Chapeau to your historic review of Heisenbergs way through life. I have read Heisenbergs original german book "Der Teil und das Ganze". In that book Heisenberg tries to convince the reader, that he did not believe at the time of WW2 that an atomic bomb could be possible. Nils Bohr told later to the public that Heisenberg stated clearly during their famous walk in 1941 that he KNOW an atomic bomb is possible. Heisenberg was asked this very same question as well by a highest ranked german military officer. This officer told Heisenberg that he will get unlimited resources if he can finish the first atomic bomb in a year. Then Heisenberg became cold feets and stepped back from such a challenge fearing deadly consequences for himself in case of failure ...
This additional information from "Der Teil Und Das Ganze" and Niels Bohr's statement is very interesting. It is the kind of topic about which someone might not be entirely candid. There are some statements from him in the Farm Hall Transcripts related to what you said about him getting cold feet. He said: "We wouldn't have had the moral courage to recommend to the government in the spring of 1942 that they should employ 120,000 men just for building the thing up." The meaning of this is clearer from the context you give.
Fortunately it is called a principle, which means that it should be valid on every scale of nature. By relating this principle to the second law of thermodynamics, I can demonstrate the existence of Almighty God. But above all his only gamble. Also because it is God's only desire. I am talking about understanding, or order that emerges spontaneously from chaos. Endrit Vuka, Bologna IT
Here is Einstein's new "thought experiment": 2 identical precision clocks are moving toward each other ... Clock 1 shouts out: "Hey clock 2, you are ticking SLOWER than i do" ... Clock 2 replies: "FALSE ... ! ... i am ticking FASTER than you do!" ... That is called a classical epistemeological CONTRADICTION, which final falsifies Einstein's theory of "Special Relativity", because clock 2 can NEVER ticking "slower" & "faster" at the SAME TIME than clock 1 ... ! ...
I do not quite follow the meaning here, but I imagine it is related in part to something else that Heisenberg talks about, which is the way that physicists think about "simultaneity" differently from how others do. "Time dilation" is another one of those concepts that sounds fascinating but is hard to even grasp generally from the outside.
Math cannot explain let alone proof anything but only help to describe quantitative aspects of the matter. The scientific or even better the epistemeological reasoning for it are both incompleteness theorems published by mathematician Kurt Gödel in 1931.
The incompleteness theorems are another concept that arise when one is browsing in this area. I have not tried to understand them even in a superficial way, but I ought to. Thanks for the recommendation.
@@vollrathpublishing ... actually it is not that difficult ... here are both incompleteness theorems from Kurt Gödel (1931): 1) "If a theory is sufficient expressive, then it is either incomplete or inconsistent." 2) "If a theory is sufficient expressive and consistent, then it cannot proof its consistency within itself." ... which means for the practical life of mathematicians ... that even a fairly simple system like basic arithmetic cannot proof its consistency due to cases of the "Entscheidungsproblem" ... which let to the Church-Turing thesis ... ;-)
There is no such thing as "absolute truth"! It seems that Heisenberg had read the work of Immanuel Kant, but not that of David Hume, who made clear in his work "An enquiry concerning human understanding" that there is no such thing as "causality". Hume's work impressed Kant so much that he from that point in time on thought about insights only in terms of the 'conditions for the probability of insights' ... ! ... There are only causal relations and if a scientist creates a new theory, which takes into account all known causal relations at that time and if that theory is free of contradictions ... ! ... well ... then that new theory might become the 'causality' for matters under investigations ...
You make an excellent guess regarding Hume based on what I was able to cover, but unfortunately I had to skip a lot of what Heisenberg discusses. He apparently did read Hume and on Page 58 of the English translation of this book he gives a reasonable warning about where that can lead, mentioning "Hume, who denied induction and causation and thereby arrived at a conclusion which if taken seriously would destroy the basis of all empirical science."
@@vollrathpublishing ... well ... wasn't it Richard Feynman who once said - quote: "I can live with doubt and uncertainty. I think it's much more interessting to live not knowing than to have answers which might be wrong!" - unquote.
Thank you. A useful summary.
You are welcome, and thank you for listening.
