We present a new experimental approach using a three-path interferometer and find a tighter empirical upper bound on possible violations of Born’s Rule. A deviation from Born’s rule would result in multi-order interference. Among the potential systematic errors that could lead to an apparent violation we specifically study the nonlinear response of our detectors and present ways to calibrate this error in order to obtain an even better bound.

Aristocracy -- Body and family -- Gender and memory -- Wisdom and heresy -- In the holy places -- Modernities.

Unlike some other reproductions of classic texts (1) We have not used OCR(Optical Character Recognition), as this leads to bad quality books with introduced typos. (2) In books where there are images such as portraits, maps, sketches etc We have endeavoured to keep the quality of these images, so they represent accurately the original artefact. Although occasionally there may be certain imperfections with these old texts, we feel they deserve to be made available for future generations to enjoy.

Quarum causas in orbibus sub suppremo collocatis indagantes, in suppremo enim uniformitas semper cernitur, exploratum habuerunt id prouenire ex motibus giratiuis lulabinis appellatis, factis quidem a permistione motus orbis super suis polis cum motu eiusdem super polis alterius, itaque ex multis motibus simul collectis unus fit motus. Quae quidem theorica phisicis conformis rationibus cunctis ueteribus ad Aristotelem philosophorum principem usque uigebat, quin immo sui summi acie ingenii eam 2 de coelo textu commentario 35 teste Auerroe innuere non desinit. Qalo (...) Qalonymos. (shrink)

sola scripturarum ars est, quam sibi omnes passim uindicent: ‘scribimus indocti doctique poemata passim’ [Hor. Epist. 2.1.117]. hanc garrula anus, hanc delirus senex, hanc soloecista uerbosus, hanc uniuersi praesumunt, lacerant, docent, antequam discant. alii adducto supercilio grandia uerba trutinantes inter mulierculas de sacris litteris philosophantur, alii discunt—pro pudor!—a feminis, quod uiros doceant, et, ne parum hoc sit, quadam facilitate uerborum, immo audacia disserunt aliis, quod ipsi non intellegunt. taceo de meis similibus, qui si forte ad scripturas sanctas post saeculares (...) litteras uenerint et sermone conposito aurem populi mulserint, quicquid dixerint, hoc legem dei putant nec scire dignantur, quid prophetae, quid apostoli senserint, sed ad sensum suum incongrua aptant testimonia, quasi grande sit et non uitiosissimum dicendi genus deprauare sententias et ad uoluntatem suam scripturam trahere repugnantem. quasi non legerimus Homerocentonas et Vergiliocentonas ac non sic etiam Maronem sine Christo possimus dicere Christianum, quia scripserit: ‘iam redit et uirgo, redeunt Saturnia regna, iam noua progenies caelo demittitur alto’ [Verg. Ecl. 4.6–7], et patrem loquentem ad filium: ‘nate, meae uires, mea magna potentia solus’ [Verg. Aen. 1.664], et post uerba saluatoris in cruce: ‘talia perstabat memorans fixusque manebat’ [Verg. Aen. 2.650]. puerilia sunt haec et circulatorum ludo similia, docere, quod ignores, immo, et cum stomacho loquar, nec hoc quidem scire, quod nescias. (shrink)

Haec tractatio est responsio critica ad tractationem Ludovici Groarke, titulo “Orbitae ellipticae, possintne Aristotelice explicari?”, necnon ad commentationem Jacobi Franklin, cui titulus “De orbitis ellipticis ac Aristotelica revolutione scientifica”. Auctor imprimis ostendit (ultra censuram a J. Franklin factam procedens) explanationem “Aristotelicam” orbitarum ellipticarum a L. Groarke propositam non solum analysi Newtonianae repugnare, sed etiam in se esse incohaerentem. Porro auctor alia L. Groarke proposita impugnat: scil. nostri temporis physicam mathematicam esse essentialiter Platonicam, item Newtonianam orbitarum ellipticarum explicationem assymetriam prae se (...) ferre inexplicabilem (cui sententiae J. Franklin quoque assentit). Auctor e contra arguit, textibus nonnulis S. Thomae Aquinatis innixus, physicam modernam, mathematica sui methodo non exclusa, realisticae epistemologiae Aristotelicae esse congruam, immo pure Aristotelice intelligi posse (ac debere). Auctor tamen reicit quod J. Franklin insinuat, scil. physicam modernam nunc Aristotelicae philosophiae naturalis explere munia. Physica mathematica enim, methodo sua constricta, quaestiones genuine philosophicas (nempe ad essentias rerum spectantes) movere non potest, ac proinde philosophiae naturalis vice fungi nequit.This discussion article is a critical reaction to L. Groarke’s paper “Can Aristotelianism Make Sense of Perihelion–Aphelion Orbits?” and J. Franklin’s comment “Elliptical Orbits and the Aristotelian Scientific Revolution”. In the first place, the author shows (going beyond Franklin’s criticism) that Groarke’s proposed “Aristotelian” explanation of elliptical planetary orbits is inconsistent both in itself and with the Newtonian analysis. Furthermore, he challenges Groarke’s claims that modern mathematical physics is inherently Platonic and that the Newtonian explication of elliptical orbits involves unexplained assymmetries (a claim endorsed by Franklin as well). With the help of several Aquinas’s texts the author argues that modern physics, including its maths-driven methodology, is not incompatible with Aristotelian realist epistemology but can (and should) be interpreted in a purely Aristotelian vein. On the other hand, the author rejects the view implied by Franklin that modern physics is an up-to-date replacement of Aristotelian philosophy of nature. Due to its methodological limits, mathematical physics is incapable of asking genuinely philosophical questions concerning the essence of bodies, and so it cannot be expected to do the job of natural philosophy. (shrink)