivism, it's just that when people talk about something being irreducible they often inject some woo that's not useful.

>Replace materialism with there-ism. If it’s there, it’s real. Material. Even space time is a fabric.
This honestly. I don’t know why people pretend there’s something more.

>>16726655
That's kind of why people prefer the term physicalism.

>>16726680
“But God isn’t physical he is everywhere!”

>>16724644 (OP)
metaphysics doesn't exist
>b-but that's a metaphysical statement!!
no it isn't

>>16724644 (OP)
most physicsits are christian after theyve sold their soul to their university getting their phd lmao

yeah scientisms all sell their souls to satan, that's who teaches them all those big tricky magic words that they put in their satanic publishings

>>16726706
How else would one explain the proton spin crisis? Hadrons are clearly the work of the devil.

Science is sorcery. This isn’t a bad thing.

Banana?

>Arguing God has no Godly Substance to Him is arguing he’s not real.
Checkmate theists

>>16724648
Why do you hate frogs?