Greetings.
1. I am looking for a maybe scientific, maybe philosophical work, which satisfies two fairly weird conditions.
1) It was probably written around 1850-1870. Any case, it HAS to have been written before 1880.
2) The leitmotif is that nothingness of any kind cannot be described, as the act of description essentially substitutes something in place of nothingness it is meant to describe, and thus constitutes an act of deceit (passing fiction for actual reality). All of that - quite possibly, with heavy anti-field-theoretic ramifications.
Anything relevant comes to mind?
2. I am also interested in the history of downfall of perpetuum mobile doctrine and the establishment of early versions of law of conservation of energy. Is there any protracted, self-consistent, work on perpetuum mobiles, written before 1780, which, you think, might've been ultimately responsible for shifting consensus on them to the strictly negative side? Maybe, come to think of it, through employment of reduction to absurdity.
Again, it has to be a book about perpetuum mobiles, not about energy. At least, not initially. And it HAS to be written before 1780. Anything comes to mind?
In both cases I am strictly interested with primary sources only. Thank you for your attention and time.
1. I am looking for a maybe scientific, maybe philosophical work, which satisfies two fairly weird conditions.
1) It was probably written around 1850-1870. Any case, it HAS to have been written before 1880.
2) The leitmotif is that nothingness of any kind cannot be described, as the act of description essentially substitutes something in place of nothingness it is meant to describe, and thus constitutes an act of deceit (passing fiction for actual reality). All of that - quite possibly, with heavy anti-field-theoretic ramifications.
Anything relevant comes to mind?
2. I am also interested in the history of downfall of perpetuum mobile doctrine and the establishment of early versions of law of conservation of energy. Is there any protracted, self-consistent, work on perpetuum mobiles, written before 1780, which, you think, might've been ultimately responsible for shifting consensus on them to the strictly negative side? Maybe, come to think of it, through employment of reduction to absurdity.
Again, it has to be a book about perpetuum mobiles, not about energy. At least, not initially. And it HAS to be written before 1780. Anything comes to mind?
In both cases I am strictly interested with primary sources only. Thank you for your attention and time.
