/lit/ - Literature

>>7129248
>mfw someone says consciousness causes the collapse of the wave function near me

i collapsed ur moms pussies wave function

Most students of philosophy worth their salt are trained in math and/or science and are aware of Bell's theorem.

Ironic that you've chosen what is actually science's death knell as philosophy's.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=dbh5l0b2-0o

>>7129248
But they aren't random, they are only random for humans.

>>7129263
>Believing science is dying
>Believing philosophy is dying
If you believe either of these, you're an idiot.

>>7129248

physicsfags are still confined to grappling with the apparent world

you need metaphysics to get beyond (or behind) that. in my experience, most scientific figures are incapable of grasping the import of philosophical idealism and double aspect theory. tell a physicist that 'time is ideal' and he'll look at you like you're speaking High German.

He IS right in principle though.

There could be some rule that says "here's a long list of arbitrary events, after 20 billion years everything repeats" and we don't know because we're only at 13 billion years.

>>7129263
>Most students of philosophy worth their salt

Kek, nice 'no true scotsman'

>>7129289
Wow you know nothing. Philosophy is dead but science has always been dead.

>>7129248
>I try to explain Bell's theorem to him
>but he keeps cutting me off
>and I say nothing
>I quiet down
>Because he's too aggressive and I can't handle it
>So I made this thread on 4Chan.org/lit to get some validation for my superior opinion

OP, you dumb faggot. If you think you actually won that debate and didn't puss out like a bitch, you're dumber than dirt. You might think you pulled that I-don't-want-to-roll-in-the-mud-with-a-pig horse dung, but you didn't. You lost to someone you find dumb.

Now tell me I'm wrong, bitch.

>>7129254
>>7129289
>>7129318
I can tell you're a samefag and have autism because you're attracted to the same kind of faces

>>7129310
doesn't really matter when you're responding to someone making up a philosophy student by making up your own

>>7129248
>philotards still believing in hidden variable theory when majority of the scientists abandoned that in the 60s-70s

>>7129324
Maybe if you learn what an ad hom is you won't lose your next debate, bitch ;)

>>7129291
>time is ideal
This isn't a thing. I mean, really; search it up in Google.

>TA for philosophy class
>have to grade papers about how the universe is deterministic from freshmen taking Physics I

>>7129248
Locality (or nonlocality), realism (or antirealism), and superdeterminism are all valid interpretations of Bell's theorem and all are philosophical concepts and have metaphysical implications for out understanding of how nature is. Only local hidden variable theories were ruled out by Bell, there's still the matter of nonlocal variables, which Bohmian mechanics accounts for nicely.

>>7129351
you do know OPs post indicates that's most likely the case by Bell's theorem

>mfw physics nerds try to tell me that physicalism has any bearing on me
>mfw thank god I didn't waste my life studying the shadows on the wall of the cave

Wow, retard's calling for backup

>>>/sci/7536220

>>7129380
He really can't win an argument
HOLY FUCK
Top Kek, man

>>7129291
You're not pretending though, are you.

>>7129254
^This retard thinks bumping photons is what collapses it. Fucking highschoolers

>>7129350

the hell are you on about m8? have you even read Kant?

>>7129394

you're either stupid or btfo, not sure which

Carles is this you?

I'm strictly a philosopher
Just because we can't determine the exact position and velocity of a partical doesn't mean that they do not have an exact position and velocity

>ask English major what he thinks of this awesome book
>he says hates it
>says it's all technobabble
>I tell him it's not technobabble because it's all real and based on simple physics and chemistry
>"i-i knew that I was just joking"

AHAHAHA fucking idiots

dumb frogposter

I'm assuming you talked to someone respected in the field? No? Then fuck off

>>7129449
Yea Reza Aslan was visitiing my school and I decided to talk to him.

>>7129291
Any physical evidence for your claims?

>>7129461

Physical evidence of time being ideal? Do you even realize how malformed that question is?

Time is a form of the understanding imposed on physical sensation to generate the mental picture or 're-presentation' which constitutes the empirical world.

>>7129472
I'll take that as a no. Get out, faggot.

