Editing Metaphysics (section)

== Relation to other disciplines ==
Metaphysics is related to many fields of inquiry by investigating their basic concepts and relation to the fundamental structure of reality. For example, the natural sciences rely on concepts such as [[Scientific law|law of nature]], causation, necessity, and spacetime to formulate their theories and predict or explain the outcomes of experiments.<ref>{{multiref | {{harvnb|Göhner|Schrenk|loc=Lead Section, § 1. What Is Metaphysics of Science?}} | {{harvnb|Mumford|Tugby|2013|pp=1–2}} | {{harvnb|Hawley|2018|pp=187–188}} }}</ref> While scientists primarily focus on applying these concepts to specific situations, metaphysics examines their general nature and how they depend on each other. For instance, physicists formulate laws of nature, like [[Newton's law of universal gravitation|laws of gravitation]] and [[Laws of thermodynamics|thermodynamics]], to describe how physical systems behave under various conditions. Metaphysicians, by contrast, examine what all laws of nature have in common, asking whether they merely describe contingent regularities or express necessary relations.<ref>{{multiref | {{harvnb|Göhner|Schrenk|loc=§ 3. Why Do We Need Metaphysics of Science?, § 4c. Laws of Nature}} | {{harvnb|Roberts|2016|pp=337–338}} }}</ref> New scientific discoveries have also influenced existing metaphysical theories and inspired new ones. Einstein's [[theory of relativity]], for instance, prompted various metaphysicians to conceive space and time as a unified dimension rather than as independent dimensions.<ref>{{harvnb|Healey|2016|pp=356–357}}</ref> Empirically focused metaphysicians often rely on scientific theories to ground their theories about the nature of reality in empirical observations.<ref>{{harvnb|Hawley|2018|pp=187–188}}</ref>

Similar issues arise in the [[social sciences]] where metaphysicians investigate their basic concepts and analyze their metaphysical implications. This includes questions like whether social facts emerge from non-social facts, whether social groups and institutions have mind-independent existence, and how they persist through time.<ref>{{harvnb|Hawley|2018|pp=188–189}}</ref> Metaphysical assumptions and topics in [[psychology]] and [[psychiatry]] include the questions about the relation between body and mind, whether the nature of the human mind is historically fixed, and what the metaphysical status of diseases is.<ref>{{multiref | {{harvnb|Dafermos|2021|pp=1–2, 6–7}} | {{harvnb|Hawley|2016|p=174}} }}</ref>

Metaphysics is similar to both [[physical cosmology]] and [[theology]] in its exploration of the first causes and the universe as a whole. Key differences are that metaphysics relies on rational inquiry while physical cosmology gives more weight to empirical observations and theology incorporates divine [[revelation]] and other faith-based doctrines.<ref>{{multiref | {{harvnb|Van Inwagen|2024|pp=6–8}} | {{harvnb|Loux|Crisp|2017|p=10}} }}</ref> Historically, cosmology and theology were considered subfields of metaphysics.<ref>{{multiref | {{harvnb|Dryer|2016|p=[https://books.google.com/books?id=S8weDAAAQBAJ&pg=PA490 490]}} | {{harvnb|Loux|Crisp|2017|p=10}} }}</ref>