Chapeau to your historic review of Heisenbergs way through life. I have read Heisenbergs original german book "Der Teil und das Ganze". In that book Heisenberg tries to convince the reader, that he did not believe at the time of WW2 that an atomic bomb could be possible. Nils Bohr told later to the public that Heisenberg stated clearly during their famous walk in 1941 that he KNOW an atomic bomb is possible. Heisenberg was asked this very same question as well by a highest ranked german military officer. This officer told Heisenberg that he will get unlimited resources if he can finish the first atomic bomb in a year. Then Heisenberg became cold feets and stepped back from such a challenge fearing deadly consequences for himself in case of failure ...
This additional information from "Der Teil Und Das Ganze" and Niels Bohr's statement is very interesting. It is the kind of topic about which someone might not be entirely candid. There are some statements from him in the Farm Hall Transcripts related to what you said about him getting cold feet. He said: "We wouldn't have had the moral courage to recommend to the government in the spring of 1942 that they should employ 120,000 men just for building the thing up." The meaning of this is clearer from the context you give.
Fortunately it is called a principle, which means that it should be valid on every scale of nature. By relating this principle to the second law of thermodynamics, I can demonstrate the existence of Almighty God. But above all his only gamble. Also because it is God's only desire. I am talking about understanding, or order that emerges spontaneously from chaos.
Endrit Vuka, Bologna IT
Here is Einstein's new "thought experiment": 2 identical precision clocks are moving toward each other ...
Clock 1 shouts out: "Hey clock 2, you are ticking SLOWER than i do" ... Clock 2 replies: "FALSE ... ! ... i am ticking FASTER than you do!" ...
That is called a classical epistemeological CONTRADICTION, which final falsifies Einstein's theory of "Special Relativity", because
clock 2 can NEVER ticking "slower" & "faster" at the SAME TIME than clock 1 ... ! ...
I do not quite follow the meaning here, but I imagine it is related in part to something else that Heisenberg talks about, which is the way that physicists think about "simultaneity" differently from how others do. "Time dilation" is another one of those concepts that sounds fascinating but is hard to even grasp generally from the outside.
@@vollrathpublishing ... (58:20min) ... the speaker talks abour Einstein's Relatiity ... ;-)
Math cannot explain let alone proof anything but only help to describe quantitative aspects of the matter. The scientific or even better the epistemeological reasoning for it are both incompleteness theorems published by mathematician Kurt Gödel in 1931.
The incompleteness theorems are another concept that arise when one is browsing in this area. I have not tried to understand them even in a superficial way, but I ought to. Thanks for the recommendation.
@@vollrathpublishing ... actually it is not that difficult ... here are both incompleteness theorems from Kurt Gödel (1931):
1) "If a theory is sufficient expressive, then it is either incomplete or inconsistent."
2) "If a theory is sufficient expressive and consistent, then it cannot proof its consistency within itself."
... which means for the practical life of mathematicians ... that even a fairly simple system like basic arithmetic cannot proof its consistency due to cases of the "Entscheidungsproblem" ... which let to the Church-Turing thesis ... ;-)
There is no such thing as "absolute truth"! It seems that Heisenberg had read the work of Immanuel Kant, but not that of David Hume, who made clear in his work "An enquiry concerning human understanding" that there is no such thing as "causality". Hume's work impressed Kant so much that he from that point in time on thought about insights only in terms of the 'conditions for the probability of insights' ... ! ...
There are only causal relations and if a scientist creates a new theory, which takes into account all known causal relations at that time and if that theory is free of contradictions ... ! ... well ... then that new theory might become the 'causality' for matters under investigations ...
You make an excellent guess regarding Hume based on what I was able to cover, but unfortunately I had to skip a lot of what Heisenberg discusses. He apparently did read Hume and on Page 58 of the English translation of this book he gives a reasonable warning about where that can lead, mentioning "Hume, who denied induction and causation and thereby arrived at a conclusion which if taken seriously would destroy the basis of all empirical science."
@@vollrathpublishing ... well ... wasn't it Richard Feynman who once said - quote: "I can live with doubt and uncertainty. I think it's much more interessting to live not knowing than to have answers which might be wrong!" - unquote.