/lit/ - Literature

is this the kind of threads the people who think they're smart on reddit have

>>10969402
I don't know what that means. I just find it weird that Godel got into phenomenology of all things, so late in his career, and how all of his letters and unpublished philosophical writings are full of strong rationalism and even mysticism.

>>10969402
Those people are usually like "well, Godel showed that no system could prove its own consistency, so how could we expect physics to ever make complete sense..." and confused non-sense like that. This is definitely preferable.

>>10969427
everything we know about physics rn will be totally wrong in another 1000 years so who gives a shit thats what i say

>>10969434
this cannot be true from a technical standpoint.

>>10969395
>So, are you hungry?
>I could eat.

>>10969440
of course it can are you retarded

>>10969395
This sounds really interesting

>>10969444
Well I would like to step in here and say no it cannot. This is an easy point to refute. Since you said everything we know about physics will be wrong in 1000 years, this cannot be true, because even Plato in his Timaeus, understood rational truths about the world we live in, like particles which cannot be seen with the naked eye, and the various sizes particular to these particles as well.

Clearly you could say not all of what Plato said in that document, which was largely a thought experiment anyway, was incorrect. You could say the models were a bit unrealistic, being that Earth could never fully be an exact sphere (something ideal). But very close to knowledge of the actual phenomena.

In this case, my point is that we've never witnessed every single thing being false in physics passing from one millennium to another, so why should what you're saying have any truth to it at all?

>>10969444
.....no that's a common misconception. the standard model explains the universe quite well and we know there are 4 fundamental forces (strong/weak nuclear, electromagnetism, gravity) and we have a good idea how the first 3 interact at all scales, gravity is being finalized now, in another few decades a general unified field theory will be discovered probably with the aid of supercomputer simulations.

we are very near the end of physics, and people have know about this since the 1970s. Popular books have been written about this topic since the 90s so you don't have any plausible excuse to be this misinformed.

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/was-i-wrong-about-8220-the-end-of-science-8221/

>>10969456
>nitpicking to avoid the point

kill yaself or go back

>>10969456
Pedant.

(No, I'm not OP)

>>10969463
Hello I am >>10969456.

>we are very near the end of physics
This is incorrect and way too presumptive. That point you are making is wrong.

>>10969463
>we're at the end of physics

ha

>>10969465
>>10969464
I assume the issue was that he said everything would be wrong. There is a huge difference between saying scientific understanding will be proven wrong in the future (it always has been and always will), and saying that all scientific understanding will be proven wrong in the future.

>>10969467
>>10969468

it really _REALLY_ REALLY isn't presumptive.

i am currently doing a phd in physics (optics and high energy lasers), my dad taught graduate physics for 35 years, my mom is a high school science teacher, anyone in and around active research or education or science advocacy (federal funding and writing proposal grants, reporting and media, academia in general) quietly holds this position. there will always be a fringe group who believes in anti-gravity, magic spells, faster than light travel, perpetual motion, ignoring basic thermodynamics and spacetime constraints. but the vast majority of active, working scientists, in research or applied fields, would be pleasantly surprised to find some 'new' undiscovered effect, force, field or law.

we've seen back in time almost to the moment of universal creation. we have very good models that predict the observed motion of deep space objects. we have understood planetary motion for hundreds of years. this doesn't mean new inventions won't occur, but you're confusing engineering with physics. physics is about explaining the natural world and why things happen. the "how" is an engineering and design problem, to replicate something that is occurring. that's an open ended problem for developing technology and working with metamaterials and taking a more organic approach to our philosophy of use.

i always hear the ignorant idea that "everything we know is wrong" and how the future will rewrite everything. it's just blatantly false, im sorry but the reason your computer works right now is because quantum physics is right. and it will be right 1000 years from now and it was right 1000 years ago even though nobody knew about it.

>>10969469
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Structure_of_Scientific_Revolutions?wprov=sfla1

>>10969487
Coming from someone who studies science, yes it is.

All you are trying to do is simply propagate the infallibility of your models, which can be proven incorrect if you were to discover certain other traits about life, or even discover that certain aspects of research are more fallacious than previously thought.

You obviously won't hear people like Bill Nye or Richard Dawkins saying this, but that's because they are misguided. We used the believe in the Geocentric theory of the universe for thousands of years before it was disproven. Loads of scientists did, after discovering all of the planets even. Your statement that science can't be proven wrong in the future is just pride and arrogance for a method which is nonetheless valuable to humanity.

