In one of my previous articles, I explained: “what the metaphysical [universe] really mean in post-modern physics“. Now, in this article, I want to talk about what the physical universe really means in post-modern physics.
Most of my articles in this blog are centred on the metaphysical universe in which I usually make some vital comparisons with the physical universe. I usually make these vital comparisons because I want you to understand the true nature of reality beginning with what you already understand about the physical universe.
In other words, I mention the physical universe not because it represents the true nature of reality but because I want to give you the best understanding of all things. This is the central message among other messages that I want to pass across to you in this article.
Physics or will I say that science began with the physical universe. This is what science has been about for the past 400 years. But now, in this post-modern era, we are being ushered into the metaphysical universe and a new kind of physics or science has begun.
So, we cannot really have two universes, which are the physical universe and the metaphysical universe; one has to be the universe in which we live, and as I have made it clear on this blog, the metaphysical universe is the real universe in which we live.
The physical universe is the universe that is based on physical space and time and which is subject to physical observations. It is the universe we have always known and it has led to the philosophical conclusion that the universe is entirely physical.
The old scientific tradition bluntly denies and rejects any proposition of a metaphysical universe beyond what our method of physical observation can capture. It was majorly pragmatic and rigorously dependent on capturing and analysing physical data.
In the physical universe, matter and visible energy were at the center of observation and physics was sadly built on these observations. I say sadly because of the solely quantitative character of physical observation and the physical universe.
The physical universe is a solely quantitative universe which lacks any quality. It is when we bring quality into the otherwise physical universe that we discover the metaphysical universe.The physical universe is a solely quantitative universe which lacks any quality.Click To Tweet
So, it is important to know that the physical universe is the solely quantitative universe. This is the basic scientific view of the physical universe in post-modern physics.
The absence of quality in the physical universe had immense implications for how we understood the universe in other eras of physics. The whole other half of the cosmos, referring to the quality of the universe, was missing in physics.
This is where you begin to see the most important facet of the unification problem. The unification problem was only superficially about the unification of quantum mechanics and relativity; it was deeply and profoundly about the final unification of the quantitative and qualitative natures of the universe.
Physics had so far progressed in the absence of this unity which it never felt was necessary because the qualitative nature of the universe was never the concern of physics. It was formerly hidden from science.
This is why we have to abandon the physical universe. The physical universe is inherently incomplete not taking into consideration the qualitative nature of the universe. This is why physical science could not in any way produce the unified field theory or the theory of the universe.The physical universe is inherently incomplete not taking into consideration the qualitative nature of the universe.Click To Tweet
It took metaphysical science which takes into consideration the quantitative and the qualitative natures of the universe in order for us to unify physics. Physical science could not possibly and in any way provide the final theory of the universe. This is an important point to remember.
This is why I sometimes appreciate the thoughts of Prof. Lee Smolin concerning the unification problem that plagued physics. He was of the opinion that Newton’s methods were no longer viable, that they could no longer serve as the way of doing science.
He always made it clear from some of his interviews that I have seen that we needed a new way of doing science beyond what Newton could have conceived. And regardless of whether he hinted at metaphysical science or not, his opinion was very important and should have been considered more than it was considered by the scientific community.
Newton’s methods have failed, the whole edifice of physical science instituted by Newton and his contemporaries has fallen and we need to raise a new edifice for science. The fall of physical science leads to the consequent irrelevance of the physical universe which will be increasingly undermined as post-modern physics progresses.
The physical universe is very dependent on our tools with which we observe it. There is this inseparable connection between our physical tools and how we understand the laws of physics in the physical universe.
But this connection beyond anything else had to be broken or at least superseded by a greater way of accessing the laws of the universe. The laws of the universe are super-governing, they direct the operations of our tools and all technically configured instruments by which we collect data and observe the universe.
So, it will be folly to think that we can understand the universe being solely dependent on our tools and data gathering. We have to go beyond what we call practical science as a means of accessing the laws of the cosmos, and this move is what particularly takes us beyond Newton’s methods.
This move is what translates us into the metaphysical universe where we become concerned about the laws behind the laws and the principles behind the principles. We now begin to understand why the universe is the way it is and not some other way.
In the metaphysical universe, it becomes possible to address the why question about the cosmos. We are no longer in the physical universe where we are concerned with data that we don’t know how they emerge or how they could ‘have determined’ the laws of the universe.
