Online research in philosophy

Boltzmann’s lectures on natural philosophy point out how the principles of mathematics are both an improvement on traditional philosophy and also serve as a necessary foundation of physics or what the English call “Natura Philosophy”, a title which he will retain for his own lectures. We start with lecture #3 and the mathematical contents of his lectures plus a few philosophical comments. Because of the length of the lectures as a whole we can only give the main points of each but organized into a coherent study. Behind his mathematics stands his support of Darwinian evolution interpreted in a partly Lamarckian way. He also supported non-Euclidean geometry. Much of Boltzmann’s analysis of mathematics is an attempt to refute Kant’s static a priori categories and his identification of space with “non-sensuous intuition”. Boltzmann’s strong attention toward discreteness in mathematics can be seen throughout the lectures. Part II of this paper will touch on the historical background of atomism and focus on the discrete way of thinking with which Boltzmann approaches problems in mathematics and beyond. Part III briefly points out how Boltzmann related mathematics and discreteness to music.

Ludwig Boltzmann, Austrian physicist; devoted the second part of his life to philosophy. His natural philosophy is of great importance in the fields of philosophy of science and contemporary philosophy. This article presents (a) his biography; (b) different aspects of his natural philosophy; and (c) bibliography of his philosophical works and the works devoted to his natural philosophy.

The energetics controversy is understood variously as energy vs. atoms, thermodynamics vs. statistical mechanics, phenomenalism vs. realism, equations vs. pictures, and especially Ostwald vs. Boltzmann. It is generally thought that at Lübeck in 1895 Boltzmann and Planck demolished energetics, but while its momentum was slowed, energetics in one or more of the above senses still retained supporters as late as the great physics conference at the St. Louis World’s Fair in 1904. Indeed, after Ostwald himself abandoned it in 1908, Ernst Mach began for the first time to defend it. The main emphasis in this paper, however, is on Georg Helm (1851–1923) who had been invited to Lübeck to be the main speaker on energetics. He had adopted his position earlier than Ostwald and his views avoided many of the errors and oversights in Ostwald’s approach. Indeed, Helm could be called the strongest defender of energetics, even if Ostwald was Boltzmann’s main target. Helm was largely Machist in philosophy at that time and did not reify energy.

In the last quarter of the nineteenth century, Ludwig Boltzmann explained how irreversible macroscopic laws, in particular the second law of thermodynamics, originate in the time-reversible laws of microscopic physics. Boltzmann’s analysis, the essence of which I shall review here, is basically correct. The most famous criticisms of Boltzmann’s later work on the subject have little merit. Most twentieth century innovations – such as the identification of the state of a physical system with a probability distribution on its phase space, of its thermodynamic entropy with the Gibbs entropy of , and the invocation of the notions of ergodicity and mixing for the justification of the foundations of statistical mechanics – are thoroughly misguided.

The atomic hypothesis according to Ludwig Boltzmann. The scientific and philosophical importance of a controversial position at the close of the 19th century. This paper examines Boltzmann’s standpoint in the controversy over the existence of atoms between himself on the one hand and Mach, Ostwald, Helm and to some extent Duhem on the other hand. The latter wanted to develop a physics only constructed with perceptible phenomena. Because of the lack of empirical evidence of the atoms at that time they did not accept them for the construction of physics. In contrast, Boltzmann found the acceptance of atoms to be a fruitful assumption, since for him the construction of physics required going beyond perceptible phenomena. Two different conceptions of nature and of the ways to know nature clashed in this disagreement between Boltzmann and his opponents. Op-posing one-sided positions, Boltzmann supported the hypothetical character of science, in which more than one basic hypothesis can be advanced: he was open to the possibility of fundamental revolutions in science.

