Is it Metaphysics or Science Fiction...?

[JackDaydream]

Rossen Vassilev Jr. suggested that physics 'has become too metaphysical' in an article, 'Einstein versus Logical Positivism' in, 'Philosophy Now' Ultimate Guides issue 4, 2021. This has lead me to wonder if metaphysics has become too based on physics and the sciences. In the article, Vassilev said,
'many of the theories embraced by theoretical physicists today look like what Smolin calls "metaphysical fantasies". One of the most prominent is the idea of multiple universes, also known as the "many worlds hypothesis" or 'muliverse' theory. Different versions of it have been promoted as an answer to puzzles in many branches of physics; it was the subject of an entire issue of "New Scientist" magazine in 2011, and among its many supporters was the late Stephen Hawking, who worked on it in his last published paper. But in spite of all of this, the multiverse hypothesis remains a purely speculative theory in the sense that we cannot check it by direct observation. In fact, it has no concrete empirical evidence to back it up. It cannot be proven using Schlick's principle of verifibiality; nor can it be falsified empirically in the way Karl Popper believed any truly scientific theory should be. As a mere artifact of theoretical speculation and mathematical models, it is more philosophy and metaphysics than testable empirical science. It borders on science fiction.'

At the beginning of the article, the author said how logical positivists challenged metaphysics as being fanciful speculations. However, even Ayer acknowledged that human beings are likely to wonder about the questions about metaphysics. I am not advocating for logical positivism because I don't believe that it goes far enough in looking at issues of metaphysical importance. Of course, metaphysics is a term with ambiguity, as suggested in a recent thread which looked at whether its meaning could be agreed upon. My own basic working definition of its scope is about the attempt to understand the processes underlying life, the universe and reality.

What I am asking in this thread is to what extent science can be seen as a clear foundation for metaphysics? Physics and science seem to be seen as extremely important as many of the 'big' thinkers' ideas, such as Kant and Hegel are seen as open to question. What is the most reliable or useful foundation for metaphysics. In science or any other way of trying to explain and understand the nature of reality how far is worth going in developing "metaphysical fantasies"? If it is not seen as worthwhile, what can be the purpose and subject matter of philosophy?

[Steve3007]

..."One of the most prominent is the idea of multiple universes, also known as the "many worlds hypothesis" or 'muliverse' theory. Different versions of it have been promoted as an answer to puzzles in many branches of physics; it was the subject of an entire issue of "New Scientist" magazine in 2011, and among its many supporters was the late Stephen Hawking, who worked on it in his last published paper. But in spite of all of this, the multiverse hypothesis remains a purely speculative theory in the sense that we cannot check it by direct observation. In fact, it has no concrete empirical evidence to back it up. It cannot be proven using Schlick's principle of verifibiality; nor can it be falsified empirically in the way Karl Popper believed any truly scientific theory should be. As a mere artifact of theoretical speculation and mathematical models, it is more philosophy and metaphysics than testable empirical science. It borders on science fiction."

Yes, the subject of why any physicist (or philosopher of physics) would feel the need to postulate a "many world hypothesis" is interesting. One of the reasons is the findings of quantum mechanics. Those findings have been so difficult to fit into an ontological position - a theory as to what is really happening - that some abandoned the attempt to do so and decided just to concentrate on the success of QM in describing and predicting the results of QM experiments. (This has famously been called the "shut up and calculate" approach.) It leads to the curious sounding conclusion that the purpose of physics is not so much to tell us how the world works as to tell us what the results of physics experiments are going to be. Whether those results tell us anything about the workings of a proposed real world is left unanswered. Some people who have found that approach philosophically unsatisfying have decided that the "many world hypothesis" rescues reality for us.

An example of one of the previous topics that have explored this idea is this one.

[Sculptor1]

I suppose people are free to advocate as many ideas as they like as means to explain or "save" the appearances. but unless there is something more reliable you might as well throw them in the bin.
Interestingly enough ,when the whole world accepted the Geocentric hypothesis you would have thought that Copurnicus' Heliocentric hypothesis was a welcome change. Not so, his system was far more clumsy requiring 14 extra epicycles to make it work over the contemporary Ptolemaic system.
To counter this abject failure of ockham's razor it was TYcho Brahe who offered a hybrid system in which the Sun and the Inner planets revolved around the earth, and every thing else revolved around the sun. Odd - but better than both other systems.

The problem was like in so many other instances where people fail to understand complex systems - they were using the wrong assumptions - Ptoleny, Copurnicus and Brahe's Tychonian system were all wrong.

They had all assumed that things go round in circles. This was based on an erroneous reliance on the wisdom of the ancients; in this case Aristotle and his perfect circles, mandated by the Catholic church in their dubious (on the hot line to God) wisdom.

It was not until Kepler consdiered the idea of Elipses that the heliocentric hypothesis finally worked more eleganly than all the other three circular systems.
Nonetheless, he thought the stars were governed by Platonic solids, so there was still a long way to go. And we are still puzzling over the finer points.
I doubt a whole bullet proof cosmology will ever be found - probably due to the most fundemental human assumptions; the indelible assumption that human perception and conception are viable ways to understand the big questions.

