Four very different ways of finding things out (logic, metaphysics, mathematics, and physics) start from different places. When all four land on the same answer about what any real world must contain, that convergence is itself evidence (abductive, not demonstrative) that they are describing one subject matter. The four are not equally independent of the argument, and the case is stronger for saying so plainly: logic supplies the necessity; physics is the method-independent empirical witness, independent of the argument, though by the account of [§8.3](<8.3 Knowledge.md>) (Theorem 9) it is the socially pooled form of the same first-person registration of change the modal proof itself runs on, not a witness of a wholly different kind; and metaphysics and mathematics show that the same result is robust when read through vocabularies built for other purposes.

The four methods are not equally constrained. Logic studies what cannot fail to obtain. Metaphysics studies what is. Mathematics studies what abstract structures permit. Physics studies what the world contains. Their domains overlap at the edges and diverge in the middle.

The claim here is not that they say the same thing about every question. They do not. The claim is narrower: on the question of what conditions any concrete reality structurally requires, they converge on the same answer.

*Logic.* Chapters 1–2 establish the modal result through a fixed global domain of real possibility, the Cartesian witness of change, and the Structural Requirement. The conditions of genuine change are argued as necessary at the resolution the individual Condition arguments establish. The proof does not derive particular temporal metrics, spatial geometries, material substrates, physical constants, or empirical laws. What logic delivers is a structural necessity claim about concrete change-realizing Reality; the specific realizations remain open to inquiry. The necessity does not restrict what could exist from outside; it is what these structural roles *consist in*. There is no possible reality in which before and after fail to be before and after: a configuration in which they coincide would not be Time under different rules but the absence of temporal structure entirely. The same holds for here and there: a structure in which distinct locations are not distinct has no spatial structure at all. And for this and that: a substance in which distinct somethings fail to be distinct is no substance at all. The impossibility is not a powerful prohibition; it is identity.

*Metaphysics.* Chapters 2 and 3 trace the same necessity claim through the metaphysical literature. Each role (Time, Space, Substance) has been the subject of millennia of dispute, and each dispute, when read against the modal result, sorts into positions that preserve the role under different aspects ([§7.2](<7.2 Time.md>)–7.4). The metaphysical literature is not univocal; what is univocal is the underlying constraint. Tensed and tenseless theories of time disagree about what Time is, but agree that Time is. Substantivalism and relationalism disagree about what Space is, but agree that Space is. Substance metaphysics in its various forms (hylomorphic, monadological, process, relational) disagrees about what Substance is, but agrees that Substance is. The disagreement is over composition; the agreement is over instantiation. The methods of metaphysics, which proceed from conceptual analysis, definition, and dialectic, deliver the same structural conclusion as the modal argument. Because this is the same necessity claim read through the disputes rather than an independent arrival at it, metaphysics functions here as a robustness check (the result survives translation into a vocabulary built for other purposes) rather than as a second, fully independent witness.

*Mathematics.* Linear orders, metric spaces, fields, manifolds, group actions, and dynamical systems provide useful formal realizations and models for the roles the chapter discusses. The mapping must remain qualified: a linear order is not by itself temporal succession, a metric space is not by itself physical spatial extension, and an abstract field is not by itself a causal persistence medium. Mathematics shows that relevant formal patterns are independently studied and available for physical realization; it does not derive the full Conditions from abstract structure alone.

These structures were developed independently of the philosophical argument, in pursuit of internal mathematical questions; that they are also the structures the roles call for is real but limited evidence: the structures were matched to the roles, so mathematics shows the roles are realizable in independently studied structures rather than supplying a wholly independent confirmation. These descriptions also hold at the scales physics probes; whether extension is continuous or, at the Planck scale, discrete ([§7.6.2](<7.6.2 What is Required.md>)) is left open, and the structural claim is neutral between them.

*Physics.* Its empirical methods — measurement, prediction, and model-fitting — deliver results independent of the philosophical argument, but their relevance must be stated cautiously. Thermodynamics describes robust physical asymmetries; general relativity represents spacetime with metric structure; and conservation laws relate specified symmetries to specified currents within applicable theories. The specific quantities that are conserved in this universe (energy-momentum in appropriate settings, electric charge, and others) depend on its symmetries and on the regime under description; baryon and lepton number are expected to be violated in some beyond-Standard-Model processes (Sakharov, A. D., 1967); (Weinberg, Steven, 1979). Physics thereby shows that the actual world has rich temporal, spatial, and physical structure. It does not demonstrate that time has a metaphysically fundamental direction, that every possible world must instantiate a metric, or that some universal conservation law holds across every formulation.

