The Unification Problem: Questioning Physical Science

Image source

The unification problem which plagued physics for the past 100 years was a problem that confronted not just the validity of general relativity or quantum mechanics, but the true nature of science as it concerns the truth about the universe.

The unification problem confronted the way we do science and not really the theories that have emerged from the way we do science. And how have we been doing science? We have only been doing science in a physical way. To be clear, we have only been doing physical science.

The unification problem of physics confronted and really undermined the entire structure of physical science. The unification problem underlyingly posed the question: is physical science truly enough for the understanding of the universe?

It is now important for us to realize that there are phenomena necessary for our understanding of the universe and that their description is really beyond the domain of physical science. Physical science is not enough, and the whole problem of unifying physics which we encountered was a proof of this.

The unification problem did not really undermine our capacity to comprehend the universe, as some physicists might think, rather it undermined the way we did science. (I use the past tense “did” because in Echa & Science we have begun the new way of doing science.)

So, we can really comprehend the universe and solve the unification problem of physics if only we change the way we do science. And usually, when I refer to the way we do science, I am mainly referring to the tradition of physical observation.

The scientific method which maintains that every scientific proposal remains a hypothesis until proven before it is ascended as a theory still stands. What should change is our observational method which is a step in the scientific method.

I have discussed extensively in the article below the new way of observing the universe based on orthogonality. This new way based on orthogonality is the way that harmonizes with the metaphysical operations of the universe which physical science cannot in any way describe or account for.

I have contended or revealed in the article above that physical observation which we apply in physical science is based on linearity and it is solely spatial. But what we shall now call metaphysical observation is based on orthogonality, and it is spatial-temporal. You will know more about these things in the article above.

Metaphysical observation is at the foundation of metaphysical science, which is the new kind of science in this post-modern era. Metaphysical observation fits with metaphysical science which is a kind of science that is concerned about the factors that determine our experiences of motion and of the universe.

You will realize this when you begin to comprehend the ramifications of post-modern physics. You will surprisingly find out that physical observation which fits or is a part of physical science is totally unconcerned about the factors that determine our experiences of motion and of the extensive universe.

And you will then come to the important conclusion that physical science and metaphysical science are contrary to each other, for while physical science is non-experiential, metaphysical science is experiential. 

This then brings you to a very important point where you will realize that we needed an experiential (or metaphysical) science in order to resolve the unification problem that plagued physics.

...while physical science is non-experiential, metaphysical science is experiential.Click To Tweet

We needed to completely alter the foundation of science and give a new life to science. The unification problem was a call for us to become concerned about the experiential nature of the universe because physical science is too cold.

So, I want you to now know what true metaphysics is all about. It has no religious interpretation or concern, but rather true metaphysics has a scientific interpretation or concern which is about the experiential nature of the cosmos.

We hadn’t known before now that physical science is unconcerned about the experiential nature of the universe, but now we do. This is very important, and you must put away any bias you may have against metaphysics or metaphysical science.

Now, I implied afore that metaphysical science could also be proven just like physical science. This is true to an extent. Firstly, metaphysical science encompasses the domain of scientific truths and you cannot prove the truth, it is like trying to prove reality. You really can’t.

The truth (just like reality) is the way it is, our duty is to simply discover it. But Physical science encompasses the domain of what I will call scientific appearances which we should prove or interpret using scientific truths.

Every scientific truth must justify scientific appearance. Before, I continue, scientific appearances refer to natural phenomena as they appear based on external observations (or physical observation), and scientific truths are interpretations of natural phenomena based on internal experiences (or metaphysical observation).

hostgator

What I am really trying to say is that we prove metaphysical science by how it justifies physical science. We prove scientific truths by how they justify scientific appearances. So, in order to elevate a metaphysical hypothesis to scientific truth, it must satisfactorily justify or harmonize with the physical manifestation of the phenomenon it proposes to describe.

We cannot directly or observationally prove metaphysical science or scientific truth like we do for physical science because they constitute the behind the veil principles or factors that determine all we physically observe about the cosmos.

This is why the new scientific method is basically about traversing the physical universe and the metaphysical universe. Scientific truths are internally experiential and are not externally observational like scientific appearances.

So, in the new scientific method, we are trying to relate internal experiences to external observations, however, we must give precedence to the former because the true laws of the universe are based on them.

The true laws of the universe cannot be derived from external observations, but from the a priori methods of metaphysical science, after which they can be assessed or scrutinized based on how they justify physical observations.

However, this goes further. Trying to justify scientific truth or metaphysical science by how it justifies scientific appearance or physical science is to be ignorant of the fact that metaphysical science is also a complete science with its own right and scope, and also it has its own characteristic method of verification.

I want you to see what I am revealing to you about physical science and metaphysical science. In physical science, we justify a physical interpretation or hypothesis by how it fits external observations, but in metaphysical science, we justify a metaphysical interpretation or hypothesis by how it fits internal experiences.

The first describes the already established procedure of physical verification, while the second describes the newly prescribed procedure of metaphysical verification. This is why The Theory of the Universe is a scientific treatise like no other.

It should not be hurriedly judged like other scientific theories that are subject to physical verification. It is the first treatise on metaphysical science that is subject to metaphysical verification, and which lays the foundation for how to verify a metaphysical hypothesis based on how it fits internal experiences and not external observations.

In this post-modern era, we must acknowledge the real existence of these two kinds of science that have their respective methods and means of verification. Metaphysical science is now a science with its own right and scope just like physical science.

Metaphysical science is now a science with its own right and scope just like physical science.Click To Tweet

So, when I try to relate the metaphysical science to physical science or the metaphysical universe to the physical universe, it is because of our present unfamiliarity with the metaphysical universe.

