Politics, Power, and Science: The Unacknowledged Philosophy: How Physics Makes Metaphysical Claims While Denying It Does Philosophy

Tuesday, December 16, 2025

The Unacknowledged Philosophy: How Physics Makes Metaphysical Claims While Denying It Does Philosophy

J. Rogers, SE Ohio

December 2025

Abstract

Modern physics operates under a peculiar self-deception: it makes profound philosophical claims about the nature of reality, causation, existence, and knowledge—then insists these are "just facts" discovered through experiment, not philosophical positions requiring justification. We demonstrate that nearly every standard physics claim involves unexamined metaphysical assumptions, ontological commitments, and epistemological stances. By declaring "there is no philosophy in physics," the physics community has immunized itself against critical examination of its foundational assumptions. This paper catalogs the hidden philosophy embedded in standard physics discourse, showing that the rejection of philosophy is itself a philosophical position—and a poorly examined one. We argue that physics' refusal to acknowledge its philosophical commitments has led to conceptual confusion, pedagogical failures, and an inability to articulate basic distinctions (such as why c can be "set to 1" but α cannot).

1. The Standard Posture: "Physics Deals Only With Facts"

1.1 The Official Narrative

Ask a physicist about philosophy and you'll typically hear:

"Philosophy is about opinions and speculation. Physics is about facts and experiments. We measure things. We don't philosophize."

"Leave philosophy to the philosophers. We're doing real science."

"That's just philosophical word games. Physics tells us what actually happens."

This posture presents physics as:

Empirical: Based purely on observation and measurement
Objective: Free from subjective interpretation or assumption
Factual: Discovering truths, not constructing theories
Atheoretical: Just describing "what is," without metaphysical baggage

1.2 The Problem

Every one of these claims is a philosophical position.

"Empiricism is the path to knowledge" → Epistemology
"Reality is objective and observer-independent" → Metaphysics
"Facts exist prior to theory" → Philosophy of science
"Pure observation is possible" → Epistemology

The statement "physics doesn't do philosophy" is itself a philosophical claim about the nature of knowledge, reality, and scientific method.

By refusing to examine these claims, physics has immunized itself against critical inquiry into its own foundations.

2. Hidden Philosophy #1: Ontological Claims About Reality

2.1 What Physicists Say

"The universe is fundamentally mathematical."

"Physical law governs all phenomena."

"Reality is made of quantum fields / particles / spacetime geometry."

"The universe is deterministic / probabilistic / many-worlds."

2.2 The Philosophical Content

These are ontological claims—statements about what fundamentally exists and what reality "is made of."

Questions these claims assume answers to:

What does it mean for something to "exist"? (Ontology)
Is mathematical structure discovered or imposed? (Philosophy of mathematics)
What is the relationship between law and phenomenon? (Metaphysics)
Does "fundamental" mean ontologically basic or just most useful for prediction? (Philosophy of science)
Are quantum superpositions real, or just in our description? (Interpretation of quantum mechanics)

2.3 The Evasion

Physicist: "We just describe what we observe."

Response: But you call quantum fields "fundamental" and chairs "emergent." That's an ontological hierarchy. What makes one more "real" than the other?

Physicist: "That's just philosophy. Fields predict experimental results."

Response: So "real" means "appears in our most predictive theory"? That's instrumentalism—a philosophical position about the relationship between theory and reality.

Physicist: "Stop with the word games. We're talking about facts."

The evasion: Declare your ontological commitments to be "facts" rather than philosophical interpretations, then refuse to examine them.

3. Hidden Philosophy #2: The Nature of Physical Law

3.1 What Physicists Say

"We've discovered the laws of nature."

"F=ma is a fundamental law."

"The universe obeys these equations."

3.2 The Philosophical Content

These statements make metaphysical claims about:

The Status of Laws:

Do laws govern phenomena (top-down causation)?
Do laws describe regularities (Humean supervenience)?
Do laws exist independently of matter (Platonism)?
Are laws necessary truths or contingent facts?

The Nature of Discovery:

Are laws "out there" waiting to be found?
Or are they human constructs that organize experience?
How do we know we've found a "fundamental" law vs. an approximation?

The Relationship to Mathematics:

Why is nature mathematical?
Or is "nature is mathematical" a category error?
Are we discovering math in nature or imposing it?

3.3 The Evasion

Physicist: "We test our equations experimentally. If they work, they're correct."

Response: "Working" means making accurate predictions. But does accurate prediction mean you've discovered the universe's operating system? Or just found useful regularities?

Physicist: "What's the difference? Stop being pedantic."

