Einstein was written in 1946, I was 67 years old, sitting here, for writing something like my own comment. I do this, not only because I'm doing it, but I really believe that people who work together will tell a person who works and explores what it seems to look at how it looks in. It should be a good thing. After a little consideration, I think that this attempt is definitely not perfect. Because, work, no matter how short and limited, a lot of experience, no matter how domines, you must clear those things that are worth mentioning, it is not easy - now 67-year-old people are completely different from him 50 years old, 30 years old or 20 years old. Any memories have dyed the current colors and therefore also with unreliable perspectives. This consideration may make people retreat. However, a person is still able to extract many people can't afford to be unable to extract many others from their own experience. When I was still a premature premature boy, I have been deeply realized that most people who have no longer chase in a lifeless chase is worthless. Moreover, I will soon discover this chasing cruel, which is more careful with a fake and beautiful words today. Everyone is just because there is a stomach, it is destined to participate in this chase. Moreover, because of this chase, his stomach is likely to be met; In this way, the first way is religion, which is infused through the traditional educational organs to each child. Therefore, even though I am completely free of religious (Jews) parents' son, I still believe in religion, but this kind of belief suddenly stops at me 12 years old. For the popular scientific books, I will soon believe that the story in the Bible cannot be true. The result is a truly fanatical free thought, and intertwined with such an impression: the country deliberately use lies to deceive young people; this is an impression that stunned. This experience caused me to doubt about all authority. It is completely skeptical about the belief in any social environment. This attitude has never left me. Even in later, due to better understanding of causality It is also true when it has lost its original sharpness. I am very clear, the religious paradise of the juvenile era has lost this, which is the first to liberate from the wish, hope and the original feelings from the "only as a personal". try. There is a huge world outside of us, it leaves us and independently, it is like a great and eternal mystery in front of us, but at least partially is our observation and thinking. The deep thinking of this world is like the liberation, and I will notary, many people I respect and admire, I am concentratinging in this business, I have found an inner freedom and peace. In all possible ranges provided to us, master this world outside of the individual, always as a highest goal, but also in my mind. There are similar ideas, as well as what they have reached, are my unabled friends. The road to this paradise is not as comfortable and attractive to the road to religious paradise; however, it has proven to be trustworthy, and I have never regretted the road. I am here, just in a certain sense, just a picture of a few words, can only reflect a detail complex object in a very limited sense. If a person is hobbies, this is very prominent as a expense of other aspects, and it is more and more and more obvious to determine his spirit.
In this case, such a person sees in review, it is likely to be only a thousand people have a systematic development, however, his actual experience is in a single case in a thousand variables. The external situation is a variety of, and the instantaneous content of consciousness is narrow, which causes an atomization of everyone living. People in this type, the turning point of its development is that their main interest gradually got away from the short and only aspects of personal, and the steering efforts to master things from thinking. From this point of view, it is possible to have as many truths as possible like this. What is accurate, what is "thinking"? This is not "thinking" when it accepts the impression. Moreover, when some image forms a series, each of them causes another image, which is still not "thinking", but when a certain image repeatedly appeared in many such series, it is because of this A reproduction, it becomes a part of this series, because it connects the series that there is no contact. This element becomes a tool, a concept. I think that from the freedom of association or "dream" to the transition of thinking, it is characterized by "concept". The concept is not necessarily to be associated with a sensible and reproducible symbol (word); but if there is such a connection, the end thinking will become an exchange. The reader will ask, this person has what rights, in such a problem, so taking this kind of light and originally used concept, not to do the effort to proof, my defense is: all our thinking is concept A free game; as for the rationality of this game, we must see what we can reach by means of it. This concept of "Truth" can not be used in such a structure; according to my opinion, only the elements and rules of this game have achieved a wide range of consensus (agreed), only to meet a "truth" concept. For me, there is no doubt that our thinking does not have a symbol (word), and it is largely unconnected. Otherwise, why do we sometimes feel "surprised" for a certain experience completely? This "surprise" seems to be just a conflict when experienced with our full fixed concept. Whenever we are sharp and strongly experienced in this conflict, it works in a decisive way to our thinking world. The development of this thinking world is in a sense that the continuous arrival of "surprise". When I was still a four or five-year-old child, I experienced this surprise when my father saw a compass. This compass acts in such a way that it does not meet the nature of things that can find the location in the unconscious concept world (with direct "contact"). I still remember now, at least I still remember, this experience gives me a deep and lasting impression. I want to have something deeply hidden behind things. Everything you see from your child will not cause this reaction; he has fallen for the body, for the wind and rain, for the moon or the moon will not fall, the difference between biological and non-biological is not surprised. . At the age of 12, I have experienced another nature of completely different: this is the beginning of a school year when I get a small book about the Mili's plane geometry. There are many assertions in this book, such as three high crossings of triangles, although they are not obvious, but they can be reliably proof so that any suspicion seems impossible. This clarity and reliability have caused me a difficult impression. As for the non-proven, it has to be axiom, which does not make me uneasy.
