Physics as a Way of Thinking (1936) [pdf]

https://kb.osu.edu/dspace/bitstream/handle/1811/72567/OSLJ_V2N3_0241.pdf

by nz • 8 years ago

126 48 8 years ago

kb.osu.edu

curo• 8 years ago

I guess science has always been this contemptuous of both its ancestors and the religious.

The Buddhist finds his answer in a toleration for what he may neither understand nor alter.

Huh? There is a rich spectrum of buddhist philosophy (Theravada, Mahayana, Zen, Tibetan) and all profess to demonstrate the ways of perceiving and understanding truth and pre-conceptual reality of this world. Straw man here?

When we try to conceive of the state of mind of primitive man, the first thing that occurs to us is the bewilderment and terror he must have felt in the presence of the powers of nature.

Have a physicist and a "primitive man" face the powers of nature and see who's more comfortable with their surroundings.

ThomPete3• 8 years ago

I have never heard any of those Buddhist philosophies speaking of truth like you seem to imply. They don't mean truth in the way Aristotle thinks about it.

vajrabum• 8 years ago

How do you mean?

ShabbosGoy• 8 years ago

Have a physicist and a "primitive man" face the powers of nature and see who's more comfortable with their surroundings.

What’s the old joke? How many physicists does it take to change a lightbulb?

jcelerier• 8 years ago

none: they consider the light negligible against the sun's.

mettamage• 8 years ago

I find Buddhism too complex to grok. Whatever arrives as popular Buddhism in the west seems to be distorted info that doesn’t even scratch the surface. Scientists who talk about Buddhism will only get credibility in my eyes if they apply the same investigativeness towards Buddhism as they love science. Two places they would need to look at is its diversity and their willingness to engage in scientific conversation. The Dalai Lama seems to engage in it, not sure to what extent that counts as Buddhism but it is something.

—- not an expert on Buddhism or physics

RichardCA• 8 years ago

It's a misconception to view Buddhism like some sort of mental puzzle. There is plenty of free material online. Just start.

http://www.vipassana.com/meditation/mindfulness_in_plain_eng...

adrianratnapala• 8 years ago

I guess science has always been this contemptuous of both its ancestors and the religious.
> The Buddhist finds his answer in a toleration for what he may neither understand nor alter.

Let's be charitable; this is not contempt, it is merely shallow knowledge. In 1936, educated westerners had heard the praises of Buddhism but had little access to sophisticated teaching.

Buddhism really does teach us to accept the world as it is, and that the world as it is goes beyond the reach of propositional knowledge. So it is understandable that someone with a hazy (but not wrong) impression of that call it "toleration for what he may neither understand nor alter".

oldandtired8• 8 years ago

To see the following in the first page of the article already turns me off reading any more

"To get an impression of primitive man's approach to the physical universe ..."

The underlying assumption that cultures from 2000 years or more ago are primitive belies the facts that we are unable to do things that they did on a regular basis in various engineering capacities.

Just consider that they built structures that still exist today when we have difficulty building structures that last beyond 50 years before they have to be torn down due to failures in the materials.

inteleng2• 8 years ago

Survivorship bias.

ljw1001• 8 years ago

sure, but. what things built in the last 20 years do think most likely to last for 2000? I'm not sure I can think of any. Parts of a big highway maybe?

emit_time• 8 years ago

Just consider that they built structures that still exist today when we have difficulty building structures that last beyond 50 years before they have to be torn down due to failures in the materials.

That might have quite a bit to do with the economic incentives people base their decisions around when building.

Also, survivorship bias (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivorship_bias)

oldandtired8• 8 years ago

I'll grant that "survivorship bias" may be in the argument. As I have said elsewhere, the thing I am highlighting in the attitude towards previous societies as being "primitive." This is, itself, a highly detrimental bias to the argument being presented in the original document.

We can say that they were different technologically, but based on the frailty of our technological systems now, we really can't say that we are superior to those so-called "primitive" societies.

Retra2• 8 years ago

Not many people today want to build a 50 million ton tomb for one guy. That is arguably a very good thing.

oldandtired8• 8 years ago

Try the sea docks from ancient Rome around the Mediterranean. The concrete got stronger in sea water whereas we have major problems with modern concrete in sea water. Roadways being another example.

