Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

discussing philosophy in a physics textbook


  • Please log in to reply
27 replies to this topic

#21 goldglow

goldglow

    Baryon

  • Senior Members
  • 116 posts
  • LocationEngland

Posted 7 May 2017 - 05:15 PM

There is an enthralling book, readily available, entitled " The Ending Of Time " ( sometimes subtitled " Where Philosophy And Physics Meet " ) which is the record of several discussions between the eminent physicist Dr, David Bohm and the metaphysical philosopher Jiddu Krishnamurti.  It makes for fascinating reading, and fits comfortably into both worlds. The discussions, or dialogues, are also the subject of numerous videos, under the same title, on YouTube.

 I am just reading a book titled " The Astonishing Hypothesis " subtitled " The Scientific Search for the Soul " by Francis Crick of DNA fame. Although somewhat out-dated compared with recent scientific understanding, ( it was published in 1994 ), it still has a great deal to offer and has an extensive "  reference " and " further reading "  section.


  • 0

#22 nec209

nec209

    Baryon

  • Senior Members
  • 483 posts

Posted 7 May 2017 - 08:17 PM

I just finished reading a physics textbook. The last paragraph mentions the anthropic principle and ends with (quickly translated) "A poet would say that the universe was adjusted very precisely, almost as if it was meant for our habitation."

 

Is that acceptable? What business is it of a physics textbook, clearly meant for education, to push forward such contested, theistic, world view without nuance? It doesn't even mention the possibility of manyworld interpretations or other multiverse concepts which render the anthropic principle trivial and irrelevant.

 

Otherwise the book adheres very closely to established science. The only other diversion was a paragraph about the interpretation of quantum mechanics, where it only mentions the Copenhagen interpretation and no others.

 

You did not say if this is physics textbook for high school, college or university.

 

And quote universe was adjusted very precisely!! In reference to what?

 

Does he or she believe laws physics okay? Could be harder to understand with no God or easier to understand with a God. As God made the laws physics and nature more simplified and just right.

 

Is he or she trying to explain there are loop holes and break down with physics and nature that have scientists scratching their head to understand. That the laws physics and nature are not simplified and not just right but some what messy saying God be more order, less messy , simple and just right.


Edited by nec209, 7 May 2017 - 08:19 PM.

  • 0

#23 Bender

Bender

    Molecule

  • Senior Members
  • 720 posts

Posted 8 May 2017 - 09:35 AM

The quote is as it appears in the book, translated as literally as I can.

The adjustments refer to physical constants, such as the charge of an electron, as he discusses the anthropic principle.

 

It is a book used in college (if you skip the titles indicated as harder) and university.


  • 0

#24 MigL

MigL

    Primate

  • Senior Members
  • 2,865 posts
  • LocationSt. Catharines, Ontario, Canada

Posted 9 May 2017 - 04:23 PM

Most forum members get their backs up at the merest implication of intelligent design.

But people are allowed personal beliefs. Even scientists !

So I don't have a problem with Newton, or Einstein, or any other scientist who has 'faith'.

Even ones that write books !

 

That being said, most scientists recognize that the anthropic principle is a consequence of the way the universe is, not a cause.


  • 0

#25 CharonY

CharonY

    Biology Expert

  • Resident Experts
  • 7,263 posts
  • Locationsomewhere in the Americas.

Posted 10 May 2017 - 08:48 PM

Most forum members get their backs up at the merest implication of intelligent design.

But people are allowed personal beliefs. Even scientists !

So I don't have a problem with Newton, or Einstein, or any other scientist who has 'faith'.

Even ones that write books !

 

 

 

Agreed. There is the occasional issue when faith intersects with work. But luckily those cases are rare (and usually do not publish significant papers).


  • 0

#26 Itoero

Itoero

    Molecule

  • Senior Members
  • 675 posts
  • LocationBelgium

Posted 26 May 2017 - 02:37 PM

Most forum members get their backs up at the merest implication of intelligent design.
But people are allowed personal beliefs. Even scientists !
So I don't have a problem with Newton, or Einstein, or any other scientist who has 'faith'.
Even ones that write books !
 
That being said, most scientists recognize that the anthropic principle is a consequence of the way the universe is, not a cause.

This is your own choice/opinion of course but religious beliefs and being a scientist imo don't fit together.
Beliefs should be subject to the scientific method.
Newton lived nearly 400 years ago...well before Darwin. I don't think his faith really matters.

Einstein liked the work of Spinoza (a pantheist) but was he really religious?
  • 0
There are some things so serious you have to laugh at them.
-----------------------------------------------------------
It is wrong to think that the task of physics is to find out how Nature is. Physics concerns what we say about Nature.

#27 MigL

MigL

    Primate

  • Senior Members
  • 2,865 posts
  • LocationSt. Catharines, Ontario, Canada

Posted 27 May 2017 - 12:25 PM

It is not my opinion or choice.

 

By definition faith and belief do not require confirmation or evidence.

And, by definition, science does.

 

Don't apply the requirements of one to the other.


  • 0

#28 StringJunky

StringJunky

    Genius

  • Senior Members
  • 6,272 posts
  • LocationUK

Posted 27 May 2017 - 01:18 PM

This is your own choice/opinion of course but religious beliefs and being a scientist imo don't fit together.
Beliefs should be subject to the scientific method.
Newton lived nearly 400 years ago...well before Darwin. I don't think his faith really matters.

Einstein liked the work of Spinoza (a pantheist) but was he really religious?

But nature could be the inner workings of whatever deity  a faith-based scientist believes in and can study them without compromise to their scientific ability or create any inner conflict, if they choose. 


  • 0

 Education, like life, is a journey not a destination





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users