If I can prove it according to some of its effectiveness, I seem to have a problem that I have a problem, I am full of satisfaction. For example, I remember that in this sacred geometry, I used my uncle, I once told me the Pyda Gothic. After daunting efforts, I successfully "prove" according to the similarity of the triangle; when doing this, I think that the relationship between the right side of the triangle is "obvious" "clear" completely determines its acute angle. In my opinion, it is only necessary to prove that in a similar way. Moreover, the object of geometry studies, the objects that "can be seen and touched" seem to be the same type. The root of this original concept is naturally due to the unknowns that there is a geometric concept with the relationship between the direct experience (rigid rod, the cutofa, etc.). This original concept is probably that Kant's famous "priori" Comprehensive judgment "" Probability Problem ". If it is, it is likely to use pure thinking, it is possible to get reliable knowledge about experience, then this "surprise" is based on the error. However, for the first experience to its people, it can achieve such reliable and purely extent in pure thinking, as if the Greeks tell us in the geometry, it is surprisingly surprising. . Since I have interrupted the beginning of the advice and the far away, I will not use a few words here to explain my collections, although some words have been in the past, this creed is actually It was slowly developed for a long time, and it is inconsistent with the views of my young. On the one hand, I saw the sum of the feelings of the feeling, on the other hand, I saw the concept and propositions of the books in the book. The interrelationship between concepts and propositions has logical properties, while logical thinking tasks are strictly limited to establish a concept and proposition between the concept and propositions in accordance with some established rules (this is a problem of logic research). Concepts and propositions have only achieved their "meaning" and "content" through their relationship with their feelings. The latter contact is purely intuitive contact with the former, does not have logical nature. The difference between the science "Truth" with the void is in this connection, that is, this intuitive combination can be guaranteed reliably, not something else. Conceptual system along with the syntactic rules that make up the concept architecture are people's creations. Although the concept system is logically completely arbitrary, they are subject to such a target, which is to do the sum of the sums of experience with the feeling of reliable (intuition) and complete correspondence; secondly, they should make Logical independent elements (basic concepts and axioms), that is, the concepts defined and the prodes derived, should be as small as possible. Proposition If it is derived by recognized logical rules in a logical system, it is correct. The truth of the system depends on the reliability and completeness of its corresponding possibility of experience. The correct proposition is a total of "truth" from the truth of the system it belongs. A little opinion on historical development. Hume clearly understands that some concepts, such as causality concepts, cannot be derived from experience materials with logical methods. Kant is completely confident that certain concepts are indispensable. He thinks these concepts - they are doing this - is the necessary prerequisite for any thinking and distinguishes them with the concept from experience. However, I believe that this distinction is wrong, that is, it is not to treat problems correctly according to nature. All concepts, even those closest experiences, from logical perspective, all like fruit concepts, are some free choice, and this issue is first proposed from causality concept. Now return to the comment. At 12-16, I am familiar with basic mathematics, including the principle of calculus. At this time, I am fortunate to come into contact with some books, and they are not very strict in terms of logical rigor, but it can simply highlight basic ideas.
