<< 1 >>
Rating: 
Summary: Christian physics...
Review: From page 241 of the hardcover edition--"On tackling this kind of subject, even briefly, one must clearly show his true colors. Thus, I, the author, call myself a Christian, though my preferences in matters of belief are closer to Nicholas de Cues' [sic--Cusa?]"Docta Ignorantia" than to Thomas Aquinas' "Summa Theologica" or Karl Barth's "Dogmatik". By this personal note I wished to assure my Christian friends that the targets of my criticism are only certain thoughtless proselytes." Speaking of "thoughtless proselytes," how about moving that confession up to the Preface so the reader will know the entire volume is biased?
Rating:
Summary: Christian physics...
Review: From page 241 of the hardcover edition-- "On tackling this kind of subject, even briefly, one must clearly show his true colors. Thus, I, the author, call myself a Christian, though my preferences in matters of belief are closer to Nicholas de Cues' [sic--Cusa?]"Docta Ignorantia" than to Thomas Aquinas' "Summa Theologica" or Karl Barth's "Dogmatik". By this personal note I wished to assure my Christian friends that the targets of my criticism are only certain thoughtless proselytes." Speaking of "thoughtless proselytes," how about moving that confession up to the Preface so the reader will know the entire volume is biased?
Rating: 
Summary: The fuzzy philosophy of Quantum mechanics
Review: Omnes tries to recreate philosophy on the basis of the fuzzy notions of Quantum mechanics. Others try to force traditional philosopy on Quantum mechanics. What we really need is to rework a new philosophy into Quantum mechanics! Quantum mechanics is a very good mathematical theory with no real philosophy to back it up except as a demonstration of the fragile state of our most fundamental concepts (space, time, fields etc.). In 1905 Einstein came up with the new revolutionary theory of special relativity that resulted in a set of equations devised several years before by Lorenz. The equations were the same but with a new revolutionary meaning to explain it. We're still waiting for someone to do the same for Quantum mechanics...
Rating: 
Summary: Probable futures...
Review: Roland Omnes is a professor of physics at the University of Paris. Like many physicists and astronomers of our time, he is concerned about the interpretations of science among the general public, particularly as science becomes increasingly specialized and difficult for non-mathematically and non-scientifically trained persons to understand. There are many areas of misunderstanding in the general conception of physics, with the cutting-edge theories developing out of the strands of relativity and quantum physics that even physicists themselves have trouble understanding and explaining. Omnes does a good job in the first half of the text tracing an historical development of physics from the earliest, pre-Socratic times in ancient Greece, a time when philosophy and science were not readily separable (a time that is re-emerging in many ways) through to the triumph of science, with physics in the forefront, as a worldview acceptable to Enlightenment thinkers, general academia, and the public at large. The first several chapters each take a turn at this broad topic - a chapter on classical logic comes first, looking in much the way a geometrist might the underlying postulate and axioms of later thought. Omnes then discusses classical physics and astronomy , leading up from the Greeks to Kepler, Newton, and finally Maxwell and his electro-magnetism theories. The third chapter looks at the historical development of classical mathematics, and the fourth at the philosophy of knowledge, not exclusively but primarily in epistemological terms. Figures such as Bacon, Descartes, Locke, Hume and Kant are discussed here. The history of mathematics and epistemology has a profound if understated effect on later scientific development. The second primary section deals with what Omnes terms `the fracture'. In discussing the processes of formal mathematics, logic, and physics in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, he brings up the trouble-spots - Godel's Incompleteness Theorem, varying philosophies in mathematics, relativistic challenges to classical physics models, and the increasing problem of epistemology in the processes of mathematics and science. To what extent are concerns about interpretation valid? Omnes discusses the importance of interpretation as justified for three reasons - that quantum mechanics `could not be more obscure' (and thus in need of interpretative illumination); the idea of who (or what) the observer is, is no longer clear in modern thinking; and, the issues of probability must be reconciled to the reality of existence. The third primary section is the heart of Omnes' argument. Going beyond the `traditional' quantum theory, he introduces the idea of consistent histories. Omnes argues strongly for a common sense approach (citing John Bell, among others); physics is about physicality, and reality is that which emerges from the structure of the laws of physics and mathematics, a construct Omnes opts to call in a term laced with theological overtones, the Logos. However, this logical construct, deriving from the general laws of nature, cannot be free from the influence of probability. The final section of the book looks at key questions and topics - how can we define science? What is the proper methodology for science, mathematics and the theory of knowledge in terms how we can know things in a probability-laced, quantum age? How does common sense play a factor in the way things progress from here? Omnes puts the current state as being able to summarized in three points: logic is part of the world of matter, not a subject merely of our consciousness; that we have enough knowledge now to understand the laws of reality in a common sense manner; and finally, that we can acknowledge the ultimate separation of theory from reality. Beginning in this way, Omnes presents a tentative theory of knowledge destined to influence scientists and philosophers in the future. Omnes presents his discussion with a minimum of mathematical equations, preferring once again to incorporate his common sense approach even to his own writing. Those who are knowledgeable in the hard sciences and mathematics will find this book intriguing; those without such a background will still find this a useful and sometimes inspiring text.
Rating:
Summary: Probable futures...
