/lit/ - Literature

>>19600862
negligible

>>19600862
It's just another turtle in the stack

>>19601015

Infinite stacks of infinite turtles.

>>19600862
It proves Plato right
Like Bohr says, quantum mechanics represent the final triumph and justification of the Platonists over the Aristotelians

>>19601030
What's funny is I originally thought the "turtles all the way down" was in reference to the first turtles we use in programming. Basically little objects that process information given to them and interact with their environment depending on the rules/instructions. I pictured every level of just little objects following their own rules and creating new emergent phenomena from their collective interactions.
Only later did I realize people were referring to old mythologies

>>19601015
Every particle is made up of smaller particles that become increasingly difficult to prove the existence of.

>>19600862
Physics PhD student here. Non-determinism is the main one. That said, the probability distribution is perfectly well known once you figure out the Hamiltonian. If you're getting into QFT territory (+relativity) you get shit like locality, causality, and a very limited set of rules under which our universe can work. Other than that, not much.
P.S. being a physicist makes you hate faggots who marvel at muh quantum like it's some sci fi magic. Learn linear algebra, niggers.

>>19600862
None. Philosophy of science will have something to say about some of its claims, and whether they can be considered science at all or not. Philosophy in general is unlikely to be much affected by it.

>>19601120
how feasible is it to self-study physics as a small hobby?

>>19601037
>He thinks there is a dichotomy between Plato and Aristotle.
>Thousands of years later they still share the same philosophy
Wew lad

>>19601178
What do you wanna do with it? If you're more about experiment, you can set yourself up with some dank shit, but expect to deal with a lot of electronics. If you're a theory fag like me just have a brain, unlike the 99% of the population. It's all about interest and math aptitude.

>>19600862
Philosophers haven't been scientists for nearly two hundred years now and it shows. Honestly, no one who isn't a scientist deserves to be called a "philosopher".

>>19600862
Unless you're 18th century materialist then practically none.

>>19600862
umm i think we threw determinism out of the window, does that count?

>>19600862
nothing because quantum is bullshit

>>19601120
Can you think of an experiment to test free will? I mean actual free will, not just the kind of non-arbitrary liberty that Schopenhauer spoke of.

>>19600862
matter-antimatter object pair can be plucked from void using some energy. Its literally something for nothing. think about it.
Idea of antimatter was driving physicists nuts in early XX century.
>>19601120
hope you are happy with your life

>>19600862
Nothing except the (probable, as always) refutation of atomism. Although atomism was never really legitimately philosophical, and it was also refuted long before quantum mechanics appeared.

>>19601102
The perfect cover for a supreme substance which doesn't want her skirt to be lifted up all the way.

>>19600862
>What are the implications of quantum mechanics in respect to philosophy?
Buddha was right. Read Nagarjuna.

>>19600862
Nobody fukken knows, its metaphysical assumptions are buried so deeply and obscurely in the convoluted math of its framework that the theoretical physisists dont look for it, and the philosophers cant look for it. As an example, check out sabine hossenfelder's recent video on superdeterminism in quantum mechanics, she a somewhat dogmatic but very useful theoretical physicist that actually understands the math and tries to make some points about it. In the video she explains how the whole fundamental randomness of quantum mechanics coming from Bell's theorem might not even be the case, and mostly comes from a possibly false assumption everyone just assumed was true for no good reason.

>>19600862

>>19600862
https://informationphilosopher.com/presentations/Milan/papers/Barrett_quantum_argument_for_dualism.pdf

>>19601064
>the first turtles we use in programming. Basically little objects that process information given to them and interact with their environment depending on the rules/instructions.
It sounds like you're thinking of Logo, the programming language. It's a programming language from 1967 that's commonly used as an educational tool for teaching the concept of programming to kids or other novices. The drawing apparatus is indeed called a turtle. It's sometimes implemented in real life as a robot you give Logo instructions to.

>>19602601
Robot btw

>>19600862

>>19600862
It validates a possible worlds semantics

>>19601178
I found linear algebra especially easy. But I didn't find calculus difficult. >>19601120
is right though they don't really matter much to each other.
t. double bachelor's physics and philosophy, unemployed.

