Priest appreciate very much the professor, "The evolution of the cosmos and cosmology" - a book of my teenage years, certainly contributed to the fact that I went to astronomy.
"Philosophy of Nature" I did not like. I am a person who knows modern physics and know well the mathematical methods of physics - so well that I was able to derive all of its basic patterns associated with mechanics quantum theory of special relativity and electrodynamics or classical statistical thermodynamics, and relativistic electrodynamics, I was able to understand. Priest Heller wrote the book that the vast majority could be released in the late nineteenth century. And it's not only about the progress of physics, but also the progress in the history of science. It irritates me a few things: first
Bringing philosophy of nature to those of the philosophers of nature - often physicists are about to say more than philosophers, and say things smarter, though not as sophisticated language. From the book I learned what he thought about science Popper (and how many of his views already outdated!), And did not find a word about the views of Niels Bohr and Werner Heisenberg (and what they brought to the teachings, it is true today).
second The treatment of ancient philosophy as to the inefficiency of Plato and Aristotle, with their whole scientific naivete - throughout the book there is not one word about Archimedesie, Aristarchus appeared in a footnote by co-author. No mention of Hipparchosie, which dramatically improves an Aristarchus - I doubt that the priest Professor of Hipparchosie not heard. And there is no any comments on such aspects as Ktesibios, Herofilos whether Chrysippus - dare to believe that the characters are completely unknown to the priest, professor. Meanwhile, a reflection on Chrysippus would develop a very interesting topic metalanguage philosophy.
What is the meaning of the sacrifice of separation romantic philosophers, and ignoring the positivist philosophers and neopozytywistycznych? Such a decision was probably close to seeing the world.
what good will scribble Whitehead? Would not it would be more usefully zreferować views Mach or Dirac?
For me, the philosophers of nature brought the world more harm than good. I thought about all of them and something I think that it would be difficult to find an exception. Even Plato and Aristotle's influence on the development of science penalized. And what did Hegel, it is worse than an atomic bomb.
Oh, and one more note. What is the question of "matematyczność world"? When in the thirties of the twentieth century, was asked various great physicists about whether they believe in God, Heisenberg said, not directly, it can not be coincidence that the world is so much math. He knew what says, because he came into contact with ready for decades of mathematics, which was employed matrix, which suddenly turned out to be an ideal tool for the description of quantum physics. However Goedla theorem, which, moreover, Professor Father mentions in his book (their importance in the philosophy of nature deserves far more attention) shed a very different light on this problem. The question "why the world is mathematical," recalls now the question "why plasticine shape to fit each subject. Currently, this question should be: "Why is the world logical?"
OK, one more thing. Most of the discoveries of modern physics, and many of the former is made of young, sometimes very young people. One could say that this is because when minds are most creative. And I say that also because those people did not know was still on bzdurach wygadywanych by the philosophers of nature. Heisenberg nature of the writings of philosophers Timaiosa met - and was enough, and it's not because I believed in the vision of the world presented there, only that it was a good exercise for the mind.
If you're old and make scientific discoveries have not threatened you, or you're it's too stupid to read "Philosophy of Nature" may be an interesting experience. However, if you are fascinated by science and have the potential to beware of this book as the devil holy water! It is better to reach for the Feynman, Macha, Dirac, Heisenberg. Or after "The evolution of the cosmos and cosmology," Heller.
0 comments:
Post a Comment