What do you think?
Rate this book
The Great Questions of Philosophy and Physics
Length: 6 hrs and 10 mins
Philosophers have long puzzled over the nature of space, time, and matter. These inquiries led to the flowering of physics with the Scientific Revolution in the 17th century. Since then, the spectacular success of modern physics might appear to have made philosophy irrelevant. But new theories have created a new range of philosophical concerns: What is the shape of space? Is time travel possible? Is there a grand unified theory that unites all of physics?
Treating these and other puzzles with an entertaining and accessible approach, The Great Questions of Philosophy and Physics guides you through the concepts, theories, and speculations that underlie our understanding of reality. In 12 stimulating, half-hour lectures, award-winning teacher and philosopher Steven Gimbel of Gettysburg College covers the fundamental ideas of modern physics, highlighting the role of philosophy in setting ground rules, interpreting the results, and posing new questions.
Professor Gimbel describes the grand synthesis that Isaac Newton achieved with his universal theory of gravitation and its picture of absolute space and time. Then, you see how Albert Einstein’s theory of relativity, combined with quantum theory, overthrew the Newtonian paradigm, posing a host of philosophical puzzles. Among them is Erwin Schrödinger’s famous thought experiment about a cat that is simultaneously dead and alive according to the standard interpretation of quantum mechanics. You survey philosophical attempts to escape from this and other paradoxes, and you also investigate the role of mathematics in physical theories. Does its extraordinary success imply that the world is a mathematical system?
You close by exploring theological arguments that invoke the discoveries of physics to posit a creator God. As with other theories covered in the course, you carefully weigh both sides using scientific evidence and the tools of philosophy.
PLEASE NOTE: When you purchase this title, the accompanying PDF will be available in your Audible Library along with the audio.
7 pages, Audible Audio
Published April 24, 2020
9 people are currently reading
111 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 17 of 17 reviews
June 14, 2020
Steven Gimbel is crème de la crème of lecturers. In his delivery philosophy of physics turns into a fascinating review of the relationship between science and philosophy, both intellectually stimulating and entertaining.
He manages to do this without dumbing down complex scientific concepts into idiotic pulp. His discussion of philosophical implications of physics is based on his solid understanding of the underlying science, unlike the popular modern genre of "philosophical" ravings claiming to be based on quantum physics where authors know close to nothing about physics and sincerely hope their readers know even less.
Steven Gimbel doesn't give ready answers to philosophical dilemmas but presents different points of view competing in modern philosophy. He trusts his listeners intelligence to enjoy this feast for thought.
He manages to do this without dumbing down complex scientific concepts into idiotic pulp. His discussion of philosophical implications of physics is based on his solid understanding of the underlying science, unlike the popular modern genre of "philosophical" ravings claiming to be based on quantum physics where authors know close to nothing about physics and sincerely hope their readers know even less.
Steven Gimbel doesn't give ready answers to philosophical dilemmas but presents different points of view competing in modern philosophy. He trusts his listeners intelligence to enjoy this feast for thought.
November 2, 2024
Gimbel looks at puzzles arising in physics and philosophical responses to them. I think some are matters of theoretical physics more than philosophy.
September 26, 2024
The course goes through the centuries of tension among thinkers about what is real in an ultimate way. Explanations along that line were once the domain of philosophy and religion (Plato), though Aristotle was pretty good about portraying the world in a naturalistic way. Later, maybe starting with Descartes, scientific accounts begin the separation from philosophy to look at the world in terms of material entities and the causal relationships between them. Ironically, given his intent to affirm God’s place in the cosmos, Newton’s theories had the opposite effect and set in motion a view of the cosmos that minimized God’s role. By the early 20th century with the flourishing of cosmological speculation based on Einstein and others, the separation between philosophy and science was complete, save for the logical positivists who affirmed their alliance with science by dismissing non-material inquiry as meaningless.
A major part of these Gimbel lectures highlight the ultimate uncertainties surrounding scientific portrayals of the cosmos. There are just too many loose ends - the famous debate between Bohr and Einstein over determinism being one - for science not to be humble about what it knows and doesn’t know regarding many of the fundamentals. Though Gimbel doesn’t address this directly, it strikes me that there is a hefty amount of thinking within prevailing paradigms that skew an openness to contrary explanations or prevents a revisiting of old ideas that, though not correct in the way originally presented, were not wrong either as they had more than a tinge of truth about them, like they were onto something.
