Philosophy of Physics and Theoretical Physics sitting on a tree...

Yes, cheesy title but just ignore that for once, would ya? :D


I have a little bit of dilemma here. It has to do with my understanding of the above topics.

It seems to me, where I read books on theoretical physics (back in my undergrad days), I've no problems with the concepts, only with the higher math required - the kind of system we underwent didn't help matters because we weren't learning enough math to catch up with the math quantum mechanics and its ilk require. However, now that I am trying to read books written by philosophers and English studies scholars who write about debates in theoretical physics, I am having some problems remembering and understanding their points. I mean, I get all the stuff that is quoted or illustrated about what some illustrous physicist have to say on the subject (in fact, it was a kind of refresher course for me, coz in physics courses, we only learnt that which is considered the best representation of acceptable physics, we didn't bother too much with theories that had been proven wrong, or were unprovable - except when the lecturer decided to digress philosophically or when we decided to do some extra-mural reading. I've only have limited knowledge of Aristotle's contribution to the physical sciences, drawn mainly from the history and philosophy of science course which I was forced to take in my first year but which I hope to rectify soon), but then, the analysis kinda got me stumped (either I'm not too bright or I need to change the way I read). I find it difficult sometimes to make sense of what these people are saying.

However, I am not saying that they write terribly (or do they write terribly?). I remember, in my late teens, while trying to read Roger Penrose's The Emperor's New Mind, I went through many pages that made little sense to me (and it was kinda torturous in a way to go through them), especially when he started talking about the mathematics of AI, though the physics part were definitely exciting and comprehensible.

So, I find Feynman easier to understand than let's say (ok, it's his is a very reader-friendly style) ...Foucault (ref specifically to his Archaeology of Knowledge) or this guy other guy whom I'm reading, Norris (Quantum Theory and the Flight from Realism), though for the latter, I think it could be the fact that he squeezed in so many stuff in the first two chapters that threw me off-balance. But he did provide a pretty clear differentiation between the realists (Einstein, Podosky and Rosen and anti-realists like Bohr and gang, apparently related to this ongoing confrontation between the orthodox QM group and they who subscribe to relativity. I would like to read what Bohm has to say about it (because I really cannot remember what he said about QM, since I've only read a little of his writings before, and that was long ago).


Perhaps I should change strategy and begin from Feyerabend, if I want to go the philosophy of science route? Hell, Popper and Wittgenstein made more sense (my only problem with the latter is that he says so much stuff that I can't always remember what he said after awhile without rereading. Ya poor memory, maybe didn't take enough of those Omega-3 and 6 stuff when I was growing up :D) to me. But what I like about the way the philosophers had written it, is that they have taken ideas that were made to sound so certain and irrefutable in physics textbooks to force us to rethink that perhaps we might be looking up the wrong side of the telescope (or tunnel).


But at the end of the day, knowing the math helps, because the way I finally do really get it, is when I also finally also get the math. I hope my friend who is doing a PhD in physics is reading this and can give me her opinion :)

And I suggest rereading Michio Kaku's Hyperspace. It is an old book (published more than a decade ago) but worth looking at again. And to go back even further, read also Edwin Abott's Flatland.

And since my particular interest is in the discourse of science in Literature that are not necessarily science fiction (or cybernetics/phenomenology/cyberpunk fiction), I think it would be good to start compiling a list of books, for a start, that highlight the exciting/cutting-edge science of their day. Though it is easier to start with treatises written by the scientists themselves (and I will definitely use this as secondary sources), I am still creating a biliographic list of works that have a definite allusion to science (the Romantic writers would be a good source) and more obscure works/works that had never been studied or examined from the perspective of scientific discourse.

Just my little musings as I am going through the materials, and plotting my moves. :)


Coming up next, my musings on a 'chick lit' book I am reading (when I wanna get away from the heavy stuff) :P