The discussion revolves around the philosophy of physics, exploring the distinctions between physicists and philosophers, the relevance of philosophical inquiry to physics, and the implications of various physical theories. Participants engage with historical perspectives, contemporary debates, and personal reflections on the intersection of philosophy and science.
Participants exhibit a range of views on the importance and relevance of philosophy in physics, with some advocating for its significance while others suggest it may be outside the primary focus of the forum. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the extent to which philosophy contributes to the understanding of physics.
Some discussions touch on the limitations of understanding philosophical implications without a strong mathematical background, and the challenges of defining the scope of philosophy in relation to physics.
A physician is a medical practitioner. A physicist studies physics. A philosopher thinks about what others are really doing when they do stuff.mcastillo356 said:
I think that this equation is more a definition than a result: ##\vec{F}\sim \ddot{\vec{x}}.## The philosophical background, and that applies to basically the entire field of physics, is why we describe the world using differential equations, and why it works. In the end, a derivative is a linear approximation, yet we get exact results.mcastillo356 said:
Now I understand the work of those who think and work about the essence of physics. Thank you, @fresh_42fresh_42 said:
Sure. No one's said otherwise. It's just that it's out of scope for PF.sbrothy said:
And this can be very interesting. I love the history of mathematics, Hofstadter's GEB was a bestseller, I have a copy, too, and a very interesting book about mathematics from the 17th to 19th century by Dieudonné. I have found many significant original papers (Einstein, Noether, Planck, Newton, Gauss, etc.) on the internet. I admit that my Latin is a bit rusty, but I like to have the originals. I even have Popper's book titled "Logic of Research" (I translated its title, since the book I have didn't quote the original title, and I don't even know whether he wrote it in English or German).sbrothy said:
Not everyone here is post secondary educated...sbrothy said:
In defense of the "Shut up and calculate": it is a very important phase of education. People tend to have many ideas about complicated matters without actually understanding them. But for physics, any 'philosophy of physics' has to be aligned with the real thing, otherwise it's just gibberish.fresh_42 said:
Exactly so.sbrothy said: