Metaphysics of Physics
... can Isaac Newton's laws of motion or any of his postulates be considered synthetic a priori statements
Newton's Laws Synthetic A Priori
Isaac Newton's laws of motion themselves are not considered synthetic a priori statements in the philosophical sense as defined by Immanuel Kant. Newton's laws are empirical generalizations derived from observation and experimentation, forming the foundation of classical mechanics They describe how massive bodies behave under the influence of forces and are verified through countless experiments
While Kant did consider certain principles of Newtonian mechanics—specifically the structural laws of motion (such as the conservation of matter and the law of action and reaction)—to be synthetic a priori, this was not because the laws themselves were known independently of experience, but because Kant believed they were necessary conditions for the possibility of experience He argued that the mind imposes certain a priori structures, such as the concepts of space, time, and causality, which make scientific knowledge possible In his Metaphysical Foundations of Natural Science (1786), Kant attempted to provide a priori derivations of these mechanical laws, treating them as necessary frameworks for organizing sensory experience
However, this view is contested. Some scholars argue that Kant's reconstruction of mechanics in that work relies on empirical assumptions, such as the concept of matter, and that his "proofs" are more analytical than truly synthetic a priori Michael Friedman notes that Kant's analysis of Newton's laws is contingent and functional within the system of physics, not absolute truths independent of experience Furthermore, the inverse square law of gravity, which Newton derived empirically, was not considered a priori by Kant
Thus, while Kant regarded certain foundational aspects of Newtonian mechanics as synthetic a priori due to their necessary role in structuring experience, the laws themselves are not universally accepted as such, and modern interpretations view them as empirical laws that are highly successful but not a priori in the strict philosophical sense
... can an example of a scientific statement that is also an a priori statement be provided
A clear example of a scientific statement often considered synthetic a priori is the conservation of matter, as discussed by Kant in his Metaphysical Foundations of Natural Science. Kant argued that while the concept of "matter" does not logically contain "permanence" (making it synthetic), the principle that matter is neither created nor destroyed is known independently of experience and is necessary for the possibility of empirical science—thus a priori.
Similarly, Kant viewed Newton’s law of inertia (an object remains at rest or in uniform motion unless acted upon by a force) as synthetic a priori. It is not true by definition (not analytic), yet it is a necessary presupposition for measuring motion and applying mathematics to nature, rather than being derived from repeated observation alone.
... my takeaway from the provided definition is that while matter is a simple fact, the laws of motion involving bodies matter is synthetic because it adds to the properties of matter
Your takeaway is largely correct. According to Kant, the concept of matter (e.g., something extended in space) does not logically contain the principle of inertia or conservation of matter—these add new information (making them synthetic), yet they are known as necessary and universal principles prior to experience (making them a priori).
For example, the statement "matter persists through change" is not contained in the mere concept of matter, so it’s not analytic. But Kant argues we must presuppose such principles to make coherent experience and scientific measurement possible. Thus, laws like inertia or action-reaction are synthetic a priori—they expand our knowledge and are conditions for the possibility of physics itself.
... would the provided explanation serve as an introduction to the difference between metaphysics - as philosophy - and physics e.g. science
Yes, the explanation serves as a strong introduction to the distinction between metaphysics and physics. Kant uses synthetic a priori principles—like causality or inertia—not as empirical laws (physics), but as necessary preconditions for experience itself (metaphysics). Physics describes how nature behaves through observation; metaphysics, for Kant, investigates why we can know nature at all, by uncovering the a priori structures (space, time, categories) that make scientific knowledge possible.
...
Immanuel Kant's Metaphysical Foundations of Natural Science (German: Metaphysische Anfangsgründe der Naturwissenschaft), published in 1786, is a foundational work in his philosophy of science and represents his most mature reflections on natural science within the framework of his critical philosophy The book was written during a highly productive period in Kant's career, specifically in the summer of 1785, and was delayed until Easter 1786 due to a hand injury that prevented him from completing the final sections It was published by Johann Friedrich Hartknoch of Riga and ran to 158 pages in its original form A second edition followed in 1787, the same year as the second edition of the Critique of Pure Reason, indicating the close relationship between these two major works
The work is structured into a preface and four chapters, each corresponding to a key area of natural science: phoronomy (now known as kinematics), dynamics, mechanics, and phenomenology Kant's primary aim was to justify Newtonian science by demonstrating that the principles of natural science could be constructed a priori, not merely as general outlines but with significant detail He sought to establish a "pure part" of science—knowledge that is systematically ordered, based on rational principles, and known with apodictic certainty, meaning with consciousness of its necessity This "pure part" was intended to complement Newton's mathematical principles of natural philosophy by providing the metaphysical foundations required for a science to be considered truly systematic and necessary
Kant's approach in the Metaphysical Foundations is deeply connected to the transcendental theory of experience developed in the Critique of Pure Reason. Just as the Critique identified the necessary conceptual forms for all possible objects of experience, the Metaphysical Foundations specifies the physical constitution of these objects in greater detail, aligning with the four categories of quantity, quality, relation, and modality The work is notable for its attempt to account for the possibility of an acting-at-a-distance gravitational force, demonstrate the infinite divisibility of matter, and derive analogues to Newtonian laws of motion Kant also developed a dynamical definition of matter as "whatever is movable and fills a space," which presupposes a prior phoronomic definition of motion
The book was highly influential in the development of science departments in German-speaking universities during the nineteenth century It also influenced prominent thinkers such as Hans Christian Ørsted, who praised Kant's use of thought experiments in the work, and Kurt Gödel, who studied it while a member of the Vienna Circle Despite its significance, the Metaphysical Foundations has received relatively little scholarly attention compared to other works of Kant's critical period, though recent scholarship, including Michael Friedman's translation and commentary, has helped to clarify its complex argument and its central role in Kant's philosophical system
...
From the Preface: "For if it be permissible to indicate the boundaries of a science, not merely according to the construction of its object, and its specific kind of cognition, but also according to the aim that is kept in view as a further use of the science itself, and it is found that metaphysics has engaged so many heads, and will continue to engage them, not in order to extend natural knowledge (which could be done much more easily and certainly by observation, experiment, and the application of mathematics to external phenomena), but in order to attain to a knowledge of that which lies wholly beyond all the boundaries of experience, of God, Freedom, and Immortality; [in this case] one gains in the promotion of this object, if one liberates it from a shoot springing indeed from its own stem, but only detrimental to its regular growth, and plants this [shoot] apart, without thereby mistaking its origination, or ignoring its entire growth from the system of general metaphysics."