Found it online:Typhoon wrote:At whom are we laughing? Derrida and Beller.Parodite wrote:The Sokal Hoax: At Whom Are We Laughing?
The philosophical pronouncements of Bohr, Born, Heisenberg and Pauli deserve some of the blame for the excesses of the postmodernist critique of science.
by Mara Beller
Newton spent much of his life on alchemy, trying to understand the bible's Book of Revelations, investing in and losing a fortune in the South Seas Bubble, and tracking down currency forgers for execution.
However, his Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica contained non of this only the first foundations of calculus and physics.
As Newton noted in the preface of the 2nd edition: Hypotheses non fingo.
Likewise, I've never read any philosophical pronouncements of Bohr, Born, Heisenberg, or Pauli. Well, until now. I have, however, read their physics papers that established the mathematical and physical foundations of quantum mechanics and quantum field theory: all math and physics, no philosophyI have not as yet been able to discover the reason for these properties of gravity from phenomena, and I do not feign hypotheses. For whatever is not deduced from the phenomena must be called a hypothesis; and hypotheses, whether metaphysical or physical, or based on occult qualities, or mechanical, have no place in experimental philosophy [science]. In this philosophy particular propositions are inferred from the phenomena, and afterwards rendered general by induction.
There is nothing obscure in the writings of Bohr's physics papers.
A collection of the English translations of the foundational papers
[Worth reading, if one has an interest in the field.]
A collection of the English translations of the foundational papers
Above my pay grade, but I'm in awe about the effort and genius applied by this A-Team to put the new puzzle together. Quick reading some first pages, one of them claimed in a quote that Bohr was not so much a physicist and more of a philosopher.
Interesting read:
Discussions with Einstein on Epistemological Problems in Atomic Physics
Indeed. Although the philosophies and possible other eccentricities of the founders of quantum mechanics do not take away anything of their ground breaking work, it is always interesting to know some more about it.The difference is that Bohr et al. are the founders of quantum mechanics and quantum field theory, whereas Derrida makes it laughably clear that he has less than zero understanding of physics, willfully so, and is spouting purposely obscure postmodernist nonsense.
If he was anything other than a spunk artiste, he would have focused on understanding their physics papers and ignored their philosophical hobbies, if he was aware of them.
As opposed to post modernist Babylonia, they to where lucky enough to have a major Xtra partner during their journey of discovery that post-modernists thought could do without: nature. Somebody to consult, ask questions using experiment. A partner with at least 13.7 billion years of experience and equal knowledge base.
And it was not their fault that nature started to give sort of peek-a-boo answers in the quantum domain. Starting with Heisenb's uncertainty principle: "Will tell you where I am but never where I go. Will tell you where I go but never where I am" and all the way to probabilities of measurement where "what things are" between measurement/observation remains anyones poetic guess; although it being described mathematically works fine for all practical purposes like technology.
Maybe nature wants it to be that way. And it is kind of more sexy to keep the best stuff hidden somewhat.The nature of reality is certainly suggestive. A win-win.