feynman on philosophers

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:schrodinger's book is hardly a philosophical tract. he explains his view of how biology works, a physicist's view of biology. it is an absorbing read.

Rashmun wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:schrodinger's book is hardly a philosophical tract. he explains his view of how biology works, a physicist's view of biology. it is an absorbing read.

it is scientific philosophy. the content of the book has an overlap with science and philosophy.

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:schrodinger's book is hardly a philosophical tract. he explains his view of how biology works, a physicist's view of biology. it is an absorbing read.

it is scientific philosophy. the content of the book has an overlap with science and philosophy.

here is the book which i have read:

http://whatislife.stanford.edu/LoCo_files/What-is-Life.pdf

i did a cntrl-f on the word philosophy. nada.

do you have a different version?

Rashmun wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:schrodinger's book is hardly a philosophical tract. he explains his view of how biology works, a physicist's view of biology. it is an absorbing read.

it is scientific philosophy. the content of the book has an overlap with science and philosophy.

here is the book which i have read:

http://whatislife.stanford.edu/LoCo_files/What-is-Life.pdf

i did a cntrl-f on the word philosophy. nada.

do you have a different version?

do a cntrl-f on the word 'philosophical'.

As a reward for the serious trouble I have taken
to expound the purely scientific aspects of our
problem sine ira et studio, I beg leave to add my
own, necessarily subjective, view of the
philosophical implications.

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:schrodinger's book is hardly a philosophical tract. he explains his view of how biology works, a physicist's view of biology. it is an absorbing read.

it is scientific philosophy. the content of the book has an overlap with science and philosophy.

here is the book which i have read:

http://whatislife.stanford.edu/LoCo_files/What-is-Life.pdf

i did a cntrl-f on the word philosophy. nada.

do you have a different version?

do a cntrl-f on the word 'philosophical'.

alright there is an epilogue where he has waxed philosophical. i grant you that. but in a detailed book in which he elegantly describes the thermodynamic and statistical mechanical underpinnings of life, there is a short epilogue where he has introspected philosophically. that hardly qualifies it as a philosophy book. in fact he is almost apologetic about adding that section. see this quote:

As a reward for the serious trouble I have taken
to expound the purely scientific aspects of our
problem sine ira et studio, I beg leave to add my
own, necessarily subjective, view of the
philosophical implications.

i didn't remember that section because i must have fallen asleep reading it.

Rashmun wrote:Werner Heisenberg, of the Uncertainty Principle fame, on Quantum Mechanics and the philosopher Wittgenstein:



This is a great video because you get to hear Heisenberg in person. Max, your comments?
Notice that Heisenberg says he liked the later Wittgenstein while he says Bertrand Russel used to like the early Wittgenstein.

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:i think most scientists have their own view of the world informed by their experiences in the natural sciences and interactions with the laws of the physical world. certainly that is interesting to read about. however, an enquiry into the nature of the universe by people who are not scientists is uninteresting and insipid to me. i am not a physicist, but work in a closely related field.  i share the churlish attitude of some physicists mentioned in the NYT article towards philosophers i linked to in an earlier post. philosophers probably need scientists. scientists certainly do not need philosophers or philosophy.

bw wrote:i like philosophers and scientists and enjoy both (not the sadguru brand that spews nonsense)

i enjoyed watching/listening to alain de botton's "a guide to happiness" series. 

here's one episode:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UA7cgIg4Lfs

Rashmun wrote:

bw wrote:i like philosophers and scientists and enjoy both (not the sadguru brand that spews nonsense)

i enjoyed watching/listening to alain de botton's "a guide to happiness" series. 

here's one episode:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UA7cgIg4Lfs

this seems like a great series. thanks for sharing the video. i wish someone would make a similar series on indian philosophers.

bw wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

bw wrote:i like philosophers and scientists and enjoy both (not the sadguru brand that spews nonsense)

i enjoyed watching/listening to alain de botton's "a guide to happiness" series. 

here's one episode:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UA7cgIg4Lfs

this seems like a great series. thanks for sharing the video. i wish someone would make a similar series on indian philosophers.

i like almost all of his talks though some call him a blithe, pop philosopher!