Are Physicists a class of Metaphysicians?

[PhilosophyofPhysics]

Could physicists be considered as metaphysicians who attempt to get to the nature of reality with the help of mathematics? We notice a lot of conflict with the physical intepretation of different theories and even different interpretations about the same theory. I know some physicists might be a bit upset about calling them metaphysicians, but I really am starting to question if we really can know the true nature of these "particles" and "forces" they speak of. Are they point particles? Are they wave-particles? Are they strings, membranes, loops? Is the wave-structure of matter correct? Another thing that got me thinking about this was the derivation I saw for the wave equation in a PDE book. There were so many ideal assumptions going on. I don't know. Help me. :uhh:

Speak, ye wonderous minds whose light doth shineth far brighter than mine.

 

[raolduke]

Their is only on divine question. Metaphysics is the only field of "science" that can ever hope to answering it. When things enter the material realm they lose their ability to not exist.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

Could physicists be considered as metaphysicians who attempt to get to the nature of reality with the help of mathematics? We notice a lot of conflict with the physical intepretation of different theories and even different interpretations about the same theory. I know some physicists might be a bit upset about calling them metaphysicians, but I really am starting to question if we really can know the true nature of these "particles" and "forces" they speak of. Are they point particles? Are they wave-particles? Are they strings, membranes, loops? Is the wave-structure of matter correct? Another thing that got me thinking about this was the derivation I saw for the wave equation in a PDE book. There were so many ideal assumptions going on. I don't know. Help me. :uhh:

Speak, ye wonderous minds whose light doth shineth far brighter than mine.

Well most physicists might talk about interpretation in terms of a hypotheis or theory, but you'll note the difference. Copenhagen interpretation for example is a theory where as the more metaphysical MWI is purely hypothesis.

Most scientists are aware of the difference and don't go about speculating based on hypothesis, unless it's to pass an idle afternoon in conversation, in other words no one peer reviews papers about MWI and it's practical applications.

One exception which probably proves the rule are string theorists but then those people are scarey, when you deify mathematics, beware of the God who begat such a deity

 

[Newbie says Hi]

Well most physicists might talk about interpretation in terms of a hypotheis or theory, but you'll note the difference. Copenhagen interpretation for example is a theory where as the more metaphysical MWI is purely hypothesis.

Oh man, I hope you are ready to DDUUCCKK! :)

One exception which probably proves the rule are string theorists but then those people are scarey, when you deify mathematics, beware of the God who begat such a deity

See above :)

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

Oh man, I hope you are ready to DDUUCCKK! :)
See above :)

Nah, I've said far worse on the Quantum physics and String theory sections

And anyway you can't argue with MWI being a purely hypothetical interpritation and with CI being a theoretical one, that's the simple truth.