In general, this study is indeed fascinated; it gives me the impression of the impression is not asa-first, and I have reached the vertices several times - parsing the basic idea of the geometry, infinite grade, differential and integral concept. I am fortunate to know the main results and methods in the field of natural sciences from a superior popular reading. This book ("Burnstein's natural science popular reading" is a work of five or six volumes) It is almost entirely limited to the qualitative narrative, which is a work that I am from the gods of God. When I was 17-year-old, I have learned some theoretical physics when I entered the Zurich Industrial University. There, I have a few excellent teachers (such as Hu Weizi, Mingkofsz), so take care of the school, I should get deep in the mathematics. But most of me work in the physical laboratory, obsessed with direct contact with experience. The rest of the time is mainly used to read the work of Kilkhof, Helmholz, Hertz, etc. at home. I have neglected mathematics to some extent, but the reason is not only for the interest of natural sciences exceeding the mathematics, but also in the strange experience. I have seen mathematics into many specializes in many specializes, each of which costs to have a short life we can have. Therefore, I think my situation is like Brid's scorpion, it can't decide which bundle of hay should I eat. This is obviously because I intuitive power in the field of mathematics is not strong enough, so that I can't open the most important thing with the fundamental things with the rest of the world, and can have a wide range of broad-free knowledge. In addition, my interest in natural knowledge is also relatively strong; and as a student, I am still unclear. In physics, the road to more in-depth basic knowledge is associated with the most sophisticated mathematical method. Just after a few years of independent scientific research work, I gradually understood this. It is true that physics is also divided into various fields, of which each area can devour a short life, and have not met the desire for more profound knowledge. Here, the number of experimental digits that have not yet been fully linked is also very large. However, in this field, I will soon learn something that can lead to deep knowledge, and put many other things, put many stuffed heads, and make it deviate from the main goals. Of course, the problem here is that people have to put all these waste into their own head for the exam, whether or not they are willing. This mandatory result makes me so much worse, so that there is any thoughts of scientific issues in the whole year after I passed the final exam. But I have to say a fault, and we have a much more power for this suffocation in Switzerland, much less than many other places. There are only two exams here. In addition, people can do anything they are willing to do. If you can like me, a friend is often going to listen, and it is more likely to consolidate the content of the lecture. This situation gives people to choose from the freedom to engage in what research, until the exam will be a few months before the exam. I have greatly enjoyed this freedom and regarded with this accompanying guilt as a tight ill and disadvantage. The modern teaching method has not completely smashed the sacred curiosity of the research problem. It can be said to be a miracle; because of this fragile seedlings, in addition to encouragement, it is mainly free; if there is no freedom, it inevitably Will die. It is considered that it can improve the fun of observation and exploration with a sense of compulsory and responsibility. It is a serious mistake. I think, even if it is a healthy beast, when it is not hungry, if it is possible to force it with a whip to continue to swallow, especially when people are forced to feed it, it will make it when it is appropriately selected. Lost habits of your greedy. Now talk about the situation of physics at that time.
At that time, although the physics had achieved fruitful results, the status of the rule of the policy is the stubborn stubbornness: At the beginning (if there is such a start) God created the law of Newton and the necessary quality and force . This is everything; everything can be developed from the appropriate mathematical method with an application method. On this basis, especially due to the application of the partial micrograph, the achievements made in the nineteenth century will inevitably arise from all kinds of keen understanding. Newton may be the first person to reveal the efficacy of the partial microcomputer in his acoustic communication theory. Oler has created the basis of fluid dynamics. However, as a more precise development of the quality of the entire physics base, it is the achievement of the 19th century. However, for a college student, the most impressed is not a special structure of mechanics or the complex problem it solves, but the achievements of mechanics in the surface of the same mechanism; the mechanical theory of light, it puts light Imagine a rigid elasticity to fluctuate, but the first is gas molecular motion. The quantitative relationship between the viscosity, heat transfer and diffusion of the gas, and the gas diffusion also provides an absolute size of the atom. These results support mechanics as the basis of physics and atomic holiday, while the latter has firmly established its position in chemistry. However, it is only the ratio of the quality of atoms, rather than their absolute size, so that atomism is considered to be aware of the real structure of matter, it is better to see as a metaphor of visualization. In addition, the statistical theory of classical mechanics can derive the basic law of thermodynamics, which is also very interesting, which is in essence to be completed by Bolzman. So we don't have to be amazed, you can say that all physicists in the last century are all kinds of physics, and even the