In this regard, the Newtonian emphasis is not on movement per se, but rather on the deviation of movement, such as gravity’s role as an external force that causes a change in motion. What gets lost in this picture is the other half of causation, which is an internal source of movement. We know from Hubble that the universe is expanding and we look at that from the perspective of gravity - will it pull the cosmos back to its big bang beginnings or will outward movement escape gravity’s clutches? As to what causes this increased expansion, we get only some type of inflationary explosion from the big bang. But isn’t this the origin of inertial movement (Newton’s first law - a body wants to go straight were it not for gravity), and it's the two together that create orbital systems: Gravity “attracts” (with the Einstein caveat that attraction is about moving along geometric lines toward a gravitational center), but inertial movement resists that pulling because a body wants to go straight. The compromise is an orbit of one body around another (Newton's first law again: an inertial body wants to remain at rest if at rest, which is an equilibrium state). If one body is sufficiently massive, only then does it overcome inertia and attract a lesser body to the gravitational center as in the case for example of a black hole.
Significantly, this discounting of inertial movement in contemporary discussions of cosmology is seen when it comes to future scenarios of the cosmos, which bumps into the heart of metaphysical questions. If the big bang creates inertial movement (and spin-rotation at the macro scale, and might this inertial movement be filled with mysterious dark energy?), it is a movement away from a gravitational center, the effects of which are progressively less prominent per the inverse square law. Doesn’t this curve the inertial movement outward over the cosmic space-time scales that dissipate gravity’s effect?
What then? If not a stasis point - an equilibrium point between outward-push and inward-pull - wouldn’t the inertial movement under gravitational curvature not contract as the image of a deflating balloon conveys, but continue onward, with inertial movement now, temporarily free from gravity’s effects, continuing its curved movement to return back to the gravitational center (and possibly, for another big bang scenario)? In other words, it’s not an out and back linear cosmos, but a cyclical, spherical one. Is it something like a combo of the expansion-steady state-contraction scenarios that are often referenced as the three main cosmic scenarios? Is then the primal cosmic force not gravity, but inertia per Newton’s first law that gravity deviates?
Seen this way, Aristotle’s teleology takes on a new life. Energy and matter “wants” to move in a straight line and “wants” to remain at rest if at rest. This suggests a self-propelled version of movement: Matter-energy pushes outward as its natural state of motion. In doing so, it also interacts with other matter-energy, and in effect, pushes it. So there’s internal pushing with external pushing effects. But matter-energy in the end wants its own inertial movement to continue and therefore its straight line motion constitutes at the same time a resisting force to the accelerating (gravitational) effects of another body. (Per Einstein’s equivalence principle, a body resists gravitational effects and itself has gravitational effects, with the effects being proportionate to its relative mass). In the end, the tension between inertial and gravity is resolved by one overcoming the other (gravity, as in a black hole scenario), by one escaping the effects of the other (kinetic mass prevails over gravitational mass), or by a mutual balance (an orbital system) when outward movement is balanced by the inward pull of gravity.
Now, to put this into philosophical terms, isn’t this Schopenhauer’s Will at work? And, isn’t it possible to argue that dialectical interaction is built into cosmology at the largest scale? Cosmic energy and its fundamental patterns are in essence, dialectical. Inertial movement is thesis-in-the-world. Resistance to deviation is antithesis-in-the-world. Resolution of tension is a movement of energy toward its balance point between one and the other. This is the synthesis state, and isn’t there a bit of Aristotle here - a cosmic teleology where energy needs to be one with itself, by moving toward equilibrium states, that remain so (again Newton’s first law - a state of rest), until new matter-energy disrupts the balance?
Gimbel pretty much sticks to what others have said on the key topics (and it’s more about science than philosophy), but he doesn’t use this as a springboard to engage that much in the philosophical implications drawn from modern cosmology. He concludes his lectures by saying it’s not philosophy or science that gives us the picture we need, but both. Philosophy without physics, he says, is naive, but physics without philosophy is shallow. I agree, but I think that he held back way too much in explaining the integral tie between the two: Philosophy can build itself on a scientific foundation to offer narratives that are not inconsistent with what science tells us.
