[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 552 KB, 2880x1620, tim maudlin.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15168743 No.15168743 [Reply] [Original]

A Reddit discussion of "heavy hitters in philosophy" called Maudlin "probably the most influential person in philosophy of physics." Someone chimed in that Maudlin, whose books include The Metaphysics Within Physics and Quantum Non-Locality and Relativity, is "without a doubt an intellectual beast." Maudlin impresses even science writer Jim Holt, not an easy feat.

>> No.15168760

>>15168743
I saw him on closer to truth.
Classic physicalist. The interviewer asks him “why is there anything” and he responds “well we don’t really ask that question in philosophy because blah and blah and actually it’s a poorly formed question because physics can’t explain it and if it can’t be explained by physics it’s not real because if it was real it could be explained by physics.”

He’s smart no doubt but he is still a physicalist bug man

>> No.15168788

>>15168760
>it's the cringy neet who posts in every philosophy thread smugly decrying physicalism and its supporters(every sane, educated person alive) without ever offering any arguments except varieties of calling people bugman
embarrassing.

>> No.15168861

i read his paradox book. it's okay. follows the good grounding trend, on the right path but missing a couple tricks.

>> No.15168946

>>15168788
Physicalist is incoherent as a doctrine.
It has no explanation for the fact THAT the world is. There is no physical cause for the existence of the physical.
Physicalist and mechanist philosophy started as a humble bracketing or mental, intentional and final causality in order to better understand efficient causation in its own right. At no point was methodological physicalism, until recently, supposed to be an ontological doctrine. Everyone know that it was a presupposition and bracketing that could not provide a metaphysics of its own.

There is your Philosophy 101 education you could have gotten from reading Phaedo.

>any sane person
You sound like a Reddit mouth breather and you should go back.

>> No.15168966

>>15168946
cringe neet mad at being confronted with how the world outside his basement sees his ramblings and crank behaviour.

>> No.15168985

>>15168966
Whatever faggot

>> No.15168988

>>15168946
>being
>fact

>> No.15168995

>>15168966
I'm not even him, but faggots like you are always, always, always projecting

>> No.15169010

>>15168946
i find this post hilarious because it exposes plato etc studies as a cottage industry of little value

>> No.15169021

>>15168995
>common sense
>projecting
nice word, did you pick it up last week when you found the site?

>> No.15169039

>>15169010
>Plato is of little value

> spineless tenured NYU professor who has never been in war, never participated in classical society, cannot speak ancient languages is really digging at truth of life

Your brain on analytic Phil

>> No.15169085

>>15169039
yea at least he knows not to ask a dumbass question like "explain why the world exists."

that question is obviously outside of the grasp of humanity. be a little more humble.

>> No.15169094

>>15169039
>analytic philosophy is of little value

> brainless unemployed neckbeard who has never written an academic paper, never participated in educated society, cannot do calculus is really digging at truth

>> No.15169113

How close is this to the state of philosophy in the Anglo-American academy? Is it really that bad?

>> No.15169124

>>15169085
You are actually brain dead. You have literally stopped asking questions because it threatens your worldview and then call yourself humble. If you cannot see the glaringly disingenuous nature of your claims you are beyond stupid.
>>15169094
Did I ever talk about myself? I talked about Plato. Nice ad hominem you faggot. It’s more like.

> fathers of philosophy (Plato, Leibniz, Aristotle, Kant)
>tenured spineless academics.

>> No.15169138

>>15168760
>we don’t really ask that question in philosophy

Once again admitting the analytics have relegated themselves to the handmaidens of science. I mean if you don’t ask that question, what exactly do you ask?

>> No.15169140

>>15169124
if you do not examine the tools with which you grasp at certain questions, maybe you are grasping at illusory problems. reflecting on the basis of knowledge and inquiry can make those tasks better in all kinds of ways. among which is recognizing why asking 'why the world exists' is a dumb question.

>> No.15169145

>>15169113
It’s that bad

>> No.15169154

>>15169140
Your are a disingenuous sophist. Explain to me right now why “why is there something rather than nothing” is an invalid question without presupposing the truth of physicalism in your premises

>> No.15169160

>>15168946
ok bugboi

>> No.15169179

>>15168946
Kastrup wannabe faggot

>> No.15169217

>>15169154
just because a question can be asked doesn't mean it's well formed. in this case, you want to set some rules for inquiry about the natural world, such as evidence and rules of reasoning. i don't want to assert that, apriori, we won't ever know something like 'why the world exists', just that following the correct scientific methodology would never even lead you to ask a question like that.

my preferred way of looking at this is to see asking about the world as a different sort of question as asking about any particular state of affairs in the world, in the style of tractatus.

>> No.15169255

>>15168760
I don't find that relevant in any real substantive assessment of his work. So what if he's a physicalist? His writings are concerned with foundational and conceptual questions that crop up in specific physical sciences. Maybe the physical is the only substance, but that doesn't mean the physical world isn't strange and interesting, as he repeatedly points out.

>> No.15169256

>>15169217
>let me dodge the question because I can’t answer it using empiricism.

You dodged my question. The burden of proof is on you.

Here are my premises.
1) the world exists and could have not existed.
2) there is a sufficient explanation for 1

I’d like you to carefully show me why 2 is not possible or not worth asking without presupposing your methodology

>> No.15169266

>>15169255
I agree. He’s a brilliant philosopher of physics. He is a poor ontologist

>> No.15169285

>>15169266
He's still doing ontology. It's just ontological questions concerning those sciences

>> No.15169290 [DELETED] 

>>15168743
I have only read The Metaphysics in Physics. [spolier]was a bit above my level[/spoiler]

>> No.15169293

>>15169256
i didn't dodge the question. im basically explaining why asking that question is bad philosophy like you are 5.

>> No.15169305

>>15169285
Yes I’m saying that it reflects poorly on academic philosophy that even the best of their ontologists refuse to admit or answer the perennial questions of philosophy out of a disdain for pure metaphysics while pretending to be humble, as is evidenced in this thread

>> No.15169319

>>15169293
You did dodge the question. You keep saying “ if you c oils just use my methods then you’d come to my conclusions.” To which I stated

1) your methodology does not even strictly entail the denial of my question ( as you were unable to do so)
2) there is no reason to adopt your methodology
3) the question is not poorly formed

So not only have you failed to show me why adopting scientific methodology Bars you from asking the question , but you have given no reason for me to accept your methodology. And so I’ll say it again, you dodged my question.

1) the world exists and could not have existed
2) there is a sufficient reason for one

I’ll give you another try

>> No.15169339

>>15169256
>the world exists and could have not existed.
which world ?
in your perception or outside of it?

>> No.15169344

>>15169319
the need to ask that kind of question is itself a confusion, about the nature of that question and the limits of philosophy. read your tractatus.

>> No.15169352

>>15169344
I’ve read the tractates and , like Wittgenstein, reject it. You’ve only proven the inability to engage with this question as it makes you uncomfortable.

>> No.15169358

>>15168760
What philosophers have interesting answers to the question of why there is something rather than nothing? I honestly can't wrap my head around how it's possible to frame the question in a meaningful way.

>> No.15169386

>>15169358
Aristotle (the metaphysics)
Heidegger (what is metaphysics)
David Bentley hart (experience of god)
Aquinas(summa)
Maimonides(the guide)
Leibniz(don’t remember where I apologize)
Shankaracharya (Upanishad commentary)

You have to understand that the world is contingent and if the world is contingent there must be a sufficient reason for the worlds being as opposed to non being. Usually they take this to mean that there must be some necessary being that brings for the possibility of contingent things. I’d check the first few questions of the summa or the closer to truth video “why something rather than nothing” which has both maudlin and David bentley hart in it .

>> No.15169408

>>15169358
Martin Heidegger explicitly addresses this question in Introduction to Metaphysics.