Review: Roland Omnes is a professor of physics at the University of Paris. Like many physicists and astronomers of our time, he is concerned about the interpretations of science among the general public, particularly as science becomes increasingly specialized and difficult for non-mathematically and non-scientifically trained persons to understand. There are many areas of misunderstanding in the general conception of physics, with the cutting-edge theories developing out of the strands of relativity and quantum physics that even physicists themselves have trouble understanding and explaining. Omnes does a good job in the first half of the text tracing an historical development of physics from the earliest, pre-Socratic times in ancient Greece, a time when philosophy and science were not readily separable (a time that is re-emerging in many ways) through to the triumph of science, with physics in the forefront, as a worldview acceptable to Enlightenment thinkers, general academia, and the public at large. The first several chapters each take a turn at this broad topic - a chapter on classical logic comes first, looking in much the way a geometrist might the underlying postulate and axioms of later thought. Omnes then discusses classical physics and astronomy , leading up from the Greeks to Kepler, Newton, and finally Maxwell and his electro-magnetism theories. The third chapter looks at the historical development of classical mathematics, and the fourth at the philosophy of knowledge, not exclusively but primarily in epistemological terms. Figures such as Bacon, Descartes, Locke, Hume and Kant are discussed here. The history of mathematics and epistemology has a profound if understated effect on later scientific development. The second primary section deals with what Omnes terms 'the fracture'. In discussing the processes of formal mathematics, logic, and physics in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, he brings up the trouble-spots - Godel's Incompleteness Theorem, varying philosophies in mathematics, relativistic challenges to classical physics models, and the increasing problem of epistemology in the processes of mathematics and science. To what extent are concerns about interpretation valid? Omnes discusses the importance of interpretation as justified for three reasons - that quantum mechanics 'could not be more obscure' (and thus in need of interpretative illumination); the idea of who (or what) the observer is, is no longer clear in modern thinking; and, the issues of probability must be reconciled to the reality of existence. The third primary section is the heart of Omnes' argument. Going beyond the 'traditional' quantum theory, he introduces the idea of consistent histories. Omnes argues strongly for a common sense approach (citing John Bell, among others); physics is about physicality, and reality is that which emerges from the structure of the laws of physics and mathematics, a construct Omnes opts to call in a term laced with theological overtones, the Logos. However, this logical construct, deriving from the general laws of nature, cannot be free from the influence of probability. The final section of the book looks at key questions and topics - how can we define science? What is the proper methodology for science, mathematics and the theory of knowledge in terms how we can know things in a probability-laced, quantum age? How does common sense play a factor in the way things progress from here? Omnes puts the current state as being able to summarized in three points: logic is part of the world of matter, not a subject merely of our consciousness; that we have enough knowledge now to understand the laws of reality in a common sense manner; and finally, that we can acknowledge the ultimate separation of theory from reality. Beginning in this way, Omnes presents a tentative theory of knowledge destined to influence scientists and philosophers in the future. Omnes presents his discussion with a minimum of mathematical equations, preferring once again to incorporate his common sense approach even to his own writing. Those who are knowledgeable in the hard sciences and mathematics will find this book intriguing; those without such a background will still find this a useful and sometimes inspiring text.
Rating: 
Summary: Quantum Philosophy
Review: There are many books that aim to explain quantum mechanics to the general public, but Omnes takes a different tack. His goal is nothing less than to provide a scientific foundation for a new philosophy of knowledge (epistemology). This is a big job, and Omnes, a French physicist who has contributed to the theory of quantum decoherence, deserves a gentleman's "C" for making the attempt. Potential readers must be warned, however, that Omnes - quite astonishingly as a physicist writing for a (presumably) non-technical audience - does not take time to explain the concepts of quantum mechanics (wave function, superposition, decoherence, etc.) which are essential to understanding his discussion. Because of this, it is highly recommended that before tackling Omnes, readers should at least have read a serious popular treatment such as Gribbin or Nick Herbert (to name only two of many). The book under review is the 1999 hardcover translation of Roland Omnes' "Philosophie de la science contemporaine" ("Philosophy of Contemporary Science"), which was written in 1994. A 2002 paperback edition is also available. The book is about 290 pages long. It contains a glossary and index, but does not contain footnotes or a bibliography. The first half of the book tells a well-known story of the rise of empirical physics and mathematics (other sciences are not considered) from the Pre-Socratics through the 18th century in Europe, followed by the triumph of formalism in the 19th century and the first startling developments in 20th century physics. While perceptively and gracefully told, such a rapid review of the history of science has to suffer by the speed with which the author covers 2,000 years of scientific developments. The second half of the book moves to the present in discussing the implications of quantum mechanics towards the foundations of a new theory of knowledge. These chapters read like a series of interconnected essays, which circle around some rather big ideas: (1) it is possible to recover common-sense knowledge about ordinary objects from the formalism of quantum mechanics, (2) the theory of quantum decoherence is sufficient to dispose of certain well-known problems, such as Schroedinger's Cat, that result from naively applying quantum superposition to classical objects, and (3) there are two kinds of metaphysical entity: a Logos, as represented by mathematics and logic, and a Reality, as represented by physics. Omnes' key point in all of this, is that the future theory of knowledge will be solidly grounded on a firm scientific basis; but he himself admits that the presentation in this book is only the start of a sketch of such a grand plan. In summary, while I found some things of interest in the book, and appreciated its graceful and literate writing style, I was put off by a general superficiality and incompleteness of treatment, an inadequate explanation of concepts, and especially by the author's unfortunate and all too frequent resort to bald "proof by assertion" instead of the discussion, give-and-take, and scholarly references which are expected even in a popular or semi-popular work.
<< 1 >>
| 