A major part of these Gimbel lectures highlight the ultimate uncertainties surrounding scientific portrayals of the cosmos. There are just too many loose ends - the famous debate between Bohr and Einstein over determinism being one - for science not to be humble about what it knows and doesn’t know regarding many of the fundamentals. Though Gimbel doesn’t address this directly, it strikes me that there is a hefty amount of thinking within prevailing paradigms that skew an openness to contrary explanations or prevents a revisiting of old ideas that, though not correct in the way originally presented, were not wrong either as they had more than a tinge of truth about them, like they were onto something.
In this regard, the Newtonian emphasis is not on movement per se, but rather on the deviation of movement, such as gravity’s role as an external force that causes a change in motion. What gets lost in this picture is the other half of causation, which is an internal source of movement. We know from Hubble that the universe is expanding and we look at that from the perspective of gravity - will it pull the cosmos back to its big bang beginnings or will outward movement escape gravity’s clutches? As to what causes this increased expansion, we get only some type of inflationary explosion from the big bang. But isn’t this the origin of inertial movement (Newton’s first law - a body wants to go straight were it not for gravity), and it's the two together that create orbital systems: Gravity “attracts” (with the Einstein caveat that attraction is about moving along geometric lines toward a gravitational center), but inertial movement resists that pulling because a body wants to go straight. The compromise is an orbit of one body around another (Newton's first law again: an inertial body wants to remain at rest if at rest, which is an equilibrium state). If one body is sufficiently massive, only then does it overcome inertia and attract a lesser body to the gravitational center as in the case for example of a black hole.
Significantly, this discounting of inertial movement in contemporary discussions of cosmology is seen when it comes to future scenarios of the cosmos, which bumps into the heart of metaphysical questions. If the big bang creates inertial movement (and spin-rotation at the macro scale, and might this inertial movement be filled with mysterious dark energy?), it is a movement away from a gravitational center, the effects of which are progressively less prominent per the inverse square law. Doesn’t this curve the inertial movement outward over the cosmic space-time scales that dissipate gravity’s effect?
What then? If not a stasis point - an equilibrium point between outward-push and inward-pull - wouldn’t the inertial movement under gravitational curvature not contract as the image of a deflating balloon conveys, but continue onward, with inertial movement now, temporarily free from gravity’s effects, continuing its curved movement to return back to the gravitational center (and possibly, for another big bang scenario)? In other words, it’s not an out and back linear cosmos, but a cyclical, spherical one. Is it something like a combo of the expansion-steady state-contraction scenarios that are often referenced as the three main cosmic scenarios? Is then the primal cosmic force not gravity, but inertia per Newton’s first law that gravity deviates?
Seen this way, Aristotle’s teleology takes on a new life. Energy and matter “wants” to move in a straight line and “wants” to remain at rest if at rest. This suggests a self-propelled version of movement: Matter-energy pushes outward as its natural state of motion. In doing so, it also interacts with other matter-energy, and in effect, pushes it. So there’s internal pushing with external pushing effects. But matter-energy in the end wants its own inertial movement to continue and therefore its straight line motion constitutes at the same time a resisting force to the accelerating (gravitational) effects of another body. (Per Einstein’s equivalence principle, a body resists gravitational effects and itself has gravitational effects, with the effects being proportionate to its relative mass). In the end, the tension between inertial and gravity is resolved by one overcoming the other (gravity, as in a black hole scenario), by one escaping the effects of the other (kinetic mass prevails over gravitational mass), or by a mutual balance (an orbital system) when outward movement is balanced by the inward pull of gravity.
Now, to put this into philosophical terms, isn’t this Schopenhauer’s Will at work? And, isn’t it possible to argue that dialectical interaction is built into cosmology at the largest scale? Cosmic energy and its fundamental patterns are in essence, dialectical. Inertial movement is thesis-in-the-world. Resistance to deviation is antithesis-in-the-world. Resolution of tension is a movement of energy toward its balance point between one and the other. This is the synthesis state, and isn’t there a bit of Aristotle here - a cosmic teleology where energy needs to be one with itself, by moving toward equilibrium states, that remain so (again Newton’s first law - a state of rest), until new matter-energy disrupts the balance?