>> No.15169424

>>15168743
>why is there anything
Pointless question really. Asking 'why something exists pressupposes purpose in itself and only leads to infinite regress (Why A? Because B. Why B? Because C. Why C? Because...etc). I dont even agree with Maudlin's scientism but incoherent questions like that deserve to be called out.

>> No.15169448

>>15169352
im just talking about the part where he says, gist of it anyway, the boundaries of the world is outside of the world. taken in another way, 'the world' is a different class of object than any ordinary object found within the world, and it's a second order sort of reflection. i won't say it's a meaningless question, just that there's no method towards answering it.

>> No.15169458

>>15169424
Why is it an infinite regress? Why does the regress not stop at absolute being in which the thing's existence is its essence? Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, and Christian philosophers (as well as Aristotle) found this to be PERFECTLY coherent. Why is this not an answer?

>> No.15169465

>>15169448 see
>>15169458

>> No.15169566

>>15169465
at least make it interesting by talking about 'the world' as a move in set theory

>> No.15169593

>>15169386
>>15169408
Thanks for the answers, guys. I'll have to reread Heidegger's Metaphysics since it's been a while since I've read it.

Should I read the Upanishads before their commentaries? Might be a stupid question but I'm more interested in the later philosophy built off them.

>> No.15169602

>>15168743
Mathematicism is obviously true so he seems pretty based and redpilled to me

>> No.15169851

>>15168743
I like his view of time.

>> No.15169887

>>15169217
Read Husserl.

>> No.15169941

>>15169339
Better - and both still demand explanation.

>> No.15170127

>>15169094
> brainless unemployed neckbeard who has never written an academic paper, never participated in educated society, cannot do calculus is really digging at truth

We can all read dumbass. Typical over-educated intellectual superiority complex. There is a reason the Bolsheviks identified them as enemies of the state and sent them to the gulags.

>> No.15170240

>>15169458
>Why does the regress not stop at absolute being in which the thing's existence is its essence?
There is no criteria for the ‘why’ chain to end, such a requirement (like the ‘prime mover’) amounts to begging the question which is a fallacy. Otherwise it can easily extend above and beyond such a thing (why does God exist, why is he necessarily absolute, etc).

>> No.15170274

>>15170240
I mean, there are answers to all these questions. The prime mover is not question begging, I don't see where that comes from.

Why does God exist? His essence is existence and allows for the possibility of contingency.

why is he necessarily absolute? Without him there is no being, as contingent things do not posses their own existence.

All classical metaphysics finds no issue and state these truths.

>> No.15170320

>>15169593
>Should I read the Upanishads before their commentaries?
Not that guy, but Shankaracharya's commentaries include the entire text of the Upanishad within the commentary, with his writing being inbetween each line of the Upanishad, these are an example of 8 of his commentaries

https://estudantedavedanta.net/Eight-Upanisads-Vol-1.pdf
https://estudantedavedanta.net/Eight-Upanisads-vol2.pdf

>> No.15170399

>>15169305
I don't see how that makes him a bad ontologist. The questions he tackles are still metaphysical questions. They're just specific interpretational questions. Not every philosopher has tackled global metaphysical issues like idealism vs. realism or materialism vs. some form of platonic realism nor do they have to in order to say something interesting about ontology.

>> No.15170407

>>15168743
Maudlin is a charlatan and an anti-quantum zealot

>> No.15170426
File: 2.21 MB, 1450x5947, 1585950100944.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15170426

>>15170320
I would be careful about starting with Shankara, he is extremely reliant on Buddhist philosophy (he's called a "cryptobuddhist" by most Hindus and most scholars agree). If you want to read the Upanishads, work through them with editions and commentaries that aren't sectarian or at least read an interpretation that is closer to the original meaning of the Upanishads rather than Shankara's 8th century AD quasi-buddhism.

>> No.15170495

>>15170274
>Why does God exist? His essence is existence
cope

>> No.15170847

>>15170274
>I mean, there are answers to all these questions. The prime mover is not question begging, I don't see where that comes from.
The answers are presupposed in the questions, not that they are answers. It's a circular argument.

>Why does God exist? His essence is existence and allows for the possibility of contingency.
Why is his essence existence and why does it allow for "contingency"?

>why is he necessarily absolute? Without him there is no being, as contingent things do not posses their own existence.
Why don't "contingent" things posses their own existence?

>All classical metaphysics finds no issue and state these truths.
Classical metaphysics could not deal with logical holes in their systems, hence simply stating them as 'truths' without much going for those concepts.

>> No.15170873

>>15169010
This is hilariously ironic considering that the further the empirical sciences delve into the “mysteries” of or origin, they continually slap themselves in the face with the ever relenting reality that the Ideas predominate all, that the material universe is governed by contingency, that God exists, he sees, knows all, and should you fail to heed these words, you have but yourself to blame for burning in the Fire.

>> No.15170891

>>15170873
The sciences have proved the sciences to be worthless outside of advancing human vanity. We could kill all “scientists” and the world would hardly change for the worse.

>> No.15170914

>>15168760
Fuck off retard
If physicalism triggers you so hard perhaps you should never participate in a discussion of contemporary philosophy again.

>> No.15170917

>>15169566
You’re a shit intellectual

>> No.15170926

>>15170914
If the transcendent upsets you this much maybe you should kill yourself in your physical and nihilistic rage, bugman.

>> No.15170931

>>15168743
Where are his eyebrows?

>> No.15170967

>>15170891
Your entire life exists because of science and scientists. You’re a petulant child whining that the father who puts a roof over your head and food in your mouth won’t let you play pretend.

>> No.15170968

>idealism
so solved boring

>> No.15170971

>>15168760
Based. If you want to be a materialist phenomenalist, go all the way, go read Newton's Optics, become a Kantian, and venerate Ernst Mach and Bachelard. Don't be one of these johnny come way-too-lately faggots rehashing ancient paradigms at childlike levels.

>> No.15170973

>>15170917
i'm working on important stuff okay?

>> No.15170974

>>15170926
This post doesn't even make sense

>> No.15170978

>>15170873
>>>/x/

>> No.15170993

>>15170967
>Your entire life exists because of science and scientists
No it doesn’t. You’re making a shit generalization because you know that science is entirely worthless to the relevance of anything outside of the theory of science itself. If anything, science proves that science can’t science without un-science - the neoscientist has collapsed his on dialect into whole of nihilism. Kill yourself, and prove us that science is king, as you claim.
>>15170973
You’re going to die a nobody anyway so it really doesn’t matter what you do at this point. You’ll always be a halfwit. Sad!

>> No.15171002

>>15170993
>No it doesn’t
Yes it does. For instance, the computer you spend your entire life behind wouldn’t exist without it, nor would the rest of the modern world.
>inb4 dur hur modernity bad i want to be a based hunter gatherer larp

>> No.15171021

>>15171002
>For instance, the computer you spend your entire life behind wouldn’t exist without it, nor would the rest of the modern world
It wouldn’t exist without the transcendent world which DOMINATES the material and physical, pleb.

>> No.15171026

>>15171021
Pray for a new computer from the transcendent world, see where it gets you.

>> No.15171052

>>15169448
to say that there's no method towards answering it is to say what all non-idiots who ask this kind of question have known. their approaches to the issues must be responded to with that in mind. plato was not grasping towards aristotelianism, etc. nice self own though

>> No.15171054

>>15171026
>t. doesn’t understand how praying to God works
baka desu it’s like you want to look like a fucking fool who the fuck asks to be given something you ask for the guidance and tools to obtain what you want you materialist loser. Seriously, kill your self. You have no reason to live except to be a worthless masturbation machine. You’re probably suffering from degrees of depression which is ever present in the back of you pathetic and peabrained physical soul.

>> No.15171060

>>15171054
im not that anon but it sounds like you're projecting.