>>7129472
1/10 if troll

otherwise you're plain fucking retarded if you still think concepts like time and space are wholly abstract constructs

Don't they even teach the basic principles of general relativity to philosophy majors or do you go to community college?

>>7129477

You're trying to start an argument about something you're not even capable of arguing. This is a fencing match, and you've shown up with a loaf of bread.

>>7129481
Going to have to agree with the other guy

What do you mean by time being ideal/answer the fucking question

>>7129484
This is a scientific debate and you've shown up with abject nonsense. Your old, white philosophers knew less than a 15 year old today, get with the times.

>know nothing about physics
>hear other people talk about it
>it scares me

Anybody else know this feel?

>>7129495
Philosophers.

>>7129488
stop making shit up retard

googled "time is ideal" and came up with nothing

you philosophyfags absolutely contribute nothing to society other than making global warming worse with your farts

kill yourself

Ask a former professional counter strike player anything.

>tfw professor calls famous thinkers "old and white" as perjorative
>tfw this is acceptable in modern society

>>7129510
This is a multiracial society now, as Nietzsche said, we must look at all perspectives and, as Marx said, we must lift up the oppressed, the people of color. Move aside, white boy, we want to hear from Black men and women.

>>7129499
I'm a philosopher, and yesterday i calculated the buoyant force your mom's vaginal fluid exerts on my dick :^)

>>7129506
cfg or get the fuck out

>>7129441
>Any worthwhile English student
>Reading genre fiction

Fuckin nerd

>>7129441
What? Who cares if it's "real" or not? If we wanted real we'd read a fucking physics textbook, not a work of fiction. Goddamn, some people

>>7129514
You completely missed the point, you tard. There's a difference between listening to multiple perspectives and outright rejecting perspectives for their race/gender/sexuality/etc. which is... literally what anon was talking about

>>7129502
You linked the wrong post you fucking faggot - now quit evading

>>7129514
y

>>7129351
> tfw you kill yourself but it's for the wrong reason

Hint: It's because they are right and you are wrong

>>7129535
maybe because you're fucking illiterate and can't follow post order? why the fuck did you ask me about time being ideal retard

>>7129481

Your simple conception of these fundamental forms of matter betrays your like of education, not mine.

If you had been thoroughly schooled in both physics and philosophy, you would know that time, space and causality can each be understood in a threefold way:

In the a priori sense (intuition)
In the a posteriori sense (empirical)
In the abstract sense (scientific)

The first class concerns the a priori forms of the intellect, i.e. those which the faculties involve in perception impose upon sensory data. The world as we known it does not simply walk into our heads unfiltered and raw. Sensation is physical, but perception is fundamentally intellectual. Time is the form of the intellect which gives objects duration. Space is that form which gives objects extension. Causality is the form which gives them interaction. The intellect imposes these forms upon the objects, not the other way around.

The second class concerns the a posteriori perception we have of objects. This in plain terms is time, space and causality as experience. When we experience the passing of time, such as from dawn to dusk, we are dealing with time in the empirical sense. In this sense, time is quite intelligible without any metric, just as space is quite obvious without any definite measurements. In this sense we think of time as something plunging inexorably forward, and space as something extending indefinitely.

Finally we have these things in the abstract sense, and this is where the domain of science becomes possible and useful. Through mathematics, we apply discrete quantities to objects and forces in the universe, and thereby make sense of these in relation to one another. Time in this sense is what we measure with clocks and other instruments. Space is this sense is what we measure with rulers and quadrants. Causality in this sense is what we understand as reactions, fundamental forces, and so on.

Thus it may be said that the a priori sense of things provides us with context, the a posteriori sense provides us with content, and the abstract sense provides us with quantification. Each is predicated on the former. As I said at the outset, quantum physics (indeed the whole of physics) deals only with time, space and causality in the third, scientific sense. It does so by assigning definite values to these and interpreting the universe in an orderly fashion. Unfortunately, there are limits to the depth which physics can achieve. This is where science begins shading over into the realm of metaphysics, usually with clumsy results.