Gimbel pretty much sticks to what others have said on the key topics (and it’s more about science than philosophy), but he doesn’t use this as a springboard to engage that much in the philosophical implications drawn from modern cosmology. He concludes his lectures by saying it’s not philosophy or science that gives us the picture we need, but both. Philosophy without physics, he says, is naive, but physics without philosophy is shallow. I agree, but I think that he held back way too much in explaining the integral tie between the two: Philosophy can build itself on a scientific foundation to offer narratives that are not inconsistent with what science tells us.
October 12, 2022
Loved this book!
No field of the humanities is so closely tied to physics as philosophy. Since ancient times, philosophers have puzzled over the nature of space, time, and matter—inquiries that led to the flowering of physics in the 17th century with Isaac Newton and other pioneers of the Scientific Revolution. Since then, the spectacular success of modern physics might imply that philosophy is no longer relevant to the field. Far from it! Surprising discoveries in the atomic and cosmic realms have opened a floodgate of new philosophical questions, such as:
Is time travel possible? Time travel is an idea that would have seemed absurd to a classical physicist like Newton. But it appears to be a real option according to Albert Einstein’s general theory of relativity—raising the prospect of time machines, along with a host of paradoxes including whether the past can be altered.
Is the universe fine-tuned for life? The more we learn about the universe, the more it looks tailor-made expressly for us. Does this imply a Creator? On the other hand, where else could we live except in a universe conducive to life? This suggests that countless other universes may exist with quite different properties.
Is Schrödinger's cat dead or alive? A thought experiment proposed by the physicist Erwin Schrödinger features a cat whose life hangs in the balance subject to a quantum event, which is inherently probabilistic and unobservable. The implications have led to startling proposals about the nature of reality.
Treating these and other puzzles with a light and accessible touch, award-winning teacher and philosopher Steven Gimbel of Gettysburg College guides you through the concepts, theories, and speculations that underlie our understanding of reality in The Great Questions of Philosophy and Physics. In 12 wide-ranging, half-hour lectures, Professor Gimbel covers many of the fundamental ideas of modern physics, highlighting the role of philosophy in setting ground rules, interpreting results, and posing new questions.
The only prerequisite for the course is a desire to think critically and abstractly—in other words, philosophically. No prior background in science, mathematics, or philosophy is assumed. Trained as a philosopher of physics, Professor Gimbel deftly introduces the major players, sketches the intellectual terrain, and outlines the most important debates. He also tells a few jokes, displaying the playful side of his profession.
Wrestle with Profound Questions
Dr. Gimbel’s humor is on display when he brings up the topic of atoms. “Do atoms exist?” he often asks his classes. “Of course they do,” his students invariably tell him. “What about Santa Claus?” Dr. Gimbel counters. “Does he exist?” The point is that our evidence for atoms is indirect, much like the clues for Santa’s visit (packages under the tree and missing cookies). While the analogy should not be stretched too far, there is a long tradition in the philosophy of science that regards unobservables as being metaphysically out of bounds. This view is called empiricism. There is an equally venerable tradition, called realism, that views strong evidence for entities such as atoms as proof of their existence, in spite of the fact that they can’t be observed directly.
In The Great Questions of Philosophy and Physics, you wrestle with tricky debates like this, assessing the arguments on both sides. Inevitably, you will find yourself persuaded by one position and then having second thoughts when you hear the arguments against it, which is a mark of the subtlety of the underlying philosophical issues.
Consider these questions, which you address in the course:
Why is math so effective? Mathematics is the hallmark of a rigorous science such as physics. But why should that be? Is the world a mathematical system, as some philosophers contend? Or is mathematics simply our most powerful, logical tool for making sense of the relations between things in nature?
Is space a thing or a relation? Newton believed that space is a kind of amphitheater that the universe occupies. His rival, Leibniz, argued that space is just a set of relations. If the contents of the universe were removed, there would be nothing left, not even “space.” Einstein cast this debate in a remarkable new light.
What is scientific truth? Philosopher Nancy Cartwright points out that the laws of physics are idealized and do not describe reality. If fundamental laws don’t lead us to the truth, then what does? It may be that we have to settle for statements that are true enough to give the best explanation—and no more.
