Which Continental Philosopher would be best to give as a Christmas present for a quantum physicist who never read a philosophy book in his life?
>>7484634
Maybe Heidegger's "Logic: The Question of Truth"? It's the lecture course he gave right before he went to write Being and Time, and it has a couple of qualities that recommend it.
Firstly, the translator, Thomas Sheehan, has a brilliant grasp of the whole Heideggerian corpus, and translates with a confidence that Heidegger's German CAN be translated into sensible English (I'm sure a couple of Heideggerians might context that. All I can say is that they'd have to satisfy themselves that Sheehan's recent study, Making Sense of Heidegger, is wrongheaded from start to finish).
The subject matter might have some appeal to a scientist, discussing the relation of Logic to Greek logos, the development of its formal elements, a persuasive account of its relationship to metaphysics, and an interesting account of its relationship to truth (as well as a similar account of the difference of modern Truth and ancient Greek aletheia).
Heidegger also does the service of providing his bonafides at the beginning of the course by discussing several interesting studies on logic.
>>7484634
Why not give him a philosophy book that actually relates to his field and will make him think as opposed to obfuscatory nonsense?
I would recommend "Philosophical Consequences of Quantum Theory: Reflections on Bell's Theorem." Maybe it'll snap him out of his potential positivism
>>7484892
that desu
Surely you're joking, Mr. Feynman!
Vehicles - Braitenberg
>>7484634
AGAINST METHOD
or
THE STRUCTURE OF SCIENTIFIC REVOLUTIONS
Probably something he wants instead.
>>7487009
Came to post this. It's a pretty good read. Physics and Philosophy - The Revolution in Modern Science.
If he's ever going to find philosophy interesting, I would think this would be the gateway drug.
>>7484757
Also; recommending Heidy to a STEM with no interest in phil os just asking for a beating.
Sophie's World. I am not even kidding.
>>7484634
The Tao of Physics
or anything by Michio Kaku
Start him with the Greeks.
>>7484892
Giving a physicist who knows anything about quantum theory a book about quantum interpretations is a surefire way to piss them off, unless they buy into drivel like MWI or Bohmian theories.
>>7484634
Feyerabend
>>7488953
And giving them some continental faglord won't make them even angrier?
>unless they buy into drivel like MWI or Bohmian theories.
Don't tell me you buy into Copenhagen
>nobody said Spinoza yet
Continental4nerdz
>>7489237
>He rejects the Copenhagen interpretation
Why?
>>7489441
Because it's hardly an interpretation. It entirely skirts around the question of what quantum theory says about nature and turns it into an instrumental tool for calculating probabilities
I'd start withere practical philosophy like Stoicism. Maybe Discourses or Meditations. It's a good way to warm up to philosophy, because most people consider things like metaphysics and aesthetics useless.
>>7489510
Metaphysics was deprecated and aesthetics is subjective.
>>7489496
>It entirely skirts around the question of what quantum theory says about nature and turns it into an instrumental tool for calculating probabilities
That's the point. Most "interpretations" are just attempts to force quantum mechanics to be like classical mechanics (Bohmian mechanics and other nonlocal HV theories) or create unnatural theoretical baggage (MWI).
>>7489563
That's not satisfactory. If we're to take quantum mechanics as a theory about the world then there are consequences to doing so and those consequences should be further explored through interpretive inquiries. If it's purely epistemic then I guess science hasn't supplanted philosophy as the standard bearer of truth and we can all go home
>>7489592
So what particular things do you think QM should say about nature that make you reject CI?
>>7489841
It's the ontological aspects of QM that perturb me and the broader implications of some of the findings that have been made. Copenhagen isn't strictly instrumentalist in that it defines QM as merely a tool, but instead rejects any speculation as to the meaning beyond the signs of the theory's formalism, dismissing it as irrelevant/unknowable as opposed to nonexistent. Turning a blind eye to the issue and pretending it isn't there doesn't help us clear up the conceptual ambiguities that lie at its foundations. Most physicists default to scientific realism when it comes to the structure of their theories, taking it as a given. If we ARE to take this as a given, then we should be concerned with the ontological status of the wavefunction, the *possible* reality of action-at-a-distance in nature, and even what we mean by the very notion of “particles” and “fields”, among other issues. A good interpretation of QM should aim to clarify what the theory actually means, as opposed to ignoring these problems outright.
