The Unmooring of Science: How the Divorce of Physics and Philosophy Halted Foundational Progress

J. Rogers, SE Ohio

Abstract

The institutional separation of Physics and Philosophy in the 20th century was not an accident. It was a mutual abandonment of Natural Philosophy by two disciplines that each wanted freedom from its core requirement: that theory must both explain why and be grounded in empirical reality. Physics wanted to calculate without having to justify its axioms. Philosophy wanted to speculate without having to match physical reality. Both got what they wanted. Both became incapable of foundational science. The observable consequence is a century of complete failure to unify fundamental physics—proof that neither half-discipline can do what Natural Philosophy once required. Progress cannot resume until both abandon their comfortable separation and restore the unified discipline that demands theories both work and explain why with rigor. 

---

I. The Evidence: A Century of Foundational Failure

The fact is simple and undeniable: modern physics has completely failed to unify its fundamental theories for over 100 years.

The best minds, unlimited resources, sophisticated mathematics, powerful experiments—and we cannot merge gravity and quantum mechanics. We cannot explain what happens at the foundation of reality.

This failure is the evidence. When a century of effort produces no progress on a foundational question, the problem is not that nature is complicated. The problem is that the foundations are wrong.

The prolonged, complete stagnation proves that science is building on axioms that are fundamentally flawed. The failure itself is sufficient proof that something is conceptually broken at the base.

A building built on foundations of sand cannot stand.

II. What Was Lost: Natural Philosophy's Discipline

Before the split, there was one practice: Natural Philosophy.

It had one unbending requirement:

Theory must do both:

1. Explain why - Provide conceptual coherence, axiomatic clarity, logical necessity
2. Match reality - Maintain empirical grounding, mathematical precision, predictive power

You could not do one without the other. A theory that predicted but couldn't explain why was incomplete. A theory that explained why but didn't match observation was fantasy.

Both were mandatory. That was science.

This was hard. Brutally hard. It meant:

• You couldn't just calculate without understanding what you were calculating
• You couldn't just theorize without testing if reality agreed
• You had to justify your axioms AND make them work
• You had to be both rigorous and grounded

Natural Philosophy was the discipline that forced you to do both.

III. The Mutual Escape: Why Both Sides Wanted the Split

The 20th century separation was not forced on anyone. Both disciplines actively wanted it.

Each saw a chance to escape the part of Natural Philosophy that was hardest for them.

What Physics Wanted to Escape

Physics wanted freedom from having to explain what it was doing.

Physics wanted to stop:

• Justifying its axioms philosophically
• Explaining what its equations actually mean
• Answering "but why does this work?" questions
• Being questioned by people who didn't calculate
• Doing the hard work of asking "what IS a kilogram, really?"

The calculations worked. The predictions were accurate. Why should physicists have to philosophically justify every axiom when the math produced prefect results?  Our epicycles have predicted Mar's orbit for over 1400 years, why they work is of no consequence, it doesn't change where the planet is in the sky. 

Physics chose calculation without comprehension. It kept "does it work?" and abandoned "why does it work?"

This was easier. You could publish. You could make progress on instrumental questions. You could avoid the grinding philosophical work of examining your own foundations.

Physics wanted this escape. It wasn't imposed. It was chosen.

What Philosophy Wanted to Escape

Philosophy wanted freedom from having to make theories that actually worked.

Philosophy wanted to stop:

• Being constrained by empirical reality
• Doing the mathematical rigor required to engage physical structure
• Being told "your beautiful idea contradicts this measurement"
• Grinding through the actual details of successful physical theories
• Having to learn whether their conceptual frameworks matched what nature actually does

Ideas were interesting. Conceptual frameworks were elegant. Why should philosophers have to do the brutal work of mathematical physics when they could explore pure thought?

Philosophy chose speculation without constraint. It kept "interesting to think about" and abandoned "does reality actually work this way?"

This was easier. You could theorize freely. You could avoid being wrong. You could explore ideas without the grinding empirical work of testing them against physical structure.

Philosophy wanted this escape. It wasn't imposed. It was chosen.

The Bargain

Both sides got what they wanted:

Physics: "We'll do the math and experiments. Don't ask us what it means. That's philosophy, and we don't do philosophy."

Philosophy: "We'll ask what it means. Don't hold us to empirical reality. That's physics, and we don't do physics."

Both agreed: Natural Philosophy was too hard. Let's split the work and each do the easier half.

The result: Two incomplete disciplines, each incapable of doing actual foundational science.