Probe the Surprising Nature of Reality
For a 19th-century physicist trying to formulate physical laws, an empirical approach was common sense. “Seeing is believing” was hard to argue with. The deep reality at the root of nature was interesting to contemplate, but hardly accessible at the time. However, in the 20th century, a revolution swept physics, eventually giving us two comprehensive theories of reality: the standard model of particle physics, which unifies the strong, weak, and electromagnetic forces that control events in the atomic realm; and general relativity, which covers gravity, the force that operates without limit across the universe.
Both theories are extraordinarily successful at predicting events at their respective scales. Both imply an underlying reality that is counterintuitive, if not bizarre. Both have major philosophical implications. And each is incompatible with the other, hinting that an eventual theory that unifies both will sketch a reality of utmost strangeness—as proposals such as string theory do.
One of philosophy’s most important roles is clearing up misconceptions. There are plenty of those surrounding modern physics, as you learn in this course. For example, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle is often cited as an epistemological claim. That is, for a given subatomic particle, the uncertainty principle limits our knowledge of simultaneous values for a pair of quantities, such as position and momentum. You can know one or the other, but not both. But that’s not the whole story. The uncertainty principle is really a metaphysical claim: precise, simultaneous values for both quantities simply don’t exist. According to one theory, after you know one value, the other disappears into a parallel universe!
You finish the course with a venture into philosophy’s oldest branch: theology. Today’s theologians sometimes invoke discoveries in physics to argue that the most logical hypothesis is that God created the universe in a big bang, analogous to the account in the Book of Genesis. You weigh arguments for and against this view, closing The Great Questions of Philosophy and Physics with the greatest question of all: How did it all begin?
No field of the humanities is so closely tied to physics as philosophy. Since ancient times, philosophers have puzzled over the nature of space, time, and matter—inquiries that led to the flowering of physics in the 17th century with Isaac Newton and other pioneers of the Scientific Revolution. Since then, the spectacular success of modern physics might imply that philosophy is no longer relevant to the field. Far from it! Surprising discoveries in the atomic and cosmic realms have opened a floodgate of new philosophical questions, such as:
Is time travel possible? Time travel is an idea that would have seemed absurd to a classical physicist like Newton. But it appears to be a real option according to Albert Einstein’s general theory of relativity—raising the prospect of time machines, along with a host of paradoxes including whether the past can be altered.
Is the universe fine-tuned for life? The more we learn about the universe, the more it looks tailor-made expressly for us. Does this imply a Creator? On the other hand, where else could we live except in a universe conducive to life? This suggests that countless other universes may exist with quite different properties.
Is Schrödinger's cat dead or alive? A thought experiment proposed by the physicist Erwin Schrödinger features a cat whose life hangs in the balance subject to a quantum event, which is inherently probabilistic and unobservable. The implications have led to startling proposals about the nature of reality.
Treating these and other puzzles with a light and accessible touch, award-winning teacher and philosopher Steven Gimbel of Gettysburg College guides you through the concepts, theories, and speculations that underlie our understanding of reality in The Great Questions of Philosophy and Physics. In 12 wide-ranging, half-hour lectures, Professor Gimbel covers many of the fundamental ideas of modern physics, highlighting the role of philosophy in setting ground rules, interpreting results, and posing new questions.
The only prerequisite for the course is a desire to think critically and abstractly—in other words, philosophically. No prior background in science, mathematics, or philosophy is assumed. Trained as a philosopher of physics, Professor Gimbel deftly introduces the major players, sketches the intellectual terrain, and outlines the most important debates. He also tells a few jokes, displaying the playful side of his profession.
Wrestle with Profound Questions
Dr. Gimbel’s humor is on display when he brings up the topic of atoms. “Do atoms exist?” he often asks his classes. “Of course they do,” his students invariably tell him. “What about Santa Claus?” Dr. Gimbel counters. “Does he exist?” The point is that our evidence for atoms is indirect, much like the clues for Santa’s visit (packages under the tree and missing cookies). While the analogy should not be stretched too far, there is a long tradition in the philosophy of science that regards unobservables as being metaphysically out of bounds. This view is called empiricism. There is an equally venerable tradition, called realism, that views strong evidence for entities such as atoms as proof of their existence, in spite of the fact that they can’t be observed directly.
