Will scientists ever find the connection between the physical and metaphysical?

If that happened, wouldn't it, by definition, be physical? The problem I have here is the same problem I have with asking if "science can study the supernatural"; neither "metaphysical" or "supernatural" seem have definitions that would allow metaphysical or supernatural things to actually have any effect in the real world, yet somehow be beyond the realm of science.It's all too easy to understand things like "magic" and "psychics" and other things as "supernatural", because we intuitively grasp that, when these constructs come up in fiction or mythology, they're like extentions to the "natural" laws from our world - say, for instance, Dungeons and Dragons has both Newtonian gravity and arcane spells. What people don't seem to pick up on is that, if these things were present in our world, they'd be part of our natural laws (just as they are held to be in the fictional conceit of D&D.) So they wouldn't be any more supernatural or metaphysical then any other technology.

Whatever anything physical is connected to is physical, by definition. The scope of "physical" includes all actors that interact with the things we already recognize as physical.In other words - I still don't understand what "point" you're talking about. I don't think so. If science progressed in that way, it would mean that science had discovered that information was physical.

If the metaphysical is physical, then why have two different words?I think that science is perfectly willing to conduct investigations into things that you might consider "spiritual" or "metaphysical", so long as they're well-defined. For instance, if the claim is made that one possesses a spiritual power that can move objects without touching them, that's a well-defined claim that can be easily tested.But to simply wonder about "the metaphysical" leaves scientists waiting for more information, for the question to actually be defined. To address the question in the OP - exactly what "metaphysical" are we talking about, here?

I've answered the only relevant question in your post, which is right at the end, where you ask why the metaphysical can't be the physical. And the answer is obvious, as I said: because if the metaphysical was the physical, we'd call it "physical" and not "metaphysical." It's like asking why blue can't be red. Because if it was, it wouldn't be blue!

All words we use to describe physical people doing physical things, so yeah, I'd say that to the extent that those things exist, they're in the physical world. 2 different words, but not two antonyms. "Mental" is not the opposite of "physical." So these aren't relevant examples. "Metaphysical" and "physical" are antonyms. The metaphysical can't be the physical because, to the extent that "metaphysical" has any sort of definition, that definition is "something different than the physical."

Antonyms? You don't know what an "antonym" is? Well I think I made it pretty clear that they're not; it's more the difference between "doctors" and "dentists" than it is the difference between "doctors" and "non-doctors."Things are "mental" because they occur in the mind, which occurs in the physical world. But things that are "metaphysical" are called that because they are held to be inherently non-physical.Thus, to ask where the physical meets the non-physical doesn't make any sense; inherent to their defintions, they can never meet. What could be both physical and non-physical at the same time? A /= ~A is the most obvious conclusion of logic.