IV. Physics Without "Why": The Cost of Escape

When physics abandoned the requirement to explain why, it gained instrumental power but lost the ability to examine its own foundations. It went so far as to frame people trying to work in the foundations of physics inside the field as cranks or numerologists. 

Axiomatic Blindness

Physics can calculate but cannot question its axioms.

The specific blindness:

Physics treats dimensional constants (c, ℏ, G, etc.) as fundamental, mysterious properties of nature that must be unified.

But these constants only exist because we chose to fragment measurements into separate units (meters, kilograms, seconds, radians). They are conversion factors between arbitrary unit choices—artifacts of our descriptive system, not properties of reality.

The proof: In 2019, the international system of units literally fixed these values by definition. Yet physics still treats them as empirical discoveries about nature in undergraduate classes.

This is a logical contradiction. These constants are simultaneously:

• Fundamental properties to be discovered (scientific stance)
• Fixed values defined by decree (metrological reality)
• Can also just be set to one and tossed out of the theory. (Don't worry, it is just "for convenience", we will "put them back later" to do the "real math", i.e, the math in the human custom we call SI unit chart.)

Why Physics Cannot See This

To see this contradiction requires asking: "What do our units actually mean? What are we really measuring?  How can I set something that is a composite unit like J to 1?"

But physics dismissed those questions as "just philosophy"—meaningless, not real physics.

Physics wanted to escape having to answer "why" questions. Now it cannot ask them even when necessary.

The field that should be questioning what a kilogram actually represents has declared the question off-limits. This was the trade-off physics chose: freedom from philosophical scrutiny in exchange for blindness to its own conceptual structure.

The Consequence for Unification

Physics is trying to unify theories separated by dimensional parameters. But those parameters are just boundaries created by our choice of measurement units.

Physics is trying to unify the arbitrary scaling choices of its own measurement system.

It cannot see this because seeing it requires asking what the dimensional parameters actually are—and that's a "why" question that physics traded away the ability to answer.

The century of failure to unify is the direct cost of physics choosing calculation without comprehension.

V. Philosophy Without Reality: The Cost of Escape

When philosophy abandoned the requirement to match empirical reality, it gained speculative freedom but lost the ability to ground its insights.

Empirical Drift

Philosophy can question but cannot touch the ground.

The specific drift:

Philosophy retains the tools for axiomatic analysis. It can ask "what does it mean to measure?" and "what is the logical structure of physical law?"

These are exactly the questions physics needs answered to escape its blindness.

But modern philosophy conducts these inquiries without engaging the actual mathematical structure of successful physical theories. Debates about time, causality, and existence proceed without reference to what the equations that successfully describe reality actually say.

Philosophy traded away the obligation to match reality. Now it cannot ground even its best insights.

Why Philosophy Cannot Intervene

To ground these questions requires engaging the mathematical structure of physical law. It requires learning what the theories actually say, in their own language, with full technical rigor.

But philosophy dismissed that as "just physics"—technical detail, not conceptual work.

Philosophy wanted to escape empirical constraint. Now it cannot make its insights count even when they're correct.

The Vicious Cycle

When philosophy tries to address foundational questions in physics:

Physics dismisses it: "You don't understand the math. This is useless speculation."

Philosophy cannot respond because it did trade away mathematical rigor. It chose speculative freedom over empirical grounding.

Physics uses this as proof that philosophy is irrelevant—unmoored from reality, disconnected from real science.

And physics is right. Philosophy is unmoored. Because it chose to be.

The century of irrelevance is the direct cost of philosophy choosing speculation without constraint.

VI. The Mutual Trap: How the Bargain Guarantees Failure

The separation creates a trap that neither discipline can escape alone:

Physics cannot ask foundational questions because that's "just philosophy"—and philosophy is unmoored speculation.

Philosophy cannot ground foundational questions because that requires mathematical engagement—and physics won't accept critique that lacks technical rigor.

Why Neither Can Fix This

Physics cannot fix it alone because the problem requires questioning axioms, and physics traded away that ability. To ask "what do our dimensional parameters actually mean?" requires the philosophical tools physics deliberately abandoned.

Philosophy cannot fix it alone because the problem requires engaging actual physical structure, and philosophy traded away that ability. To ground the answer requires the mathematical rigor philosophy deliberately abandoned.

The Question That Falls Through the Gap

The one question that must be asked to escape the crisis:

"What is the actual physical dimensionless structure beneath our arbitrary measurement conventions?"