We are now informed about why these data exist in the first place, how they emerge and why they couldn’t be what determined the laws of the universe.
The physical universe is a universe in which its understanding is heavily dependent on substance, but the metaphysical universe is a universe in which its understanding is heavily dependent on thought. The latter precedes the former and it is the determinant of the supposed mechanistic operations of the former.
This brings us to another point which I often talk about in this blog which is that the physical universe is very mechanistic and motion is described as it emerges from the body under investigation. But the metaphysical universe is very organic and motion is described as it emerges from the continuum and not from the body under investigation.
This is why we could not resolve the fly-by anomaly, we knew very little about how the continuum produces the motion of bodies and not the bodies themselves. I want you to read this my article about the flyby anomaly:
So, on the basis of physical science, the unity of the universe is a mirage, but on the basis of metaphysical science, the unity of the universe is an unavoidable reality. The unity of the cosmos is very unnatural to physical science and this is why we cannot see any true unity in the physical universe.
We have to ascend to the metaphysical universe where the unity of all things becomes natural and instant. So, in post-modern physics, the physical universe and the metaphysical universe are not on par with each other; the metaphysical universe transcends the physical universe.
We no longer view the macro universe using telescopes nor do we view the micro universe using microscopes as these methods are misleading and non-revealing. But we now view the universe using the higher perception of thought that cannot be fooled by physical observations.
Now, I am not dismissing physical observation or insisting that it is completely irrelevant, no, rather I am stating that we cannot understand the universe by it. There is no understanding in the entire physical science.
We may design complex tools and proficient machines but we should not think that we then understand the universe. No, we are being misled by a blind conviction. I am convinced that some of you may also have thought about this.
This blind conviction is dominant in science today as even some boldly declare that we have been able to design certain technologies using our understanding of modern quantum mechanics. But can this assertion still hold if modern quantum mechanics is wrong? No, as it becomes evidently meaningless and disgracefully unfitting.
And this is the case, modern quantum mechanics is fundamentally wrong about the quantum world and so whatever technology was built based on modern quantum mechanics could only have been built based on raw practical knowledge without true conceptual backing.
Now, how much more shall we achieve in technology when true conceptual backing follows. This is why I talk about the age of scientific miracles. Even the pursuit of the design of a quantum computer which is remotely possible now will become very possible with the true conceptual understanding of the quantum world.
This applies to our entire technological base. They lack conceptual backing or support. This is why certain feats like nuclear fusion, self-rotating space stations etc. have been practically impossible, but not anymore.
As we leave the physical universe, so do we rise above these practical challenges to create an easily fostered scientific civilization where nothing shall be impossible unto us; and as we conceive, so shall we achieve.
Furthermore, we have always spoken of the intelligence that is manifested in the physical universe and all this while ignoring the qualitative nature of the universe.
But now that quality is introduced into our understanding of the universe, we find a new manifestation of the intelligence of the cosmos, and this time we are referring to the supreme intelligence of the metaphysical universe which is complete and not to the partial intelligence of the physical universe which is incomplete.
In the metaphysical universe, we now have a deeper appreciation of the intelligent universe which takes into account the quantity and the quality of its laws. And in fact, one can assert that the intelligence that is manifested in the universe is more due to its qualitative nature than it is due to its quantitative nature.
However, we have a deeper recognition of this intelligence when we say that it is due to the quantitative and the qualitative natures of the universe. The internal balance between these two aspects of the universe is responsible for the evident harmony of all things.
The physical universe is not the true universe and the insistence that it is true has greatly hampered the potentials of science. This among other reasons is why we have to embrace the metaphysical universe and proceed to build science on it.
Our physical eyes are not enough to show us the true laws of the universe, for they are greatly limited. This is why absolute science has come so that we can approach the hidden principles of the cosmos. The true laws of the universe are naturally hidden from physical perception.
We are no longer ignorant of these things. We are now aware of the higher metaphysical perception of the universe where we find the unity of all things and the true laws of the cosmos.
So, even though you may find me talking or referring to the physical universe, I want you to understand that it’s not because it is true but I do so only to make you understand the metaphysical universe better.
This is now the new relevance of the physical universe which has lost its central position in physics for the better representation and picture of the universe which is the metaphysical universe.
Until next time,
I will be here.
– M. V. Echa