Philosophiae naturalis principia mathematica

What Hacker News says

1. thisrodMay 2009
   Scientists have created the most beautiful and useful artifacts ever made. Think "Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica", "On The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection", "The Nature of the Chemical Bond", and "The Principles of Quantum Mechanics". Unfortunately, most people are too dumb and lazy to appreciate them.

   Picture Francis Crick, putting down his pen after writing, "It has not escaped the attention of the authors that this structure suggests a mechanism for replication."

   Show morethread
2. hollerithJun 2024
   Newton's Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica (published 1687) contains a mathematical (geometric actually) proof that the gravitational attraction between the Earth an a man standing on the surface of the Earth is the same as it would be if all of the mass of the Earth were at its center. There's another proof that if the man is standing at the bottom of a one-mile hole, and the Earth is assumed to be a perfect sphere, then the attraction is the same as if the Earth's radius were one mile less than it actually is (i.e., the attraction between the man and the shell of mass higher in altitude than the man is exactly zero because the attraction from the various points in the one-mile-thick shell exactly cancel out).

   That is that kind of thing I mean: proofs and calculations, not "why wouldn't it?"

   Show morethread
3. dotancohenJul 2022
   Exactly. Does anyone discount Newtonian physics because the author published Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica?
   thread
4. playing_coloursOct 2019
   Focusing on mathematics, I think about two kinds of foundational books.

   1. Historically foundational: books that brought important ideas, introduced a new branch, progressed the maths significantly. You can read them these days, but their content, proofs, language, etc. is not up to date. Examples: Elements by Euclid, Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica by Newton, Disquisitiones Arithmeticae by Gauss.

   2. Modern foundational books: The ones that can be used for studying now. Books that are clearly written, popular, cover their subject well. Examples: Visual Complex Analysis, Spivak’s Calculus, Linear Algebra Done Right, Hardy’s An Introduction to the Theory of Numbers.

   Show morethread
5. yesenadamNov 2018
   I take your point. But actually, not so. 'Scientists' from the ancient Greeks until the 19th C were called natural philosophers, studying natural philosophy. The Greek philosophers all give their theories of the universe, they were the scientists of the day - maybe Socrates was the first to concern himself with just the human world. The word 'scientist' was coined only in 1834.

   "Modern meanings of the terms science and scientists date only to the 19th century. Before that, science was a synonym for knowledge or study, in keeping with its Latin origin. The term gained its modern meaning when experimental science and the scientific method became a specialized branch of study apart from natural philosophy.

   From the mid-19th century, when it became increasingly unusual for scientists to contribute to both physics and chemistry, "natural philosophy" came to mean just physics... chairs of Natural Philosophy established long ago at the oldest universities are nowadays occupied mainly by physics professors. Isaac Newton's book Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica (1687), whose title translates to "Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy", reflects the then-current use of the words "natural philosophy", akin to "systematic study of nature". Even in the 19th century, a treatise by Lord Kelvin and Peter Guthrie Tait, which helped define much of modern physics, was titled Treatise on Natural Philosophy (1867)."

   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_philosophy#Origin_and_...

   Show morethread
6. s-shellfishAug 2018
   How is natural philosophy different from moral philosophy?

   I'm sure that comes across as a dumb question, but, modernity - technology.

   The irony of mathematics being naturally built in, reinforced into all of us, over and over. Computer science.

   From wikipedia:

   > From the ancient world, starting with Aristotle, to the 19th century, the term "natural philosophy" was the common term used to describe the practice of studying nature. It was in the 19th century that the concept of "science" received its modern shape with new titles emerging such as "biology" and "biologist", "physics" and "physicist" among other technical fields and titles; institutions and communities were founded, and unprecedented applications to and interactions with other aspects of society and culture occurred.[1] Isaac Newton's book Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica (1687), whose title translates to "Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy", reflects the then-current use of the words "natural philosophy", akin to "systematic study of nature". Even in the 19th century, a treatise by Lord Kelvin and Peter Guthrie Tait, which helped define much of modern physics, was titled Treatise on Natural Philosophy (1867).

   > "systematic study of nature"

   And what do we do? What is nature to study? What is life to study?

   Our own puzzled face, staring back at us.

   Show morethread