It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Difference Between Physics and Metaphysics

page: 1
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 14 2011 @ 04:41 PM
link   
All in my own opinion.

Physics and Metaphysics are both justifiable means of approaching and dissecting reality.

One bases all information on observed facts, the other bases all information on implied facts.

The main and most relevant difference between a physicist and a metaphysicist is displayed very prominently on "Abovetopsecret.com" as the emotional context of the replies here.

I've noticed, the physicists here tend to be debunkers, and generally scoff at new "metaphysical ideas". These are your doubters. The emotion behind a Physicists doubtful replies are sometimes hateful.

Metaphysicists, when posting, tend to be accepting of new ideas and thus allow them to be observed by even the physicists who may never accept them until they are proven. The emotion usually associated with the context of a Metaphysicists reply is usually more positive, or loving.

Yes, I am biased, but I have approached knowledge from both sides of the fence, and I have seen that the grass is greener on the Metaphysical side.




posted on May, 14 2011 @ 04:52 PM
link   
In some way, I agree. I'm a meta-physicist. =]

Second



posted on May, 14 2011 @ 04:55 PM
link   
reply to post by smithjustinb
 


I sit firmly on the Physics side of the fence.

Although there is much that is metaphysical, the stuff often espoused is not rigourously logical or evidenced.



posted on May, 14 2011 @ 05:13 PM
link   
I believe the word is "metaphysician," but I could be wrong.



posted on May, 14 2011 @ 05:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rich41357
I believe the word is "metaphysician," but I could be wrong.


I think a physician is someone who is like a doctor and a physicist is someone who studies the nature of reality.



posted on May, 14 2011 @ 05:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by chr0naut
reply to post by smithjustinb
 


I sit firmly on the Physics side of the fence.

Although there is much that is metaphysical, the stuff often espoused is not rigourously logical or evidenced.


Call me judgemental, but I can pretty much say one thing about you. You believe in something beyond what you observe as reality, yet you cannot interact with it and know it because you don't allow yourself to.



posted on May, 14 2011 @ 05:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by smithjustinb

Originally posted by chr0naut
reply to post by smithjustinb
 


I sit firmly on the Physics side of the fence.

Although there is much that is metaphysical, the stuff often espoused is not rigourously logical or evidenced.


Call me judgemental, but I can pretty much say one thing about you. You believe in something beyond what you observe as reality, yet you cannot interact with it and know it because you don't allow yourself to.


dude what do you think you are doing with your theories on "one-ness"???



posted on May, 14 2011 @ 05:35 PM
link   
Physics is the study of metaphysics. Let me explain.

Physics deals with the absolute science of it all. It is the objective aspect dealing with human facts that do not change for humans.

Metaphysics is the spiritual rationale behind physics. It is subjective for us mostly because we attach meaning to things in the physical realm, using physical definitions. Metaphysics deal with the spiritual realm and possibly the realms in the great beyond. Since we exist in many dimensions but have only experienced the physical body, we cannot understand why metaphysics is so subjective.
edit on 14-5-2011 by cry93 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 14 2011 @ 05:38 PM
link   
reply to post by smithjustinb
 


you cant argue about metaphysics as no one can be proved wrong or right. the only you can say thats right is the saying ' i think therefore i am'. you cant touch or test metaphysics as it come from our conciousness.



posted on May, 14 2011 @ 05:40 PM
link   
reply to post by smithjustinb
 



One bases all information on observed facts, the other bases all information on implied facts.


My understanding of metaphysics is that information is based on direct perception, not only "implied facts" as you have stated.

Physics is essentially extrospective and must rely on imperfect tools and instruments (including the human senses) to observe and measure physical reality.

Metaphysics is introspective and relies only on the subtle finer senses of inner sight and hearing to perceive non-physical dimensions of reality. As physical reality has an intimate correlation to non-physical reality, knowledge acquired by the inner senses also reveals facts about the nature of physical reality.

The speculative form of "metaphysics" which is abundantly discussed on this forum is closer to pseudo-metaphysics, in my opinion. Metaphysics, in its original form, is a very exact discipline which requires many years of practice and refinement.



posted on May, 14 2011 @ 08:23 PM
link   
the separation of mind and body, developed by Descartes, was the last meaningful metaphysical conceptualization that has been applied to the modern scientific method. in this way, physics (and all knowledge gathering methodologies) is directly informed by metaphysics.

it is NOTsomething which you may feel free to apply your own definitions to willy-nilly. well, you can, but it is ridiculous.

but, typical of a self-proclaimed and self-righteous "metaphysicist", you are not going to bother learning.....you would much rather assume that you already know and that it is those dern scientists who are cornfused.


whatever.



posted on May, 14 2011 @ 10:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by tgidkp
the separation of mind and body, developed by Descartes, was the last meaningful metaphysical conceptualization that has been applied to the modern scientific method. in this way, physics (and all knowledge gathering methodologies) is directly informed by metaphysics.

it is NOTsomething which you may feel free to apply your own definitions to willy-nilly. well, you can, but it is ridiculous.

but, typical of a self-proclaimed and self-righteous "metaphysicist", you are not going to bother learning.....you would much rather assume that you already know and that it is those dern scientists who are cornfused.


whatever.