[Steve3007]

Here's an even earlier topic whose OP contains a quite interesting short video in which a philosopher of physics with a funny voice explicitly defends the many worlds hypothesis as a way to rescue objective reality from the findings of quantum mechanics.

[JackDaydream]

@Steve3007
The multiverse idea is just one example really in the article about how physics generates theories and ideas, ranging from black holes, string theory and many ideas. One of the things which I wonder about is how the thoughts of the scientists are given authority and a form of mystique as 'expert' opinion. I am not opposed to such ideas and I am fascinated by the idea of the multiverse, but simply do question the way in which scientific views which are 'metaphysical' are often ranked because they are seen as 'scientific'.

[PoeticUniverse]

the multiverse hypothesis remains a purely speculative theory in the sense that we cannot check it by direct observation. In fact, it has no concrete empirical evidence to back it up. It cannot be proven using Schlick's principle of verifibiality; nor can it be falsified empirically in the way Karl Popper believed any truly scientific theory should be. As a mere artifact of theoretical speculation and mathematical models, it is more philosophy and metaphysics than testable empirical science. It borders on science fiction.'

the multiverse can be deduced from the Fundamental One from which our universe came forth, for the One ever remains and so it could just as well make another universe.

Alternately, if one wants the universe to have been a spontaneous event, then more universes could become the same way.

In philosophy, truths can precede their proofs.

[JackDaydream]

@PoeticUniverse
My thread was really meant to be about metaphysics rather than the specific idea of the multiverse and that was more of an example. So, I am interested in your remark? 'In philosophy, truths can precede their proofs.' I am wondering how it works as part of the metaphysical imagination. Perhaps, speculation and fantasy is worthwhile and I am not trying to overthrow the idea of the multiverse because it seems exciting.

[Steve3007]

The multiverse idea is just one example really in the article about how physics generates theories and ideas, ranging from black holes, string theory and many ideas.

Yes, ok. Generally, those ideas are generated because they appear to be good ways of describing what is observed.

One of the things which I wonder about is how the thoughts of the scientists are given authority and a form of mystique as 'expert' opinion.

Well, "expert opinion" really just means the views on a particular subject of people who have studied that particular subject. Others are completely free to challenge those views or put forward alternatives.

I am not opposed to such ideas and I am fascinated by the idea of the multiverse, but simply do question the way in which scientific views which are 'metaphysical' are often ranked because they are seen as 'scientific'.

They're often ranked? What do you mean by that?

[JackDaydream]

@Sculptor1
In many ways people of the twentieth first century are in the fortunate position of having the history of ideas and science to aid in finding explanations. It gives so much scope and, even then, it is so easy to get it wrong or be extremely confused. I still wonder to what extent time and history are linear or made of cycles because there seem to be both aspects and it is hard to know the bigger picture. That is the problem really because as human beings we are so small and insignificant in relation to the greater reality of the cosmos. It gives so much scope for speculation and, in a way, it may not matter too much if one gets it wrong although I expect that most people would like to perceive and understand with accuracy. I certainly spend many sleepless nights wondering how reality works, enjoy some metaphysical fantasising and, I would imagine that many on this site do too.

[JackDaydream]

@Steve3007
When I said that scientific ideas were 'ranked' I meant that they are considered as having a position of importance, as being a leading source within the academic world in the rigorous pursuit of 'truth'.

[Tegularius]

I certainly spend many sleepless nights wondering how reality works, enjoy some metaphysical fantasising and, I would imagine that many on this site do too.

Not necessary to spend sleepless nights wondering how reality works. Reality at the root will never be known; there will always be debate regarding it since it can never be a provable discovery which totally identifies why anything exists. Even if we understand the physics, at least to some extent, we will never know what made it happen. To know that we have to become the reality.

[PoeticUniverse]

@PoeticUniverse
My thread was really meant to be about metaphysics rather than the specific idea of the multiverse and that was more of an example. So, I am interested in your remark? 'In philosophy, truths can precede their proofs.' I am wondering how it works as part of the metaphysical imagination. Perhaps, speculation and fantasy is worthwhile and I am not trying to overthrow the idea of the multiverse because it seems exciting.

One can only derive logical truths, not just entertain any old ungrounded fantasy.

[JackDaydream]

@PoeticUniverse
Imagination is important too. Do you think that the answers to many of the biggest issues can be solved by logic? Are you thinking of a priori logic, or some other form?

[Belindi]

Metaphysics has a wider remit than physics. Modern science is defined by its method, whereas metaphysics is defined by its aim to explain theories of existence.

I think most people endorse a theory of existence, not excluding religious myth, that seems and feels to them to explain existence in a way that they feel most matches their earlier learning and personalities. Thus I like absolute idealism with Spinoza's pantheism because it allows both personal freedom and the safety of cooperation.

[Terrapin Station]

In my view science has become (although there was always a bit of this in science) too SciFi, not "metaphysical," with the same examples providing fodder for this. (Characterizing it as metaphysical rather than as science fiction or fantasizing or whatever suggests not really understanding what metaphysics is.)

The reason that science does this is something I've complained about often: scientists, and especially physicists, tend to reify mathematics. The SciFi stuff grows out of imaginative interpretations (as opposed, say, to strictly formalist interpretations) of the mathematics that support the most successful predictions of observed phenomena.