26 ideas
17536 | If it can't be expressed mathematically, it can't occur in nature? [Heisenberg] |
Full Idea: The solution was to turn around the question How can one in the known mathematical scheme express a given experimental situation? and ask Is it true that only such situations can arise in nature as can be expressed in the mathematical formalism? | |
From: Werner Heisenberg (Physics and Philosophy [1958], 02) | |
A reaction: This has the authority of the great Heisenberg, and is the ultimate expression of 'mathematical physics', beyond anything Galileo or Newton ever conceived. I suppose Pythagoras would have thought that Heisenberg was obviously right. |
17545 | Quantum theory shows that exact science does not need dogmatic realism [Heisenberg] |
Full Idea: It is only through quantum theory that we have learned that exact science is possible without the basis of dogmatic realism. | |
From: Werner Heisenberg (Physics and Philosophy [1958], 05) |
17538 | Quantum theory does not introduce minds into atomic events [Heisenberg] |
Full Idea: Certainly quantum theory does not contain genuine subjective features, it does not introduce the mind of the physicist as a part of the atomic event. | |
From: Werner Heisenberg (Physics and Philosophy [1958], 03) | |
A reaction: This should be digested by anyone who wants to erect some dodgy anti-realist, idealist, subjective metaphysics on the basis of the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics. |
17534 | A 'probability wave' is a quantitative version of Aristotle's potential, a mid-way type of reality [Heisenberg] |
Full Idea: The 1924 idea of the 'probability wave' meant a tendency for something. It was a quantitative version of the old concept of 'potentia' in Aristotelian philosophy ...a strange kind of physical reality just in the middle between possibility and reality. | |
From: Werner Heisenberg (Physics and Philosophy [1958], 02) | |
A reaction: [compressed] As far as I can see, he is talking about a disposition or power, which is exactly between a mere theoretical possibility and an actuality. See the Mumford/Lill Anjum proposal for a third modal value, between possible and necessary. |
14296 | Dispositions are physical states of mechanism; when known, these replace the old disposition term [Quine] |
Full Idea: Each disposition, in my view, is a physical state or mechanism. ...In some cases nowadays we understand the physical details and set them forth explicitly in terms of the arrangement and interaction of small bodies. This replaces the old disposition. | |
From: Willard Quine (The Roots of Reference [1990], p.11), quoted by Stephen Mumford - Dispositions 01.3 | |
A reaction: A challenge to the dispositions and powers view of nature, one which rests on the 'categorical' structural properties, rather than the 'hypothetical' dispositions. But can we define a mechanism without mentioning its powers? |
17954 | Essence is a thing's necessities, but what about its possibilities (which may not be realised)? [Vetter] |
Full Idea: Essence is, as it were, necessity rooted in things, ...but how about possibility rooted in things? ...Having the potential to Φ, unlike being essentially Φ, does not entail being actually Φ. | |
From: Barbara Vetter (Essence and Potentiality [2010], §2) | |
A reaction: To me this invites the question 'what is it about the entity which endows it with its rooted possibilities?' A thing has possibilities because it has a certain nature (at a given time). |
17553 | We can retain the idea of 'substance', as indestructible mass or energy [Heisenberg] |
Full Idea: One could consider mass and energy as two different forms of the same 'substance' and thereby keep the idea of substance as indestructible. | |
From: Werner Heisenberg (Physics and Philosophy [1958], 07) |
17544 | Basic particles have a mathematical form, which is more important than their substance [Heisenberg] |
Full Idea: The smallest parts of matter are not the fundamental Beings, as in the philosophy of Democritus, but are mathematical forms. Here it is quite evident that the form is more important than the substance of which it is the form. | |
From: Werner Heisenberg (Physics and Philosophy [1958], 04) | |
A reaction: Heisenberg is quite consciously endorsing hylomorphism here, with a Pythagorean twist to it. |
17953 | Real definition fits abstracta, but not individual concrete objects like Socrates [Vetter] |
Full Idea: I can understand the notion of real definition as applying to (some) abstact entities, but I have no idea how to apply it to a concrete object such as Socrates or myself. | |