The two contributions must remain distinct. The modal derivation is the book's argument for necessary structural roles. Physics describes the actual world's realizations, maps their physical invariants, and supplies contingent details about how they are realized; it does not establish their modal status. To violate the roles is not to imagine a different set of laws; it is to imagine something that is not what it is. A world in which nothing whatever persisted across change would not be a world running different laws: it would be a world without Substance, a sequence with nothing to be of. That some form of conservation is required is not an extra rule laid over the world; it is what a persistence medium consists in. Which quantities carry conservation in this universe (which symmetries hold, and so what is conserved) is what physics confirms from within actuality; that some persistence is necessary is what the modal argument establishes. The modal constraint is not imposed on the structure from outside; it is the structure's identity. Logic reaches this conclusion by elimination: it rules out what cannot obtain and reads the necessary structure off what remains. Physics reaches the same structural roles by confirmation: it maps what does obtain and identifies their invariants. The direction of approach differs; the structure is the same, while the physical realization remains open.

That the relata are not classical objects does not loosen the identity claim; it tightens it. A quantum system *is* its structure (a state space, an algebra of observables, a symmetry group and the unitary evolution they fix) and to assert a violation of that structure is to assert something that both *is* and *is not* a system of that kind. Quantum mechanics is thus not the hard case for the identity reading but its clearest: physics already written as structure, with no little bits in space left to carry the modality. The identity at issue is structural essence (what a system *is*), not the numerical individuality that permutation invariance unsettles; only the former does the modal work, and the claim waits on no interpretation, since whatever the structure of the state proves to be, its violation is the violation of an identity. What this secures is the *form*: that any physical reality has a structure whose negation is incoherent. Which structure actually governs (this Hamiltonian, these couplings) is the work confirmation does from within actuality, the other direction of the single approach.

*An older convergence.* The four-method convergence above is the present case for Nature. A separate convergence, of a different type, runs through the history of structural metaphysics. Philosophers building structural-metaphysical systems on their own terms (without shared authority, vocabulary, or premises) have repeatedly converged on a kindred structural picture: one medium with no outside, configurations within it, finite modes sustaining themselves by participating in what the medium does. Heraclitus articulated the *Logos* (Greek for word, account, ratio, or rational principle; for Heraclitus, the immanent rational ordering that runs through ceaseless change) as the patterning principle that holds change in place (DK 22 B1, B30, B50) (Kahn, Charles H., 1979); the later Stoics extended it into ethics and cosmology (Long, A. A., and D. N. Sedley, 1987). Lucretius derived a complete naturalism from atoms in void in *De Rerum Natura* -(Lucretius, (c. 50 BCE) 1992), with no maker outside the medium. Spinoza reached it most explicitly: *Deus sive Natura* (Latin for God, or Nature: the identification of the single substance with the natural order), one substance, finite modes as its configurations, *conatus* (a finite mode's striving to persevere in its own being) as what each mode does inside it -(Spinoza, B., (1677) 1996). Hegel rebuilt it as the self-articulation of *Geist* (German for spirit or mind; for Hegel, the rational structure that comes to know itself through history) through dialectical unfolding -(Hegel, G. W. F., (1807) 1977). Whitehead rebuilt it again as actual occasions composing the consequent nature of God -(Whitehead, A. N., 1929).

The systems differ substantively in what they take the medium to be doing internally; what they share, working on their own terms across twenty-five centuries with no shared authority, is a kindred structural picture. They are not predecessors of this argument's premises, and the resemblance is suggestive rather than probative: their systems differ too much to count as independent confirmations, but their recurrence shows the structural picture is one reflective inquiry keeps finding its way back to.

The convergence is suggestive rather than demonstrative. The methods are not equally independent, and the physical and mathematical mappings involve interpretive choices. Still, their partial alignment supplies abductive support for treating the structural roles as a useful framework for coordinating modal analysis, metaphysical disputes, formal structures, and empirical descriptions. It does not turn that framework into a result established by physics or mathematics alone.


---

← [7. Nature Alone](<7. Nature Alone.md>) | [7.2 Time](<7.2 Time.md>) →
