A Special Note on Metaphysics v. Physics

metaphysics can take you as far as you can reason with the available facts at hand.

A Special Note on Metaphysics v. Physics

Metaphysics is always 100% in accord with valid science and, indeed, science must always be in-accord with valid metaphysics. That is to say, any valid and credible metaphysical theory that is a proper and correct cosmology must both be in perfect alignment metaphysically and scientifically. It is also especially important to remember that, canonically, science is a subset of metaphysics and not the other way around. Strictly speaking, you employ science in metaphysics when you need something measured, calculated, or observed in the physical universe. Science, on the other hand, is completely useless employed outside the physical universe.

Now, science is defined and proven by deductive proofs. A deductive proof is usually of the form:

Or more simply, in formal language:

For instance, I might observe that all numbers between 1 and 100 that are divisible by 4 are also divisible by 2. 223

Or following the shown form:

As you can imagine, we can prove this very easily simply by trying to test every number in the set and trying to divide them by 2.

Now, metaphysics uses deductive proofs. A deductive proof runs a bit opposite of how inductive proofs do, but inductive proofs are necessary when using metaphysics. Inductive proofs are used by analyzing what evidence is available and drawing a conclusion based on what you can experience.

To see how this works, picture yourself on a deserted island and you can never leave the island or learn about anything outside of the island. It is so remote, no animals visit. There are only local animals. Now, on this imaginary island you decide to learn about birds. Now, we might think we can make some deductive proofs by analyzing things around us. We may start with determining that all birds are brown, but then we run across a parrot and that disproves it. All good so far. So, we look about again and say all birds can fly. When we try to falsify it, it checks out because no bird on the entirety of the island is flightless.

224

Here is the problem. Our island is a closed system, but there is a larger planet out there. So, we can’t make a deductive proof because we can’t physically confirm our proof. So, what do we do if we know there is more in the world than our little island? At this point, we would have to make an inductive proof. So, we still say A → B. Our argument would still look just like a deductive one:

But since we can’t actually search the planet, and we know we can’t, we build our argument by showing a cased of a bird that can fly. Then another and another, and so on. The more birds we find that still fly, the stronger our argument becomes.

Importantly, you’ll notice our argument about birds, as it turns out, is entirely incorrect. It’s a bit understandable, since most birds can fly, that we’d make the mistake. But it takes only one ostrich to break our proof. Our observations, you’ll note, aren’t entirely useless. After all, our work has proven that if we see a bird we’ve never encountered, it can likely fly.

Herein lies the real problem and limit with science: Physical science is like a person trapped on our island. As they deal in nothing they cannot directly observe and measure, everything off the island is indiscernible or understandable. Likewise, the universe is directly unknowable. It comes down to a classic 225

problem. You cannot measure a system while you are inside it. We have no way to take the universe, put it in a lab and observe it from the outside.

Metaphysics, on the other hand, is used to describe what is outside the universe as well, what that outside is like now and what existed pre-Big Bang. To do this, metaphysicists specialize in deductive reasoning. While a botanist trapped on our island might be lured into the false bird proof by looking at only what they saw – knowing just what they can see, the seasoned metaphysicist would consider all life on the island holistically and conclude that any animal that eats food that lies significantly higher than the terrain and vegetation that grows from it have adapted to fly by some means.

Notice this does many things at once. It is a broad enough conclusion to be extraordinarily accurate. It takes everything into account – what we know of gravity; how air works; how animals work and adapt. Moreover, it proves true – even though we had limited information to work with on our island.

This is all wonderful, but the best part is it has excellent chances to still be true when we consider other planets in the universe. What if an animal is found flying because it is lighter than its planet’s air and moves about like a blimp? No worries, we never assumed it had wings, only that is flies. What if there is

226

vegetation that floats as well? Still no problem. We accounted for this by specifying terrestrially bound vegetation only.

This holistic approach is the true strength of metaphysics and why it is unrivalled in exploring the nature and purpose of the universe. This also illustrates why science and its island is only a subset of true metaphysics, which studies the entirety of existence and not just the little island of physical reality.

In this chapter, we shall take a look at different cosmologies from the Greeks onward to 20th century physics. We will compare and contrast them to Potentialism and illuminate where Birnbaum’s Potentialism stands in regard to each.

227