Haha. I say the separation of mind and body concept is one and the same with all other metaphysical theories. They all point to the same conclusion. That conclusion is all is one. I for one am a person who has seen the difference between metaphysics and physics and has therefore made this post. I may be self proclaimed because "I"



posted on May, 14 2011 @ 10:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by gazzachel
reply to post by smithjustinb
 


you cant argue about metaphysics as no one can be proved wrong or right. the only you can say thats right is the saying ' i think therefore i am'. you cant touch or test metaphysics as it come from our conciousness.


But you say that as if I also cannot observe "metaphysics". In the mindset of all is one, you become consciousness.



posted on May, 14 2011 @ 10:27 PM
link   
reply to post by smithjustinb
 


Good thoughts, although I would argue that both have their own validity and need, and until we can begin to think in terms of both schools of thought we will forever be limited in our understanding of reality. You may enjoy reading this thread I made a few weeks back: www.abovetopsecret.com...

S&F



posted on May, 14 2011 @ 11:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by smithjustinb

Originally posted by chr0naut
reply to post by smithjustinb
 


I sit firmly on the Physics side of the fence.

Although there is much that is metaphysical, the stuff often espoused is not rigourously logical or evidenced.


Call me judgemental, but I can pretty much say one thing about you. You believe in something beyond what you observe as reality, yet you cannot interact with it and know it because you don't allow yourself to.


Almost right.

I do believe in something beyond externally observed reality but I do interact with it. I am a "born-again" type christian, with a slight leaning towards the charismatic (spirit led) side of things. I have seen, sensed and been a part of, events that fall outside of the constructs of physical science. My position is that; what we do know of the metaphysical is so small as to be nearly nonexistant.

Even those who say they have deeper knowledge of things spiritual, espouse not something different, but an extension to the physical reality that leads me to believe that they are extrapolating from here, and are NOT tuned in to an alternate reality, as I have intuited or sensed it.
edit on 14/5/2011 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 14 2011 @ 11:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by chr0naut

Even those who say they have deeper knowledge of things spiritual, espouse not something different, but an extension to the physical reality that leads me to believe that they are extrapolating from here, and are NOT tuned in to an alternate reality, as I have intuited or sensed it


My experience of ultimate reality was non duality. And since prior to that, I had no experience of it, I came to the conclusion that it really couldnt be an extrapolation of my experience by my imagination. Even after the fact, my mind can only approximate the experience in thought, but not really accurately think or write about it. Our brains just arent wired that way.

As I see it metaphysics is just physics that we dont yet have the language to prove or disprove. (math) Many of the claims of the mystics are being supported by quantum physics, and there is a real possibility that because of the issue I brought up, (that the human mind really isnt designed to think and speak about non duality) there is a very real possibility that physics will NEVER be able to touch absolute reality.

We are limited by the wiring of our minds, even if we somehow transcend that for a brief glimpse of a deeper reality.



posted on May, 15 2011 @ 12:34 AM
link   
reply to post by Illusionsaregrander
 


I believe that modern quantum physics and multidimensional mathematics adequately describes simultaniety, non-locality and interdependency. Many of the tennets of eastern mysticism are easily explained and integrated into quantum physics. A book that deals with this is "The Dancing Wu Li Masters" by Gary Zukav. He isn't a physicist but it's a great read for someone with a "mystical" bent, trying to embrace the new physics.



posted on May, 15 2011 @ 01:35 AM
link   
I think my understanding is most likened to being a statistical theoretician. So, take the statistical connections, and explain them with a mathematical model. The problem is, is that my mathematical model has become insanely complex over the years...
edit on 15-5-2011 by SystemResistor because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 15 2011 @ 01:45 AM
link   
reply to post by chr0naut
 


How do you think "science" was developed?

Right or left



posted on May, 15 2011 @ 02:36 AM
link   
The way you set up this thread makes it so that any person who posts here who identifies themselves as preferring physics over metaphysics will be addressed as a hateful doubter.



new topics

top topics



 
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join