>> No.15171073

>>15171060
it’s sound like you’re a little bitch

>> No.15171075

>>15171054
Like a child you lash out at authority figures for disciplining you. I notice you’re replying to me with a physical computer produced via scientific methods instead of communing directly through the transcendent plane. Very strange.

>> No.15171081

>>15171075
You’re experiencing internet psychosis.

>> No.15171102

>>15168946
How? Material concepts are quantitatively real. It doesn't mean that the metaphysical is therefore invalid, but we cant exactly measure the immaterial for obvious reasons and thats why we create a distinct separation between the two modes of interpretation.

>> No.15171111

>>15171081
It seems pretty common around these parts

>> No.15171143
File: 51 KB, 741x568, Nigga .png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15171143

>>15171102
>Material concepts are quantitatively real
What did he mean by this?

>> No.15171154

>>15171143
physics is measurable?.....

>> No.15171175

>>15171154
>material concepts
>an absent being
>”This is quantitatively real”
>transcendent concepts
>a present being
>”These are not quantitatively real”
This is a dialect of your perspective environment of experience.

>> No.15171218

>>15171175
A present being can only speculate on transcendent concepts, thats what makes it transcendental you moron. You're attempting to create order in a sphere of thought that has no order by definition and the fact you cant see why a duality between physical and metaphysical is important shows how limited your understanding of the concepts you're espousing are.

>> No.15171242

>>15171218
You’re the retard who can’t understand he’s making a basic argument for quantity over quality. I can apprehend a cow but I can’t apprehend an atom, and I generally don’t need to apprehend an atom for the well being of my life, and I employ this notion of thought in my interactions of normal life. This doesn’t not make me a hypocrite. However, you’re the raving mad man who fourthly dismisses the obvious trans dent contingency necessary to even beget the contingency itself, thereby initiating a self-perfecting loop of pure transcendence which is entirely irrespective of a need for material dialect. It’s only out of want that God has brought us here, he didn’t need to if he didn’t want to, God does whatever he pleases.

>> No.15171270

>>15170873
cringe....

>> No.15171278
File: 25 KB, 256x256, pol.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15171278

>>15171242

>> No.15171299

>>15169386
You forgot Wittgenstein, who answered the question by not answering it.

>> No.15171319

>>15169138
It's a stupid question. Any reason for/cause of existence would have to exist before existence.

>> No.15171328

>>15171319
The question of existence itself is irrelevant for something that exists irregardless of existing.

>> No.15171339

>>15171054
God isn't real, buddy.
The intellectual world settled this ages ago, go back to the feudal era.

>> No.15171400

>>15171339
>The intellectual world
According to atheist fedora fags

>> No.15171413

>>15171400
According to every survey on the subject

>> No.15171426
File: 362 KB, 913x1763, 1577061114952.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15171426

>>15168760
Daily reminder it has been empirically proven religiosity stifles scientific innovation.

https://www.princeton.edu/~rbenabou/papers/Religion%20December%201g_snd.pdf
http://www.nber.org/papers/w21052.pdf

Daily reminder the overwhelming majority of leading scientists are atheists

https://www.nature.com/articles/28478
https://evolution-outreach.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1936-6434-6-33

Daily reminder most philosophers are atheists

https://philpapers.org/surveys/results.pl

Daily reminder religious people are less intelligent according to dozens of studies.

http://diyhpl.us/~nmz787/pdf/The_Relation_Between_Intelligence_and_Religiosity__A_Meta-Analysis_and_Some_Proposed_Explanations.pdf

Daily reminder religious people are less educated

https://www.economist.com/news/international/21623712-how-education-makes-people-less-religiousand-less-superstitious-too-falling-away

Religious people are literally a lesser breed of human

>> No.15171437
File: 203 KB, 2048x1152, IMG_4795.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15171437

>>15171426
>Daily reminder it has been empirically proven religiosity stifles scientific innovation.
According to science, science is good for science. Can’t argue with facts then; looks like racism is back on the menu, boys.

>> No.15171456

>>15171413
>According to things I want to hear
Yes yes, I can cherry pick like a little faggot too it’s not hard you twat

>> No.15171462

>>15171456
Ok incel

>> No.15171468

>>15168760
It just means that he knows what not to say to keep his atheist credentials. If he answered the question that remains within the remit of religion, then it would be a religious statement.

Physics can't explain it and that's all the truth anyone other than physicists need to know.

>> No.15171474

>>15171462
Your insults are trash and I hope your mom gets cancer.

>> No.15171478

>>15168946
Physicalism is a philosophy about our world. The coming of our world into existence is not an event that occurred in our world, therefore Physicalist beliefs do not apply.

>> No.15171481

>>15168788
He's right, though. Bugmen deserve torture.

>> No.15171486

>>15169138
>Once again admitting the analytics have relegated themselves to the handmaidens of science
Perfectly put.

>> No.15171489
File: 43 KB, 720x960, 1516618022183.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15171489

>>15171481

>> No.15171496

>>15168760
holy BASED.
bugman BTFO.

>> No.15171499
File: 106 KB, 650x366, leftistfreaks.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15171499

>>15171489

>> No.15171506

>>15171489
Not even Christian, nor American, nor Repubican. Still, bugmen deserve torture.

>> No.15171535

>>15168743
I had Maudlin as a teacher in a few classes. He is quite good. I would also recommend David Z Albert's work.

>Maudlin impresses even science writer Jim Holt, not an easy feat
As an aside, this 'Jim Holt' character is a fraud. He doesn't have a graduate degree in anything yet purports to be an expert in everything. His books are total garbage.

>> No.15171545

>>15168946
based

>> No.15171547

>>15171506
Take your meds, nutjob.

>> No.15171563

>>15171499
So all physicists are lesbian sluts now? What an imaginative world you live in.

>> No.15171585
File: 183 KB, 1125x1333, posture.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15171585

>>15169039
>spineless tenured NYU professor who has never been in war, never participated in classical society
Lmao get out of here you weenie

>> No.15171589

>>15170926
this

>> No.15171595

>>15171002
>Mistaking science with technology
kek peak bugman. do kys.

>> No.15171600

>>15168946
This is why you don't start with the Greeks.

>> No.15171609

>>15169124
They were. Socrates was a degenerate. Leibniz's metaphysics is worthless -- couldn't survive the challenge of Hume. Kant never left Konigsberg.

"These great sages of all periods should first be examined more closely! Is it possible that they were, everyone of them, a little shaky on their legs, effete, rocky, decadent? Does wisdom perhaps appear on earth after the manner of a crow attracted by a slight smell of carrion?"

>> No.15171620

>>15171600
The Greeks are worth a million times more than the entire analytic tradition.

>> No.15171621

>>15171595
Computers and the internet wouldn't exist without analytic philosophy and related 'bugman' activities, faggot.

>> No.15171622

>>15171595
>no dude computers are made of magic, no science involved in their design at all
Moron.

>> No.15171629

>>15171499
>filename "leftistfreaks"
14 year olds out out out

>> No.15171634

>>15171620
Cringe

>> No.15171638

>>15171621
Yes, they would.
>>15171622
Technology is not science.

>> No.15171642

>>15171634
cope

>> No.15171645

>>15171638
>technology and science are not identical therefore there’s no relation between the two
Moron.

>> No.15171650

I just know the sperging physical world denier in this thread is from /pol/. Take your meds mutt

>> No.15171653

>>15171638
based

>> No.15171654

>>15171638
Yikes. Stop embarrassing yourself, idiot.

>> No.15171677

>>15171645
I never said they were not related, I said they were different, which is true. You are giving to science only the merit of something created by technology because you don't understand how things work. Science is just a collection of information. Technology is the ultimate execution of some of that information for practical purposes.

>> No.15171698

>>15171677
>Technology is the ultimate execution of some of that information for practical purposes.
Yes, technology is dependent on science, thus it’s true to say that computers (technology) would not exist without the scientific knowledge required to design their components, e.g. the transistor, which won its inventor a Nobel prize in physics (science). Moron.