Response: The difference is between instrumentalism (theories are useful tools) and scientific realism (theories describe reality as it is). These are distinct philosophical positions with different implications.

Physicist: "I don't care about those distinctions. I care about what experiments show."

The evasion: Treat a philosophical position (naïve realism about mathematical laws) as "just what the data shows," then refuse to examine the interpretive framework that makes "the data" intelligible.

4. Hidden Philosophy #3: The Measurement Problem (Not Just Quantum)

4.1 What Physicists Say

"We measure the electron's mass to be 9.109 × 10⁻³¹ kg."

"The experiment yielded these values."

"Measurement gives us objective facts about reality."

4.2 The Philosophical Content

Unexamined assumptions:

What is measurement? (Philosophy of science)
Does measurement reveal pre-existing properties or create definite values? (Quantum foundations)
What is the ontological status of "measured values"? (Metaphysics)
How do instrument readings relate to theoretical quantities? (Theory-ladenness of observation)
What counts as a "good" measurement? (Methodology, epistemology)

4.3 The Specific Case: Units and Constants

Physicist: "We measured G = 6.674 × 10⁻¹¹ m³/(kg·s²)."

Response: That's not a measurement of G. That's a measurement of how many SI-unit-sized chunks fit into the gravitational relationship at your chosen coordinate chart.

Physicist: "No, G is a property of spacetime. We measured it."

Response: Then why did the 2019 SI redefinition define G to be exactly that value? You can't define something you're claiming to measure. The act of definition reveals G is a coordinate transformation coefficient, not a property of spacetime.

Physicist: "You're playing word games. G appears in our equations."

The evasion: Conflate "appears in our coordinate-dependent formulation" with "is a property of reality," then declare anyone who distinguishes them to be doing "mere philosophy."

5. Hidden Philosophy #4: Causation and Explanation

5.1 What Physicists Say

"Gravity causes objects to fall."

"The Higgs field gives particles mass."

"Quantum fields cause particle interactions."

5.2 The Philosophical Content

What does "cause" mean here?

Possible interpretations:

Humean: Constant conjunction (objects always fall near massive bodies)
Mechanistic: Physical process (curved spacetime → geodesic motion)
Nomic: Law-governed (F=ma necessitates acceleration)
Dispositionalist: Intrinsic powers (masses have attractive disposition)

These are competing philosophical accounts of causation.

5.3 The Problem of Explanatory Circularity

Physicist: "Why do objects fall? Because of gravity."

Response: What is gravity?

Physicist: "The attractive force between masses."

Response: Why is there an attractive force?

Physicist: "Because of the gravitational field / spacetime curvature."

Response: Why does spacetime curve?

Physicist: "Because of the Einstein field equations."

Response: Why do those equations hold?

Physicist: "That's just how the universe is. Stop asking 'why' questions."

The evasion: Declare foundational "why" questions to be illegitimate, while continuing to use causal language ("causes," "because," "gives rise to") that implicitly invokes the very explanatory framework you refuse to examine.

6. Hidden Philosophy #5: The Status of Constants

6.1 What Physicists Say

"c is the speed of light—a fundamental constant of nature."

"h is the quantum of action."

"G measures the strength of gravity."

"These are discovered properties of the universe."

6.2 The Philosophical Commitment

These statements assume:

Constants refer to intrinsic properties of reality
They are discovered not constructed
They represent something fundamental about nature
Their values are contingent facts requiring explanation

6.3 The Contradiction With Practice

In 2019, the SI system redefined:

h = 6.62607015 × 10⁻³⁴ J·s (exact, by definition)
c = 299,792,458 m/s (exact, by definition)

You cannot both:

Claim these are discovered properties of the universe
Define them by committee vote

The practice reveals the truth: These are coordinate transformation coefficients between unit charts. They can be defined because they encode measurement geometry, not physical properties.

6.4 The Evasion

Physicist: "We defined them for practical reasons—reproducibility and quantum standards."

Response: If they're fundamental properties of nature, how can you "define" them? Either they're discovered (must be measured) or defined (arbitrary choices).

Physicist: "You're overthinking this. They're still the same physical quantities."

Response: What does "same physical quantity" mean when you've fixed their value by definition rather than measurement? This requires a philosophical account of what physical quantities are.

Physicist: "That's philosophy. We're doing metrology."

The evasion: Make philosophical commitments (realism about constants), act in ways that contradict those commitments (defining rather than measuring), then refuse to examine the contradiction by declaring the question "merely philosophical."

7. Hidden Philosophy #6: Theory Choice and Justification

7.1 What Physicists Say

"This theory is correct because experiments confirm it."

