/lit/ - Literature

>>12339658
The Greeks

>physics isnt a dead end
I see you havent gone very far

physics doesn't tell us anything

>>12339670
>The Greeks
Done that and seen that. I want to move on.

Kinematic equations, Newton's laws, circuits, basic electromagnetism but you cant get very far without pretty heavy calculus.

Math is best learned doing lots of proofs, and physics lots of problems. Its a subject that lends itself to textbooks very well, so grab a first semester physics book and start churning out problems. Seems dry no? Makes sense why so few people elect to study it.

>>12339658
How much of physics do u corrently posses?
If i drop a ball from 15m, can you tell me whats its speed will be when it hits the ground?
Can you tell me whats the top speed on a 1kg wieght on a spring released from 15cm distance?

anyhow, ill suggest getting a good hold of basic physics and then revisitng stieners scientific lectures for a very delightful and thought provoking example of a great mixture of physics and philosophy

>>12339658
i am intrested to hear what you find intensely interesting in physics.
physics is a very broad subject, and if you share a bit more of your interest, it will be easier to give some guideness

>>12339695.
>Its a subject that lends itself to textbooks very well, so grab a first semester physics book and start churning out problems.
Ok mate. I already have a ton of those old books I'll pick up.

>>12339718
>How much of physics do u corrently posses?
Very little lmao

>>12339745
>i am intrested to hear what you find intensely interesting in physics.
Mainly stars and shit lol

>>12339832
>and shit lol
i approve of your move from
>>12339658
>dead end nowadays
to
>intensely interesting

but why go there , if you can just go over to reddit and take a shower of intensely interesting memes

a friend of mine once told me that at a certain age u start to like olives, they are bitter

>>12339658
Differential and Integral calculus and an intro textbook--be warned, intro physics textbooks are an arduous battle due to their length, but it's such a satisfying feeling getting through one. After that, if you're up for it, then hit the multivariable and vector calculus, diff eq's, and linear algebra hard because a lot of that will pop up in topics like E&M, thermodynamics, etc. After that, you can really pick whichever topics you prefer, but some orderings may lend themselves to an easier schedule. Say you want to jump deep into QM, then some intermediate mechanics and E&M might be necessary at some point.

>>12339915
I forgot to add that you don't have to drop philosophy entirely. A lot of philosophy influences physics and vice versa, similarly to mathematics influencing physics influencing mathematics. For example, Kantian philosophy influenced some physicists and mathematicians of the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

>>12339684
>namefag pseud

>>12339658
You understood nothing of philosophy if you think physics will provide you with knowledge.

>>12339658
You’re moving backwards. You’re supposed to start as a scientist before making your second sailing and becoming a philosopher.

>>12339658
>The former seems like a dead end nowadays
Then you're an idiot
>and the latter intensely interesting. Where do I start?
Intro to classical mechanics and e&m, intro to modern physics, more classical mechanics and e&m, more modern physics, then quantum, electronics, optics, thermo and statistical mechanics, and computational physics. That was my undergrad anyway. Ask /sci/ for specific books or better yet go to college and stop wasting time with your faggy autodidact delusions.

>>12339658
>>12339684
>>12339832
Ernesto Sabato, best known for his novel The Tunnel, dropped advanced physics instead and moved to literature. Is one of the great Latin American writers. I do not know, physics just was not his thing.

And a different kind of example is Mario Bunge. Argentinian too, is physicist but he chose to work on philosophy of science and philosophy of physics, and his opinions, beside polemic, are well known.

I wil give you two more examples so you can read.
This article argues how the computer, all this digital thing and technological revolution comes from Aristotle. He didn't invented the computers obviously, but is explained how through the crisis of fundamentals of mathematics that lead to the invention of formal logic and boolean algebra and through the transitor revolution and the contributions of such people as Claude Shannon and Alan Turing, the syllogistic logic first conceived by the greek philosopher was important.
https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2017/03/aristotle-computer/518697/

And the second, an article from Quanta Mag, also dealing with physicists turned philosophers, and not only that, but how the philosophers, historians, sociologists, theorical and experimental scientists discuss what is science, what is not, what to think about contemporary physics and othee things.
https://www.quantamagazine.org/physicists-and-philosophers-debate-the-boundaries-of-science-20151216

(1/?)

Honestly not a terrible idea if you’ve learned most of everything. I can’t help but think philosophy was betrayed on two fronts, the analytics and some of the deliberately obscure post-modernists. It’s the reason why it’s seen as such a practically useless field, especially when a lot of pomo is self-denying, and the analytic methodology is just pure autism when looked at from an outside point of view