In The Great Questions of Philosophy and Physics, you wrestle with tricky debates like this, assessing the arguments on both sides. Inevitably, you will find yourself persuaded by one position and then having second thoughts when you hear the arguments against it, which is a mark of the subtlety of the underlying philosophical issues.
Consider these questions, which you address in the course:
Why is math so effective? Mathematics is the hallmark of a rigorous science such as physics. But why should that be? Is the world a mathematical system, as some philosophers contend? Or is mathematics simply our most powerful, logical tool for making sense of the relations between things in nature?
Is space a thing or a relation? Newton believed that space is a kind of amphitheater that the universe occupies. His rival, Leibniz, argued that space is just a set of relations. If the contents of the universe were removed, there would be nothing left, not even “space.” Einstein cast this debate in a remarkable new light.
What is scientific truth? Philosopher Nancy Cartwright points out that the laws of physics are idealized and do not describe reality. If fundamental laws don’t lead us to the truth, then what does? It may be that we have to settle for statements that are true enough to give the best explanation—and no more.
Probe the Surprising Nature of Reality
For a 19th-century physicist trying to formulate physical laws, an empirical approach was common sense. “Seeing is believing” was hard to argue with. The deep reality at the root of nature was interesting to contemplate, but hardly accessible at the time. However, in the 20th century, a revolution swept physics, eventually giving us two comprehensive theories of reality: the standard model of particle physics, which unifies the strong, weak, and electromagnetic forces that control events in the atomic realm; and general relativity, which covers gravity, the force that operates without limit across the universe.
Both theories are extraordinarily successful at predicting events at their respective scales. Both imply an underlying reality that is counterintuitive, if not bizarre. Both have major philosophical implications. And each is incompatible with the other, hinting that an eventual theory that unifies both will sketch a reality of utmost strangeness—as proposals such as string theory do.
One of philosophy’s most important roles is clearing up misconceptions. There are plenty of those surrounding modern physics, as you learn in this course. For example, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle is often cited as an epistemological claim. That is, for a given subatomic particle, the uncertainty principle limits our knowledge of simultaneous values for a pair of quantities, such as position and momentum. You can know one or the other, but not both. But that’s not the whole story. The uncertainty principle is really a metaphysical claim: precise, simultaneous values for both quantities simply don’t exist. According to one theory, after you know one value, the other disappears into a parallel universe!
You finish the course with a venture into philosophy’s oldest branch: theology. Today’s theologians sometimes invoke discoveries in physics to argue that the most logical hypothesis is that God created the universe in a big bang, analogous to the account in the Book of Genesis. You weigh arguments for and against this view, closing The Great Questions of Philosophy and Physics with the greatest question of all: How did it all begin?
June 1, 2023
The professor likes to joke around a little, mercifully, not too much. He goes into the history of philosophy, how it was once related to physics and how physics is coming around to needing philosophy again to ask the great questions. I was aware of the need for philosophy in science these days... a sort of thinking outside the box. This was brought to my attention by the book, "Spooky Action at a Distance: The Phenomenon That Reimagines Space and Time—and What It Means for Black Holes, the Big Bang, and Theories of Everything" by George Musser.
I generally don't like philosophy. I got an A- in religious philosophy in college, so I can do it after a fashion, but I don't particularly enjoy doing it. However, I enjoyed listening to this audio course. It wasn't just philosophy but also history, biography and science... including cosmology. I think it was the mix of subjects that kept me interested.
I might listen to this audio course again.
I generally don't like philosophy. I got an A- in religious philosophy in college, so I can do it after a fashion, but I don't particularly enjoy doing it. However, I enjoyed listening to this audio course. It wasn't just philosophy but also history, biography and science... including cosmology. I think it was the mix of subjects that kept me interested.
I might listen to this audio course again.
August 3, 2021
Great inquiry. Dense, but well explained, you almost don't need any preexisting knowledge of philosophy. Theory of relativity is. understandably explained and was most interesting for me albeit some philosophical implications is not discussed - I wanted more ontology! (or is a sudo question?) It's a bit more physics then it could be philosophy. Now (thats a most frequent word our professor uses), quantum mechanics is present too of course with all of its funny paradoxes - again some implications could be developed in a "wilder" way probably.
