While at Berkeley, he was a member of the Fundamental Fysiks Group , founded in May by Elizabeth Rauscher and George Weissmann, which met weekly to discuss philosophy and quantum physics. Santa Cruz, U. Berkeley , and San Francisco State University. The Tao of Physics asserts that both physics and metaphysics lead inexorably to the same knowledge. After touring Germany in the early s, Capra co-wrote Green Politics with ecofeminist author Charlene Spretnak in
|Published (Last):||13 June 2004|
|PDF File Size:||13.3 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||2.61 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
Shelves: history-and-philosophy-of-science It is widely recognized, at least by those outside of science, that scientists are notorious bunglers when it comes to philosophical matters. As a matter of fact, it would be surprising if such an unqualified admirer of Taoism, whose writings Capra notes approvingly are "full of passages reflecting It is widely recognized, at least by those outside of science, that scientists are notorious bunglers when it comes to philosophical matters.
The thesis is that the worldviews of Eastern mysticism provide the best framework for understanding modern physics, and that all the advances in physics in the 20th century unanimously confirm these worldviews. However, the picture that emerges is rather one of the utter incompatibility of Eastern mysticism with physics of any kind, classical or modern.
In order to fully appreciate the force of this book, it is important to keep in mind not only the results of physics, but also the scientific endeavor itself. That endeavor consists of an incredibly strenuous exertion of the human rational faculties to uncover truths about reality that we do not know ahead of time, and to systematize the results of investigation into rigorous theories explaining the phenomena.
In contrast to this, according to Capra, "all concepts about reality formed by the human mind are void" p. This collection of quotes does indeed give an excellent picture of the foundation that Eastern mysticism has to offer for science, but is it even possible to think that this view of the world constitutes fertile soil for the scientific enterprise? Can this be serious?
Even if we accept for the sake of the argument his repeated confusion of existence and measurability, it is difficult to see how the fact that particles interact, influence each other, and in some cases are even indistinguishable, means that they are not distinct entities. If it were not enough to repeatedly outrage every principle of sound reasoning, Capra is equally adept at mangling the most profound discoveries of 20th century physics.
In actual fact, General Relativity is the scientific rock upon which all the floundering ships in the fleet of subjectivism are dashed.
From Einstein we have learned that the true structure of space and time is actually so incredibly foreign to our everyday intuitions that it is not even possible to understand it without the formidable apparatus of non-Euclidean geometry. Capra goes on in the same chapter to give an example that "shows that we can always determine whether a surface is curved or not, just by making geometrical measurements of its surface, and by comparing the results with those predicted by Euclidean geometry.
If there is a discrepancy, the surface is curved; and the larger the discrepancy is - for a given size of figures - the stronger the curvature" p. But what is it that is curved or not? Something created by our mind? Why are we doing an experiment at all if the geometry of space is nothing but a creation of the mind? But a mind sunk in the quagmires of Eastern mysticism cannot readily recognize such an obvious point. But this discussion brings up another important point.
I would like to know, if it is true that in modern physics "cause and effect lose their meaning" p. If the answer is that cause and effect are just illusions of the sensory world, then the question remains, how can we ever do a scientific experiment?
Whence comes this illusion, and how can it possibly be trusted to be reliable? If the answer is that cause and effect are indeed principles of macroscopic and sensory reality, but that they are not a part of the unseen "ultimate reality" which underlies all the rest, then I ask, from whence arises this lawfulness in sensory reality? How do we build up from the constituents of a reality where cause and effect are meaningless to an observable world where they are no longer meaningless?
This constitutes as insurmountable a leap for logic as it does for science. As the book drags on, Capra continues to weary us with his absurdities. What does this even mean? I would like to see Capra replace it with something else. Such was certainly not the mind of Johannes Kepler, who spent several years of his life working to account for barely a one tenth of one degree of angle disparity between the orbit of Mars and theory, convinced that the human mind, created in the image of a rational God, could precisely learn the truth about the rational creation of that God.
How foreign such a mindset must really be to Eastern mystical thought. In the early chapters he blames Aristotle and Christianity for the ensuing "lack of interest in the material world" p.
But what cultures ever displayed a more profound and studious disregard for the material world than the Eastern mystical traditions? And why would they hold in high regard something that is at best a creation of the human mind and at worst a deceptive illusion? These theories were ubiquitous in all the great ancient cultures, from the Egyptian to the Babylonian to the Indian to the Chinese to the Mayan to the Greek, and it was exactly this conception that so effectively stifled the optimistic and rational view of nature that is indispensable for science.
In conclusion, Capra has done a masterful job of presenting the relevance of Eastern mysticism to modern physics, but even a passing consideration readily reveals that this relevance is only the thorough incompatibility of Eastern mysticism with science of any kind. As Western culture steadily abandons rationality and the human ability to know truth, the philosophies of Eastern mysticism do indeed continue to gain credence and ascendance, but to exactly the same extent we will surely witness the decline of science.
Fritjof Capra: “Leonardo fue el primer pensador ecológico”
Los modos de pensamiento del mundo moderno estan listos para responder de cuatro formas diferentes, entre las cuales oscilan: Las religiones judea, cristiana e islamica hablan de un Dios Creador que mantiene el mundo. Representa la realidad fundamental. Si El se separa de este mundo solo un instante, el mundo se desvaneceria instantaneamente. En lugar del Dios creador, tienen leyes de la naturaleza o particulas elementales que son el fundamento de todo lo que nos rodea. Todo el resto es solamente un derivado secundario. Debe existir a partir de estos dos: el sujeto y el objeto.
El tao de la física
El Tao De La Fisica
Fritjof Capra: la ciencia física es la base de una vida sostenible