{{cladogram
|title=Suggested Upper Merged Ontology
|caption=Fundamental categories in the [[Suggested Upper Merged Ontology]]<ref>{{harvnb|Heckmann|2006|p=[https://books.google.com/books?id=e5adLEi4gYgC&pg=PA42 42]}}</ref>
|cladogram={{clade
    |label1=Entity{{nbsp}}{{nbsp}}{{nbsp}}{{nbsp}}
    |1={{clade
        |label1={{nbsp}}{{nbsp}}Physical{{nbsp}}{{nbsp}}{{nbsp}}{{nbsp}}
        |1={{clade
            |label1={{nbsp}}{{nbsp}}Object
            |1={{nbsp}}
            |label2={{nbsp}}{{nbsp}}Process
            |2={{nbsp}}
            }}
        |label2={{nbsp}}{{nbsp}}Abstract{{nbsp}}{{nbsp}}{{nbsp}}{{nbsp}}
        |2={{clade
            |label1={{nbsp}}{{nbsp}}Quantity    
            |1={{nbsp}}
            |label2={{nbsp}}{{nbsp}}Proposition
            |2={{nbsp}}
            |label3={{nbsp}}{{nbsp}}Attribute
            |3={{nbsp}}
            |label4={{nbsp}}{{nbsp}}Relation
            |4={{nbsp}}
            |label5={{nbsp}}{{nbsp}}Set or Class
            |5={{nbsp}}
        }}
    }}
}}
}}

[[Computer science|Computer scientists]] rely on metaphysics in the form of ontology to represent and classify objects. They develop conceptual frameworks, called ''ontologies'', for limited domains,<ref name="auto2">{{multiref | {{harvnb|Grütter|Bauer-Messmer|2007|p=[https://books.google.com/books?id=-mv0098rs-oC&pg=PA350 350]}} | {{harvnb|Hawley|2016|pp=168–170}} }}</ref> such as a database with categories like ''person'', ''company'', ''address'', and ''name'' to represent information about clients and employees.<ref>{{harvnb|Kozierkiewicz|Pietranik|2019|p=[https://books.google.com/books?id=2uWPDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA24 24]}}</ref> Ontologies provide standards for encoding and storing information in a structured way, allowing computational processes to use the information for various purposes.<ref name="auto2"/> [[Upper ontology|Upper ontologies]], such as [[Suggested Upper Merged Ontology]] and [[Basic Formal Ontology]], define concepts at a more abstract level, making it possible to integrate information belonging to different domains.<ref>{{multiref | {{harvnb|Hameed|Preece|Sleeman|2013|pp=[https://books.google.com/books?id=uTwDCAAAQBAJ&pg=PA232 231–233]}} | {{harvnb|Stuart|2016|p=[https://books.google.com/books?id=awYUDgAAQBAJ&pg=PA14 14]}} }}</ref>

[[Logic]] as the study of [[Logical reasoning|correct reasoning]]<ref>{{multiref |1={{harvnb|MacFarlane|2017}} |2={{harvnb|Corkum|2015|pp=753–767}} |3={{harvnb|Blair|Johnson|2000|pp=93–95}} |4={{harvnb|Magnus|2005|loc=1.6 Formal Languages|pp=12–14}} }}</ref> is often used by metaphysicians to engage in their inquiry and express insights through precise [[logical formula]]s.<ref>{{harvnb|Ney|2014|pp=1–2, 18–20}}</ref> Another relation between the two fields concerns the metaphysical assumptions associated with [[logical system]]s. Many logical systems like [[first-order logic]] rely on [[existential quantifier]]s to express existential statements. For instance, in the logical formula <math>\exists x \text{Horse}(x)</math> the existential quantifier <math>\exists</math> is applied to the [[Predicate (logic)|predicate]] <math>\text{Horse}</math> to express that there are horses. Following Quine, various metaphysicians assume that existential quantifiers carry [[ontological commitment]]s, meaning that existential statements imply that the entities over which one quantifies are part of reality.<ref>{{multiref |1={{harvnb|Shapiro|Kouri Kissel|2022|loc=§2.1 Building Blocks}} |2={{harvnb|Cook|2009|p=[https://books.google.com/books?id=JfaqBgAAQBAJ&pg=PA111 111]}} |3={{harvnb|Kind|2018|p=[https://books.google.com/books?id=oDhjDwAAQBAJ&pg=PT236 236]}} |4={{harvnb|Casati|Fujikawa|loc=Lead Section, §1. Existence as a Second-Order Property and Its Relation to Quantification}} }}</ref>