/lit/ - Literature

>>14358866
He didn't even said proper form of any mechanical movement

>>14358866
He barely understood women, mate.

>>14358866
No, like most philosophers he was brainlet whose only real skill was writing gibberish that makes other brainlets feel smart when they pretend to understand what it means.

>>14358866
>Nietzsche
Nietzsche said that there was no facts, so he hates scientists

he literally died before that was the paradigma of natural science.

>>14358905
chemistry and biology were well grounded at the time so they had some idea but the quantum physics realm emerged a little over a decade after his departed

>>14358866
Nietzsche's philosophy is only understood from the perspective of the occult. The thing is though, after enough time spent in the occult, you realize that you should worship that which declares it is, the absolute, instead of the self. After realizing this you will realize that Nietzsche's philosophy is simply a ladder to the monad.

>>14358893
t. 'mathemitician'

He didn’t even understand philosophy.

>>14358866
Let's just say that if he had lived long enough to see quantum mechanics become a formal theory, he would have excelled at dispelling the earliest myths surrounding it. No one has ever understood perspective as well as Nietzsche.

>>14358866
Did heraclitus understand quantum mechanics?

quantum mechanics isn't even legitimate. "everything is particles" is not only a metaphysical position, but one that they have zero actual evidence for. just because the math works doesn't mean that the particle shit is real

>>14359595
Do you not know what a microscope is?

>>14359595
Explain how a Photon's development into either a wave or a particle isn't dependent on the observer, mr. Materialist.

>>14358885
That's because women are quantum in that they exist in States of both truth and nontruth simultaneously

>>14359595
I know fuck all about QM but I read a description of it by a physicist who said that in reality the things are neither particles nor waves, but that it is useful to model them as one or the other at times. Basically they don't really say what the things are at all

>>14359595

Hey! I respect what you're saying, but feel that maybe you would find it interesting to learn more about why Quanuum mechanics is seen to be true. The evidence is actually astounding! But can be hard to see if you don't get shown why, and are simply told why.

It may be a bit annoying if you have no maths under your belt, but you should totally check out something called the Bell Inequality. It was a mathematical inequality usedd to describe how quantum mechanics would work, when compared to classical mechanics. When tested it was also proven to hold! Also quantum mechanics doesn't assume everything is a particle, it assumes everything is quantized (like bits on a computer). Further theories such as QFT (Which I'm working in) even do away with the idea all together! Quantum effects are a part of our day to day lives, and they're one of the most rigorously tested. I can try and recommend you some reading on the matter, as it has quite the large philosophical implication, which many have written excellent books on!

Keep questioning things tho, the easiest person to fool is yourself!

>>14359586
Yes

>>14359626

a microscope does not observe things like photons, electrons, tachyons. i'm not saying that atoms aren't real, genius, i'm saying that everything is not made of particles. they make the math work first, and the particles later

>>14359636

a wave is not a 'thing', a wave is a secondary attribute of something else. the water in the ocean makes 'waves', there is are no waves without the water. quantum mechanics treats the wave as a primary thing because they are retarded and care more about awards and their cult than truth

>>14359704

thank you

>>14359715

i'm going to be late for work responding to this shit, i'll deal with you later

>>14359826

i'll deal with you later!

>>14358866
I wish I were smart enough for Math and Physics.

he understood that human reasoning had moved beyond metaphysical abstracts into observable phenomena and that with these predictable, quantifiable, calculable matrices of cause and effect the known universe could be distilled into simplified equations, he also knew that these equations were harnessed for efforts towards placing 'psychology' under the yoke of scientific experimentation and that human behavior would quickly become another radical element, a variable incorporated in a cosmic calculation, he knew that science would attempt to take the place of morality and that these radical elements would be identified no longer as 'good' and 'evil', instead placed within a binary construct designating them as '1' or '0', 'postive' or 'negative', 'matter' or 'energy', 'particle' or 'wave', and he understood that this usurpation of the conscious conscience by a god-like irrefutable physical constant, ordained by a clerical priest-like caste of indoctrinated soothsayers would serve no further in waylaying the struggles of the either the individual or community at large, instead only confining them even further within a prison of shadows

>>14359595
Read about the atomic models all the way to the most recent one

>>14359826

I'm glad that you've been thinking about it. I think you're a bit confused on how nuanced the science of this is. When you say 'Not everything is made out of particles' you're almost assuming that the concept of a particle is solidified in the world.

