Replying to Avatar MichaelJ

"There is no ground to assume the continuity of causation or motion...without taking for granted that things will be tomorrow as they have been today."

I'd contend that is an epistemological assertion, not a metaphysical one.

Our ability to do physics and metaphysics alike depends on our epistemology.

The Aristotelian distinction worth keeping in mind is physics is the study of that which is real and changes, while metaphysics is the study of that which is real and is unchanging.

With that distinction, it seems clear to me that, while our metaphysics can color our understanding of physics, our ability to study changing things does not wholly depend on whether we have a correct metaphysics.
Avatar
freeborn | ἐλεύθερος | 8r0gwg 1y ago

Our epistemology, also, cannot but presuppose a certain metaphysic.

To channel Van Til, "the unbeliever can count, but he cannot account for counting." This applies to all scientific endeavor.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Avatar
freeborn | ἐλεύθερος | 8r0gwg 1y ago

...and, our ability to do physics relies on an objectively real world and objectively real natural systems and processes--whose persistence itself relies on its Creator and his promise to keep it going that way (at least for a while longer).