Steen Brock paints a cross-disciplinary picture of the philosophical and scientific background for the rise of the quantum theory. He accounts for the unity of Kantian metaphysics of Nature, the Helmholtzian principles, and the Hamiltonian methods of modern pre-quantum physics. Brock shows how Planck's vision of a generalization of classical physics implies that the original quantum mechanics of Heisenberg can be regarded as a successful attempt to maintain this modern unity of physics.However, for Niels Bohr, the unity of science and (...) metaphysics did not end in the world of physics. The development of quantum physics had general implications both for other sciences and for various philosophical issues. Brock discusses these matters with respect to recent topics within the philosophy of science and major interpretations of Bohr's ideas. The author invites the reader to follow a long andwinding route of thought which, in the end, culminates in Bohr's ideas of complementarity, culture and Spirit. (shrink)

En este trabajo nos proponemos estudiar los vínculos que Cassirer establece entre los conceptos de causalidad, invariancia y sistematicidad en el conocimiento de la física. Para ello, comenzaremos considerando el marco general en el que se inscribe el análisis que Cassirer realiza. Este marco es el provisto por el método trascendental. En segundo lugar, consideraremos el principio de causalidad de Kant a la luz de su distinción entre principios constitutivos y principios regulativos de la experiencia. Luego, discutiremos las dificultades que (...) Cassirer encuentra en la doctrina kantiana de la causalidad. Más adelante nos referiremos al sistema de los enunciados de la física, para poder así determinar el modo en el que se relacionan los conceptos de causalidad, invariancia y sistematicidad. (shrink)

How should we read Bohr? The answer to this question is by no means clear, not least because for a long period of time Bohr has not been read but rather mythologized, and his views “almost universally either overlooked or distorted beyond recognition” (Hooker 1972, 132). Even among his readers, though, there is a general feeling of uneasiness with respect to his use of words, and wide disagreement with respect to what he really meant to say. This seems to have (...) always been the case, if we recall what Ehrenfest wrote to Bohr on July 17, 1921: “Now, dear Bohr, every person I know wails only over the fact that you write your things so briefly and compactly that one always has the greatest trouble fetching all of the ideas out of the fruit cake” (Works, 3, 623). Ehrenfest’s remark suggests that our predicament with Bohr’s thought originates in fact in his own style of writing; and accordingly, the many stories told in the doxography about Bohr’s mumbling unintelligible remarks or his endlessly rewriting each of his papers seem to point to some accidental and subjective characteristics of his: he had no deep professional knowledge of the language of philosophy, not enough time, or too much anxiety. But we could also look at Bohr’s struggle with language the other way around, in a very different way. Heisenberg, for instance, noted several times that Bohr was in the process of creating ‘a new language’. (shrink)

"Die Grenzen des Revisionismus" befasst sich mit den erkenntnis- und wissenschafttheoretischen Positionen des frühen Moritz Schlick und des frühen Ernst Cassirer.

In the writings of both C. S. Peirce and Sir Karl Popper, we can find “objectivity” defined in the pragmatic sense as being in essence “intersubjective agreement.” The present paper is focused on the general relationship between the conception of objectivity in the above pragmatic sense, and the conception of objectivity in the classical realistic sense of “nonsubjectivity,” or brute otherness, as expressed by Peirce in its purest form in his category of secondness.

The contributions of few contemporary scientists have been as far reaching in their effects as those of Nobel Laureate Werner Heisenberg.

Vaihinger... shows that thought is primarily a biological function turned into a conscious art. It is an art of adjustment, whose chief instrument is the construction of fictions by which men may manage to live. Thought is to be tested not by correspondence to an objective reality (that fiction is neatly disposed of) nor by its mirroring in consciousness an objective external world. Thought is to be tested by its fruits. The constructions of thought are not copies of or transcripts (...) of reality; they are programs, guess-work plans; possible programs for operation. Their validity is to be measured not by verisimilitude but by value. The fruits of thought are not "true," but especially where they are false, it may be important to act as if they were true... Vaihinger's chief originality consists in his defining of fictions and his distinction of fictions from hypotheses on the one hand, and from dogmatisms on the other. An hypothesis is a tentative discovery about the universe; a fiction is a deliberate, often clearly false and internally contradictory invention of thought... Evolution is the hypothesis that man is descended from the lower animals. We assume that we can indirectly turn to the remote facts which would justify that hypothesis. But the concept of infinity in the calculus, the atom and the ether in physics, the economic man in Adam Smith, are deliberate self-contradictory fictions, and fictions at variance with all experience. But though they are not only imaginary, false to the reality they allegedly represent and logically incoherent, they nevertheless facilitate thought and proper action. They are vital lies, human conveniences. They are the faiths, the palpably false faiths, the clearly useful falsities by which we live... The discovery that fictions were fictions has led, in the past, says Vaihinger, to an abandonment of them, and a turning to other fictions believed to be truer. Pathetic and foolish adventure! What the race needs is more faith in its own effective imaginations. The myths that it has told itself, the world pictures that it has made, are not to be dismissed because they are found to be creations of the imagination. They tally with no world and they carry the canker of logical inconsistency within them. The important thing is their utility; their human scope and mortal relevance. If we ceased making fictions, we should cease altogether to be. Let us beware to plunge from fruitful fictions to less fruitful ones that masquerade as truths and are really dogmatisms. (Review of As If by Irwin Edman, Saturday Review of Literature, 10 January, 1925) This is a well-formatted version of C.K. Ogden's translation of Philosophie des Als Ob, originally published in 1925 by Kegan Paul. (shrink)

The Critique of the Power of Judgment (a more accurate rendition of what has hitherto been translated as the Critique of Judgment) is the third of Kant's great critiques following the Critique of Pure Reason and the Critique of Practical Reason. This entirely new translation of Kant's masterpiece follows the principles and high standards of all other volumes in The Cambridge Edition of the Works of Immanuel Kant. This volume includes: for the first time the indispensable first draft of Kant's (...) introduction to the work; the only English edition notes to the many differences between the first (1790) and second (1793) editions of the work; and relevant passages in Kant's anthropology lectures where he elaborated on his aesthetic views. All in all this new edition offers the serious student of Kant a dramatically richer, more complete and more accurate translation. (shrink)

Niels Bohr, founding father of modern atomic physics and quantum theory, was as original a philosopher as he was a physicist. This study explores several dimensions of Bohr's vision: the formulation of quantum theory and the problems associated with its interpretation, the notions of complementarity and correspondence, the debates with Einstein about objectivity and realism, and his sense of the infinite harmony of nature. Honner focuses on Bohr's epistemological lesson, the conviction that all our description of nature is dependent on (...) the words we use and the ways we can unambiguously use them. (shrink)

On several occasions I have pointed out that the lesson taught us by recent developments in physics regarding the necessity of a constant extension of the frame of concepts appropriate for the classification of new experiences leads us to a general epistemological attitude which might help us to avoid apparent conceptual difficulties in other fields of science as well. Since, however, the opinion has been expressed from various sides that this attitude would appear to involve a mysticism incompatible with the (...) true spirit of science, I am very glad to use the present opportunity of addressing this assembly of scientists working in quite different fields but united in their striving to find a common ground for our knowledge, to come back to this question, and above all to try to clear up the misunderstandings which have arisen. (shrink)