This requires both:

• Philosophical clarity about what we're actually describing (why)
• Mathematical engagement with physical structure (reality)

Neither half-discipline can ask this question properly. Physics won't ask it (that's philosophy). Philosophy can't ground it (that's physics).

The institutional architecture guarantees the failure continues.

Both disciplines are comfortable. Both got what they wanted. Neither has to do the hard part of Natural Philosophy anymore.

And the price is a century of complete stagnation on the deepest questions of existence.

VII. Why the Failure Proves Both Are Guilty

A century is not "still working on it." A century is definitive failure.

If either discipline were still doing real natural science, progress would have happened.  We would know exactly what the constants are conceptually and how they actually work in the math.

The mathematics is sophisticated enough, category theory can explain this easily. The experiments are precise enough. The minds are brilliant enough. The resources are unlimited.

The persistent, complete failure proves both disciplines abandoned what natural science requires.

The Proof Against Physics

Physics has all the empirical data and mathematical tools. Yet it cannot unify.

This is not because nature is hard. This is because physics cannot see its own conceptual structure. It traded away the ability to question its axioms, and now it's trapped trying to solve a problem it cannot even properly formulate.  

Physics is guilty of abandoning "why."

The Proof Against Philosophy

Philosophy has all the conceptual tools for axiomatic analysis. Yet it cannot intervene.

This is not because physics won't listen. This is because philosophy cannot ground its insights in physical structure. It traded away empirical rigor, and now its best insights are dismissed as unmoored speculation.

Philosophy is guilty of abandoning "reality."

The Mutual Guilt

Both chose comfort over discipline. Both got what they wanted. Both are now incapable of foundational science.

The failure is not physics's failure or philosophy's failure.

The failure is the predictable consequence of both abandoning Natural Philosophy.

VIII. The Path Forward: Restoring the Discipline

Progress cannot resume until both disciplines abandon their comfortable separation.

We must restore Natural Philosophy: the unified discipline that forces theory to satisfy both requirements:

1. Explain why - Axiomatic coherence, conceptual clarity, logical necessity
2. Match reality - Empirical grounding, mathematical precision, predictive power

Both. Not one or the other. Both.

What This Requires

Physics must:

• Engage with foundational questions about what equations actually mean
• Accept that "what does a kilogram mean?" is a legitimate scientific question
• Stop dismissing axiomatic analysis as "just philosophy"
• Do the hard work of understanding, not just calculating

Philosophy must:

• Engage with the mathematical structure of physical law
• Accept that ideas must be constrained by empirical reality
• Stop avoiding technical rigor as "just physics"
• Do the hard work of grounding insights in actual physical structure

Both must:

• Recognize that Natural Philosophy was not split because it was wrong—it was split because it was hard
• Accept that neither half-discipline can do foundational science alone
• Abandon the comfortable bargain that lets each avoid the hardest part
• Restore the discipline that demands both rigor and reason

The Specific Recognition Required

We must see that:

• Dimensional parameters are descriptive artifacts, not ontological laws
• The failure to unify proves we're trying to solve a problem created by our own measurement conventions
• The dimensionless structure beneath measurement choices is the actual ground of physical law
• Progress requires seeing this ground—which requires both calculation and comprehension

This cannot happen in the current separated structure.

Physics will not ask the necessary questions. Philosophy cannot ground them. Only Natural Philosophy—requiring both—can do foundational science.

IX. Conclusion: The Price of Comfort

The current crisis in foundational physics is not a mystery. It is the observable consequence of both disciplines choosing comfort over discipline.

Physics chose: Calculation without having to explain why. 

Philosophy chose: Speculation without having to match reality.

Both got what they wanted. Both became incapable of foundational science.

The century of failure to unify fundamental physics is proof that this mutual bargain was an error.

Natural Philosophy required both "why" and "reality." The separation destroyed this requirement. Neither half can do science at the foundational level alone.

The failure is not evidence that nature is difficult.

The failure is evidence that both disciplines abandoned the discipline required to understand it.

Progress will resume when both stop treating the failure as an insurmountable mystery and recognize it as proof of their mutual error.

Science requires both rigor and reason, both calculation and comprehension, both empirical grounding and axiomatic clarity. When we separated these into different disciplines—when both chose the easier path—we destroyed the ability to do foundational science.

The restoration of Natural Philosophy is not an academic preference.

It is the necessary condition for foundational progress to resume.

And it requires both physics and philosophy to abandon the comfortable separation they both actively chose.