What do you think?
Rate this book
From Physics to Metaphysics
Drawn from the Tarner lectures delivered in Cambridge in 1993, this book deals with the ultimate nature of reality, and how this is revealed by modern physical theories such as relativity and quantum theory. The author examines subjectivity in science, and defends the objectivity and rationality of science against the views of relativists and social constructionists. An engaging discussion on the role of modern physics, including relativity theory, quantum theory and statistical mechanics, this book will interest popular science readers as well as students and professionals.
- GenresPhilosophyScience
106 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 1995
2 people are currently reading
38 people want to read
About the author
Michael Redhead
7 books4 followersRedhead was Centennial Professor in CPNSS (Centre for Philosophy of Natural and Social Science) at the London School of Economics and Political Science.
Redhead was an Emeritus Fellow of Wolfson College, Cambridge, and was Vice-President (1992–1996) and Acting President 1992 and 1993, Wolfson College, and formerly Head, CU Dept of History and Philosophy of Science.
Redhead was an Emeritus Fellow of Wolfson College, Cambridge, and was Vice-President (1992–1996) and Acting President 1992 and 1993, Wolfson College, and formerly Head, CU Dept of History and Philosophy of Science.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews
December 24, 2020
This book purports to be a "non-technical, discursive account of the interrelatedness of physics and metaphysics", and having read through it, I can say with certainty that all that is needed to fully comprehend the text is a non-technical account of thermodynamics, metaphysical concepts (such as causality and supervenience, quantum physics, and the philosophy of science.
Absolutely nontechnical. Extremely clear.
Here's a quick summary of all 4 chapters, just for my own personal review:
1 > sets up the philosophical background, talking about the spectrum of epistemology from relativists to realists, ultimately claiming that we need to be "hard on truth", taking Karl Popper's view that there is a world that exists outside of ourselves, and even if absolute truth of it may be impossible, we can and should strive for approximations. For what it's worth, I agree completely.
2 > takes 3 specific fields in physics which people have claimed to show subjectivity playing a crucial role in each, specifically human subjectivity. These are Relativity, Statistical Mechanics (2nd law of thermodynamics specifically), and Quantum Mechanics.
The case for subjectivity in Relativity is a conflation of a living-breathing human observer with the specific /reference frame/ said human exists at a particular space and time
The case for subjectivity in statistical mechanics defines entropy as "a measure of our lack of knowledge about a system", whereas the author, following Boltzmann and Planck defines it as "a measure of the number of available states a system has". No human subject necessary
The case for subjectivity in quantum mechanics is the same as with relativity, with space and time replaced with causality and superposition. The main question is "what can open Schrodinger's box"? Again, no human subject necessary.
3 > basically talks about how experimental results in physics test the validity of metaphysical ideas. To give an example of my own, consider the metaphysical idea that the moon is made of cheese. If I can go to the moon and eat it, that will prove or disprove my idea that the moon is made of cheese.
4 > talks about a theory of everything. Realistically speaking, economic and practical limits of particular types of research will be reached, as we have now seen with particle physics in the work of Sabine Hossenfelder's Lost In Math, but even assuming infinite time and resources, a theory of everything is either impossible or possible. If it's possible, the chance that we would know that it's a theory of /everything/ is remarkably slim.
The ideas of this book as are lovely. Shame it's written so poorly that it's impossible to read if you aren't already ass-deep in academic jargon.
Absolutely nontechnical. Extremely clear.
Here's a quick summary of all 4 chapters, just for my own personal review:
1 > sets up the philosophical background, talking about the spectrum of epistemology from relativists to realists, ultimately claiming that we need to be "hard on truth", taking Karl Popper's view that there is a world that exists outside of ourselves, and even if absolute truth of it may be impossible, we can and should strive for approximations. For what it's worth, I agree completely.
2 > takes 3 specific fields in physics which people have claimed to show subjectivity playing a crucial role in each, specifically human subjectivity. These are Relativity, Statistical Mechanics (2nd law of thermodynamics specifically), and Quantum Mechanics.
The case for subjectivity in Relativity is a conflation of a living-breathing human observer with the specific /reference frame/ said human exists at a particular space and time
The case for subjectivity in statistical mechanics defines entropy as "a measure of our lack of knowledge about a system", whereas the author, following Boltzmann and Planck defines it as "a measure of the number of available states a system has". No human subject necessary
The case for subjectivity in quantum mechanics is the same as with relativity, with space and time replaced with causality and superposition. The main question is "what can open Schrodinger's box"? Again, no human subject necessary.
3 > basically talks about how experimental results in physics test the validity of metaphysical ideas. To give an example of my own, consider the metaphysical idea that the moon is made of cheese. If I can go to the moon and eat it, that will prove or disprove my idea that the moon is made of cheese.
4 > talks about a theory of everything. Realistically speaking, economic and practical limits of particular types of research will be reached, as we have now seen with particle physics in the work of Sabine Hossenfelder's Lost In Math, but even assuming infinite time and resources, a theory of everything is either impossible or possible. If it's possible, the chance that we would know that it's a theory of /everything/ is remarkably slim.
The ideas of this book as are lovely. Shame it's written so poorly that it's impossible to read if you aren't already ass-deep in academic jargon.
September 18, 2024
I've been putting off reviewing this because the thought of trying to summarize the arguments—a good chunk of which went over my head—was exhausting, and it's time to stop letting the perfect be the enemy of the good.
- I got this used for $3 at The Strand, and it has someone else's meticulous notes in the end pages, which is delightful.
- I wonder how much of this is irrelevant or needs updating, given the advances in quantum physics between 1993 (date of publication) and now.
- Always happy to see people acknowledging that philosophy has something to say about science, and that science (especially physics) often crosses into philosophy (and therefore would benefit from the perspectives of an expert in that field). Also always happy to see a defense of objectivity.
- I did not understand probably even 50%. But I understood more than 0%!
- I got this used for $3 at The Strand, and it has someone else's meticulous notes in the end pages, which is delightful.
- I wonder how much of this is irrelevant or needs updating, given the advances in quantum physics between 1993 (date of publication) and now.
- Always happy to see people acknowledging that philosophy has something to say about science, and that science (especially physics) often crosses into philosophy (and therefore would benefit from the perspectives of an expert in that field). Also always happy to see a defense of objectivity.
- I did not understand probably even 50%. But I understood more than 0%!
August 7, 2011
Un livre qui aborde le sujet de la métaphysique de la science de manière somme toute assez superficielle.
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews