/lit/ - Literature

Before Einstein there were already doubts about newtonian physics and some paradoxes already published

bear in mind that modern scientists don't believe reality exists
for them reality is a model in our heads made up of mathematical abstractions

in other words, they're ABSOLUTE MADMEN and you don't actually have to take them seriously anymore

also, Einstein didn't discover anything (to discover something would be to imply uncovering an as yet unknown part of reality, but scientists don't believe in reality), he just came up with a model that allowed for more precise measurement

so Kelvin wasn't really wrong

Scientists are simultaneously the most intelligent and stupid people on the planet because they have brains but not spirit. They're basically just apes with metal weapons instead of rocks.

>>6216450
who's they?

>>6216518
>Scientists are simultaneously the most intelligent and stupid people on the planet because they have brains but not spirit.

this is poorly stated

>Scientists are simultaneously the most intelligent and stupid people on the planet because they have no brains but very precise measuring equipment.

fixed

>>6216450
God isn't dead, it's just no longer believed to be sane and looks oh so fucking funny when someone is religious.

Philosophy has never been alive. Useless brainless pretentious boring preaching.

All forms of art considered classy and designed by real talent is dead. Yes.. very fucking dead.

>>6216529

Clearly it fucking isn't if it still exists.

>>6216450
False analogy.

>>6216468
Leibniz had arguments against Newtonian physics from the latter's infancy, e.g., Arguments against the assumption of absolute space and time: both must be relative, otherwise the principle of sufficient reason would be violated. God would have no 'reason' to create the world at one time rather than another, or in one place rather than another.

Einstein probably read Leibniz though.

>>6216518
Couldn't make it past Calculus II?

>>6216569

>math is science

lel. Couldn't make past reading comprehension 101?

>>6216508
>bear in mind that modern scientists don't believe reality exists
You know, I can only [citation needed] so hard. You're really pushing things to the limit here.

And it is PATENTLY false that "for them" (who are we even really talk about when we say "modern scientists," anyway?) reality is a "model in our heads" made up of "mathematical abstractions." (I normally shy away from scare-quote abuse, but here I am afraid your message/thought process is so hopelessly misguided and/or garbled that I am left with no choice.) First of all, there are and have been many, many (perhaps the majority of) "modern" scientists who have espoused dualistic/pluralistic worldviews, whereby much of reality remains inelucidated by empirical/mathematical means. Second, it seems to me a dubious claim indeed that the majority (let alone the ENTIRETY) of "modern" scientists are idealists, let alone mathematical idealists. I think the vast majority believe that the physical reality which they describe is in some sense real beyond what mathematics, or indeed any human cognition, has to say of it. Third, I am not so sure what you even mean by "reality," and more importantly, I am baffled as to why you (evidently) find the prospect of idealism so offensive in such a visceral way. What the fuck are you even on right now, my man?

>>6216511

This worldview you've got here is so utterly bizarre I don't quite know what to say. What on Earth gives you the impression that scientists do not believe in "reality"? What would convince you that they do?

>>6216518

Boy, I've never heard that preposterous anti-intellectual sentiment before - no sir! Tell me, what is this "spirit" in which they are lacking?

>>6216524

If you mean to imply that science does not require brain power, I must ask if we are talking of the same thing when we use the word "science."

>>6216529

Normally I refrain from argumentum ex meme, but here I must ask you to dip that fedora just a bit lower. For the camera.

>>6216550

In what way?

>>6216584
>And it is PATENTLY false that "for them" (who are we even really talk about when we say "modern scientists," anyway?) reality is a "model in our heads" made up of "mathematical abstractions." (I normally shy away from scare-quote abuse, but here I am afraid your message/thought process is so hopelessly misguided and/or garbled that I am left with no choice.) First of all, there are and have been many, many (perhaps the majority of) "modern" scientists who have espoused dualistic/pluralistic worldviews, whereby much of reality remains inelucidated by empirical/mathematical means. Second, it seems to me a dubious claim indeed that the majority (let alone the ENTIRETY) of "modern" scientists are idealists, let alone mathematical idealists. I think the vast majority believe that the physical reality which they describe is in some sense real beyond what mathematics, or indeed any human cognition, has to say of it. Third, I am not so sure what you even mean by "reality," and more importantly, I am baffled as to why you (evidently) find the prospect of idealism so offensive in such a visceral way. What the fuck are you even on right now, my man?

Alright mate. To demonstrate my point I'm going to ask you a few very simple questions:

What is gravity? Is it a force or is it curvature in spacetime?

>>6216584

>no sir! Tell me, what is this "spirit" in which they are lacking?

Science is a useful tool, but that's all it is. A hammer can't tell you how to make a sword. That's the realm of the thinking man. I like science, its cool, but faggots like Dawkins, Hawkins or Strauss who think its the most important thing in the world are intellectually dead. Science has possessed them, they're nothing more than biological computers.

Except of course that science is the only one that allows for change fir the better, unlike religion, philosophy and art. That's also the reason why science will always remain superior to religion, philosophy and art

>>6216618
>Except of course that science is the only one that allows for change fir the better,

I prefer Newtonian physics to Einsteinian.

>>6216602

Gravity can be understood as both, depending on the level of discourse. Any scientist will agree.

>>6216605

>A hammer can't tell you how to make a sword.
I feel you need to develop that analogy a bit more, since that struck me as a complete non-sequitor. And if you mean to say that the scientist is not "the thinking man," again I append a very large [citation needed]. And when were we not biological computers (in a very loose sense of the word), anyway?

>>6216618

Be careful with that bait, Eugene.

>>6216583

>>6216584
>In what way?
In a direct one.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_analogy

>>6216624
>Gravity can be understood as both, depending on the level of discourse. Any scientist will agree.

So gravity can be both a force and curvature in spacetime? Even though these are two entirely different concepts? Why is this so?

Also, what is a force? Is it physical or non-physical? If it is physical, then what shape/form does it take? If it is non-physical, then how can it cause movement/acceleration in physical objects?

>>6216624

It makes perfect sense, but lets ditch the analogies. Science is a tool for observing the physical world. But it can't decide on behaviour, it can't lord over human affairs. The fact a nuclear weapon can kill 150,000 people is just a fact. But its me who decides to press the launch button and kill those 150,000 people. Its me, the einzig, the Unique One who sprays peace signs on civic property. I percieve, nay, *create* a physical reality around me which the scientist observes, of course, but there's another world - the world of what *I* create. No, we're not biological computers, the brain works completely different that a computer. You can't even make analogies between the two.

>>6216450

The hilarious thing though is that all of the artists, scientists and philosophers are just banging away in the dark trying to find the next big thing operating under the illusion of logical progression.

Somebody will eventually happen upon the next big black swan and the historical narrative will adapt to incorporate it and make it look like the discoveries were planned.

>>6216703

Something something a million monkeys with typewriters.

>>6216583

lel almost everything with a measure model uses calculus for data

>>6216622

>implying

Relativity =/= Quantum Physics

Also Newtonian physics work for large objects in quantum physics because of the DeBroglie Wavelength

>>6216508
The hell? Of course reality exists. The mathematical abstractions are models and approximations thereof, many of which have withstood such scrutiny for so long that they can be treated as actual descriptions of reality and its mechanics.

Two things which share all the same properties are the same thing.

>>6216605
>biological computers
and what the hell do you think you are? Lol thats exactly what every thing with a brain is; a computer.

>>6216637

Can you be specific? What makes the analogy false, precisely?

>>6216643

>Why is this so?
For much the same reason that a computer is both a collection of transistors and a word processor, or that a person is both a big clump of organic matter and a thinking, feeling thing. It all depends, as I said, on the level of discourse. Gravity is in some instances best thought of as a force, and in other instances, as a curvature in space-time. I am in some instances best thought of as a clump of organic matter, and in other instances, as a thinking thing. It is not so strange.
As for what a force is, that is more a question for the philosophy of physics than for physics itself. In physics, it is perfectly alright to treat it as a primitive. And of course it is physical; just because something is physical does not mean it needs to be substantive.

>>6216663

I guess I'm still missing the point here. I don't think anybody here is claiming that natural science can or should dictate ethical reasoning. But I'm still in the dark as to what "spirit" scientists are missing. I suppose that I should expect nothing more from some Continental abusing the German vocabulary and capitalization (the "Unique One"? What purpose could the capitalization possibly serve, other than as a means of making what you have to say seem more profound and systematized than it really is?). And we can go 'round all day as to whether the brain is "like" a computer, but I maintain that it is, in spite of things like the Chinese Room. The brain, as far as we can tell, does indeed (at the syntactic level) work more or less like a heavily parallel computer. What is important to keep in mind, however, is the levels of discourse. Syntactically the brain seems to be best understood as a big parallel computer, but that hardly explains how semantics/intensionally gets in there.

>people still misinterpret God is Dead

>>6216450
>>6216529
God's not dead he's surely alive.

>>6217074
Actually forces are kinda substantive.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gauge_boson

>>6216643
Your question is flawed. Gravity is a phenomenon caused by spacetime curvature and observed by us as a force.
Seriously lit, you are embarassing yourself every time you try to act smart about physics. Please, don't shitpost about things you have 0 knowledge about cause you make my eyes bleed everytime you do it. Have mercy and stick to literature.

>>6216561
Einstein most likely read Mach who read Leibniz.

>>6216524
le science is uncreative meme

God is dog.

>>6217219
>Einstein most likely read Mach
>"most likely"
>Explicitly named something "Mach's principle" based on an idea of Mach's