To me a few things are clear.
Physics exist inside the universe
Metaphysics exist outside of the universe, whether in the abstract places in our minds or in a literal "outside of the universe" where some divine construct might reside
Something in physics can be tested because it resides in the world and thus can be measured.
Something in metaphysics may not be able to be tested because it resides outside the world and likely can't be directly measured using physics.
I sort of diverge at that point. If you're dealing with the divine, then it seems like the trail stops there because you can't use tests inside a system to measure outside of that system at all. On the other hand, if you're dealing with the philosophical then you could over time make inferences about the success of certain philosophies based on the outcomes of the people or societies that follow those philosophies. On the other hand, pure success may not be a realistic measure of a philosophy. What if the most literally true philosophy inevitably leads to a tragic end? What if the best way to live is one that appears to be a total failure to the outside world?
Physics exist inside the universe
Metaphysics exist outside of the universe, whether in the abstract places in our minds or in a literal "outside of the universe" where some divine construct might reside
Something in physics can be tested because it resides in the world and thus can be measured.
Something in metaphysics may not be able to be tested because it resides outside the world and likely can't be directly measured using physics.
I sort of diverge at that point. If you're dealing with the divine, then it seems like the trail stops there because you can't use tests inside a system to measure outside of that system at all. On the other hand, if you're dealing with the philosophical then you could over time make inferences about the success of certain philosophies based on the outcomes of the people or societies that follow those philosophies. On the other hand, pure success may not be a realistic measure of a philosophy. What if the most literally true philosophy inevitably leads to a tragic end? What if the best way to live is one that appears to be a total failure to the outside world?
The problem is that the universe is by itself without any inherent value, meaning, or sense. There's no difference between any path you take written into the stars. All such determinations are derived from the metaphysics that are separate from the physics. Therefore, any measurement of "the best" is inherently coming from a certain metaphysical viewpoint.
You can measure the physical effects of utilizing a certain metaphysical property, but the meaning, value, and sense of those physical effects aren't part of the physical.
One good example is slavery. 2,000 years ago slavery was totally accepted and it wasn't considered morally wrong to have slaves. It could even be said that it was beneficial to have slaves since you could focus on things other than tilling the fields. The greeks wrote the philosophy they did because they had slaves to do the day to day work. The romans built the largest empire for 1000 years and today still have an imprint upon the world on the basis of slavery. However; Around 200 years ago the process began to end slavery worldwide, considering the practice barbaric. Whereas 2000 years ago having a lot of slaves would paint you as an important man, today it would paint you as an irredeemable monster. The physical is the same, but the metaphysical view of that reality shifted. Which is right? Which is wrong? Is there even an answer?
You can measure the physical effects of utilizing a certain metaphysical property, but the meaning, value, and sense of those physical effects aren't part of the physical.
One good example is slavery. 2,000 years ago slavery was totally accepted and it wasn't considered morally wrong to have slaves. It could even be said that it was beneficial to have slaves since you could focus on things other than tilling the fields. The greeks wrote the philosophy they did because they had slaves to do the day to day work. The romans built the largest empire for 1000 years and today still have an imprint upon the world on the basis of slavery. However; Around 200 years ago the process began to end slavery worldwide, considering the practice barbaric. Whereas 2000 years ago having a lot of slaves would paint you as an important man, today it would paint you as an irredeemable monster. The physical is the same, but the metaphysical view of that reality shifted. Which is right? Which is wrong? Is there even an answer?
Spent a long time looking. Nearly killed me, but at the end of the day the physical world is just a physical world. You need to rely on your inherent humanity to find any real answers to questions like that. Or at least I did.
It's the answer I came up with, but that's the whole point I'm trying to make, that it isn't like there's a right answer that you can put in a philosophy testing machine and get a green light or a red light.
Possibly. That's probably one reason why religion in general has such strong memetic value as a metaphysic: You take a bunch of answers that basically worked before and use those instead of trying to rebuild the world one brick at a time, because what's the point of rebuilding something that basically works if it's more or less interchangeable with anything else that basically works?