I guess my overarching question is how fundamental forces of the universe fit into the Buddhist metaphysical picture. — Weynon5x

Sir, @Wayfarer might have an answer to this question. I know that Buddhist metaphysics is some pretty deep and nuanced stuff.

If you do a search for "On Buddhism" on this website you'll find a thread where you might find this question touched on.

For starters gravity isn’t a force. The rest is an area of mysticism.

I believe buddhism isn’t really concerned with material/physical items?

Since materialness leads to 'delusions' of selfhood and therefore suffering I feel that Buddhists are concerned with physical things in that they don't want you to be disillusioned by them. Also, even if physical things don't actually exist they would still have a metaphysics based around such illusions of phenomena.

Every physical phenomena is impermanent under Buddhism; this is what makes material things conditioned. I have considered gravity to be a physical phenomena yet it appears to be permanent in that it is never altered (much like strong and weak nuclear forces perhaps). If I'm making sense, does this mean that gravity is a non-physical, non-mental phenomena? Or is it impermanent in some way that I'm not seeing?

I think your use of terms is a little muddled. There is no such thing as ‘non-mental phenomenon’.

I leave it to someone else because I don’t think I should offer anything else until I understand what you wish to talk about better.

Since gravity and other fundamental forces in the universe do not undergo change — Weynon5x

They do though. At one time they were magical voodoo powers that push and pull things. Later they became explained through "exchange particles". Later we may abandon the whole notion of forces and explain physical phenomena some other way.

Buddhism doesn't start from a materialistic metaphysics. It doesn't recognize objects and subjects. It states that all CONCEPTS (not just physical things) undergo change and thus no matter how much conceptualizing and explaining you do you will never arrive at the "truth of things" so you might as well just give up. And paradoxically by giving up you arrive at "the truth of things" (as far as I understand it, waiting for Mr expert (wayfarer) to chip in). This doesn't make it idealistic either, it makes it "null". Buddhism is about NOT trying to forcefully explain the world. (as far as I understand it, waiting for Mr expert (wayfarer) to chip in).

"Giving up" is usually misunderstood as "getting rid of attachments" but stating it this simply doesn't do it justice it's more like "getting rid of attachments while being wary that the effort of getting rid of attachments isn't just another attachment". My favorite story showcasing this is (I don't remember the exact words poem but): A centipede is walking on its way and is then asked which leg goes before which, so it gets stuck flailing around wondering how to run. Something more relatable is "being worried that you're worried" (before an exam for example). Instead what Nirvana is is the state the centipede was in before it started conceptualizing and trying to explain how it walks, a sort of "effortless understanding" (a concept common to Daoism, Buddhism and Zen)

If I were to explain Buddhism in one phrase it would be: "shut up"

Unlike the Ancient Greeks, Buddhists were not especially interested in the forces of nature. The Greeks were much more concerned with naturalism generally, which is why, some might argue, the modern natural sciences took root and flourished in Western culture.

That’s not to say that Buddhist cultures were indifferent to cosmology and science, but they tended to adapt Hindu cosmology which while really quite astonishingly sophisticated in some respects was also clearly mythological in others. Buddhist philosophers do consider the notion that space is an ‘unconditioned dharma’ (although I don’t think they had discovered gravity.)

But the Buddha’s overall concern is always with ‘the cause of suffering and the ending of suffering’. To that end, I think the emphasis on the transience of all worldly phenomena is a recurring theme in many ancient philosophies. The point about Buddhism however was the unique discovery of the ‘chain of conditioned origination’ and how to seek release from it. There’s nothing quite like that in Western culture ancient or moder nor indeed any other culture.

Nowadays of course there are many communications channels between Buddhism and science. There’s a book called The Quantum and the Lotus, by. Matthieu Ricard et al, and even a philosophy of science book by the Dalai Lama called Universe in a Single Atom. In that book, you will find the well-known quote by him saying something like ‘should modern science show that some fundamental Buddhist belief is false then we should abandon it’. And Buddhists do recognise that some elements of their traditional cosmology, such as Mt Meru being in the middle of the world, have no justification in empirical science.

In that book, you will find the well-known quote by him saying something like ‘should modern science show that some fundamental Buddhist belief is false then we should abandon it’. — Wayfarer

I think he’s says it in absolute confidence that they never will.

Well, Buddhists like everyone else have to adapt to the modern world. But I think he's right in saying that the basic truths of Buddhism, which are the Four Noble Truths, are out of scope for empirical science no matter how sophisticated.

Buddhist philosophers do consider the notion that space is an ‘unconditioned dharma’ — Wayfarer

Doesn't space consist of a web of particles (though these particles are far apart and have very little mass). This would mean that space as we know it is also constantly changing (also seen in the overall expansion of the universe) and would thus be conditioned. I think I would agree that the actual empty areas between those particles in space would appear to be unconditioned and that's probably what you are talking about. I am still curious as to what other non-phenomena(?) could be considered as unconditioned.

Buddhism is about NOT trying to forcefully explain the world — khaled

Even if they aren't trying to explain the world and they view conceptions as illusions that supervene over the reality of what make up aggregates, I am still curious as to what the metaphysics of such illusions would look like. Additionally, you mentioned that gravity does undergo change. I guess my question is this:

Buddhists view our concepts as false because our concept of 'chair' is actually an aggregate of wood and metal. These are also aggregates that can be broken down further and further until we get to the subatomic area of business that consists of particles with mass (proton, neutron, quarks). There are also things like photons (and most likely gravitons) that do not have mass. Our concepts are wrong and illusions because the thing we are actually gesturing at (chair, water, bed) is an aggregate of smaller things and all these things are constantly undergoing change and will always one day become something that no longer resembles what we originally saw. However, our concept of gravity (if we were to get it right) is not something that changes because although gravitons move around, they are not telling an incorrect picture. If gravity is the interactions of gravitons then the picture of gravity is potentially not an illusion. Physical objects supervene on particles. Forces don't supervene on their particles? This is what makes me think that the hypothetical Buddhist who is concerned with metaphysics would consider gravity unconditioned.