>>19600862

I pirated this like a decade ago and it seemed legit. The author was a physics professor so it's not as "wooo" as some of the "quantum theory -> Atlantis is real" crowd. From what I remember, each chapter would start with describing as aspect of quantum physics in depth and then linking it to some concept in Doaism.

>>19603314
Taoism is anti-rationalist. Quantum physics is completely rationalist, you just don't understand it.

>>19603401
Not sure if this is bait but Daoism is trans-rationalist in a way not incompatible with most recent rationalistic worldviews. Dialethism is still rational even if some of the ideas might challenge the kind of default cartesian rationalism most people have who haven't read any philosophy.

>>19603238
No, it doesn't.

>>19603909
What is this made up term "trans-rational"? Has anyone else ever used it before? Have you even? Taoism is explicitly anti-rational. It's also skeptical on the level of Descartes deceiving demon. There is no trans about it. It is not above, beyond, or a modification of human reason; it just straight up denies it. Humans are stupid little beings who've fallen out with nature, should stop thinking so much, and get back with the irrational progress of time.

Pic, location of taoism: 5-8i+4k

>>19600862
>>19601120
>Non-determinism is the main one.
I would pick non-realism instead, unless you want to break locality and special realitivity but no one in their right mind wants that.

>>19602187
Basado

https://philos-sophia.org/category/articles/

>>19601120
>Non-determinism
Learn science retard, lots of things seem random when you lack deeper theories. Guessing you study astrophysics?

BUMP

>>19601298
>Scientists haven't been philosophers for nearly two hundred years now and it shows. Honestly, no one who isn't a philosopher deserves to be called a "scientist".

>>19602035
>her
retard

>>19601120
Good post

>>19605708
>what are wave functions
>what are hidden variables

>>19601102
I can prove my hand exists, just look-

>>19607276
This.

It makes the idea harder to hold, that the side effects of measurements (say momentum) on other quantiable properties (say the position of a "thing", when afterwards measured) can be predicted with vanishingly small accuracy.
That's almost not a philosophical result, except it rules out past naive ontologies

>>19601998
>>19607270
allow me to apologize for referencing my own replies, but
doesnt the fact that gamma ray(massless particle) when bumping into electron, literally shits out two particles with mass(e- and e+) out of nothingness as in picrel, make your mind blown?
I guess this quantum physics related fact has consequences on philosophy. Consider creating rigid objects(which your material world consists of) out of nothing and annihilating them in reverse process. What is your material world then if just some kind of weird matrix where things can be flipped on or out of existence.
t. physics dropout

>>19607821
Physical and philosophical notions of "nothingness" are vastly different, and everything physicists say and imagine is pretty much somethingness.
You have "gamma ray", you have electron, those are something. The very space is something.
You seem to thing that no-mass=no-thing, but they you say of things like gamma rays and electons "bumping", so interacting spatially. All of this are things.

"Ex Nihilo" means total absence of space-time and mind, hence unimaginable and paradoxical. I recall Anselm of Canterbury interpreting the Biblical "ex nihilo" as actualizing something hidden and potential by God, and then you have the mystics who speak of "Ungrund" or "Godhead" preceding and being a necessary condition of personal God and Creation (pretty heretical). Might as well be whatever the Universe was zipped unto a singularity.

>>19600874
fpbp

>>19601064
So many elementary particles to pick from, and people on /lit/ choose to be bottoms.

>>19601178
Completely feasible if you don’t try to rush it and make sure to do the problems in the textbooks and ask any questions you have online. The biggest difference I found between self study and university with physics was that being forced to discuss problems from the textbook with people before seeing the answer led to a way deeper understanding of the mathematics and physics.

>>19604309
great picture, thanks. I am uniroincally reading pic rel and just starting my journey. I have copies of Kuhn and Feyerbend and SEP articles printed out too.. we'll see how far I get

I anyone interested in learning physics and science in their spare time I recommend this guy's videos as a supplement to your learning: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XQ25E9gu4qI

>>19607988
>Physical and philosophical notions of "nothingness" are vastly different
they are basically the same, meaning negative quality , or rather an absence of a quality.
Also i cant put to use your "Ex Nihilo" , except for in some theoretical religious argument. Also it cannot be used regarding hidden stuff.

>>19607276
>>19601298
Both desu

>>19607276
yes.
>>19601298
yes.

>>19608539
>Non-determinism

based, this man's videos got me through my EM course