>> No.15171700

>>15171677
But since you hate all 'bugmen', you hate both the technology and the underlying science and philosophy that made it possible. Well done, moron.

>> No.15171721
File: 38 KB, 500x425, 242342342342432.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15171721

>All these dogmatically raped Angloid phil bugman students so triggered at the based first post
holy shit, the memes are true. bugmen are weak.

>> No.15171736

ITT Whiteheadian hylic cryptobuddhist Anglos BTFO by nondualist perennialist guenonians temporarily descending from a state of nondual bliss to utterly discredit manifestations of pure quantity like OPs post

>> No.15171751

>>15171736
shut up curry fanatic, Guenon is a garbage and a heretic

God will punish non-dualist scum during judgement

>> No.15171754

>>15171751
based

>> No.15171756

>>15171751
I don't know who that is, I've never read a word of Guenon in my life.

>> No.15171763

>>15171756
>I've never read a word of Guenon in my life.
good, keep it that way, only thing you need is the Bible

>> No.15171776

>>15171700
No, there are some scientists with soul, like Tesla. But he's one in a million. But still I won't buy into reductive physicalism of today just because technology has given me tools. Technology gave me a product, but so that's about it. That has nothing to do with physicalism. Technology is simply the making of tools. It's not a worldview in itself like physicalism is.

>> No.15171783
File: 90 KB, 700x394, fetchimage.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15171783

>fuck science, the Church would've come up with the internet anyway

>> No.15171801

>>15171776
>Technology gave me a product
Sounds like you're the only 'bugman' here, then. Go on -- keep consooming your products without any appreciation of the intellectual work that made them possible, you benighted pleb.

>> No.15171808

>>15171751
Amen to that, I pray the day will come when devil-worshippers (read: p*rennials) will be sent along with the gaytheists to the deepest pits of hell burning as their years of 'nondual contemplation' crumbles with the Flame.

>> No.15171830

>>15171801
I'm a computer engineer. I know the history and evolution of computers and how computers work. I simply dislike physicalism as the be-all and end-all of humanity.

>> No.15171833

>>15171830
>I'm a computer engineer
bugman confirmed

>> No.15171834

>>15171830
Bullshit.

>> No.15171837

>>15170873
Based.

>> No.15171846

This is one of the shittiest and most unsubstantial threads /lit/ has ever had.

>> No.15171847

>>15169319
Different anon... I'm not a physicalist, but I would guess the question need not be asked exactly because there is something rather than nothing. The why fundamentally can't be answered until we understand what the something is, so I suppose the what presupposes the why.

>> No.15171868

>>15171830
A computer engineer shitting on philosophers for being 'bugmen'? That's a new one. If true, sounds like you have a lot to work out with your shrink.

>> No.15171871

>>15171868
you praise science yet you probably haven't even taken a physics 1 class.

>> No.15171876

>>15171871
Lol, you couldn't be more wrong.

>> No.15171881

>>15171876
why not?

>> No.15171884

>>15171881
Good point. I wouldn't put anything past you.

>> No.15171910

>>15171884
You smell bad

>> No.15171985

>>15171833
No, I believe in the duality of man.
>>15171834
It's true, I am an engineer. I'd tell you what I believe in but you'd just dismiss me as an /x/fag so why even bother.
>>15171868
Those aren't philosophers. Those are physicalist bugmen. Philosophy is the love for knowledge but how can you truly love knowledge if you only reduce it to what's in the material world? To only the things you can see with your eyes? I have a soul, they don't.

>> No.15172011

>>15171847
Quiddity is separate from being. What something is and why something is are two distinct question, ergo we can ask why something is without exhaustively knowing every fact about what it is.

>> No.15172019

>>15171985
>I have a soul
Prove it.

>> No.15172031

>>15168743
>first two words of post are “a reddit”
>150 replies
>will hit 300
I hate this board

>> No.15172076

>>15171985
What reason have you for believing there are worlds other than the material? What makes them immaterial?

>> No.15172249

>>15172019
Can't be proven in this dimension. This happens in the 4th dimension. It's like asking me to measure temperature with a plastic ruler and give proof of it. It's another thing altogether. Now, these small-souled individuals are known as "hylics" in Gnostic thought. Material-bound creatures in their 1st or 2nd reincarnation.
>>15172076
What we call the "material world" is just energy set to a very low vibration as to produce matter. There are other realms out there of purer energy and higher vibrations.

>> No.15172264

>>15172249
Take your meds.

>> No.15172276
File: 263 KB, 342x440, bugman.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15172276

>>15172264
>Take your meds.

>> No.15172474

>>15168760
>we don’t really ask that question in philosophy
A man who does not realize when he is merely speaking for himself is definitively unintelligent. I'm sure he's dazzled many a bugman, and that's very cute I guess, but he doesn't do anything for me personally.

>> No.15172486

>>15172474
Take your meds.

>> No.15172523

>>15172486
He's right though.

>> No.15172544

>>15172474
The fucking arrogance you need to say nonsense like "we don’t really ask that question in philosophy". It's absolutely anti-philosophical by nature.

>> No.15172547

>>15172523
Stop samefagging you freak.

>> No.15172555

>>15172544
It's the very definition of a meaningless question, dumbfuck.

>> No.15172574

>>15172555
Just because physicalists are afraid to such answer question doesn't it's meaningless (meaningless is a subjective category btw, meaningess for who?). Philosophy is the love for knowledge, so avoiding chasing knowledge you don't want do deal with is anti-philosophical. Why kind of coward flees from such an essential "why" question? Physicalists bugmen, that's who.

>> No.15172590

>>15172574
What does physicalism have to do with it? What's your answer to the question?

>> No.15172620

>>15172590
>What does physicalism have to do with it?
The guy who doesn't answer the question is a physicalist.
>What's your answer to the question?
The material world was created by an entity from the 4th dimension. Something similar to the Gnostic Demiurge. It's more complex than that, but this is the basic premise.

>> No.15172712

>>15172620
That's self-contradictory. This entity you are positing is 'something', so the scenario you envisage does not answer the question.

>> No.15172734

>Physicalists bugmen

>> No.15172778

>>15172712
It's technically "something", yes, but it's not something material. I interpret the question so as to mean "why is there anything in our material universe?" Since I can't answer an absolute question such as "why is there anything?" (given that I don't know what happens in every single dimension beyond the 4th one nor am I omniscient or powerful enough to know), I decide to answer only "why is there something in our dimension?", and in this way I'm delimiting the endless horizons of the question, yes, but I'm least I'm trying to answer it, however partial it may be.

>> No.15172830

>>15171595
>The history of the understanding of semiconductors begins with experiments on the electrical properties of materials. The properties of negative temperature coefficient of resistance, rectification, and light-sensitivity were observed starting in the early 19th century. Almost all of today's electronic technology involves the use of semiconductors, with the most important aspect being the integrated circuit (IC), which are found in laptops, scanners, cell-phones, etc.
>In 1953, Dutch scientist Bram van Heel [nl] first demonstrated image transmission through bundles of optical fibers with a transparent cladding. The first working fiber-optical data transmission system was demonstrated by German physicist Manfred Börner at Telefunken Research Labs in Ulm in 1965. Charles K. Kao and George A. Hockham of the British company Standard Telephones and Cables (STC) were the first, in 1965, to promote the idea that the attenuation in optical fibers could be reduced below 20 decibels per kilometer (dB/km), making fibers a practical communication medium.[22]
Physicalism was responsible for this whole thread

>> No.15172859

>>15172830
Physicalism =/= Physics

>> No.15172865

>>15172778
Translation to English: It's not a question philosophy tries to answer.

>however partial it may be
Anyone can give a 'partial answer', dumbass. Why does this one thing exist? Because of this other thing. But that's not the question. The question is why is there ANYTHING AT ALL, rather than nothing. That question is meaningless, as you've just confirmed.