Plus all the other construction efforts around the world, including ancient cities that have survived even being overtaken by jungles, etc.

Let us also consider the various modern nanotechnology research areas being undertaken today to find out how "primitive" people did tasks that we cannot duplicate today.

If people actually understood even the history of the last 200 years, they would understand how much knowledge we have lost during that time and how incapable of repeating many of those things we are today.

Sure, we have some advanced technologies today. However, the facts are that we have lost large areas of technology and chemistry over the last lot centuries. In some cases, what we call modern facilities are a rediscovery of what was available to the ancient peoples.

oldandtired8• 8 years ago

True, those same people spend billions on building the tallest buildings, the biggest man-made island systems, CERN, atomic weapon stock-piles, advanced military systems, ahhmmm, what else - when there are fundamental human problems that need solving - health and welfare, slavery, poverty, etc.

In all the essentials, we are no different to those who have become before us.

pharrington2• 8 years ago

Your point isn't coherent - your very same reasoning also shows that societies today regularly do things - orders of magnitude more things - that societies from antiquity could not.

You claim that we are unable to build structures that can survive the elements long term, only in a later post to point out and categorically dismiss tons of structures modern societies build that are likely to survive long term because those don't align with your value system.

We are communicating on the internet. Let that sink in.

oldandtired8• 8 years ago

What structures today are likely to survive long term?

My point is that there is an attitude today that societies from antiquity are "primitive". This is the salient point. They were different and took a different technological path.

Yes we can do many things they didn't and they did many things we can't. The point is the attitude of today towards the societies of the past. All we can really say is that they were different technologically.

So what if we can communicate on the internet? That is a blip on the time scale. How long will that actually last? Is it a sign of "high technology" or is it just a different technological path?

If one looks at the technology available in the 1930's to the 1950's, we use a completely different technology today and all one can say is that it is different.

After looking at the subject for many years (decades in fact), all I can say is that we have travelled down a different technological path. Is it better or more advanced than another? I can't say since I can't see what could have been.

Technological systems can be robust or frail. How would you classify the technological systems of today?

p1necone• 8 years ago

We aren't incapable of building things that would last 2000 years, we're choosing not to. Modern people could go and build another pyramid out of solid stone blocks, and probably much faster with modern machinery, but why would we?

interfixus• 8 years ago

I imagine artifacts on the surface of the Moon may somewhat outlive the pyramids of Egypt.

analog31• 8 years ago

I can imagine that many of the things we throw into landfills will be quite well preserved 2000 years from now.

vfinn• 8 years ago

Vaguely reminds me of Hegel as Hegel describes in his Phenomenology of Spirit the history of the human kind as a progress of collective consciousness (and as I see it, in parallel the progress of individual consciousness). What Hegel describes, in my perspective, is science as a way of thinking, or rather, science as a way of being, where you find yourself and people find you as you immerse yourself into the journey of the progressive world.

Recommend to try the preface of the Phenomenology of the Spirit to get some kind of idea of Hegel's thinking / speculative logic, which I find fascinating.

aurelien• 8 years ago

Astrophysics as a way of thinking ... we are Type 0

amelius• 8 years ago

If you're holding a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

Oddstrider2• 8 years ago

It seems to me this article uses Physics to justify the view that courts should "abstract new laws" as they deem necessary.

This is wholly undemocratic and while it claims to solve one problem (that of legal frameworks growing obsolete) it creates the problem of 'laws by committee' or 'expert rule'.

Oddstrider2• 8 years ago

It seems to me this article uses Physics to justify the view that courts should "abstract new laws" as they deem necessary.

This is wholly undemocratic and while it claims to solve one problem (that of legal frameworks growing obsolete) it swaps democracy for 'laws by committee' or 'expert rule'. As a computer scientist I'd call this unscientific or at least a sloppy proposal.

YvetteBrooks• 8 years ago

No formulas, only speculations IMHO. Physics is fundamental, not abstract...

nyc111• 8 years ago

Primitive man must have noticed that events did not occur simultaneously...

Could not make sense of this statement. Isn't just the opposite true? Whatever happens, happens simultaneously because for us only the present exists.

Physics as a Way of Thinking (1936) [pdf]

Related Stories