I am convinced that as time moves on, we will eventually do away with physical science and totally abandon the physical universe. However, there is a crucial caveat to this my conviction:

The present contiguity between physical science and metaphysical science may be the practical consequence of the new philosophy of absolute relationism. If this is the case, then both the physical universe and the metaphysical universe will forever remain contiguous.

There is no doubt that we are now treading on a new ground. But we are bold to do this because we now know the basis of metaphysical science and its concern for the experiential nature of the universe, which we also know is beyond the purview of physical science.

A balanced understanding of the relationship between metaphysical science and physical science now constitutes the new scientific method. We can no longer proceed with a scientific method based solely on physical science.

In post-modern physics, we do not deny physical observations or appearances, but we don’t interpret or describe them accordingly. We rather proceed to metaphysical science in order to describe or interpret physical observations.

In other words, we are no longer fooled by appearances. We no longer judge natural phenomena according to physical sight. The unification problem has been a push for us to see the universe beyond the physical, and until this was done we could not arrive at The Theory of the Universe.

satellite in space

What constitutes metaphysical observation is not what we externally see or observe with our eyes, but what we experience internally with our whole being, and if we try to follow both of them we cannot arrive at the same understanding of the universe.

The investigation of the experiential nature of the universe results in a simple understanding of the universe. The Theory of the Universe is radically simple because it is metaphysical, and is thus based on the experiential nature of the universe.

If we proceed to resolve the unification problem using physical science like we had before, we won’t resolve the problem, and we won’t find the simplicity of the cosmos. So, whenever I say that the universe is simple, I want you to have it at the back of your mind that I say so based on metaphysical science.

The experiential universe described by metaphysical science and in which we live is simple. Please, my friend, this cannot be overemphasized. For until you understand the new scientific method, it may be hard for you to understand the theory and post-modern physics in general.

Post-modern physics is as a result of the great scientific revolution and not the scientific revolution of the Renaissance era. So, in post-modern physics, you are really looking at a new way of doing science and you must acknowledge this first before you will understand the resulting theory.

The equations in The Theory of the Universe model our internal experiences of the universe and not our external observations, for both, are distinct. You will realize this from the very beginning of the treatise.

This is why the equations in The Theory of the Universe seem to have a new meaning when they are considered or interpreted in relation to internal experiences and not external observations. This is why metaphysical science is powerfully explanative.

Whereas the equations of physical science are considered in relation to external observations, and this is why physical science has been powerfully predictive. However, as you would find out, metaphysical science also leads to predictive consequences making it a broader kind of science than physical science.

Post-modern physics is not founded on physical science, it is founded on metaphysical science. This is because only metaphysical science can reveal to us the scientific truths about the cosmos. Physical science is limited in this regard.

It is of great importance that you realize that the universe was designed with ultimate concern for internal experiences which are metaphysical and not external observations which are physical.

Thus, the true laws of the universe are not deduced from the direct (and sole) investigation of the universe according to physical science, but by the subtle investigation of the universe according to metaphysical science.

You really have to read this my article so that you will see the analogies I used to show you the distinction between physical science which is non-experiential and metaphysical science which is experiential.

We needed an experiential science in order to solve the unification problem and this new science constitutes post-modern physics. I want you to really know that when it comes to post-modern physics, it is no longer science as usual.

The unification problem pointed to the existence of metaphysical science based on metaphysical verification which I discussed above. Physical science is no longer well suited to confront the fundamental problems of science.

We must recognize both kinds of science and their respective scopes, even though the scope of metaphysical science has not been entirely mapped out. But then this is what post-modern physics is all about.

Post-modern physics calls us to explore metaphysical science, and I am fully open to surprises. And I want you to know that the whole thing we think is wrong with physics stems from physical science which is not the true science of the cosmos.

Metaphysical science, which is the true science of the cosmos, resolves all the fundamental problem of physics. All that is wrong with physics is resolved by metaphysical science.  For unless we pierce deeper, beyond the physical, the fundamental problems of physics would remain.

Physical science and its method of physical verification based on external observations must give way for metaphysical science and its method of metaphysical verification based on internal experiences.

Now, our current physical science gives us an understanding of the non-experiential nature of motion, and this has led us to the design technologies or machines that I think engage motion in a forced manner.

But metaphysical science is giving us a new understanding of the experiential nature of motion, and I foresee that this new understanding will, in turn, lead to the design of what I call organic technologies or machines that will engage motion in a more natural manner.

For now, I can only foresee these things and give hints. Also, I want you to read the above article because it is one of the important results of the post-modern study of the experiential nature of motion in the universe.

I am convinced that as this post-modern era marches on we shall become increasingly familiar with the experiential nature of the universe, and our post-modern technologies shall emerge from this new metaphysical science based on the experiential nature of the universe.

I want you to become conscious and open to the new way of understanding motion and the universe from metaphysical science, which is all important, knowing that this new understanding cannot in any way emerge from physical science.

The true principles of motion in the universe are really beyond what physical science can tell us, thus, we have to rely on metaphysical science which can give us a satisfactory explanation of these principles.

This article shows you that the unification problem is intimately connected to physical science and that only metaphysical science can resolve it. This new metaphysical science in turns opens the doors to new possibilities and ways of understanding the universe.

Until next time.

For metaphysics!

– M. V. Echa



M. V. Echa

M. V. Echa

My message is the universe, my truth is the universe, and this blog contains all you need to know about the universe, from the true nature of reality to the long-sought unity of the cosmos — which is the big picture!