What does it mean for something to be a particle? Does it have mass? Does it need to have weight? Can a particle be destroyed? Since we have proven that different 'particles' can be turned directly into energy, does that mean that they themselves are energy? You need to rigorously define what you mean by 'particle'. Once you do you begin to see that the idea of what is and is not a 'particle' begins to break down and blur, like it did in the beginning of the 20th century.

If you do not believe that the world behaves In a quantum manor then you are going against all proven science. The photoelectric effect (which is what gave us the initial insight into the quantum world, alongside black body radiation) is possibly the most well tested and rigorously proven effects in the world. It is also only possible in a quantum universe.

Current physicists do not believe that everything is a 'particle', this is because nobody can agree on what a 'particle' is. You're very correct in saying that a wave is a secondary attribute in something else, this is how we base our current understanding of particles! We see them as 'excitations' in the 'quantum ocean' so to speak.

I would recommend perhaps reading some introductory books by Richard Feynman, or if you're more interested in some more formalized notes on why quantum mechanics is a good model for our world I can link some of the notes I've collected. I think you'll find some of it really interesting!

>>14359595
>everything is particles
That's Einstein's relativity you goof.
In Quantum mechanics everything's smudged, foam and waves and maybes, Heraclitean uncertainty, never even is, again maybe.

>>14359897
>the 'quantum ocean' so to speak.
i.e. the aether

>>14360598
based

electric universe theory is much closer to the truth than the standard model

I do book reviews and such, sometimes involving quantum mechanics (PhD is in physics).

https://youtu.be/5zLr7hAnrZY

There's been a few decades between Nietzsche and Planck, though.

>>14358866
Short answer: no
Long answer:
>no, but in green

>>14359679
>that they exist in States of both truth and nontruth simultaneously
This is a misinterpretation of QM. It is just a pop reading of it.

>>14359595
>just because the math works doesn't mean that the particle shit is real
what do you think science is exactly?

>>14360864
a bunch of bullshit

>>14360864
>>just because the math works doesn't mean that the particle shit is real
>what do you think science is exactly?
what do YOU think science is? science is a second-order model of first-order reality. the math that science encodes the models in is then third-order, three whole levels removed from the actual thing it's supposed to represent. whether it "works" (as in, is consistent and doesn't produce absurdities) is only the most basic possible criteria for it being a meaningful approximation of reality

>>14360893
Analytic gibberish from ESL's make me want to bridge myself

>>14360844
>Arnold
Based

>>14360913

i understood him just fine

>>14358885
LIT

>>14361795
The new hot argumentative device is to say that you don't understand your opponent.

>>14361985

sorry bro i didn't catch that...try speaking englis

>>14360864
some constructed pseudo-religious (at times) hocus-pocus

>>14358893
Yeah and the earth is flat cause I can't see it being round.

>>14360893
>the higher the order the more inaccurate
I hate STEMlets so goddamn much.

Schopenhauer was on to it.....

Nietzsche isnt half the philosopher Schopenhauer is. S intuited many things.... that is ultimately what a metaphysical system is worth.

>>14358866
>quantum mechanics

>>14360913
Dude, that’s not even complex Hegel speak.
>>14362570
Accept it is true. An abstraction of an abstraction of an abstraction.

I think that quantum physics is “likely” given the information we have, but that’s that. Science describes what is likely given that factors A, B, and C are taken as a given. Analytic Philosophy in its purest sense is the refinement of words and concepts. So even before you can say 2 plus 2 equals four, you would have to build a system to define those ideas.

What book should I read to understand modern quantum theory? Just one, the best one that covers it.

>>14359679
best post in the thread