>implying the laws of the universe don't evolve and fold as the time progresses into a state of chaos

>>10969487
dude physics is always "at the end" up until it isn't. i can't believe people with phds in physics could be this stupid about the history and philosophy of science, then again, maybe they can be.

physics is a "social construct" it's just models to predict behavior in the universe, you think people won't make new breakthroughs in math that can then be used to make better or at least different models of the universe?

Godel was a mathematician and he was a bit bat shit crazy during his latter years.

>>10969496
the thing is the ptolemaic model isn't even "wrong" its just more complex, in the future not only will we find more accurate models we will find more simple ones, but which one is "true"? doesnt matter its just human produced knowledge aka a social construct

>>10969496
science builds up on previous work. we are over 3000 years in deep with good ideas being retained and bad ideas rejected.

the models change as new evidence presents itself. we have mapped the entire visible universe. we have seen down to nanoseconds after the initial starting point.

im trying to explain to you how this works, for physics to be wrong at this point you would need a deus ex machina moment with aliens going surprise, we faked the whole universe for your observations to misguide you. no credible scientist believes in unfalsifiable nonsense like simulation theory. nye and dawkins are meme science communicators, they aren't relevant.

>>10969504
math is a separate thing from physics. math is everything that could possibly be, physics is applied mathematics to the real world. math will never end, but present day math is mostly irrelevant to non-mathematicians. even among themselves they are having problems understanding each other without computers.

see perlman's proof of poincare conjecture, mochizuki's teichmuller theory (which might be an elaborate troll job, nobody in the world understands it yet), or voevodsky's work on homotopy type theory (he killed himself last year, but there are interesting ideas there with respect to reshaping our understand of mathematics using computer proofs and creating type-topologies).

maths is more like art, you can always generate some fantastic new piece of art or literature since you have an infinite number of words or ways to express ideas. physics is more like finding and describing the natural world, it's very grounded and depends on building up on prior experiments which have been reproduced millions of times in classrooms around the world.

>>10969518
I try to tell people geo centric isn't a wrong model but no one ever seems to understand.

>>10969526
have you not noticed new physics depends on new math

>>10969501

>>10969526
Know your place, physics boy.

>>10969487
>*teleports behind you*
>*appeals to authority*
>*makes a 1000 year prediction*
>nothin' personal kid
WEW

>>10969526
You are a brainlet who will be proven wrong with time.

>>10969545
Heh, you think that's impressive. Watch this.

>>10969501
t. Schelling

>>10969542
Im not wrong

>>10969553
Never read schelling, Ive came to that idea independently.

>>10969545
>trying to discuss the limitations of widely accepted standard interpretation of physics for the past 100 years without appealing to authority
>the implication being that all that work can be summarized in a digestible format in under 100 words and purely discussed from a rationalist perspective with no domain knowledge
>assuming that knowledge is infinite and ignoring the countless 1000 year cycles of zero or little growth or discovery which makes up the normalcy of the human story


hmmm

>>10969570
Knowledge is definitely infinite, there is no limit to understanding and approaching pure reason.

You can't just say 'welp, we've solved the PROBLEM of not knowing anything', because that's the reason that scientific progress is proven incorrect.


>>10969518
That's quite interesting, of course, but proven wrong with facts.

>>10969527
I like that Einstein's ideas actually make this far more reasonable.

>>10969406
As you get older and wiser you mature out of science, mathematics, and logic.

>>10969582
but the universe is finite and infinity doesn't exist anywhere. so you're just a religious zealot who deifies his own species. how can i possibly approach the subject with you when your dogmatic interpretations presupposes their own conclusions.

assuming there is a shred of sanity left in you i suggest you observe the humans in the world and rethink your position. activities today are no different than thousands of years ago. new knowledge and technology are just patinas easily scratched away from the corrosive nature of mankind. this bland utopianism everything will be better in the future crap is exactly why you commies never won a single war in the intellectual space. cowed you took it to the masses, which destroyed your visions of tomorrow- and will do so again, and again, no matter how many times you try.

because you're in love with an idea in your mind, not with reality and the people as they are. weak, cowardly, ignorant, dumb, cowed, and hungry for a strong leader to worship like a god. sorry for ideology shaming you bro, but wake the fuck up, you have the internet there is no excuse for this level of naivety. at best you can critique what others have built, but eroding a solid foundation just retards progress for everyone, you are unable to build a world view because you have pre-set ideas locked in which are tautologies and hubris filled fantasies which will never come true.

