Is Physics the Queen of Sciences?

Won't physics eventually arrive at a complete explanation of things?
By: Doug McManaman

Each being is what it is. Few of us would argue with that. We readily understand that each being is what it is. A being cannot be and not be at the same time and in the same respect. I cannot say that John is, and that John is not. He either is or he isn't. We can say John is, but in a different respect say John is not, as if to say that John is here with us, but he is in another world (daydreaming, for instance). But to say absolutely that John is (that he exists), and affirm at the same time and in the same respect that John is not (that he does not exist) is irrational and absurd.

Now, the fact that we understand the principle of identity testifies to our contact with the reality of being. We have contact with being. The first apprehension of the intellect is precisely being. Before we know anything about an object, we apprehend first and foremost that it is. The most ultimate remark we can make about a thing is that it is something, or, that it is not nothing.

Now this may seem obvious, and it is. But knowing this and focusing on what this means can go a long way, especially when dealing with those who tend to make empiriological physics a metaphysics. I will try to explain.

The apprehension of being is the starting point for the mind, and is the condition for the possibility of any form of intellectual knowledge. It is our first idea, and this idea is not formed with the aid of any previous framework or previous intellectual horizons or interpretations. Before we know what this particular being is, we at least know that it is something. This apprehension of being does not in any way depend on another idea. All other more determinate ideas regarding what this being is come after or follow upon the apprehension of being. Being is intuited immediately. Nothing can be known previous to the intuition of being; for there is nothing prior to being. For the same reason, the intuition of being is non-relative. There is nothing beyond the idea of being to be relative to. So any knowledge, such as "The weather is cold", or "The background of this page is white", or "I am thinking about being" shows by the reference to "is" that the idea of being has been apprehended previously.

Outside of being is only the darkness of non-being, or nothing. And so we speak intelligibly of the light of being. It is this light that enables us to know that outside of being is the darkness of nothingness. As Vincent Edward Smith points out: "To understand being in terms of nothingness is to understand it in terms of itself."[1]

Now, whatever is, is one. Unity or oneness is a property of being. This means that a being cannot be divided. If we divide being, we end up with two, for example, we divide being A into A and B. What distinguishes the two from one another? It will have to be something they don't have in common. They cannot possibly have their being in common: A is not B; rather, A is A (each being is what it is). If they had their being in common, then what would distinguish A from B? It would have to be something outside of what they have in common. If they have their being in common, then it follows that what distinguishes them from one another is that which is outside of being, namely non-being. So, non-being or nothing distinguishes them. Hence, they are not two, but one being.

If they do not have their being in common, then they are two distinct beings.

So, being cannot be divided. No being can be divided - on the level of being. Each being is what it is; it is not what it is not. Each being is itself, not something else. And so each being is one in so far as it is. If it is one, it cannot be divided into two and remain a being.

If being is one, then being is outside of the scope of the empiriological or scientific method. Being cannot be divided, and so dividing a material or quantified thing can never end in an explanation of the being. A material being is quantified, that is, the nature is spread out into parts outside of parts. Quantity is a plurality; for the parts are plural. But being is one and undivided. So it follows that you (a being) are not your parts, or rather, you are not reducible to your parts. You are a being, and being is one. You are one, but your parts are plural. The parts, therefore, do not constitute the being that you are. If you, a being, are your parts, which part are you? You would have to be all of them. But each being is what it is. A being cannot be what it is and be something else at the same time. Again we can ask: "what distinguishes this something from the something else?" Outside of being is non-being, and so if they have their being in common, nothing distinguishes them. Hence, they are not "they", but "it", one entity, one being. So the parts do not reveal the being. Dividing or splitting does not manifest the being of a thing. The parts are unified and organized. Wherever you have unity, you have form. The form is the intelligible determination of the entire thing, and this intelligible determination is found entire and whole in every part of the being. But the most important and most organizing character about things is that of being.

Now in the law of inertia, one thing is moved by another, which is in turn moved by another, and so on indefinitely. When this law is extended to its limit to explain everything, then a being would be determined wholly by outside agents. In this case, a thing would have its being entirely from agents outside of it, owning nothing in-itself. A nature has its principle of movement within it, but if the law of inertia is extended to explain everything, a nature does not have its principle of movement within it, but rather outside of it. For example, What is this? This is nothing but its parts that we acquire after dividing it. And what in turn are these parts? This is nothing but these new and even smaller constituents or building blocks. And what are they? They too are composed of even smaller parts. And these? Composed of even smaller parts. So if the whole is nothing other than these smaller constituents, how do we explain the activity of the whole? By the activity or movement of these smaller constituents. And how do we explain the activity or movement of these smaller constituents? By the activity or movement of their smaller constituents. And so on and so forth.

But if this were true, one could never apprehend being. Being is one, simple, intrinsic, and immediate, and as such is not subject to the laws of division that characterize an inertial universe. But we do apprehend being. We readily understand that each being is what it is. And that is because your pet cat is a being, and as such is not reducible to its parts. The parts are parts of the one being. The multiplicity of parts does not make up the being like the multiplicity of bricks makes up a house. A house is not one being. What parts can one get by dividing being? There is no plurality that determines being. There is nothing outside of it. And so being is not an outcome, not a result of outside factors.

If you are not convinced, then just continue to divide. When will you arrive at something that exists in itself? When you do so finally arrive, how will you explain this being that exists in-itself? By dividing it? By splitting it up? It has to be explained on its own terms.

So being is self-intelligible or self-evident; for it is grasped not in terms of something outside of it, but on its own terms and in its own nature and as it is. Explaining being requires not an empiriological method that depends on dividing, but reasoning that respects the intrinsic unity of being. It is no coincidence that some physicists deny "entity" or "thing". These are the physicists who turn their empiriological science into a first philosophy or metaphysics. By dividing, one never arrives at a being in itself. Rather, a thing is always defined in terms of what is outside of it or in terms of outside factors, such as a yardstick or voltmeter, a frame of reference, or an equation. And how can the empiriological method possibly deal with entity? It cannot. It is the human person (the scientist is a human being before he is a scientist) who encounters being. Empiriological physics does not come close to explaining the nature or being of anything. The method aims at the manipulation of matter and aims to predict behaviors. By descending into the divisible, it descends towards the potential and the plural; and actuality or being is not explained by potentiality and plurality.

¹V. E. Smith, Footnotes for the Atom (Milwaukee: Bruce, 1951), 49.