Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Log inSign up
Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Blog
Job Board
Q3AS

© 2026 Aqora Quantum S.A.S.

TermsPrivacyLegal Notice

Nature

Philosophy of Physical Science

Arthur Stanley Eddington

Published Dec 1, 1941• 250 citations
Publisher
DOI
10.1038/148692b0

Related papers

Philosophy of Physics

Robert P Crease

Institute of Physics eBooks•Jan 1, 2017•2 citations

Parallels between Confucian Philosophy and Quantum Physics

Sung Jang Chung

A scientific relationship between the Eastern Confucian philosophy and quantum physics is not clearly known in science and philosophy because of lack of concrete data that would substantially enable us to clearly explain it. Recent findings and discoveries in quantum physics and other relevant science, and the Eastern Confucian philosophy are reviewed in this study. The review of Confucian philosophy, quantum physics and personal experiences of precognitive dreams of the author and others reveal considerable parallels between Confucian philosophy and quantum physics from the ontological perspective.

Open Journal of Philosophy•Jan 1, 2014•7 citations

Philosophy of Physics

Tim Maudlin

Princeton University Press eBooks•Jul 22, 2012•169 citations

Advancing the Philosophy of Physics

Dean P. Rickles

There are several (general) philosophy of physics textbooks on the market.1 An obvious question to ask at the outset then is: Why another one? In his “Some Philosophical Aspects of Particle Physics”, Michael Redhead bemoans the common practice of philosophers of science of dealing with examples “which are no longer of current research interest in science” ((1980), p. 279). This practice is still common even among many philosophers of physics, and, for the most part, the available textbooks continue to engage in this practice. Generally, one finds a little spacetime, a little statistical mechanics, and a little quantum theory. Now, these are of course the ‘pillars’ of modern physics, so it is what we should expect to be covered in any textbook on the philosophy of physics worth its salt (and, indeed, they are well represented in this book). However, the issues that are dealt with are usually very old fashioned and very limited in scope: ‘spacetime’ means ‘the twins paradox’ (and possibly conventionalism); ‘statistical mechanics’ means ‘time asymmetry’; and ‘quantum theory’ means ‘the measurement problem’. Redhead is surely right that this leads physicists to “regard philosophy of science as somewhat irrelevant”. Rightly so, too, if this were in fact representative of much of what actually goes on in philosophy of physics. However, the state of play as represented in philosophy of physics and (some) philosophy of science journals shows a very different level of engagement, with philosophers of physics investigating the frontiers of scientific research. This disparity (or the impression of such) is the raison d’eˆtre for the book you are now reading. The result is an introductory textbook covering those portions of philosophy of physics research that other textbooks fail to cover, or cover only very briefly or very simplistically. The three pillars of modern physics-relativity, quantum theory and statistical mechanics-are still represented, then, but from a more advanced and contemporary perspective.

•Oct 16, 2008•2 citations

PHILOSOPHY OF PHYSICS

WORLD SCIENTIFIC eBooks•Jul 1, 2000•0 citations

The Pinnacle of Science or the End of Scientific Thought? —The Fifth Discussion of the Theoretical Contradictions between Quantum Mechanics and Relativity Using Cosmic Origin Philosophy

Samo Liu

Quantum mechanics and relativity spurred the Third Industrial Revolution, presenting no contradictions in applied engineering but significant theoretical discord. The electronic computer, another major achievement of this era, transformed humanity through the rise of information networks, marking information science as another critical outcome of the revolution. Matter transforms into energy, energy into matter, and mechanics serve as profound conduits for information, even enabling the creation of robots. Modern physics now faces interpretative divides, having seemingly overlooked philosophy and information science’s foundational roles. Human intellect, while reaching new heights through material philosophy, finds itself tangled in confusion. Has science achieved the apex of thought, or does it face an intellectual dead end? This question hints at a revolutionary awakening in human thought. This paper delves deeply into these questions by analyzing and reflecting on the “Scientific Cosmological Ontology,” “Modern Physical Philosophy Framework,” “The Physical Principles of Natural Philosophy,” and “Reflections on the Philosophy of Science.”

Open Journal of Philosophy•Jan 1, 2025•2 citations
A scientific relationship between the Eastern Confucian philosophy and quantum physics is not clearly known in science and philosophy because of lack of concrete data that would substantially enable us to clearly explain it. Recent findings and discoveries in quantum physics and other relevant science, and the Eastern Confucian philosophy are reviewed in this study. The review of Confucian philosophy, quantum physics and personal experiences of precognitive dreams of the author and others reveal considerable parallels between Confucian philosophy and quantum physics from the ontological perspective.
There are several (general) philosophy of physics textbooks on the market.1 An obvious question to ask at the outset then is: Why another one? In his “Some Philosophical Aspects of Particle Physics”, Michael Redhead bemoans the common practice of philosophers of science of dealing with examples “which are no longer of current research interest in science” ((1980), p. 279). This practice is still common even among many philosophers of physics, and, for the most part, the available textbooks continue to engage in this practice. Generally, one finds a little spacetime, a little statistical mechanics, and a little quantum theory. Now, these are of course the ‘pillars’ of modern physics, so it is what we should expect to be covered in any textbook on the philosophy of physics worth its salt (and, indeed, they are well represented in this book). However, the issues that are dealt with are usually very old fashioned and very limited in scope: ‘spacetime’ means ‘the twins paradox’ (and possibly conventionalism); ‘statistical mechanics’ means ‘time asymmetry’; and ‘quantum theory’ means ‘the measurement problem’. Redhead is surely right that this leads physicists to “regard philosophy of science as somewhat irrelevant”. Rightly so, too, if this were in fact representative of much of what actually goes on in philosophy of physics. However, the state of play as represented in philosophy of physics and (some) philosophy of science journals shows a very different level of engagement, with philosophers of physics investigating the frontiers of scientific research. This disparity (or the impression of such) is the raison d’eˆtre for the book you are now reading. The result is an introductory textbook covering those portions of philosophy of physics research that other textbooks fail to cover, or cover only very briefly or very simplistically. The three pillars of modern physics-relativity, quantum theory and statistical mechanics-are still represented, then, but from a more advanced and contemporary perspective.
Quantum mechanics and relativity spurred the Third Industrial Revolution, presenting no contradictions in applied engineering but significant theoretical discord. The electronic computer, another major achievement of this era, transformed humanity through the rise of information networks, marking information science as another critical outcome of the revolution. Matter transforms into energy, energy into matter, and mechanics serve as profound conduits for information, even enabling the creation of robots. Modern physics now faces interpretative divides, having seemingly overlooked philosophy and information science’s foundational roles. Human intellect, while reaching new heights through material philosophy, finds itself tangled in confusion. Has science achieved the apex of thought, or does it face an intellectual dead end? This question hints at a revolutionary awakening in human thought. This paper delves deeply into these questions by analyzing and reflecting on the “Scientific Cosmological Ontology,” “Modern Physical Philosophy Framework,” “The Physical Principles of Natural Philosophy,” and “Reflections on the Philosophy of Science.”