>>10969597
Ah now you are being presumptive. I never said anything about religion. You are basing this whole argument on a science vs. religion perspective? I'm done. Not only that false heuristic, you've utilized Ad Hominems incessantly.

I am just letting you know, the conclusion you are receiving, that we have near perfect scientific knowledge of the universe, is patently false. But I'll let you see through time, and maybe you'll see the error of your ways.

>>10969597
gas all STEMtards. phd and this nigga still in sunday school

>>10969603
you believe infinity exists, in the human mind, ad infinitum. where is your proof? it's potential exists, it cannot be realised/enumerated/computed in this or any other universe build on similar laws.

you've turned science into a religion, anthropocentrism.

>religious zealot who deifies his own species

you have made yourself god when you say knowledge is definitely infinite.

the rest of what you wrote is triggering some automatic response in your brain, probably because you are deeply unfamiliar and uncomfortable with the idea i have presented to you- since you have just assumed it without inspection this entire time, it's the girder foundation and corner stone to your belief structure.

knowledge is potentially infinite. it is not infinite in a practical sense, and useful knowledge is almost certainly finite.

just like you are not computationally optimized for discovering things (since so many of our discoveries are non-intuitive and don't make immediate sense to our vision system or experience), our ability to express billions of different meaningless universes which would never develop matter, stars or planets is a subset of your infinite knowledge, but has little practical application unless you're trying to write science fiction and want free energy with wormholes.

>>10969619
This is just so ironic. What YOU are doing is turning science into a religion.

You are worshiping current scientific understanding, as an absolute answer for every sort of doubt.

>>10969629
im doing the exact opposite of that.

the academy trains people in using various tools (mathematics, computers, clear concise written language, unbiased thinking) to experiment, hypothesis and discover new things. it's not a perfect system, but it has served well for many generations. it's also a corrupt establishment filled with all kinds of clowns who do busy work and bureaucratic brownnosing which ends up in wasted time and resources.

nobody who is a fedora tipping atheist or a die hard religious nut takes that shit into a lab, they would be laughed at and their work ripped apart. "knowledge is infinite" is as meaningless as saying "god is the light". want build some testable hypothesis behind that claim kid or do you wanna do ride the short bus with the other "social sciences".

>>10969636
How does it feel to be bellow mathematicians?

>>10969636
See, I knew it. You have some kind of ridiculous notion in your head of objective materialism vs. religion. It's so weird, I could have sworn that NO ONE FUCKING MENTIONED RELIGION.

Read some Postmodern philosophy, nerds.

>>10969434
Well your post will be wrong in 1000 years so who gives a shit, that's what I say

>>10969494
If you actually read history of science you will see it's more like "The Structure of Kuhn's Fairy Tales".

>>10969463
>we are very near the end of physics, and people have know about this since the 1970s
are you aware that this is exactly what physicists were saying in the late 19th century?

>>10969434
What. Greeks were right about buoyancy, light, and mechanics. They’re still just as right.

>>10969885
Besides that one Kelvin quote, not really.

Gödel also worked on general relativity (see e.g. the Gödel metric) and so surely they discussed a lot og physics as well.

t. sitting in a library in Vienna right now

>>10970233
They told Schrödinger to stick to being a pianist because physics is done.

Hey, another famous Viennese

For German speaking mathematically inclined folks: Yesterday I stubled upon this 2017 biography of Hirzebruch. Looks promising

>>10970256
Meanwhile
>[In 1869], in a lecture, [Maxwell] said, “I have now put before you what I consider to be the greatest difficulty yet encountered by the molecular theory.” These words represent the first discovery that the laws of classical physics were wrong. This was the first indication that there was something fundamentally impossible, because a rigorously proved theorem did not agree with experiment. About 1905, Sir James Hopwood Jeans and Lord Rayleigh (John William Strutt) were to talk about this puzzle again. One often hears it said that physicists at the latter part of the nineteenth century thought they knew all the significant physical laws and that all they had to do was to calculate more decimal places. Someone may have said that once, and others copied it. But a thorough reading of the literature of the time shows they were all worrying about something. Jeans said about this puzzle that it is a very mysterious phenomenon, and it seems as though as the temperature falls, certain kinds of motions “freeze out.”

>>10969434
>Making a scientific law out of scientific paradigmatic changes
Next level retard