>> No.15172869
File: 137 KB, 730x844, 1581735079747.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15172869

>>15172859
>Physicalism =/= Physics

>> No.15172967

>>15172865
>Translation to English: It's not a question philosophy tries to answer.
Because it is too great a question. Perhaps even the big question in philosophy (?). Who knows. The "why" questions are always hard depending on their scale.
>Anyone can give a 'partial answer', dumbass.
What would you say if you had to say anything at all to answer it partially? Just a little answer, don't take it seriously, mate.
>That question is meaningless, as you've just confirmed.
It's not meaningless. It's just too big a question because it deals with dimensions, concepts and entities modern humans can't.even begin to fathom yet. And now current "philosophers" are limiting themselves to material concerns only so they avoid this big question simply because they can't fathom how big it is. I mean, we aren't ominiscient to know this but to say it's not a philosophical concern is simply lazy. I would even change my tune and say it's a question that surpasses philosophy in some ways.

>> No.15172973 [DELETED] 

>>15172869
Physicalism is an ideology. Physics is simply a collection of scientific information, with ideology behind. Physicalism is weaponized Physics. You can continue using a wojak or you can explain why Physicalism = Physics.

>> No.15172979

>>15172967
Go back to >>>/x/, fruitcake.

>> No.15172983

>>15172869
Physicalism is an ideology. Physics is simply a collection of scientific information without ideology behind. Physicalism is weaponized Physics. You can continue using a wojak or you can explain why Physicalism = Physics.

>> No.15172988
File: 57 KB, 645x588, 1557282534216.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15172988

>>15172983
>Physicalism is weaponized Physics

>> No.15172991

>>15172983
>Physicalism is weaponized Physics
lol

>> No.15173020

>>15172988
>>15172991
It's true. If they truly were the same then there wouldn't have been the need to make up a new term with an -ism suffix. We would've simply stayed with Physics alone. Physicalism is an ideology focused on Physics.

>> No.15173027

>>15172983
>Physicalism is weaponized Physics.
You certainly got assnuked multiple times in this thread.

>> No.15173045
File: 9 KB, 296x300, 533534534.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15173045

>>15172979
>Anyone can give a 'partial answer', dumbass.
>Anwer, then.
>Go back to /x/, fruitcake.
top kek, bugmen are peak cringe.

>> No.15173067

>>15173045
Are you joking? Science gives causal explanations all day long.

>> No.15173086

>>15171499
second one is cute

>> No.15173089

>>15173067
I asked for your own answer, not science's
>inb4 b-but whatever science says is my answer! If science says I'm a cocksucker then that must be true!
really, bugman?

>> No.15173095

>>15171698
>technology is dependent on science
yikes, every self-respecting Simondonian would have a field day with you

>> No.15173104

>>15173089
What do you mean "my own answer"? It's not a matter of opinion, schizo. There are literally trillions of causal interactions in the known universe. The earliest event we can trace is the big bang. Is all this new really to you?

>> No.15173106
File: 94 KB, 816x920, 4E918F18-D8F0-41C5-9AFD-A383BF45A046.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15173106

>>15168743
how... maudlin

>> No.15173111

>>15173095
>Simondon
cringe

>> No.15173125

ITT: dilettantes

>> No.15173129

>>15168760
>we don’t really ask that question in philosophy because blah and blah
I think this is based

>> No.15173142

>>15173129
It's philistine and lazy.

>> No.15173153

>>15168946
Why would there need to be a cause for existence again? Causality is a meaningless concept outside of existence.

>> No.15173157

>>15173142
Yeah, all the really serious and sophisticated people believe in an entity from the 4th dimension that somehow doesn't exist himself because then he would be 'something', which is what we're trying to explain. Sounds legit.

>> No.15173159
File: 731 KB, 1450x930, EUPwqeOXQAgXlGb.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15173159

>>15172249
>>15172859
>>15172983
I love your thinking!
Can you recommend some reading on this topic or philosophy in general, anon?
I usually stick to poetry and literary fiction, but I like your thoughts on the non-material

>> No.15173169

>>15173159
>>>/x/

>> No.15173191

>>15173104
This is just physics, not philosophy. Your thought is limited by what physics say, textbook physicalism. Can you at least imagine or speculate on the Big Bang (which btw was first proporsed by a Catholic priest)? Even a bugman like Russell said something like "Science is what we know. Philosophy is what we don't know." Come on, give us at least an interesting thought to prove you're not a simple bugman. A speculation, a conjecture. This is what I was after, not some data everyone and their mother know.

>> No.15173192
File: 11 KB, 300x225, 519fa2d96bb3f7aa20000004.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15173192

>>15172983
heavy cringe

>> No.15173218
File: 327 KB, 2048x1294, EUTIvBVXgAkBUpK.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15173218

>>15173169
wtf lol i'm not a schizo, though i have fell down a rabbit hole or two in my youth.
>>15173191
what your saying is so obvious im thinking you may be being trolled idk
again where should i start with philosophy, the greeks like ppl say, Plato?

>> No.15173233

>>15173191
You are seriously mentally ill. Reality isn't something you just "make up" or imagine on a whim. We can only know the world insofar as it impinges on our sense organs. Science/philosophy is about explaining why we observe the things we do. Speculation about how cool it would be if there were an extradimensional demiurge that made our world is not science, it's not philosophy, it's just fantasy fiction.

>> No.15173243

>>15173159
>>15173218
The things that shaped my worldview on the immaterial are mainly Plato, Gnosticism, and Henry More (English philosopher). There's another subject but that falls into esotericism, so I'm not sure you'll like it.

>> No.15173278

>>15173142
No, it's realistic. We don't need a cause for existence because the concept of causality before existence is ridiculous.

>> No.15173296

>>15173157
Yes.

>> No.15173649

>>15171481
>>15171506
maybe you should stick to making poo poo pepe images.

>> No.15173685

>>15169458
>the thing's existence is its essence
holy crap what a prime example of confusing the definitions and interpretations of humans with the workings of the impersonal universe. absolutely meaningless navelgazing woo woo.

>> No.15173850

>>15171052
the response is just to explain the urge/anxiety behind formulating such questions. once you dispel that the question dissolves.

also i hope most of you are trolling.

>> No.15173871

>>15168788
dualism is becoming increasingly popular in academic philosophy

>> No.15173878

>>15173871
It really isn't.

>> No.15174628

>what could have been an interesting thread about a philosopher's work is inspiration immediately ruined by a raging christcuck who gets triggered at worldviews different than his own, and triggered at the fact that his worldview is irrelevant among philosophers

Why are people like this?

>> No.15174645

>>15168788
Ontological materialism has been falsified

>> No.15174660

>>15171339
No they didnt.
The only people who say this are those who aren't in graduate school and don't actually study STEM.

>> No.15174669

This thread is fucking terrible and every single one of you should feel bad for posting in it, including me for typing this.

>> No.15174677

>>15174645
By whom? The immaterial demiurge from dimension #4 that talks to you in your dreams?

>> No.15174697

>>15174660
>STEM
Using that term outs you as a know-nothing.

>> No.15174741

>>15172869
They objectively aren't the same.
Physics is just the study of physics.
Physicalism is a philosophy that posits that all that exists are material reality, it's basically ontological materialism.
These are not the same thing, you do not need to be an ontological materialist to study physics.
That you don't understand this shows you do not study physics.

>> No.15174754

>>15174660
Ok retard

>> No.15174762

>>15174741
>They objectively aren't the same.
cope

>> No.15174763

>>15174677
No, by physicists and mathematicians studying the universe

>> No.15174775

>>15174697
I'm in graduate school studying math
>>15174754
smarter than you
>>15174762
they objectively aren't the same and saying "cope" isn't an argument

>> No.15174781

>>15174741
You're wrong. No one in physics is positing supernatural entities as causal powers. It's just a given that the material world is all there is to work from.