A bit hyperactive sounding nerdy professor, appropriate to the topic (I liked it!)...
One of my lame musing:
"If a believe is beyond human comprehension and science, then it must be beyond faith, because we can have faith." I don't agree with that, because racional comprehension is not the only one wehave, albeit it's the only one that can be communicated with words. And language inevitably simplifies reality - this kind of perception is fundamental for our perception of reality and maybe the measurements and understanding of physics too. But that's probably not part of philosophy of science.
A bit hyperactive sounding nerdy professor, appropriate to the topic (I liked it!)...
One of my lame musing:
"If a believe is beyond human comprehension and science, then it must be beyond faith, because we can have faith." I don't agree with that, because racional comprehension is not the only one wehave, albeit it's the only one that can be communicated with words. And language inevitably simplifies reality - this kind of perception is fundamental for our perception of reality and maybe the measurements and understanding of physics too. But that's probably not part of philosophy of science.
May 31, 2022
Steven Gimbel’s 12 Teaching Company Lectures “The Great Questions of Philosophy and Physics” was released in 2020. The course in audio format is 6 hours and 10 minutes long; and it is available on Hoopla from many public libraries. The course discusses the scientific foundations of the 17th century Age of Enlightenment, the teachings of Socrates, and the evolution of these foundations and teachings to our present age. Gimbel’s insights and explanations are fascinating, insightful, and a very enjoyable listening/intellectual experience. I was especially captivated by his discussion of Newtonian, Einstein, and Aristotelian postulates. I also was captivated by Gimbel’s explanations of science, religious faith, and philosophical foundations in our modern world of technological advancements. Gimbel is a distinguished author and he is a highly recognized Professor of Humanities at Gettysburg College where he chairs the Department of Philosophy. (H/L)
May 19, 2022
Fantastic presentation a balance between one or the other to an understanding of both with purpose.
Listened while digging a trench for new sewer system for very old 120 year house and was impressed by the easy explanations guiding you along with purpose and complete easy understanding.
Very nice. I will posts the few comments I wrote while on a Grape Gatorade break
Oh my gosh I’m in heaven, I just saw he has an accompanying PDF. Yeahhhh
Listened while digging a trench for new sewer system for very old 120 year house and was impressed by the easy explanations guiding you along with purpose and complete easy understanding.
Very nice. I will posts the few comments I wrote while on a Grape Gatorade break
Oh my gosh I’m in heaven, I just saw he has an accompanying PDF. Yeahhhh
August 28, 2022
The lectures each seemed rather enjoyable, but I was always wondering how the current lecture would lead logically to the next or if it followed logically from the previous. These are all fairly "technical" subjects that he just skirted up to the edge of making them sound like plausibly being related to daily life, but they all remained hidden in the academic - perhaps that is as it should be.
April 21, 2023
Good read if you ponder about the creation of the universe, and life. A discourse straddling between philosophy and physics, the lecture makes a case and asks the questions. Is the perfection of our universe and the life forms coincidental or a creation by an intelligent creator? Is there only one or multiple such universes?
Enjoyed it.
Enjoyed it.
June 16, 2021
A fascinating listen. I think if kids introduced mathematical concepts and how they came to be and for what purposes like this author, they'd be more interested in math and sciences if only as a general enhancement to their other interests.
July 21, 2021
This was an entertaining overview of the philosophical implications of physics concepts, told by a professor who reminds me of a good-natured, nerdy dad. His jokes kept it entertaining, and he did a great job with analogies explaining difficult concepts.
January 27, 2021
Good, but not my favourite.
March 11, 2022
Some novel insights into questions I have heard before.
December 30, 2023
So you’re saying there were American philosophers too?…I never thought of it that way but I see!
May 3, 2025
Just so you know the Great Courses are marvellous to give previous knowledge a spit and polish while illuminating aspects new to the subject.
Thank you for your words Steve Gimbel, very much appreciated (-:
Thank you for your words Steve Gimbel, very much appreciated (-:
May 23, 2020
Great
Merged review:
Audio lectures. A nice addition to the Great Courses series by the Teaching Company which has been creating great content for over 30 years.
Merged review:
Audio lectures. A nice addition to the Great Courses series by the Teaching Company which has been creating great content for over 30 years.
Displaying 1 - 17 of 17 reviews