Except that there is, since there are plenty of subjects which have been studied from both sides. The
natures of space, time and causality for a start.
The natures of space, time and causality for a start.
Having studied these subjects from the physics side, I find that there is little useful input into the matter from the philosophy types, except for some vague motivations.
Something concrete, please. What is this nature? What is the philosophical position and what is the physical position? Where is that middle?
The standard example is Einstein’s invocation of the Mach’s principle, which is actually a bad example. GR shows that, contrary to Mach, acceleration is absolute, not relative. One can potentially argue that the frame dragging effect is sort of in this vein, but this effect is weak and was discovered after GR was already constructed, and not by Einstein.
“transcendental phenomenology” is not a natural science but philosophy, so there is no middle to meet in.
Except that there is, since there are plenty of subjects which have been studied from both sides. The natures of space, time and causality for a start.
Having studied these subjects from the physics side, I find that there is little useful input into the matter from the philosophy types, except for some vague motivations.
You may not like the Middle, but it is there.
Feel free to give an example.
The natures of space, time and causality for a start.
Something concrete, please. What is this nature? What is the philosophical position and what is the physical position? Where is that middle?
The standard example is Einstein’s invocation of the Mach’s principle, which is actually a bad example. GR shows that, contrary to Mach, acceleration is absolute, not relative. One can potentially argue that the frame dragging effect is sort of in this vein, but this effect is weak and was discovered after GR was already constructed, and not by Einstein.
It’s not a question of positions. The point is both philosophy and science study these questions.
You claimed that there is a middle. Point one out, concretely.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leibniz%E2%80%93Clarke_correspondence. The point is both philosophy and science study these questions.