>> No.15174789

>>15174781
We have massive amounts of evidence of material effects that do not have material causes

>> No.15174790

>>15174763
Wrong.

>>15174775
Nice larp, wackjob.

>> No.15174796

>>15174790
>Wrong
Not wrong
>Nice larp, wackjob.
not a larp, you have no argument.

>> No.15174798

>>15174789
What are some examples of these "non-material" causes that physics has uncovered? You are full of shit.

>> No.15174819

>>15174775
Literally who cares about what you’re studying? You’re clearly clueless about the subject, fuck off

>> No.15174830

>>15174775
>smarter than you
Unlikely

>> No.15174843

>>15174819
>>15174790
>absolute lack of arguments

>> No.15174847

>>15174798
Read these papers and actually understand what it is they are saying and what the results imply

https://arxiv.org/pdf/0704.2529.pdf

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1901.07050.pdf

https://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/9903047.pdf

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1902.05080.pdf

https://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0312059.pdf

>>15174819
Except I'm not, just because you're wrong and I'm telling you you're wrong does not mean that I'm clueless. You're just angry.
>>15174830
It is possible you have a higher IQ than me but unlikely given what my IQ is
>>15174843
This

>> No.15174868

>>15174847
Are you literally retarded? None of those papers posit supernatural explanations.

>> No.15174882

>>15174868
The combined results of these papers and many others rule out pure materialist/physicalist explanation of quantum behavior.
If you actually went to college and studied this stuff, you'd know this. You clearly didn't though, sad.

>> No.15174912

>>15174882
Bullshit. None of those papers even purport to rule out realist interpretations like MWI or Bohmian Mechanics.

>> No.15174917

>>15174847
>Except I'm not
Yes, you are. Theists are a fringe minority among philosophers and elite scientists, atheism utterly dominates analytic philosophy, and has done so for around a century.

>> No.15174918

>>15169386
>You have to understand that the world is contingent
Can you prove that? Doesn't seem that obvious. What I get from your post is that the thinkers you mentioned assume the world is contingent and deduce that there must be a necessary being (possibly outside of the world) to make it possible.

This seems to be essentially begging the question by assuming the world is contingent and forcefully framing the question in terms of necessity, possibility and contingence. How do you assess the contingence or necessity of something, not merely a simple concept but, in this case, the entire world?

Maybe I just read you post wrong.

>> No.15174936

>>15169458
The absolute being doesn't clear up the question anymore than an infinite regress would. In both cases you admit the introduction of a confusing boundary-less entity (either a single but absolutely infinite entity or an infinite succession of definite things) because you think this is better than admitting you don't really know what happens when you move far enough up the chain.

>> No.15174966

>>15174912
>Bohmian mechanics
Falsified in the very experiments I linked to
>MWI
pseudoscience, Non-decoherent experiments perform the same effects which I linked to in the papers. Decoherence does not fully explain odd quantum mechanical behavior.
>>15174917
I'm not a theist and I never said I was. I don't know what you're talking about but you seem confused and angry because you're wrong.

>> No.15174986

>>15174966
>I'm not a theist and I never said I was. I don't know what you're talking about but you seem confused and angry because you're wrong.
Read the reply chain, you retarded faggot.

>> No.15174993

>>15170274
>why is he necessarily absolute? Without him there is no being, as contingent things do not posses their own existence.

If you analyze the argument a bit you realize that it goes like this:

1. things are either contingent or necessary
2. necessary things derive their own existence from themselves
3. contingent things derive their existence not from themselves but from necessary things
4. the world is contingent, therefore it must derive its existence from a necessary being

Propositions 1. to 3. are assumptions in the guise of definitions. Proposition 4. is an assumption (the world is contingent) followed by an immediate deduction from 1.-3.

Unless you give a good argument why 1. to 3. are reasonable assumptions and why the first part of 4. must be true, this isn't far from begging the question. Or more accurately it's playing with intuitive-sounding but ultimately rather baseless terminology. I don't think it's dishonest in the least, but it's not particularly convincing either.

>> No.15174996

>>15174986
You claimed that "the intellectual world has settled the debate on the existence of God in the negative".
This has not happened, no one in the intellectual world would claim that this has happened, and saying this shows you are not in academia and don't study physics or philosophy.

>> No.15175005

>>15174966
Sorry, you're just wrong. Those experiments do not even test the Bohmian theory.

>Decoherence does not fully explain odd quantum mechanical behavior.
Good thing MWI is more than decoherence.

>> No.15175025

>>15175005
Non-locality are falsified, and with it Bohmian mechanics.
The basis of MWI is decoherence which does not fully explain quantum phenomena.

>> No.15175027

>>15174882
>The combined results of these papers and many others rule out pure materialist/physicalist explanation of quantum behavior.
Lol
Your fringe interpretation of quantum mechanics is widely rejected by actual physicists. You think way too high of yourself if you think you can upend overwhelming scientific consensus by citing (and misinterpreting) 5 papers

>> No.15175037

>>15174996
>This has not happened
Tacitly, it has. Almost nobody in contemporary philosophy bothers with theism anymore, to the point atheism is pretty much taken for granted.

>> No.15175047

>>15175027
You don't know what my interpretation is, but the standard interpretation is non-physicalist in academia and among physicists.
Most physicists are not ontological materialists in the modern world.

>> No.15175063

>>15175025
Wrong. The Bell test experiments falsified locally causal theories of entanglement. So quantum mechanics is fundamentally nonlocal. Bohmian mechanics is a nonlocal realistic theory that has not been ruled out by any experiment to date. And MWI is just quantum mechanics taken literally (minus the born rule). You are out of your depth on this one, kid.

>> No.15175073

>>15175047
Most physicists don't concern themselves with interpretations of quantum mechanics at all.

>> No.15175077

>>15175047
>but the standard interpretation is non-physicalist in academia and among physicists.
The fuck are you talking about lmao
Non-physicalist interpretations like consciousness-causes-collapse are completely fringe
> Most physicists are not ontological materialists in the modern world.
Citation needed

>> No.15175109

>>15175063
Nonlocality is pseudoscience in all it's forms.
MWI basically states that the schrodinger equation is 'real" and thus we must consider every outcome to be "equally valid" the same way we think of the output of any function to be equally valid from any other. So we get this idea of "every possibility does in fact exist in it's own universe". That's basically the just. But we don't need to do this, and it also just doesnt work when we consider superposition as a purely mathematical structure.
>You are out of your depth on this one, kid
You do not have as sophisticated an understanding of either math or physics as I do. Condescension makes no sense and is a sign of perceived inferiority on your part.
>>15175073
Most physicists accept superposition as ontologically mathematical, not physical
>>15175077
see above

>> No.15175128

>>15175109
Interference is proof that superposition is physical.

>> No.15175144

>>15175109
>Nonlocality is pseudoscience in all it's forms.
Mathematically proven false by the Bell test experiments. There is no local single-world explanation of entanglement.

>> No.15175149

>>15175109
>Most physicists accept superposition as ontologically mathematical, not physical
Citation needed

>> No.15175155
File: 112 KB, 652x900, 1583354037778.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15175155

>No. I do not think that. For the new principle that is involved is a genuinely physical one: it is, in my opinion, nothing else than the principle of
quantum theory over again. There is one complaint which I shall not escape. Not a word is said here of acausality, wave mechanics, indeterminacy relations, complementarity, an expanding universe, continuous creation, etc. Why doesn't he talk about what he knows instead of trespassing on the professional philosopher's preserves? 'Ne sutor supra crepidam'. On this I can cheerfully justify myself: because I do not think that these things have as much connection as is currently supposed with a philosophical view of the world. I think that I see eye-to-eye here, on certain essential points, with Max Planck and Ernst Cassirer.

