The philosophy of physics is concerned with what the terms and things in physics mean or how they describe reality. Metaphysics is concerned with things that underly physics, such as causality, the underlying nature of force, logic, and mathematics amongst other things.
Physics is the area of science that deals with the smallest and largest aspects of empirical reality while leaving many of the middle aspects to chemistry, biology, and geology. The smallest constituents of the observed world are studied by quantum and particle physics while the largest aspects are studied by astrophysics and cosmology.
Physics has progressed through the ages as an understanding of forces.
The Aristotelian paradigm was that an object in motion tends to cease its motion unless a force acts to keep it in motion. On Earth, given our atmosphere, this is true. But, this is not true for space without molecular composition, such as the space between stellar entities.
Newton's concept of force changed this paradigm to one in which an object in motion tends not to cease its motion unless something acted upon it. This is more correct because it sees force as internal to the object in motion rather than as a force that acts on the object itself.
Einstein did not exactly change this understanding of force but, rather, redefined our understanding of the way in which space itself is constituted. Gravity, in Newton's physics was like a string, pulling on objects towards them.
Einstein showed that gravity was more like a trough around mass that caused things to fall towards them because of the curvature of space.
The theories of Aristotle made sense given they had no concept of the molecular composition of the Earth's atmosphere.
The theories of Newton made sense except for small deviations in observable evidence having to do with how light travels through space. In fact, no more than Newtonian physics is required or was used for various forms of space travel and our travel to the moon.
Relativity was the precursor to our understanding of energy as equal to mass times the speed of light squared, or E=mc,2. Einstein's theories work quite well but could require retirement if it never completely captures all observable phenomenon.
As in any scientific field, physics should learn from the history of science and from the philosophy of science that the current paradigm may be flawed in some way and that new theories should be examined an welcomed rather than shunned.
It is a feature of human psychology as well as a feature of academic institutions, that novel ideas are typically shunned or seen as nonsense. However, it is precisely these types of ideas that keep scientific study advancing in terms of a conceptual reformulation of what we find here in our world.
The world that we have been studying has not changed. But, the ways in which we can comprehend it are infinite. There is, perhaps, always a better science, always a better way to describe observations, more ways to integrate knowledge, and so on.
In a computer simulation, what is force? Is it possible that, like in a computer simulation, there is a processing of the relative parts of the system as they should interact as if there was actual energy being transferred? How can we know that this is not such a simulation of a place that is physical, where, in fact, it is simply a spiritual computer?
Or, a non-spiritual computer? I think the mind is a wholly different aspect of reality, no matter the metaphysical distinction- be it actual or simply in appearance. Appearances should matter quite substantially in understanding this place we inhabit.
The philosophy of science and of physics has a lot to say about the possible interactions and paradigms that could accurately, to a greater or lesser degree, describe the interaction of [PoW]s Parts of the World. A part of the world is said to be empty or containing some energy.
The energy takes various forms and creates various compositions of energy, but the common denomenator seems to be energy.
There can be negative energy, neutral energy, and positive energy. These energies can interact in ways that influence or annihilate each other, but the net quantity of energy, it is assumed, remains.
It has not, to my knowledge, ever been observed that the conservation of energy has been violated- but, that it never has or never will is an assumption based on induction, which is no more than faith in consistency across space and time.
We have reason to believe that induction works only if we have reason to, in at least some sense, "trust" reality. This is where Descartes began to incoroporate God as a necessary part of grounding all science, or scientia- stable knowledge.