From: Barbara Vetter (Essence and Potentiality [2010], §1) | |
A reaction: She is objecting to Kit Fine's account of essence, which is meant to be clearer than the normal account of essences based on necessities. Aristotle implies that definitions get fuzzy when you reach the level of the individual. |
17952 | Modal accounts make essence less mysterious, by basing them on the clearer necessity [Vetter] |
Full Idea: The modal account was meant, I take it, to make the notion of essence less mysterious by basing it on the supposedly better understood notion of necessity. | |
From: Barbara Vetter (Essence and Potentiality [2010], §1) |
17959 | Metaphysical necessity is even more deeply empirical than Kripke has argued [Vetter] |
Full Idea: We support the views of metaphysical modality on which metaphysical necessity is an even more deeply empirical matter than Kripke has argued. | |
From: Barbara Vetter (Essence and Potentiality [2010], p.2) | |
A reaction: [co-author E. Viebahn] This seems to pinpoint the spirit of scientific essentialism. She cites Bird and Shoemaker. If it is empirical, doesn't that make it a matter of epistemology, and hence further from absolute necessity? |
17955 | Possible worlds allow us to talk about degrees of possibility [Vetter] |
Full Idea: The apparatus of possible worlds affords greater expressive power than mere talk of possibility and necessity. In particular, possible worlds talk allows us to introduce degrees of possibility. | |
From: Barbara Vetter (Essence and Potentiality [2010], §3) | |
A reaction: A nice feature, but I'm not sure that either the proportion of possible worlds or the closeness of possible worlds captures what we actually mean by a certain degree of possibility. There is 'accidental closeness', or absence of contingency. See Vetter. |
17957 | Maybe possibility is constituted by potentiality [Vetter] |
Full Idea: We should look at the claim that possibility is constituted by potentiality. | |
From: Barbara Vetter (Essence and Potentiality [2010], §4) | |
A reaction: A problem that comes to mind is possibilities arising from coincidence. The whole of reality must be described, to capture all the possibilities for a particular thing. So potentialities of what? Nice thought, though. |
17958 | The apparently metaphysically possible may only be epistemically possible [Vetter] |
Full Idea: Some of what metaphysicians take to be metaphysically possible turns out to be only epistemically possible. | |
From: Barbara Vetter (Essence and Potentiality [2010], §4) | |
A reaction: A nice clear expression of the increasingly common view that conceivability may be a limited way to grasp possibility. |
17956 | Closeness of worlds should be determined by the intrinsic nature of relevant objects [Vetter] |
Full Idea: The closeness of possible worlds should be determined by similarity in the intrinsic constitution of whatever object it is whose potentialities are at issue. | |
From: Barbara Vetter (Essence and Potentiality [2010], §3) | |
A reaction: Nice thought. This seems to be the essentialist approach to possible worlds, but it makes the natures of the objects more fundamental than the framework of the worlds. She demurs because there are also extrinsic potentialities. |
17550 | We give a mathematical account of a system of natural connections in order to clarify them [Heisenberg] |
Full Idea: When we represent a group of connections by a closed and coherent set of concepts, axioms, definitions and laws which in turn is represented by a mathematical scheme we have isolated and idealised them with the purpose of clarification. | |
From: Werner Heisenberg (Physics and Philosophy [1958], 06) | |
A reaction: Attacks on the regularity theory of laws, and the notion that explanation is by laws, tend to downplay this point - that obtaining clarity and precision is a sort of explanation, even if it fails to go deeper. |
17549 | Seven theories in science: mechanics, heat, electricity, quantum, particles, relativity, life [Heisenberg, by PG] |
Full Idea: Science has seven closed systems of concepts and axioms: Newtonian mechanics; the theory of heat; electricity and magnetism; quantum theory; the theory of elementary particles; general relativity; and the theory of organic life. | |
From: report of Werner Heisenberg (Physics and Philosophy [1958], 06) by PG - Db (ideas) | |
A reaction: [my summary of pp.86-88 and 92] It is interesting to have spelled out that there are number of 'closed' theories, which are only loosely connected to one another. New discoveries launch whole new theories, instead of being subsumed. |