>>7129547

a few typos, but nothing drastic

phones are shit for posting on 4chan

>>7129542
Because you're talking like you know something but you can't answer a simple fucking question

Does it just *feel right* to you

>physics major makes a post about how he's smarter than philosophers
>one or two presumably philosophy majors try to have a serious discussion/debate with him
>HUR HUR NO UR STUPID I'M SMART CAUSE MY MAJOR HAS MORE MATHS THAN YOUUUUUUUUU!!!!!!!

>>7129535

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critique_of_Pure_Reason#Transcendental_Aesthetic

Kant's Transcendental Aesthetic deals with sensibility and with objects as far as they can be perceived, the word aesthetic being derived from the Greek root "aesthesis" meaning capable of sensation or feeling. However, Kant's discussion of space and time in the Transcendental Aesthetic is introduced by his analysis of cognition, which presents an unfamiliar philosophical terminology.[16]:65–66

Kant holds that there are two kinds of knowledge: sensible (sensual) and logical. Sensible knowledge is based on sensation; logical knowledge is based on reason. Kant's division of Transcendental Aesthetic and Transcendental Logic result from these two kinds of knowledge. The Transcendental Aesthetic is that part of the Critique of Pure Reason that considers the contribution of sensation to cognition.

Kant distinguishes between the matter and the form of appearances. The matter is "that in the appearance that corresponds to sensation" . The form is "that which so determines the manifold of appearance that it allows of being ordered in certain relations" (A20/B34). Kant's revolutionary claim is that the form of appearances — which he later identifies as space and time — is a contribution made by the faculty of sensation to cognition, rather than something that exists independently of the mind. This is the thrust of Kant's doctrine of the transcendental ideality of space and time.

It is undeniable from Kant's point of view that in Transcendental Philosophy, the difference of things as they appear and things as they are is a major philosophical discovery.[17] Others see the argument as based upon the question of whether synthetic a priori judgments are possible. Kant is taken to argue that the only way synthetic a priori judgments, such as those made in geometry, are possible is if space is transcendentally ideal.

In Section I (Of Space) of Transcendental Aesthetic in the Critique of Pure Reason Kant poses the following questions: What then are time and space? Are they real existences? Or, are they merely relations or determinations of things, such, however, as would equally belong to these things in themselves, though they should never become objects of intuition; or, are they such as belong only to the form of intuition, and consequently to the subjective constitution of the mind, without which these predicates of time and space could not be attached to any object?[18] The answer that space and time are real existences belongs to Newton. The answer that space and time are relations or determinations of things even when they are not being sensed belongs to Leibniz. Both answers maintain that space and time exist independently of the subject's awareness. This is exactly what Kant denies in his answer that space and time belong to the subjective constitution of the mind.[19]:87–88

>>7129562
I haven't read Kant yet but is he basically saying that our perception of sensible objects lies wholly in the mind and is independent of extrinsic forces?

>>7129572
The entire phenomenal world, the world as experienced, is subject to constraints imposed on it by the mind. The world as it is 'in itself,' apart from those constraints, is something we can't know in principle, and so seeing as our experiential forms include space and time, it is therefore something in principle nonspatial, atemporal, etc., and we are incapable of cognizing it. The everyday world and the empirical world of science consists only of appearances.

>some frogposter posts "the frog" on my board

Looks like I was right about the death of /lit/

>>7129575

Well put.

Schopenhauer added that causality is a fundamental form of the intellect as well, and its empirical correlate is simply matter, whose whole existence is its action. In other words, action is matter and matter is action.

He's totally right though you idiot.

>physicists rarely understand philosophical concepts in depth
>philosophy can still exist in higher institutions
>history of philosophy

>philosophy
>dead

>OP believes he's special
>OP has thoughts that he believes are unique and special to him and incommunicable to the outside world
>OP doesn't know that there's no such thing as a private language

>>7129582
Truth

If you show videos of balls colliding to babies, babies totally get used to the idea that it happens. Then if you show a video where one ball hits the other and the second doesn't move, the baby flips out and cries.

Ultimate proof that causation is a psychological necessity, not an ontological one.

And OP is fucking tarded if he's not a troll.

