Jan 24, 2016 07:53 PM
New Physics Questions the Very Nature of Reality
http://www.scientificamerican.com/articl...f-reality/
EXCERPT: It is not at all clear what particles and force fields actually are in the quantum realm. The world may instead consist of bundles of properties, such as color and shape. Physicists routinely describe the universe as being made of tiny subatomic particles that push and pull on one another by means of force fields. They call their subject “particle physics” and their instruments “particle accelerators.” They hew to a Lego-like model of the world. But this view sweeps a little-known fact under the rug: the particle interpretation of quantum physics, as well as the field interpretation, stretches our conventional notions of “particle” and “field” to such an extent that ever more people think the world might be made of something else entirely.... [Purchase to read more]
http://www.revolutionbooksnyc.org/WhatIsReal.pdf
[...] On the basis of these and other insights, one must conclude that “particle physics” is a misnomer: despite the fact that physicists keep talking about particles, there are no such things. One may adopt the phrase “quantum particle,” but what justifies the use of the word “particle” if almost nothing of the classical notion of particles has survived? It is better to bite the bullet and abandon the concept altogether. Some see these difficulties as indirect evidence that quantum field theory describes only fields. By this reasoning, particles are ripples in a field that fills space like an invisible fluid. Yet as we will see now, quantum field theory cannot be readily interpreted in terms of fields, either.
[...] A growing number of people think that what really matters are not things but the relations in which those things stand. Such a view breaks with traditional atomistic or pointillist conceptions of the material world in a more radical way than even the severest modifications of particle and field ontologies could do. Initially this position, known as structural realism, came in a fairly moderate version known as epistemic structural realism. It runs as follows: we may never know the real natures of things but only how they are related to one another. Consider mass. Do you ever see mass itself? No. You see only what it means for other entities or, concretely, how one massive body is related to another massive body through the local gravitational field....
http://www.tokseminars.org/Science_Artic...ality.html
Philosophy in Mexico
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/philosophy-mexico/
EXCERPT: Mexican philosophy has received the influence of different traditions of thought. These sources have been combined and transformed according to the specific problems and circumstances of Mexican life. The result has been a rich and original tradition of thought of over five centuries that, together with Peruvian philosophy, is the oldest of the Americas.
Mexican philosophy has been concerned with all sorts of theoretical questions, however, it could be characterized by its peculiar interest in ethical and political issues. The theme of the nature of man and of reason and its connection to the realms of power and domination has been a central line of thought of Mexican philosophy, from the early reflections about the justification of the Spanish conquest to the recent debates about the demands of a democratic reform or the Indian insurgence in Chiapas. The criticism of philosophical eurocentrism has been another central feature of Mexican philosophy due to its links to some of the main political events of Mexican history, such as the Conquest, the Independence and the Revolution...
http://www.scientificamerican.com/articl...f-reality/
EXCERPT: It is not at all clear what particles and force fields actually are in the quantum realm. The world may instead consist of bundles of properties, such as color and shape. Physicists routinely describe the universe as being made of tiny subatomic particles that push and pull on one another by means of force fields. They call their subject “particle physics” and their instruments “particle accelerators.” They hew to a Lego-like model of the world. But this view sweeps a little-known fact under the rug: the particle interpretation of quantum physics, as well as the field interpretation, stretches our conventional notions of “particle” and “field” to such an extent that ever more people think the world might be made of something else entirely.... [Purchase to read more]
http://www.revolutionbooksnyc.org/WhatIsReal.pdf
[...] On the basis of these and other insights, one must conclude that “particle physics” is a misnomer: despite the fact that physicists keep talking about particles, there are no such things. One may adopt the phrase “quantum particle,” but what justifies the use of the word “particle” if almost nothing of the classical notion of particles has survived? It is better to bite the bullet and abandon the concept altogether. Some see these difficulties as indirect evidence that quantum field theory describes only fields. By this reasoning, particles are ripples in a field that fills space like an invisible fluid. Yet as we will see now, quantum field theory cannot be readily interpreted in terms of fields, either.
[...] A growing number of people think that what really matters are not things but the relations in which those things stand. Such a view breaks with traditional atomistic or pointillist conceptions of the material world in a more radical way than even the severest modifications of particle and field ontologies could do. Initially this position, known as structural realism, came in a fairly moderate version known as epistemic structural realism. It runs as follows: we may never know the real natures of things but only how they are related to one another. Consider mass. Do you ever see mass itself? No. You see only what it means for other entities or, concretely, how one massive body is related to another massive body through the local gravitational field....
http://www.tokseminars.org/Science_Artic...ality.html
Philosophy in Mexico
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/philosophy-mexico/
EXCERPT: Mexican philosophy has received the influence of different traditions of thought. These sources have been combined and transformed according to the specific problems and circumstances of Mexican life. The result has been a rich and original tradition of thought of over five centuries that, together with Peruvian philosophy, is the oldest of the Americas.
Mexican philosophy has been concerned with all sorts of theoretical questions, however, it could be characterized by its peculiar interest in ethical and political issues. The theme of the nature of man and of reason and its connection to the realms of power and domination has been a central line of thought of Mexican philosophy, from the early reflections about the justification of the Spanish conquest to the recent debates about the demands of a democratic reform or the Indian insurgence in Chiapas. The criticism of philosophical eurocentrism has been another central feature of Mexican philosophy due to its links to some of the main political events of Mexican history, such as the Conquest, the Independence and the Revolution...