"We choose the simplest explanation that fits the data."

"Occam's Razor guides theory selection."

7.2 The Philosophical Content

Unexamined assumptions:

Why does empirical confirmation justify belief? (Problem of induction)
What makes one explanation "simpler"? (Aesthetic judgment, not empirical fact)
Why prefer simple explanations? (Methodological assumption, not empirical discovery)
What counts as "fitting the data"? (Theory-ladenness of observation)
How do we know our theory is true vs. empirically adequate? (Scientific realism vs. instrumentalism)

7.3 The Problem of Underdetermination

Fact: For any finite set of observations, infinitely many theories can account for them.

Question: How do you choose between empirically equivalent theories?

Answer requires philosophical commitments about:

Simplicity (why prefer it?)
Explanatory power (what counts as explanation?)
Theoretical virtues (beauty, elegance—subjective criteria)
Metaphysical assumptions (what kinds of entities are allowed?)

7.4 The Evasion

Physicist: "We test theories. The one that works is correct."

Response: "Works" means makes accurate predictions. But Copenhagen interpretation and Many-Worlds both "work." How do you choose?

Physicist: "Whichever is simpler / more elegant / doesn't multiply entities."

Response: Those are aesthetic and philosophical criteria, not empirical ones.

Physicist: "Stop overthinking. Science progresses by testing, not philosophizing."

The evasion: Invoke philosophical criteria (simplicity, elegance) while insisting you're not doing philosophy, then declare anyone who examines these criteria to be obstructing scientific progress.

8. The Core Deception: "Facts" vs. "Interpretations"

8.1 The Strategy

Physics maintains its "no philosophy" stance through a rhetorical move:

Declare your philosophical commitments to be "facts" and competing views to be "mere interpretation."

Examples:

Statement	Status Claimed	Actual Status
"Particles exist"	Fact	Ontological commitment
"The wavefunction collapses"	Fact (Copenhagen)	Interpretive framework
"Reality is observer-independent"	Fact	Metaphysical assumption
"Laws govern nature"	Fact	Philosophy of science position
"Constants are fundamental"	Fact	Unexamined claim (contradicted by practice)
"Measurement reveals objective values"	Fact	Epistemological stance

8.2 The Immunization Strategy

By calling your assumptions "facts":

You don't have to defend them
You don't have to examine alternatives
You can dismiss critics as "unscientific"
You can avoid confronting contradictions

This is philosophy by declaration: Make philosophical claims, declare them non-philosophical, refuse to examine them.

9. The Consequences of Philosophical Denial

9.1 Conceptual Confusion

Physics cannot explain:

Why c, h, G can be "set to 1" but α, π cannot
What "fundamental" means (ontologically basic? most useful? both?)
Whether constants are discovered or defined
What distinguishes law from regularity
Whether quantum mechanics describes reality or knowledge

Why? Because answering requires philosophy—and physics has declared philosophy illegitimate.

9.2 Pedagogical Failure

Students are told:

"These are the laws of nature" (What does that mean?)
"Constants are fundamental" (In what sense?)
"Set c=h=G=1 for convenience" (Why is that valid?)
"Just calculate, don't ask why" (Shut up and calculate)

Students who ask foundational questions are told:

"That's philosophy, not physics"
"Stop overthinking"
"Those questions aren't productive"

Result: Generations of physicists who can calculate but cannot articulate what their calculations mean.

9.3 Inability to Communicate Across Disciplines

Mathematician: "Is spacetime a manifold or a category?"

Physicist: "Stop with the abstract nonsense. It's just 4D spacetime."

Philosopher: "Do quantum mechanical properties exist before measurement?"

Physicist: "We measure them. That's all that matters."

Engineer: "Is this model reality or a useful fiction?"

Physicist: "It predicts experiments. What more do you want?"

Each response refuses to engage with the question by declaring it outside physics' scope—while the original question was about physics' commitments.

10. Case Study: The Constant Controversy

10.1 The Scenario

Physicist A: "We set c=h=G=1 for convenience in natural units."

Student: "Can we also set α=1?"

Physicist A: "No, that's different. α is real physics."

Student: "What's the difference?"

Physicist A: "That's... uh... c, h, G are... well, they're just unit choices. α is fundamental."

Student: "But you just said h is fundamental."

Physicist A: "It is! But we can still set it to 1."

Student: "I'm confused."

Physicist A: "Stop overthinking. Just memorize which ones you can set to 1."