The three demi-articles presented here would give a brief biographical account of Ludwig Boltzmann’s life plus some details about his Vienna laboratories first in the 1860’s in the Erdberg and second in Türkenstrasse from 1894. Josef Nabl’s account discusses J. J. Thomson’s Laboratory in Cambridge, which allows a provisional comparison between two different largely contemporary institutes. Nabl’s second letter also mentions Lord Kelvin’s late rejection of the kinetic gas theory of Maxwell and Boltzmann, rejection which on top of the negative attitude of Mach, Zermelo, and Poincaré probably did not benefit Boltzmann’s state of mind and may have contributed to the extreme character of Boltzmann’s anti-philosophical counterattack starting in 1903.

O objectivo do presente artigo é apresentar as ideias que o físico teórico austríaco Ludwig Boltzmann (1844-1906) desenvolveu acerca da natureza e do papel das leis do pensamento. Muito influenciado por Charles Darwin, Boltzmann recusou-se a compreender as leis do pensamento segundo a filosofia de Kant. Em particular, Boltzmann defendeu uma concepção evolutiva das leis do pensamento. O artigo mostra de que forma a concepção das leis do pensamento aceite por Boltzmann impôs uma transformação da sua ideia sobre aquilo que seria o próprio da filosofia. /// Aim of this article is to show some of the epistemological ideas developed by Ludwig Bolzmann (1844-1906). The author of the article considers in particular Bolzmann's view on the nature and role of the laws of reason in the construction of scientific theories. Moreover, he also analyses the influence of Charles Darwin on the Austrian theoretical physicist and how this influence can be viewed as the turning point for the definition of Boltzmann's conception of philosophy.

The method of Ludwig Boltzmann (1844 – 1906), a great Austrian physicist-philosopher, for solving philosophical problems was described. This brilliant method can be a guiding stray in philosophy. His method is not restricted to philosophy of science (scientific philosophy), and indeed it can be used as well in pure philosophy. Theoretical pluralism developed by Boltzmann can be used as a basic assumption in philosophizing the epistemological problems. The Boltzmann’s method also saves philosophy from dogmatism. It shows the usefulness of philosophy as well as progress of science, and calls for collaboration of philosophy and science. This collaboration can lead the human to better understanding of the Nature. Boltzmann states how both science and philosophy can go astray in the absence of this collaboration, since they are indeed unit.

Emphasis in historiography of science is naturally placed on the discoveries and inventions which scientists make and generally less on new methods of doing science, but sometimes the latter can he an important clue to help us understand the former. For example, while we all acknowledge how great the contributions of Maxwell, Boltzmann, Planck, and Einstein were to physics from roughly 1870 to 1920, we often overlook the significance of a methodological phrase which was popular during that same period, namely, what in German was called “Bildtheorie” or in English “picture theory”. But even before we can properly study its significance we have to know what the theory was, but even this presents problems, since the meaning changed. In fact, this paper is an attempt not only to describe the history of that change from Maxwell to Wittgenstein but to study in particular how Boltzmann’s conception of Bildtheorie seems to have been at least partly incorporated into the approach of Ludwig Wittgenstein.

Boltzmann’s Bildtheorie, which asserts that scientific theories are ‘mental pictures’ having at best a partial similarity to reality, was a core element of his philosophy of science. The aim of this article is to draw attention to a neglected aspect of it, namely its significance for the issue of scientific explanation and understanding, regarded by Boltzmann as central goals of science. I argue that, in addition to being an epistemological view of the interpretation of scientific theories Boltzmann’s Bildtheorie has implications for the nature of scientific understanding. This aspect has as yet been ignored because discussion of the Bildtheorie has been restricted to the realism-instrumentalism debate. To elucidate my analysis of Boltzmann’s Bildtheorie concrete examples are presented, and the pragmatist and Darwinist roots of Boltzmann’s view are discussed. Moreover, I propose to use Boltzmann’s ideas as a starting-point for developing a novel analysis of the notion of scientific understanding, of which a brief impression is given. It shows that the study of Boltzmann’s philosophy is not only of historical interest but can be relevant also to modern philosophy of science and to the methodology of theoretical physics.