Paolo Freguglia – författare

The historical and epistemological reflection on the applications of mathematical techniques to the Sciences of Nature - physics, biology, chemistry, and geology - today generates attention and interest because of the increasing use of mathematical models in all sciences and their high level of sophistication. The goal of the meeting and the papers collected in this proceedings volume is to give physicists, biologists, mathematicians, and historians of science the opportunity to share information on their work and reflect on the and mathematical models are used in the natural sciences today and in way mathematics the past. The program of the workshop combines the experience of those working on current scientific research in many different fields with the historical analysis of previous results. We hope that some novel interdisciplinary, philosophical, and epistemological considerations will follow from the two aspects of the workshop, the historical and the scientific· This proceedings includes papers presented at the meeting and some of the results of the discussions that took place during the workshop. We wish to express our gratitude to Sergio Monteiro for all his work, which has been essential for the successful publication of these proceedings. We also want to thank the editors of Kluwer AcademidPlenum Publishers for their patience and constant help, and in particular Beth Kuhne and Roberta Klarreich. Our thanks to the fallowing institutions: -Amministrazione Comunale di Arcidosso -Comunita Montana del Monte Amiata ·Center for the History of Physics, UCLA -Centre F.

Determinism, holism and complexity: three epistemological attitudes that have easily identifiable historical origins and developments. Galileo believed that it was necessary to "prune the impediments" to extract the mathematical essence of physical phenomena, to identify the math­ ematical structures representing the underlying laws. This Galilean method was the key element in the development of Physics, with its extraordinary successes. Nevertheless the method was later criticized because it led to a view of nature as essentially "simple and orderly", and thus by choosing not to investigate several charac­ teristics considered as an "impediment", several essential aspects of the phenomenon under investigation might be left out. The Galilean point of view also contains an acknowledgement of the central role played by the causal nexus among phenomena. The mechanistic-deterministic de­ scription of reality - for instance, a la Laplace - although acknowledging that it is not possible to predict phenomena exactly owing to unavoid­ able measurement error, is based on the recognition of the their causal nature, even in an ontological sense. Consequently, deterministic predic­ tion became the methodological fulcrum of mathematical physics. But although mechanistic determinism has had and, in many cases, still has, considerable success in Physics, in other branches of science this situa­ tion is much less favourable.

Determinism, holism and complexity: three epistemological attitudes that have easily identifiable historical origins and developments. Galileo believed that it was necessary to "prune the impediments" to extract the mathematical essence of physical phenomena, to identify the math­ ematical structures representing the underlying laws. This Galilean method was the key element in the development of Physics, with its extraordinary successes. Nevertheless the method was later criticized because it led to a view of nature as essentially "simple and orderly", and thus by choosing not to investigate several charac­ teristics considered as an "impediment", several essential aspects of the phenomenon under investigation might be left out. The Galilean point of view also contains an acknowledgement of the central role played by the causal nexus among phenomena. The mechanistic-deterministic de­ scription of reality - for instance, a la Laplace - although acknowledging that it is not possible to predict phenomena exactly owing to unavoid­ able measurement error, is based on the recognition of the their causal nature, even in an ontological sense. Consequently, deterministic predic­ tion became the methodological fulcrum of mathematical physics. But although mechanistic determinism has had and, in many cases, still has, considerable success in Physics, in other branches of science this situa­ tion is much less favourable.

The historical and epistemological reflection on the applications of mathematical techniques to the Sciences of Nature - physics, biology, chemistry, and geology - today generates attention and interest because of the increasing use of mathematical models in all sciences and their high level of sophistication. The goal of the meeting and the papers collected in this proceedings volume is to give physicists, biologists, mathematicians, and historians of science the opportunity to share information on their work and reflect on the and mathematical models are used in the natural sciences today and in way mathematics the past. The program of the workshop combines the experience of those working on current scientific research in many different fields with the historical analysis of previous results. We hope that some novel interdisciplinary, philosophical, and epistemological considerations will follow from the two aspects of the workshop, the historical and the scientific· This proceedings includes papers presented at the meeting and some of the results of the discussions that took place during the workshop. We wish to express our gratitude to Sergio Monteiro for all his work, which has been essential for the successful publication of these proceedings. We also want to thank the editors of Kluwer AcademidPlenum Publishers for their patience and constant help, and in particular Beth Kuhne and Roberta Klarreich. Our thanks to the fallowing institutions: -Amministrazione Comunale di Arcidosso -Comunita Montana del Monte Amiata ·Center for the History of Physics, UCLA -Centre F.