>>7129562
The intellectual posturing itt is imo tiring

I'm undereducated and so I have no real idea who Kant is, or his philosophy

I disagree that there are two types of knowledge, but I'm sure he gets at someone with it and I'd agree on a parallel term

On us creating from - one big takeaway I took from A Brief History is that gravity literally bends space so that "orbiting" is moving in a straight line
It should stand that our minds, containing immense [[[[gravity]]]] should similarly bend shit

I've come to the conclusion that there is a polar dichotomy between what we experience and what is actually going on -- this is the basis of the theory of the merkabah -- if something appears brown it is has absorbed, in effect is, every color but brown (incidental example)

>>7129248
But he's right. And yes, I know about Bell's theorem.

It's more inelegant to believe in these "hidden variables" and requires more assumptions than the alternative. I'm not pretending to play advocate for this interpretation, merely asserting that this interpretation lives.

>>7129606
Or proof that we have a psychological relationship with ontological necessity

Go on with the causation theory please; I absolutely disagree

>>7129263
>Most students of philosophy worth their salt are trained in math and/or science and are aware of Bell's theorem.
Only if philosophy of science is one of their interest.

I disagree that science killed philosophy. Philosophy stays in the same place it has always been: sticking to the toes of other knowledgeable people and annoying them with useless questions.
Looking back it has always been not-worthless. I don't see a particular reason, that was not given before under similar circumstances, to believe that philosophy will be worthless from now on.

>>7129642
>On us creating from - one big takeaway I took from A Brief History is that gravity literally bends space so that "orbiting" is moving in a straight line

Orbiting is not "moving in a straight line", it's orbiting. The lesson of non-Euclidean spaces, of which our universe is, is that parallel lines aren't necessarily both at right angles to the either's perpendicular.

What it does mean is that there is nothing mechanically different from the two perspectives. All non-Euclidean spaces can be represented as Euclidean and vice versa. It's more about the feasibility of calculation than anything.

>>7129653
You can't prove it exists, you just need to believe it exists. For all you know literally everything up to now was coincidental to your actions.

>thinking I'm wrong
>2015
>accepting Kant's "causation exists because my mind thinks it does" argument

>>7129575
>The everyday world and the empirical world of science consists only of appearances
Your explanation is correct, but this part may need clarification.
The essence/appearance dualism that goes back to ancient philosophy still makes us think of the appearance as something that is not the real thing, and hides behind it the real existence (like a platonic phantom).
There is no such thing when we talk of the noumena/phenomena dualism. The experience of things is as real is it can be and through them the noumena reveals itself in the form given by the a priori conditions of the transcendental subject.

It is not an appearance in the sense that objects of experience appear to be what they are not.

The noumena can be and is often treated as a transcendental-logical limit of experience (there is no thing-in-itself, the thing-in-itself is a boundary)

>>7129653
And I'm not actually saying that causation (Necessary Connexion in Hume) does not exist, rather that you can't prove it. Our apparatus do not allow the distinction between causation and correlation. We can only get better correlations.

>>7129676
Aka a theory of things-forms instead of concept-forms, brilliant Kant.

Kant is so fucking overrated.

>>7129472
hey there are plenty of physicists that treat time like that :) i don't think you could understand it in my language and i won't try harder than i have to to understand it in yours. happy trolling!

>>7129472
No. Time is just a comparison of motion between two objects. The only thing we know is that time is not commutative.

>>7129560
I'm actually a math major, the pretty good hybrid of physics and philosophy.


Literally everybody studying physics should shut the fuck up until they read Heisenberg on philosophy. Until they can refute him, they should take his words verbatim.

>>7129698
>I'm actually a math major
oh wow that's amazing i've never met anyone like that. did you know i'm actually white? pretty cool right?

>>7129514
who's we?

>>7129698

Well , I don't think modern day philosophers can even disagree with Relativity physics and Quantum field.

But think about it , a good deal of philosophy has been completely thrown out of the window due to physics.

Kant's synthetic a priori has been proved false by the theory of relativity.

Or, Bells theorem confirming the impossibility of local realism and deterministic causality.

>>7129651

Sorry I'm a philosophy major,but my understanding of the theory is that isn't it a really weak position to hold when it has been actually calculated that hidden variables aka "loopholes" don't exist?

How do you go about proving negatively a philosophical principle, when Bells theorem has proven that the particular situation of locality as an impossibility?