There is no such thing as ‘non-mental phenomenon’ — I like sushi

Consider that all physical and mental phenomena are conditioned. Though messy, my asking if gravity was a non-physical, non-mental phenomenon was my asking if gravity is unconditioned by their definition. A non-phenomenon doesn't exist or it would be a phenomenon. Yet unconditioned things seem to fall into this category.

Doesn't space consist of a web of particles — Weynon5x

A Buddhist would reply "what is space" and "what are particles" and these are good questions. You have to keep in mind that space and particles aren't a "property of the world" they are part of a scientific theory that helps explain the world.

Even if they aren't trying to explain the world and they view conceptions as illusions that supervene over the reality of what make up aggregates, I am still curious as to what the metaphysics of such illusions would look like. — Weynon5x

"Metaphysics" is also a man made concept no? That's why Buddhism doesn't have a metaphysics (actually idk about all forms of Buddhism but I know Zen doesn't) not a morality. Both are man made concepts that Buddhism sees as blinding to the way things "truly are" unsullied by such concepts

These are also aggregates that can be broken down further and further until we get to the subatomic area of business that consists of particles with mass (proton, neutron, quarks — Weynon5x

That's not true though. We don't necessarily get down to protons neutrons and quarks. That's just the way we broke it down for now. There are countless scientific concepts that have been abandoned like "ether" for example, nothing says protons, neutrons and quarks are "correct" and won't be abandoned. That's what Buddhism means by "change", change of concepts

If gravity is the interactions of gravitons — Weynon5x

Only if though. Notice how the concept of "Graviton" is fairly recent. Had the internet been around before it you'd have been talking about "gravitational force" instead. "Force" vs "Exchange particle" is a pretty big change if you ask me.

I understand that a Buddhist would not be concerned with such things. I also accept that the theories we have of physical phenomena are simply that, theories. Yet, if we were to affirm a theory and fully understand the interactions of whatever creates gravity and things like gravity, then we would no longer be applying a false concept. I only use the concepts we have now because that is the language I have available.

In a possible world where we discover how gravity works, we would no longer have a false concept that supervenes on what is occurring. Instead we would have a true (albeit incredibly complex) concept of a phenomena; a concept that would not change. If this is possible, then wouldn't all fundamental things be necessarily unconditioned?

I believe this additionally would not work for non-fundamental things such as chairs and people because no clear concept of such a thing seems viable as they truly are man-made concepts. Ignoring our concepts of gravity, there really is something fundamental that exists, be that gravitons or whatever future theory comes down the line. Does this fundamental phenomenon exist beyond words (like paranirvana (and space according to Wayfarer)) and is thus unconditioned?

Yet, if we were to affirm a theory and fully understand the interactions of whatever creates gravity and things like gravity, then we would no longer be applying a false concept. — Weynon5x

Even assuming this is true how will we ever "affirm a theory". How can we guarantee the theory won't be proven wrong in the future? We can't. So whatever we do we will still be working with a false concept as you call it (though to Buddhism "false" is included in the definition of concept)

In a possible world where we discover how gravity works — Weynon5x

Such a world is impossible because we'll never know for sure we discovered how gravity works.

Perhaps I am confused by theories, but wasn't the idea of the shape of the earth once a scientific theory? What was once a scientific theory is no longer a theory.

to Buddhism "false" is included in the definition of concept — khaled

But Buddhists' have a concept of not-self and unconditioned existence. Would they deny the truth of these concepts or are these somehow not concepts?

Such a world is impossible because we'll never know for sure we discovered how gravity works. — khaled

Can you elaborate on this? Why can't there be a possible world where we can know that we understand gravity?

Perhaps I am confused by theories, but wasn't the idea of the shape of the earth once a scientific theory? What was once a scientific theory is no longer a theory. — Weynon5x

The shape of the earth is not a theory. If you could go to space and look you'd see it's round. A theory is the EXPLANATION as to why something is. Gravity is a theory because you can't see it directly, it is just an explanation as to why things move in orbits, why planets form, etc. It is no more than that: An explanation made by humans for humans' use. You can explain planets moving in orbits in a miryad of ways for example: "God moves them and he just feels like moving them in a circle right now" but that's not very useful is it so is not a very good theory. "The earth is round" is not a theory, it doesn't aim to explain anything

But Buddhists' have a concept of not-self and unconditioned existence — Weynon5x

That.... Is very loaded. Buddhist say that if you treat nirvana as a goal or concept similar to any other you will never reach it. Nirvana is more: The state of mind when one no longer confuses concepts for reality anymore. That's why there are famous sayings in Zen and Buddhism such as "Those who seek the Buddha lose him" stated 100 different ways. Nirvana is a concept and such those who attain it do not think of it as a "state" anymore. No one who has attained to Nirvana thinks to himself "Yay I finally got to Nirvana" because Nirvana is defined as no longer being actively attached to anything and "Yay I finally got to Nirvana" is just another form of attatchment (attatchment to reaching Nirvana). So while Buddhists do have a concept of Nirvana, those who have attained it lose the concept just like any other

Why can't there be a possible world where we can know that we understand gravity? — Weynon5x

What evidence do you have that gravity will not simply stop working 5 minutes from now?

Since gravity and other fundamental forces in the universe do not undergo change — Weynon5x

Not true: Time, space and gravity all undergo change and are in flux.
The only thing Eternal (unchanging) is consciousness (the soul). Buddhism believes this is the true eternal nature of the Self.

Forces produce change.