firm and ultimate foundation of all natural sciences, and they still try to take this. Maxwell electromagnetic theory that gradually won the comprehensive victory was also established on the basis of mechanics, even Maxwell and H. Yangs, in their conscious thinking, always believe in mechanics is the reliable basis of physics, and we can see them in a high-way, and the ultimate foundation for the mechanics as all physics thought. People. It is Ester Mach, impacting this kind of cockerism in his "Mechanics History"; when I was a student, this book has given me a deep impact in this regard. I think that Mach's truly greatness is his indestructive skepticism and independence; when I am young, Mach's understanding of the understanding of me has a great impact on me, but this point of view is in my opinion today. Can't stand at the foot. Because he did not correctly clarify the ideology, especially the nature of the scientific thinking is essentially the nature of the structure; therefore, it is the structure of the theory - the distinctive characteristics of naked, but he accused theory This is like this in the atomic motion. Before I started criticizing the mechanics of physics, I must first talk about certain general views. According to these perspectives, it is possible to criticize various physical theories. The first point of view is obvious: theory should not contradict the experimental facts. This requires that it seems very obvious, but it is very hurt by it. Because people are often, they can always use artificial supplementation assumption to adapt theory with facts, thus adhering to a universal theoretical basis. However, in any case, this first point of view involved is to confirm the theoretical basis with ready-made empirical facts. The second point of view is not about (theory) the relationship with the observation material, but about the theoretical itself, there is a matter of simply, but it is more vaguely called premise (basic concept, and these concepts The relationship is "natural" or "simplicity of logic".
This view has never played a significant role in choosing and evaluating various theories, but it is very difficult to express it in exactly. The problem here is not just a logically independent prerequisite (if this list is unambiguous), it is a problem that is mutually emphasized between the nature of this. Secondly, in several basic theories, the most stringent theory that limits the possible nature of theoretical system (ie, the theory of the most determined argument) is considered to be superior. Here I don't need to talk about the theoretical "scope", because we are only limited to such a theory, and their object is the sum of all physical phenomena. The second point of view can be briefly referred to as "intrinsic complete" related to the theoretical itself, and the first point of view involves "external confirmation". I think this is also the "intrinsic complete": from the logical point of view, if a theory is not elected from those equivalents and in a similar way, then we will Give this theory to evaluate higher. I don't want to use the space insufficient to make the argument that the above two paragraphs are not clear enough to make forgiveness, but here to admit that I can't immediately, maybe there is no ability to use a clear definition to replace these tips. However, I believe that it is possible to make a more clear explanation. In any case, it can be seen that the "prophet" is in the "intrinsic complete" of the theory, it is consistent between the opinions between them. As for the judgment of "external confirmation", the situation is even more . Now criticize mechanics as physics foundation. ... Newton, please forgive me; the road you discovery, in your era, is the only road with the highest thinking ability and creativity. The concept you created, even today, it still guides our physics ideas. Although we now know, if you need to understand a variety of links, you must replace these concepts with other concepts far from direct experience. . Surprise readers may ask: "Don't this?" I want to answer: Even yet. Because people like me. The main thing in your life is what he thinking is what he thinks, not what he did or to suffer. So, this can be primarily limited to reports that those who play an important role in my efforts. The larger theory of the theory, the more the types of things it involve, the wider the application range, the deeper it gives people. Therefore, classical thermodynamics has impressed me. I am convinced that this is the only physical theory that is uniquely overturned within its basic concepts. (This is requested in principle). In my student era, the topic that made me fascinated is Maxwell theory. This theory transitions from a superior force to the field as the basic variable, which makes it a theory of revolution. Optical incorporation of electromagnetic theory, together with the relationship between the absolute electromagnetic unit system, and the relationship between the refractive index with dielectric constant, the qualitative relationship between the conductivity of the reflection coefficients and metallic bodies - this is really like a revelation. Here, in addition to the transition into the field, that is, the transition is the substantial law, Maxwell only needs a unique hypothetical step - introducing displacement current and its magnetic effect in vacuum and dielectric, this innovation is almost It is specified by the form of differential equations. When I talk about it, I can't help but say that in Fa-Maxwell's pair of macato-Buffton, there is a very worthwhile intrinsic similarity - each pair of the first one intuitively. The connection between things, while the second is strictly using the formula to express these connections, and quantitatively apply them. ......... In those years, my own interest is mainly the individual results of Prance's achievements, although these results may be very heavy.
