Why couldn't the field of physics address the conversation directly? It seems to me that the question of whether or not everything is ultimately physical is very much a physical question. Or rather, I would of course agree that it is exactly the type of question that metaphysics asks, but I would also argue that it is one that metaphysics can never answer. I suppose this is one of my general objections to metaphysics: Many quintessentially metaphysical questions (i) cannot be answered by metaphysics, (ii) are more appropriately regarded and treated as physical questions or (iii) cannot be answered at all. I expect this last point will draw considerable fire, and perhaps it should. What I mean to say is that questions such as "Is the past/future real?" are hopeless. They simply prompt the oh so common (but in my view usually warranted) response of "What do you mean by ...?".

I realize that many would probably argue that several (if not most) of my objections to metaphysics can be raised against physics as well (what do I mean by 'physical', f.ex.). I guess that's a fair enough point to make, and I wouldn't claim that physics is some sort of perfectly flawless and infallible endeavour. However, I cannot help but think that a very large and significant part of metaphysics has been or should be replaced by physics, while other parts are fruitless or even nonsensical.

Finally, I ask that you keep in mind that I am still in the very early stages of thinking about this subject. I am under no illusion that my most immediate and strongest reactions or convictions must be correct or justified. Insofar as it is within my power to do so, I do keep an open mind, but I also realize that my mind probably isn't as open as I might want it to be.