
Physics as a Way of Thinking (1936) [pdf] - nz
https://kb.osu.edu/dspace/bitstream/handle/1811/72567/OSLJ_V2N3_0241.pdf
======
vfinn
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.

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

------
nyc111
> 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.

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

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

------
curo
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.

~~~
mettamage
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
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...](http://www.vipassana.com/meditation/mindfulness_in_plain_english.php)

------
oldandtired
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.

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

~~~
oldandtired
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.

~~~
pretendscholar
Why aren't tall buildings economically useful?

------
Oddstrider
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'.