17540 | Energy is that which moves, and is the substance from which everything is made [Heisenberg] |
Full Idea: Energy is the substance from which all elementary particles, all atoms and therefore all things are made, and energy is that which moves. | |
From: Werner Heisenberg (Physics and Philosophy [1958], 04) | |
A reaction: I'm not sure what energy is, but I like this because it says that nature is fundamentally active. Nothing makes sense without that basic assumption (on which Leibniz continually insists). |
17541 | Energy is an unchanging substance, having many forms, and causing all change [Heisenberg] |
Full Idea: Energy is a substance, since its total amount does not change. ...Energy can be changed into motion, into heat, into light and into tension. Energy may be called the fundamental cause for all change in the world. | |
From: Werner Heisenberg (Physics and Philosophy [1958], 04) | |
A reaction: Grandiose stuff. I remain unconvinced that Heisenberg (clever fellow, I'm told) has any idea of what he is talking about. |
17548 | Maxwell introduced real fields, which transferred forces from point to point [Heisenberg] |
Full Idea: In the theory of fields of force one came back to the older idea, that action is transferred from one point to a neighbouring point. ...With Maxwell the fields of force seemed to have acquired the same degree of reality as the body's of Newton's theory. | |
From: Werner Heisenberg (Physics and Philosophy [1958], 06) |
17533 | Radiation interference needs waves, but radiation photoelectric effects needs particles [Heisenberg] |
Full Idea: How could it be that the same radiation that produces interference patterns, and therefore must consist of waves, also produces the photoelectric effect, and therefore must consist of moving particles. | |
From: Werner Heisenberg (Physics and Philosophy [1958], 02) |
17532 | An atom's stability after collisions needs explaining (which Newton's mechanics can't do) [Heisenberg] |
Full Idea: The first new model of the atom could not explain the most characteristic features of the atom, its enormous stability. No planetary system following the laws of Newton's mechanics would ever go back to its original configuration after a collision. | |
From: Werner Heisenberg (Physics and Philosophy [1958], 02) |
17537 | Position is complementary to velocity or momentum, so the whole system is indeterminate [Heisenberg] |
Full Idea: The knowledge of the position of a particle is complementary to the knowledge of its velocity or momentum. If we know one with high accuracy we cannot know the other with high accuracy; still we must know both for determining the behaviour of the system. | |
From: Werner Heisenberg (Physics and Philosophy [1958], 03) | |
A reaction: This is the famous Uncertainty Principle, expressed in plain language by the man himself. At this point we lost our grip on the prospects of determining the behaviour of natural systems. |
17551 | It was formerly assumed that electromagnetic waves could not be a reality in themselves [Heisenberg] |
Full Idea: The idea that electromagnetic waves could be a reality in themselves, independent of any bodies, did at that time not occur to the physicists. | |
From: Werner Heisenberg (Physics and Philosophy [1958], 07) | |
A reaction: 'At that time' is when they thought the waves must travel through something, called the 'ether'. |
17543 | So-called 'empty' space is the carrier of geometry and kinematics [Heisenberg] |
Full Idea: From our modern point of view we would say that the empty space between the atoms was not nothing; it was the carrier of geometry and kinematics. | |
From: Werner Heisenberg (Physics and Philosophy [1958], 04) | |
A reaction: I'm not sure what the 'carrier of geometry and kinematics' means, but it is interesting that he doesn't mention 'fields' (unless they carry the kinematics?) |
17552 | In relativity the length of the 'present moment' is relative to distance from the observer [Heisenberg] |
Full Idea: In classical theory we assume past and future are separated by an infinitely short time interval called the present moment. In relativity it is different: future and past are separated by a finite time interval dependent on the distance from the observer. | |
From: Werner Heisenberg (Physics and Philosophy [1958], 07) | |
A reaction: Not sure I understand this, but it is a revelation to realise that not only is time made relative to observers, but the length of the 'present moment' also becomes relative. The infinitesimal present moment has always bothered me. |