10.2 The Problem

Without philosophy, the physicist cannot explain:

What property distinguishes c, h, G from α, π
What "setting to 1" actually means (coordinate choice? approximation? definitional?)
Why dimensional constants behave differently from dimensionless ones
What "fundamental" means when applied to both classes

10.3 The Philosophical Solution

With categorical framework:

c, h, G = Jacobian coefficients (cocycle data in fibration)
α, π = Geometric invariants (morphisms in base category)
"Setting to 1" = Choosing Planck coordinate chart
Distinction = Dimensional (chart-dependent) vs. dimensionless (chart-independent)

This requires:

Category theory (mathematics)
Ontology (what are constants?)
Philosophy of measurement (what is a unit chart?)
Epistemology (discovered vs. defined)

Physics rejected all of these as "mere philosophy"—then couldn't answer the student's question.

11. The Self-Refuting Claim

11.1 The Central Assertion

"There is no philosophy in physics. Physics deals only with facts."

11.2 The Self-Refutation

This claim is self-refuting because:

It is a philosophical claim (about the nature of physics, knowledge, and reality)
It assumes a philosophical position (empirical positivism)
It makes ontological commitments (facts exist independently of interpretation)
It takes an epistemological stance (observation yields objective knowledge)
It cannot be empirically tested (no experiment determines whether physics needs philosophy)

Therefore: The claim "physics doesn't do philosophy" is itself a philosophical position, requiring philosophical justification.

To assert it is to do philosophy while denying you're doing philosophy.

11.3 The Alternative

Honest position: "Physics operates with certain philosophical assumptions. We've chosen these assumptions because they're productive. They could be examined and defended—but that's outside most physicists' training and interest."

Current position: "We don't make philosophical assumptions. We just report facts. Anyone who claims otherwise is doing word games."

The first is intellectually honest. The second is self-deception.

12. Why Physics Expelled Philosophy

12.1 Historical Context

19th Century: Physics and philosophy were integrated. Maxwell, Boltzmann, Mach engaged deeply with epistemology and metaphysics.

Early 20th Century: Quantum mechanics and relativity raised profound philosophical questions. Vienna Circle, Einstein, Bohr had explicit philosophical debates.

Mid-20th Century: The "shut up and calculate" era. Philosophy declared unproductive. Focus on prediction over understanding.

Late 20th Century: Philosophy of physics becomes a separate field. Physicists increasingly dismiss it.

21st Century: "No philosophy in physics" is standard posture. Foundational questions marginalized.

12.2 The Practical Reason

Philosophy is hard. It requires:

Careful conceptual analysis
Examination of assumptions
Tolerance for ambiguity
Willingness to be wrong
No clear experimental resolution

Calculation is easier. It provides:

Clear procedures
Definite answers
Experimental tests
Sense of progress
Publishable results

Institutions reward calculation, not conceptualization.

12.3 The Psychological Reason

Philosophers seem annoying:

They question everything
They never reach consensus
They use jargon
They don't produce "results"
They make physics seem less certain

It's easier to dismiss them than to engage with uncomfortable questions about what your equations mean.

13. What Physics Claims Are "Just Facts"

Here is a partial catalog of philosophical positions that physics presents as "just facts":

13.1 Metaphysical Claims

Reality exists independently of observers
The universe has a mathematical structure
Physical laws govern phenomena
Some entities are "fundamental," others "emergent"
Spacetime is the arena in which physics occurs
Quantum fields are ontologically basic
The universe is deterministic / probabilistic / many-worlds

These are ontological commitments—not empirical discoveries.

13.2 Epistemological Claims

Measurement reveals objective properties
Experiment is the ultimate arbiter of truth
Observation can be theory-neutral
Mathematical prediction implies understanding
Simplicity indicates truth
Our theories describe reality as it is (realism)
Our theories are just useful tools (instrumentalism)

These are claims about knowledge—not empirical facts.

13.3 Methodological Claims

Reproducibility validates results
Peer review ensures quality
Mathematical formulation is required
Dimensional analysis reveals structure
Symmetry principles guide discovery
"Shut up and calculate" is productive

These are choices about practice—not discoveries about nature.

13.4 Claims About Constants

Constants are fundamental properties of nature
Constants can be "set to 1" for convenience
Some constants are more fundamental than others
Constants' values require explanation
Constants were discovered, not defined

These involve unexamined assumptions about measurement, reality, and mathematical representation.

14. The Defense: "But It Works!"

14.1 The Pragmatic Response

Physicist: "Who cares about philosophy? Our theories work. We predict experiments. We build technology. Philosophy is useless."