>> No.15175175

>>15168946
Anon, all the naysayers are probably chinless anglos. None have responded with any actual substance, wouldn’t be surprised if some were samefags. You on the other hand actually said something. Keep up the good work.

>> No.15175181

>>15175175
cringe...

>> No.15175200
File: 44 KB, 509x598, qmpoll.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15175200

>>15175128
No it isn't, how would you even come to this conclusion?
>>15175144
Locality is not disproven affected by bell test experiments. Meanwhile, non-locality is disproven by, well, everything.
>>15175149
Go to college

>> No.15175201

>>15171339
>The intellectual world settled this ages ago
No it didn’t. It settled on agnosticism. The fact that the question of God is unanswerable. Pseud.

>> No.15175210

>>15175200
>Copenhagen is non-physical
Based fucking retard lmao

>> No.15175224

>>15175175
>>15175201
The people disagreeing with me haven't even studied math beyond basic multivariable calculus, they do not actually understand physics or mathematics but they argue as though they study this stuff. I don't get it, but whatever, they are simply stupid and refuse to look at the evidence and accept reality.
>>15175210
Copenhagen states superposition is ontologically mathematical, not a "physical" thing. The wave function is literally a probability wave and the particle does not exist as a physical thing until collapse.
You don't even know this stuff, yet you argue about it in order to cling to a falsified philosophy of ontological materialism. Very sad and pathetic to be honest.

>> No.15175235

>>15175200
Copenhagen is nonsensical gibberish. It's not a coherent interpretation. Most of the respondents to that survey don't work in foundations and obviously don't give a shit about the metaphysics of QM. They only care about the predictions being accurate and reliable.

>> No.15175255

>>15175224
Christ, you are one annoying ignoramus.

>> No.15175303

>>15175224
>Copenhagen states superposition is ontologically mathematical, not a "physical" thing.
Copenhagen does not view the wave function as ontologically real.
And Copenhagen is falling out of favor anyways, it is no longer a majority view.

>> No.15175316

>>15175201
Wrong

>> No.15175389
File: 48 KB, 474x480, doggered.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15175389

>>15171328

>> No.15175467

>>15171437
Absolutely... Should have never been off the menu.
t.empiricist

>>15171426
Still not a good idea to be dismissive of religion, since clearly it provides utility to that 'lesser' breed and the erudite are always a small minority of any population. We should work together under a unifying value, such as the most traditional and sensible one — ethnos.

>> No.15175614

>>15175467
>provides utility to that 'lesser' breed
It leads them astray, making them vulnerable to charlatans, con artists, and demagogues.

>> No.15175618

>>15173020
this

>> No.15175701

>>15174741
based

>> No.15175709

>>15175618
>>15175701
Stop samefagging, faggot.

>> No.15175755

>>15175709
I'm not him, I'm the guy who first said Physicalism =/= Physics. Glad to see smart people still exist out there. You faggots still have yet to argue why you think Physicalism = Physics.

>> No.15175767

>>15175755
Physics presupposes physicalism. Supernatural explanations are not accepted in physics.

>> No.15175774

>>15175767
>Physics presupposes physicalism
Nope

>> No.15175777

>>15175774
Not an argument.

>> No.15175797

>>15175767
Circular reasoning. By definition, 'supernatural' means 'something that cannot be explained by physics'.

>> No.15175810

>>15175797
Sounds like you're agreeing with me.

>> No.15175842

>>15175767
>Physics presupposes physicalism
It's the other way around. Physics can perfectly work without ideolology. In fact, all of science can work without an ideology. Science is simply a study. There have been scienctists who didn't hold a physicalist worldview yet that didn't affect their contributions nor their science.

>> No.15175856

>>15175842
Wrong. Physicists don't write papers claiming that X happens because "God did it". They explain physical phenomena in physical terms.

>> No.15175890

>>15175856
No, but you can separate your personal beliefs from your science. Those guys I'm talking about did exactly that, and science allows you to do that precisely because physicalism and science are different things. You can absolutely do science without being physicalist. I think you can't simply imagine a scientist having such a different worldview from yours and puts you in denial.

>> No.15175906

>>15175890
What they do in their personal lives is irrelevant.

>> No.15175924

>>15175906
Exactly, yet their science is not affected, because physicalism =/= science. Thank you for finally agreeing.

>> No.15175930

>>15175924
Wrong. Physics is the embodiment of physicalism.

>> No.15175952

>>15168743
>The history of maudlin owes as much to the Bible as to the barroom. The biblical Mary Magdalene is often (though some say mistakenly) identified with the weeping sinner who washed Jesus' feet with her tears to repent for her sins. This association led to the frequent depiction of Mary Magdalene as a weeping penitent, and by the 16th century even the name Magdalene suggested teary emotion to many English speakers. It was then that maudlin, an alteration of Magdalene, appeared in the English phrase "maudlin drunk," which, as one Englishman explained in 1592, described a tearful drunken state whereby "a fellow will weepe for kindnes in the midst of his Ale and kisse you."

>> No.15175970

>>15175930
Physicalism is a modern concept. I believe it dates from the 1930s if I'm not mistaken, while physics both as a concept and as a science far predates that. Physicalism needs physics, not the other way around. Physics just needs itself.

>> No.15175994

>>15175970
Physics has been operationally physicalistic from the outset. That's sort of the definition of physics, as you conceded earlier.

>> No.15176073

Can somebody explain why physicalism/materialism/atheism is so prevalent in r*ddit? Are they repressed by their religious families?

>> No.15176087

>>15175994
That's textbook revisionism. The physicists of yore didn't necessarily hold proto-physicalist views to develop their science, nor did physics itself had such an ideology behind it. Physics simply aims to explain the world around us, it doesn't necessarily propose and support that that's all there is. Physics is rather neutral, like all the sciences. Physicalism perverts that neutrality and transforms it into an idelogy.

>> No.15176101

>>15175994
>Physics has been operationally physicalistic from the outset.
Wrong.

>> No.15176110

>>15175777
And yet it’s still correct

>> No.15176115

>>15175235
>Copenhagen is nonsensical gibberish. It's not a coherent interpretation.
It’s the only coherent interpretation (along with consistent histories)

>> No.15176122

>>15176087
Again, the personal views of individual physicists are irrelevant. What matters is the activity of physics. That activity has ground rules, and supernatural 'explanations' don't cut the mustard.

>> No.15176127

>>15175303
>And Copenhagen is falling out of favor anyways
Only among schizos and anti-quantum zealots

>> No.15176144

>>15176127
Copenhagen is acknowledged to be a muddled mess of nonsense. It's not even clear enough to be an interpretation.

>> No.15176191

>>15176144
>Copenhagen is acknowledged to be a muddled mess of nonsense
By schizos and anti-quantum zealots.

>> No.15176192

>>15176122
That's exactly what I'm saying. But if physics allows you to do that, then physicalism is a mere caprice of the bugmen from the 1930s. It serves no purpose whatsoever in the aid of physics. Physics can survive on itself but physicalism needs physics to justify its worldview. You can absolutely be a physicist, which is neutral, without being a physicalist.

>> No.15176197

how can you be this retarded in the year 2020? i blame the greeks.

>> No.15176200

>>15176192
For the millionth time, physics presupposes physicalism.

>> No.15176204
File: 192 KB, 960x956, 1583807857971.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15176204

>>15176197
Bugmen deserve torture.

>> No.15176206

>>15176191
>projecting this hard
Wew

>> No.15176211

>>15176200
Wrong.

>> No.15176214

>>15176200
It's the other way around: physicalism presupposes physics. Physics presupposes itself only, not some bugman meme from the 1930s.

>> No.15176223

>>15176206
>no u
Concession accepted.

>> No.15176225

>>15176200
Physics presupposes methodological naturalism not ontological physicalism you mouth breathing retard

>> No.15176234

>>15176225
They are the same thing when it comes to theoretical posits.

>> No.15176256

>>15176234
Wrong.