The historical and epistemological reflection on the applications of mathematical techniques to the Sciences of Nature - physics, biology, chemistry, and geology - today generates attention and interest because of the increasing use of mathematical models in all sciences and their high level of sophistication. The goal of the meeting and the papers collected in this proceedings volume is to give physicists, biologists, mathematicians, and historians of science the opportunity to share information on their work and reflect on the and mathematical models are used in the natural sciences today and in way mathematics the past. The program of the workshop combines the experience of those working on current scientific research in many different fields with the historical analysis of previous results. We hope that some novel interdisciplinary, philosophical, and epistemological considerations will follow from the two aspects of the workshop, the historical and the scientific· This proceedings includes papers presented at the meeting and some of the results of the discussions that took place during the workshop. We wish to express our gratitude to Sergio Monteiro for all his work, which has been essential for the successful publication of these proceedings. We also want to thank the editors of Kluwer AcademidPlenum Publishers for their patience and constant help, and in particular Beth Kuhne and Roberta Klarreich. Our thanks to the fallowing institutions: -Amministrazione Comunale di Arcidosso -Comunita Montana del Monte Amiata ·Center for the History of Physics, UCLA -Centre F.

Determinism, holism and complexity: three epistemological attitudes that have easily identifiable historical origins and developments. Galileo believed that it was necessary to "prune the impediments" to extract the mathematical essence of physical phenomena, to identify the math­ ematical structures representing the underlying laws. This Galilean method was the key element in the development of Physics, with its extraordinary successes. Nevertheless the method was later criticized because it led to a view of nature as essentially "simple and orderly", and thus by choosing not to investigate several charac­ teristics considered as an "impediment", several essential aspects of the phenomenon under investigation might be left out. The Galilean point of view also contains an acknowledgement of the central role played by the causal nexus among phenomena. The mechanistic-deterministic de­ scription of reality - for instance, a la Laplace - although acknowledging that it is not possible to predict phenomena exactly owing to unavoid­ able measurement error, is based on the recognition of the their causal nature, even in an ontological sense. Consequently, deterministic predic­ tion became the methodological fulcrum of mathematical physics. But although mechanistic determinism has had and, in many cases, still has, considerable success in Physics, in other branches of science this situa­ tion is much less favourable.

This monograph explores the early development of the calculus of variations in continental Europe during the Eighteenth Century by illustrating the mathematics of its founders. Closely following the original papers and correspondences of Euler, Lagrange, the Bernoullis, and others, the reader is immersed in the challenge of theory building. We see what the founders were doing, the difficulties they faced, the mistakes they made, and their triumphs. The authors guide the reader through these works with instructive commentaries and complements to the original proofs, as well as offering a modern perspective where useful. The authors begin in 1697 with Johann Bernoulli’s work on the brachystochrone problem and the events leading up to it, marking the dawn of the calculus of variations. From there, they cover key advances in the theory up to the development of Lagrange’s δ-calculus, including: •           The isoperimetrical problems•           Shortest lines and geodesics•           Euler’s Methodus Inveniendi and the two AdditamentaFinally, the authors give the readers a sense of how vast the calculus of variations has become in centuries hence, providing some idea of what lies outside the scope of the book as well as the current state of affairs in the field. This book will be of interest to anyone studying the calculus of variations who wants a deeper intuition for the techniques and ideas that are used, as well as historians of science and mathematics interested in the development and evolution of modern calculus and analysis.

This monograph explores the early development of the calculus of variations in continental Europe during the Eighteenth Century by illustrating the mathematics of its founders. Closely following the original papers and correspondences of Euler, Lagrange, the Bernoullis, and others, the reader is immersed in the challenge of theory building. We see what the founders were doing, the difficulties they faced, the mistakes they made, and their triumphs. The authors guide the reader through these works with instructive commentaries and complements to the original proofs, as well as offering a modern perspective where useful. The authors begin in 1697 with Johann Bernoulli’s work on the brachystochrone problem and the events leading up to it, marking the dawn of the calculus of variations. From there, they cover key advances in the theory up to the development of Lagrange’s δ-calculus, including: •           The isoperimetrical problems•           Shortest lines and geodesics•           Euler’s Methodus Inveniendi and the two AdditamentaFinally, the authors give the readers a sense of how vast the calculus of variations has become in centuries hence, providing some idea of what lies outside the scope of the book as well as the current state of affairs in the field. This book will be of interest to anyone studying the calculus of variations who wants a deeper intuition for the techniques and ideas that are used, as well as historians of science and mathematics interested in the development and evolution of modern calculus and analysis.

Esistono ormai da tempo molti articoli, in particolar modo su riviste di biomatematica, di (bio)fisica e di biologia, che presentano proposte e risultati di modellistica matematica relativi direttamente ed indirettamente alla teoria dell’evoluzione. Sicuramente questi studi sono da considerarsi cruciali per l’istituzione della biologia teorica. I temi da prendere in esame sono dapprima le convinzioni che i biologi hanno in merito. Quindi un’analisi dei precedenti tentativi di formulare una teoria matematica dell’evoluzione, nonché i relativi sviluppi e insuccessi a cui abbiamo assistito nell’ambito della "teoria della complessità". La nostra proposta consiste dunque nel realizzare una teoria matematicamente formulata e biologicamente ben fondata dell’evoluzione con specifico e giustificato riferimento a quella fenotipica. Quindi su questa base costruiamo sia di un modello geometrico sia un modello dinamico stocastico. In questo modo, pur tenendo presente l’intrinseca insufficienza dell’approccio riduzionista in biologia, si tenta di dare alcune risposte che hanno una corrispondenza biologica significativa.