David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
My title, of course, is an exaggeration. The world no more became mathematical in the seventeenth century than it became ironic in the nineteenth. Either it was mathematical all along, and seventeenth-century philosophers discovered it was, or, if it wasn’t, it could not have been made so by a few books. What became mathematical was physics, and whether that has any bearing on the furniture of the universe is one topic of this paper. Garber says, and I agree, that for Descartes bodies are the things of geometry made real ( Ref). That is a claim about the world: what God created, and what we know in physics, is nothing other than res extensa and its modes. Others, including Marion, hold that in modern science, here represented at its origins by Descartes, representation displaces beings: the knower no longer confronts Being or beings but rather a system of signs, a “code” as Marion calls it, to which the knower stands in the relation of subject to object. The Meditations, or perhaps even the Regulæ, are the ﬁrst step toward the transcendental idealism of Kant. Most of this paper will be devoted to a more concrete question. Physics in the seventeenth century increasingly became a matter of applying mathematical knowledge to the solution of physical problems. The “mixed sciences” of astronomy, optics, and music, sciences then distinct from physics, became models of understanding for all of natural philosophy. My interest here is in one aspect of that development: how particular physical situations are transformed into mathematical. I will look at the work of Descartes and Isaac Beeckman, contrasting their visions of “physico-mathematics”.
|Keywords||philosophy of science mathematization early modern natural philosophy|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library||
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Edward Grant (2007). A History of Natural Philosophy: From the Ancient World to the Nineteenth Century. Cambridge University Press.
John A. Schuster (2012). Physico-Mathematics and the Search for Causes in Descartes' Optics—1619–1637. Synthese 185 (3):467-499.
Ofer Gal & Raz Chen-Morris (2012). Nature's Drawing: Problems and Resolutions in the Mathematization of Motion. Synthese 185 (3):429-466.
Jill North (2009). The “Structure” of Physics. Journal of Philosophy 106 (2):57-88.
Paolo Mancosu (1996). Philosophy of Mathematics and Mathematical Practice in the Seventeenth Century. Oxford University Press.
David Sepkoski (2007). Nominalism and Constructivism in Seventeenth-Century Mathematical Philosophy. Routledge.
Stojan Obradović & Slobodan Ninković (2009). The Heuristic Function of Mathematics in Physics and Astronomy. Foundations of Science 14 (4):351-360.
Leon Horsten, Philosophy of Mathematics. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
S. Gaukroger & J. Schuster (2002). The Hydrostatic Paradox and the Origins of Cartesian Dynamics. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 33 (3):535-572.
Volker Peckhaus (1999). 19th Century Logic Between Philosophy and Mathematics. Bulletin of Symbolic Logic 5 (4):433-450.
Masaki Hrada (2008). Revision of Phenomenology for Mathematical Physics. Proceedings of the Xxii World Congress of Philosophy 43:73-80.
James W. McAllister (1997). Laws of Nature, Natural History, and the Description of the World. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 11 (3):245 – 258.
Added to index2010-12-22
Total downloads28 ( #70,108 of 1,413,330 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #154,079 of 1,413,330 )
How can I increase my downloads?