Talk:Philosophy of physics
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, which collaborates on articles related to physics. |
| Start | This article has been rated as start-Class on the assessment scale. |
| ??? | This article has not yet received an importance rating within physics. |
|
Help with this template This article has been rated but has no comments. If appropriate, please review the article and leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need. |
|
 |
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details. | ||||||||
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. | ||||||||
| ??? | This article has not yet received an importance rating on the importance scale. | ||||||||
|
|||||||||
The following is clearly not an encyclopedia article, and it's barely even English:
A philosophy of physics, should provide solution for concepts ill defined terms in the mathematical realm by modern scientists. Let us then consider some of the problems of philosophical nature established by modern physics.
1) What is the nature of space, quantic as in our observance of energy, or continuum, as in the theoretical structure called the Cartesian graph, and the theoretical structure called Relativity?
2) What is the nature of Time, continuous or discontinuous as in Biology and Phylosophy, in which species have different rhythms of time.
3) What is the nature of matter, eternally divisible or indivisible?
This page desperately needs ot be rewritten. If I have time I'll return here the next few weeks and attempt to expand and systematize it. - Victor Gijsbers
Some time ago, I started a very ambitious article entitled the Intellectual history of time. It is not where I would like it to be. It seems that the few people besides me that have worked on it did not understand the purpose of it, or even comprehend some of the sentences that I wrote in it.
Although the article itself is sub-par as it stands, I think it may prove useful for the section "Philosophy of Space and Time", esp, in regard to question 2 above. Essentially, the main purpose of the article was to discuss question 2 above, as sort of a genealogy or archealogy of our philosophy of time. (or an epistemology, to be more conventional and presumptious) I think my intentions were very much inline with question 2.
I mention the article (Intellectual history of time) for the purposes of whatever advantages may be procured from it in regard to Philosophy of Space and Time. Whether people want to take chunks of it, link to it, just use some concepts from it, or ignore it all together, is up to them. It might be more creatively conducive to begin construction on Philosophy of Space and Time without much regard for Intellectual history of time, and look for advantages to be procured from Intellectual history of time only after Philosophy of Space and Time has already established it's identity.
In any case, I offer it up as a potential resource for information and discussion. -Kevin Baas
For now, let's combine the ancient and modern notions of physics for this article (i.e.: adding to this article the philosophy of natural philosophy).
Let me explain why I think we should. Physics and natural philosophy concern themselves with the understanding of the real world of change, by admittedly different methods. The philosophy of physics (both methodologies) have to do with how these real objects are studied, that is by an investigation of the procedural methods. For example, it might be noted that physics is much more mathematical than the other sciences or the way physicists derive principles from observation of oppositions in nature of various scales and qualities. Since they deal with the same object of study, the customs that have grown around investigating the physical world can be treated as either common to all physicists or as different sides to the same coin (the way philosophy or science both contribute to our knowledge of the natural world).
On the other hand, understanding the general terms which physicists use to express their conclusions, like time or space goes beyond studying reality, and while is a fact that deserves to be mentioned as what physicists acting as philosophers do to organize their science or philosophy of the real world (I have the Einstein quotation in mind here), it shouldn't be suggested that this organizational work is the proper subject matter of the philosophy of physics rather than the means of studying reality itself.
That is why I am changing the lead paragraph of this article to include not just modern physics. And why I may do other changes later to the Einstein quotation.
64.154.26.251 03:21, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Uncertainty Principle
Schrödinger's Cat is a representation of the concept of superposition of quantum states, the Uncertainty Principle is a completely different notion. I think the reference to Schrödinger's Cat (picture) is completely misleading in this section. Benzh 23:01, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes. The section on uncertainty is quite poor. It confuses the HUP with issues of superposition and collapse. The reference to "fate" is silly. More citations are needed. There should probably be a separate section on "superposition and collapse".1Z 14:27, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] The review of Physics continues at Talk:Physics/wip
Some time ago a group of editors set up a "work in progress" page (at Talk:Physics/wip) to hammer out a consensus for the Physics article, which for too long had been in an unstable state. Discussion of the lead for the article has taken a great deal of time and thousands of words. The definitional and philosophical foundations seem to cause most headaches; but progress has been made. Why not review some of the proposals for the lead material that people are putting forward, or put forward your own, or simply join the discussion? The more contributors the better, for a consensus. – Noetica 01:57, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Update: Concrete proposals have now been put forward, arising from recent discussion aimed at producing a stable and consensual lead section for the Physics article. We have set up a straw poll, for comments on the proposals. Why not drop in at Talk:Physics/wip, and have your say? The more the better! – Noetica 22:31, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Contemporary philosophers-of-physics.
The article gives the impression that philosophy-of-physics stopped in the 1930s. Where are Max Jammer, David Albert, Bas Van Frassen, Bernard D'Espagnat, David Wallace?1Z 14:34, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Sklar, Earman? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.28.0.246 (talk) 04:08, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Determinism
Another bad section.
"The 18th century saw many advances in the domain of science. After Newton, most scientists agreed on the presupposition that the universe is governed by (natural) laws that can be discovered and formalized by means of scientific observation and experiment. This position is known as determinism."
Indeterministic laws are laws too.
"However, while determinism was the fundamental presupposition of post-Newtonian physics, it quickly lead philosophers to a tremendous problem: if the universe, and thus the entire world is governed by natural law, then that means that human beings are also governed by natural law in their own actions. In other words, it means that there is no such thing as human freedom."
Many contemporary philosophers think determinism is compatible with freedom.
"If it is accepted that everything in the world is governed by natural law, then we must also accept that it is not possible for us to will our own actions as free individuals; rather, they must be determined by universal laws of nature".
Again, a confusion between "governed by laws" and "governed by deterministic laws".
"Conversely, if it is accepted that human beings do have free will, then we must accept that the world is not entirely governed by natural law. However, if the world is not entirely governed by natural law, then the task of science is rendered impossible: if the task of science is to discover and formalize the laws of nature, then what task is left for science if it has been decided that nature is not entirely governed by laws?
The answer is to find out how it is partially governed by laws - -to find out the probabilities and stochastic rules. Physics continues and most physicists accept indeterminism, so indterminstic physics is not an impossibility.
Thus, there are extremely compelling reasons to want to accept both free will and determinism. However, the two seem totally irreconcilable".
Not according to compatibilists.1Z 14:51, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
- The Determinism section should probably be completely scrapped. Free-will isn't really a big topic in philosophy of physics. It's discussed in other sub-disciplines of philosophy. The idea that there is </>any relationship between QM and free-will is a marginal position, as far as I can tell. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.28.0.246 (talk) 04:12, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Atomism
Atomism? I cannot remember ever coming across a reference to atomism in a phil physics context. Maybe somebody knows something I don't know. But I suspect that atomism should be taken out. Space, time, quantum mechanics, causation/laws; these are the central topics as far as I can tell. By the way, it looks much better than it did a month ago. Good job! 75.13.202.239 07:24, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Logicist writer?
From the section titled "Mathematical nature of physics": "Because mathematics is simply a formal logics, it can deduce..." and "Philosophy of physics is very close to the philosophy of mathematics (which is just logic)" I do not know much about maths, logic, physics or philosophy of physics, but this seems to be written by a defender of the logicist program, wich is sometimes described as abandoned. Am I right? Could somebody with just a little more information confirm this and change it? Thank you. LFS 02:55, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