>> No.15176257

>>15176234
How are you this stupid?

>> No.15176268

>>15176257
How do you adhere to methodological naturalism while positing supernatural entities as explanations?

>> No.15176309

>>15176234
Methodological naturalism is neutral.
Ontological physicalism is ideological/philosophical.

>> No.15176312

>>15176309
Lol, no.

>> No.15176313

>>15176204
but you are doing basic bad philosophy

>> No.15176315

>>15176268
When did I say that? I said above in the VERY FIRST post that physics explains efficient and material causality, this does not preclude the possibility of final and formal causes in the real off metaphysics. Ie methodological naturalism doesn’t not entail ontological naturalism. When did I say anything about supernatural entities as causes within the physical world? I said a supernatural cause is the cause of worldhood as such

>> No.15176335

>>15176312
Yes.

>> No.15176342

>>15176315
>Ie methodological naturalism doesn’t not entail ontological naturalism.
So now you agree that methodological naturalism entails ontological physicalism? You literally just said earlier:

>Physics presupposes methodological naturalism not ontological physicalism you mouth breathing retard

Which is it?

>> No.15176347

>>15176225
Don't you mean methodological naturalism?

>> No.15176359

>>15176342
Sorry typo (phone posting) I mean doesn’t

>> No.15176382

>>15176359
So, to clarify, your position is that methodological naturalism does NOT entail ontological physicalism?

If so, I ask again: How can you adhere to methodological naturalism while positing supernatural entities as explanations?

>> No.15176395

>>15176382
If you have to ask you didn’t read my above argument.

>> No.15176434

>>15176395
All you talked about in that post was your position on "the cause of worldhood" (whatever that means). You didn't address why you think methodological naturalism does not entail ontological physicalism within the realm of physics.

>> No.15176476

>>15176434
You’re shifting the question. I didn’t say that methodological naturalism doesn’t entail ontological naturalism IN THE REALM OF PHYSICS. That would be oxymoronic. I said it doesn’t entail ontological naturalism as a full metaphysical stance of the world

>> No.15176495

>>15172031
I told you faggots

>> No.15176502

>>15176495
I’m honestly so glad I mucked this thread up. Analytic Phil deserves no attention

>> No.15176509

>>15176476
OK, so we agree that physics presupposes ontological physicalism, which is what I have stated a million and one times in this thread.

>> No.15176527

the takeaway here is that starting from the greeks is counterproductive

>> No.15176539

>>15176509
Why do you try so hard not to understand.

Physics requires methodological naturalism not ontological naturalism. Physics is unable to do ontology as ontology is METAphysics.

>> No.15176546

>>15176527
I was like you in my third year of undergrad at a good analytic program. You’ll grow out of it (I’m the first poster)

>> No.15176556

>>15176382
Some philosophers have argued that science, by definition, is the study of the natural and cannot include the supernatural, which still leaves room for the existence of the supernatural.
This seems like a plausible way.

>> No.15176577

>>15176539
Physics has an ontology -- it consists of things like quarks, photons, electrons, etc. In short, fermions and bosons. There are a few other things, but not non-physical things like gods and demons. Using this ontology, it endeavors to explain all observable phenomena. What are you not getting?

>> No.15176598

>>15176502
based

>> No.15176602

>>15176577
Ontology consists of concepts such as cause and being. Physics presupposes these and is silent upon these issues. I’m also not talking about God’s or demons I don’t care about those. In the realm of questions about fundamental existence, all contingent things need a fundamental explanation which belongs to ontology

>> No.15176629

>>15174917
>Theists are a fringe minority among philosophers and elite scientists
No they aren’t schizo

>> No.15176647

>>15176602
>Ontology consists of concepts such as cause and being.
No, that's metaphysics. An Ontology in the philosophical sense is the set of fundamental existing things -- so, fermions and bosons, or perhaps spacetime regions.

>all contingent things need a fundamental explanation
Who says? The world isn't guaranteed to be intelligible to humans. We try to create predictive structures, and sometimes manage to explain aspects of the world to our liking. But there is no guarantee.

>> No.15176655

>>15176629
They most certainly are.

>> No.15176659

>>15176655
Prove it (you can’t).

>> No.15176664

>>15176659
The other poster already did. Learn to read.

>> No.15176671

>>15176647
Ok so then you’re committed to global skepticism and scientific anti realism about your physics

>> No.15176675

>>15176671
No, no really.

>> No.15176693

>>15176664
>>15176659
>(you can’t)
Called it. Concession accepted.

>> No.15176697

>>15176647
>The world isn't guaranteed to be intelligible to humans. We try to create predictive structures, and sometimes manage to explain aspects of the world to our liking. But there is no guarantee.
Physicalism limits that understanding only to physics.

>> No.15176719

>>15176697
There doesn't seem to be any phenomena that are better explained (or explained at all) by non-physical causes.

>> No.15176818

>/sci/entist first time on /lit/
>see this thread
philosophy is a joke, holy shit

>> No.15176837

>>15176818
No philosophy occurred in this thread, noob.

>> No.15176865

>>15176837
Philosophy is the only thing that occurred in most of this thread, unfortunately

>> No.15176880

>>15176865
Nope, this thread does not contain a single drop of philosophy.

>> No.15176884

>>15176865
Physicalism is also a philosophy, although one for faggot bugmen.

>> No.15176900

>>15176719
Physics only tries to explain the material world, and that's fine, but there's more to it than that, but physicalism rejects this, claiming physics is all there is.

>> No.15177034

>>15176900
doesn't physicalism just claim that there's nothing but the physical even though we'll never have the language, or perceptual capabilities to fully understand it? That physics is only one side of the veil in which we grasp blindly.

>> No.15177039

>>15176127
Based retard
Is the Nobel Laureate Steven Weinberg an "schizo" and an anti-quantum zealot now?

>> No.15177048

Is there a chart for someone that wants to learn about physicalism, but doesn't want to become a bugman.

>> No.15177050

>>15176502
>stop hurting me with logic, the gnostic god in the fourth dimension is real, y-your a bugman

>> No.15177078

>>15177050
do these gnostics claim that God wouldn't be physical in the 4th dimension? I've never understood the claim that there's something immaterial while also arguing that these things are in another codified dimension.

>> No.15177086

>>15177034
>doesn't physicalism just claim that there's nothing but the physical
Yes, it claims that.
> even though we'll never have the language, or perceptual capabilities to fully understand it?
No, it doesn't claim that.
> That physics is only one side of the veil in which we grasp blindly.
No, physicalism claims physics and its results is all there is.

>> No.15177101

>>15177086
ok well that's just arrogance then, ironically enough, I guess these ppl don't know about noumena.

>> No.15177109

>>15177048
imagine being this much of a meme-addled retard.

>> No.15177113

>>15177050
>the gnostic god in the fourth dimension is real
Yes.

>> No.15177116

>>15177109
I'm just speaking the language of this meme-addled board.

>> No.15177132

>>15176546
you are retarded then. yikes

>> No.15177150

>>15177048
>Poland, J., 1994, Physicalism: The Philosophical Foundations, Oxford: Clarendon.
>Gillet, C. and Loewer, B., 2001, Physicalism and Its Discontents, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
>Stoljar, Daniel, 2010, Physicalism, New York: Routledge.

>> No.15177156

>>15177109
fuck off, offended bugman lmao

>> No.15177190

>>15177078
The claim is not that the God isn't physical but that God is not physical as we understand it. That God is bound to another type of rules beyond our 3D dimension. The material world consists of energy set to a very low vibration so as to produce what we call matter.

>> No.15177205

>>15177190
That's what I was getting at, that it's still material, but not in a way that physics can understand.

>> No.15177236

has metaphysical philosophy ever benefited our understanding of metaphysics?

>> No.15177558

>>15168743
As if Todd didn't look bad in enough in El Camino. What the fuck is this guy's diet?