>simply surpassed

hhaha dropped

>>7129771
>Or, Bells theorem confirming the impossibility of local realism and deterministic causality.
within a qm framework without extra dimensions
http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/30065/why-do-people-rule-out-local-hidden-variables
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1205.4107v2.pdf

wait, he was right in principal though

>>7129248

>Your only hope at this point is if theoretical physicists decide to take up philosophy in their spare time. Good luck with that.

A sizeable amount of scientists have also been philosophers.

Any philosophers well versed in Physics nowadays ? I'm sure they exist.

>>7129771
Sure, but that doesn't make philosophy worthless one bit.

Science sublates itself. That is it's purpose. According to that logic, medicine is worthless because we contradict studies often

>>7129514
OOGA BOOGA WHERE DA WHITE WIMMIN

>>7129771


literally, each sentence in your post is not exact.


you show how much students and physicists are disconnected from a reflection on their works

>>7129514
>People biting on this post like it's bait and not sweet desserts of a more liberated populous

loving the greater access to minority arts, wisdom traditions, and the like tbh; it's not all gravy, but there's nothing to be gained with any sort of reversal

>>7129457
>Reza Aslan

>>7129248
they put their faith into mathematics and science. since they hardly study the fields, they miss that all scientific inferences (laws) are conventional and statistical, stemming from a premise of objectivity-only which consequently also limits its scope. Science, then, is obviously not solid knowledge and so strictly speaking they cannot believe in its products but they still keep their faith [and call it rationality] and they employ them as instrumental approximations of their fantasized reality.
the scientist allows only the doubt from the people that he likes.


A crucial point is as always ''how to know'''. We can have several scientific theses, each predicting more or less accurately what we have interest in, so how do we choose what theory explains our experiments ?

Since the rationalist has faith in objectivity, he believes that there is a unique thesis to explain things. Since objectivity remains dubious about reality, and dubious about the tastes hold by people [the judgements that people have towards what is good/bad/relevant], these People have then offered the concept of inter-subjectivity where now, they have faith in objective standards of judgements, typically to grade the scientific theories. Too bad that the inter-subjectivity is nowhere to be found in the world.

so you see the problem of the positivist, or even the rationalist in science,:
doubt is permitted only when the doubt is judged acceptable by the scientist [what is acceptable is what makes you have faith in what the scientist claims]:

>>7130196

-if you doubt too little from the statements of people talking to you, the scientist will call you a religious, a sheep, a guy spending his time on metaphysical theses which are disconnected form the reality [the reality that the scientist posits]
-if you doubt too much from the statements of the scientist , the scientist will wave then the card of relativism/nihilism/solipsism and mock you

>>7129310
A fallacy might still arrive at a correct conclusion dickhead. But people apparently think fallacy fallacies prove anything.

>>7129248
cunt

Loving the butthurt from the arts majors in here. I'll have a large cappuccino please :D.

>>7129317
Tell me anon, what world do you live in? I want to know because I know nothing about your world.

What's with the influx of retarded frog posters? They weren't here a year ago.

I guess it was too late to browse /lit/ after all.

>>7129248
>some undergraduate letting an undergraduate be a representative of an entire field
Typical day on /lit/.

>>7129547
kek I like how you btfo the people arguing with you, not due to some great show of intellect, but by posting something with more than 2000 characters. People on here are so lazy they aren't even willing to engage in a dialogue that requires any menial amount of effort.

Still I would argue that it works back-words, now that humanity has abstract sense imbedded into its scientific mind it is wiser to simply use relativistic time as something to built up, not built from. For example ever since the modern idea of time has come into existence we now how "quickly" our physical world/bodies move. Since we are tried to the physical world in all other things I don't see a reason to not tie our idea of time to the physical. But once you are at that place-marker you can abstract more to posteriori and priori sense.

>>7129248
heres an interesting debate, who shits up this board more, science faggots or christian faggots?

>>7129679
it's easy to 'overrate' a dude that was crazy influential on modern thought to this day, yeah

>>7129506
hi?

>>7129291
Metaphysics is the cancer of philosophy and needs to be cast away, which is crystal clear to anyone with half a brain for the last 100 years.