14.2 Why This Fails

"It works" is not an escape from philosophy. It raises questions:

What does "works" mean? (Accurate prediction? Technological application? True description?)
Why does mathematics work in physics? (Wigner's "unreasonable effectiveness")
Does "working" imply truth? (Problem of empirical adequacy vs. truth)
Could radically different theories also "work"? (Underdetermination)
What makes one working theory better than another? (Requires non-empirical criteria)

Even pragmatism is a philosophical position (about the relationship between theory and practice).

14.3 The Historical Record

Theories that "worked" but were wrong:

Ptolemaic astronomy (predicted planetary positions accurately for centuries)
Newtonian gravity (worked perfectly until it didn't—Mercury's perihelion)
Caloric theory of heat (successful predictions in thermodynamics)
Luminiferous ether (explained wave properties of light)

"It works" doesn't mean "it's true." Distinguishing these requires philosophy of science.

15. Conclusion: Physics Is Already Doing Philosophy—Badly

15.1 The Core Thesis

Physics makes philosophical claims while denying it does philosophy.

This is not:

"Physics should do more philosophy" (optional improvement)
"Physics would benefit from philosophy" (nice to have)

This is:

"Physics is already doing philosophy—it just refuses to examine what it's doing"

15.2 The Consequences

By refusing to acknowledge its philosophical commitments, physics:

Cannot explain its own distinctions (c vs. α, law vs. regularity, fundamental vs. emergent)
Cannot defend its methodological choices (why prefer simple theories?)
Cannot resolve interpretive debates (quantum foundations remain contested after 100 years)
Cannot communicate across disciplines (dismisses questions as "philosophical")
Fails pedagogically (students memorize rather than understand)
Makes contradictory claims (constants are discovered—no wait, defined)

15.3 The Path Forward

Not: "Physicists should become philosophers"

But: "Physicists should acknowledge their philosophical commitments and examine them honestly"

This means:

Recognizing that "fundamental constant" is a philosophical claim
Understanding that "natural units" involves coordinate geometry and ontology
Acknowledging that measurement theory has philosophical implications
Being honest about what "physical law" means
Distinguishing ontology from epistemology
Admitting that theory choice involves non-empirical criteria

15.4 The Alternative

Continue denying philosophy while doing it badly:

Call your assumptions "facts"
Dismiss critics as "unscientific"
Refuse to examine contradictions
Train students to calculate without understanding
Leave foundational questions to philosophers (whom you also dismiss)
Wonder why physics has conceptual confusion despite computational success

Or acknowledge that philosophy is unavoidable:

Examine your assumptions explicitly
Defend your commitments or revise them
Engage honestly with alternatives
Teach students to understand, not just calculate
Recognize that clarity about concepts enhances rather than impedes science
Accept that "shutting up and calculating" leaves important questions unasked

16. Final Provocation

To physicists who insist "there is no philosophy in physics":

You are making a philosophical claim.

About epistemology (what counts as knowledge).

About ontology (what exists).

About methodology (how science works).

About the relationship between mathematics and reality.

About the nature of measurement, law, causation, and explanation.

You are doing philosophy—you're just doing it implicitly, unexamined, and often incoherently.

The statement "physics is just facts" is not a fact. It is a philosophical position about the nature of scientific knowledge.

By refusing to examine it, you've immunized your assumptions against rational scrutiny.

That's not science. That's dogma.

References

Kuhn, T. (1962). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions
Van Fraassen, B. (1980). The Scientific Image
Cartwright, N. (1983). How the Laws of Physics Lie
Hacking, I. (1983). Representing and Intervening
Wigner, E. (1960). "The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics"
Weinberg, S. (1994). Dreams of a Final Theory (critiquing philosophy while doing it)
Maudlin, T. (2007). The Metaphysics Within Physics
Wallace, D. (2012). The Emergent Multiverse (philosophy of quantum mechanics)
Rogers, J. (2025). "The Categorical Distinction Between Jacobian Constants and Geometric Invariants"
Popper, K. (1959). The Logic of Scientific Discovery

Appendix: Common Responses and Their Philosophical Content

Physicist Says	Hidden Philosophy
"We just describe observations"	Empiricism + theory/observation distinction
"Math works, that's all that matters"	Pragmatism + instrumentalism
"Reality is what experiments show"	Operationalism + empirical reductionism
"Stop asking 'why', physics answers 'how'"	Humean causation + positivism
"Philosophy doesn't make predictions"	Verificationism (itself philosophical)
"That's just semantics"	Dismissal of conceptual analysis (methodological choice)
"The equations don't lie"	Mathematical realism + faith in formalism
"Natural units are just convenient"	Unexamined claim about coordinate geometry

Every response is a philosophical position.

"There is no philosophy in physics" is the least examined philosophical claim in physics.