Isn't metaphysics science of all mind/sense whereas physics is individual mind/sense?

A. The Atom works as thus - physics.

B. Time is, and is not - metaphysics.

If not, can you draw it like I did, A - physics and B - metaphysics?

The difference is as simple as considering I(what science I can conduct), and, considering We(what science we, not including I, can conduct).

This is what recently I concluded was metaphysics - it's prone to error.

You wouldn't be able to conceive time without this generality with others. Highlighting it may be a 'we' question.

Well, I would expect there to be issues with metaphysics. After all, if we had solid evidence that could explain it, it would be labeled physics instead right? Though the way you stated the A and B made sense; sufficient understanding of the subject appears to be a necessary condition for anything to be considered physics. For example, before microscopes were powerful enough to detect atoms, atoms were essentially metaphysics. After the existence of said particles were studied and confirmed, it became physics.

Possibly. But in the quantum world much of the physics is the math. For example, a virtual particle may simply be a mathematical entity, an yet amateur philosophers may refer to these things popping in and out of physical existence. — jgill

Yes. Quantum physics is mostly non-empirical, and mostly mathematical. But the interpretations of their equations are philosophical metaphors and analogies. My own interpretation of Virtual Particles is that they are "popping" into and out of space-time

The OP is pretty typical of a certain type of post; a physical theory without any maths. Physics has required maths since before Newton. It's a confusion of vaguely understood physical notions. — Banno

. When their properties are mathematical instead of physical, they are nothing more than Potential particles. But when the waveform collapses (another metaphor) virtual ghosts transform into Actual measurable material objects. The virtual state is what I call Enfernity (eternity & infinity as a single state of potential being). That may be "bad physics", but it's perfectly good philosophical metaphysics.

The OP is pretty typical of a certain type of post; a physical theory without any maths. Physics has required maths since before Newton. It's a confusion of vaguely understood physical notions. — Banno

If the OP was on a Physics forum, it would indeed be "bad physics". But it was posted on a Philosophical forum where speculation & conjecture beyond known physics is part of the job description. The OP is not a physical theory, but a metaphysical theory, where math is limited to Fuzzy Logic. So, let's see where the dialog goes. :cool:

Well, so long as it does not pretend to be physics, and hence to actually say something about how things are, perhaps that would do.

So we will treat it as on a par with:

He came as a Baker: but owned, when too late—
And it drove the poor Bellman half-mad—
He could only bake Bride-cake—for which, I may state,
No materials were to be had.

hence to actually say something about how things are — Banno

Is it OK to say something about how things might be? For example, in the spooky realms of physics like Dark Matter, "where no materials are to be had". :joke:

Only if you have the ingredients for bride cake.