/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.17559064]

>For believe me! — the secret for harvesting from existence the greatest fruitfulness and the greatest enjoyment is: to live dangerously! Build your cities on the slopes of Vesuvius! Send your ships into uncharted seas! Live at war with your peers and yourselves! Be robbers and conquerors as long as you cannot be rulers and possessors, you seekers of knowledge! Soon the age will be past when you could be content to live hidden in forests like shy deer!

Yet neither him nor his LARPing fanboys actually live dangerously. They consider blasphemy, cooming to porn all day and aimless hedonism "living dangerously". An utter joke of a philosopher.

[Anonymous No.17559096]

>>17559064
Ngl stealing from people and being a marauder sounds fun.

[Anonymous No.17559117]

>>17559064
Seethe away OP, it does not trouble me. I shout my love of life from the mountainside.

[Anonymous No.17559130]

>>17559117
Sorry, I beat you with mediocre indifference and say some of life is good and some of life is bad.

[Anonymous No.17559134]

>>17559064
The problem is that Chads are already living his philosophy, without ever reading it. It's not that his philosophy is bad, but it's only possible to live if you win the genetic lottery. If you're a subhuman incel like Nietzsche or most Nietzschefags it was always over for you, in that case either LADR or read Schopenhauer or something.

[Anonymous No.17559140]

He led to what he couldn‘t possess.
Don‘t be like this fat coward.

[Anonymous No.17559141]

>>17559134
The difference is Nietzsche's philosophy is still philosophy, it's not just someone like Cioran "just do this with your life bro and stop reading!"

[Anonymous No.17559155]

ITT: a bunch of retards with no inner life whose only conception of danger is ripping their shorts at a beach party

[Anonymous No.17559156]

>>17559155
Tell me you‘ve done that then if you‘re so brave anon.

[Anonymous No.17559162]

Could nietzsche's philosophy actually be used by those who suffer for real or is it only for western LARPers who already have a comfortable life?

[Anonymous No.17559174]

>>17559134
whining about genetic lottery is a major cope. nietzsche is all about having the courage to live your best life – your most joyful and beautiful life – no matter what the circumstances.
>ad hominem attacks on the man himself
nietzsche lived with migraines, parasites, epilepsy and all kinds of other physical ailments. yet he still tried to make the most of life and wrote some hot fire.

nietzsche is a path for any virgin to become a Chad in his own poetic truth.

[Anonymous No.17559477]

>>17559174
Based
>>17559162
Yes

[Anonymous No.17560205]

>>17559134
Chads couldn't exist in the 19th century thanks to religious fundamentalism making everyone uptight about sex. If anything, it's thanks to individuals like Nietzsche who strived to make their lifestyle possible today, so they don't need to have read him to have been influenced by him.

[Anonymous No.17560227]

>>17560205
>Chads couldn't exist in the 19th century thanks to religious fundamentalism making everyone uptight about sex.
People were having more seks in the 19th century than they are now.
You could literally fuck child prostitutes in the 19th century and no one can do shit about it

[Anonymous No.17560243]

>>17560205
>Chads couldn't exist in the 19th century thanks to religious fundamentalism making everyone uptight about sex.
can you imagine blaming anything, anything at all in the age of reason and positivism to religious fundamentalism kek ngmi

[Anonymous No.17560274]

>>17559064
>blasphemy, cooming to porn all day
Uh oh, the confused Christcucks are back on this anime/porno imageboard.

[Anonymous No.17560301]

>>17559134
this

[Anonymous No.17560310]

>>17560227
>People were having more seks in the 19th century than they are now.
Chads now are having way more sex than "people" of either century.

[Anonymous No.17560323]

>neechee was CUH-RAZEE and wanted to KILL GOD so GOD gave him SYPHILIS, hah!
lmfao go read a book kent hovind

[Anonymous No.17560407]

>>17560243
midwit take, religion was still a formidable force that had to be reckoned with in the 19th century and even the beginning of 20th century, why do you think Nietzsche or Marx spilled so much ink in polemical fights against religion?

[Anonymous No.17560432]

>>17559155
RIPPED PANTS A LA MODE!

[Anonymous No.17560433]

>>17559134
Chad simping is cringe

[Anonymous No.17560445]

>>17559162
those who suffer for real read lenin

[Anonymous No.17560452]

>>17560407
>why do you think Nietzsche or Marx spilled so much ink in polemical fights against religion?
because they were edgrlords beating a politically dead horse.

[Anonymous No.17560458]

Someone post the Nietzsche quote where he says “suppose I have the key”.

[Anonymous No.17560470]

Goddamn the discourse on /lit/ is so bad now. I miss 2013 /lit/ when people tried.

[Anonymous No.17560473]

>>17560458
This one?

>There is a false saying, 'Whoever cannot save himself — how can he save others?' But if I have the key to your chains, why should your and my lock be the same.

[Anonymous No.17560522]

>>17560473
Quite right too. "Physician, heal thyself" is nonsense. J*rd*n P*t*rs*n, after all, has single-handedly emancipated an entire generation of young men whilst hugging his knees in a corner of an institution room in a pool of his own piss.

[Anonymous No.17560554]

>>17560205
>Chads couldn't exist in the 19th century thanks to religious fundamentalism making everyone uptight about sex.
Have you never even read a novel from the 19th century let alone an accurate account of the social conditions?

[Anonymous No.17560565]

>>17560473
Yeah, that one. So the criticism remains for his LARPing fanboys but Nietzsche himself at least addressed it regarding himself.

[Anonymous No.17560585]

The Ubermensch already came.

[Anonymous No.17560594]

>>17559064
>They consider blasphemy, cooming to porn all day and aimless hedonism
I thought this was leftists

[Anonymous No.17560638]

>>17560522
>has single-handedly emancipated an entire generation of young men
Everyone keeps saying this, but I have yet to see any proof of it. I was never mentally ill, but I found Evola and Nietzsche far more positive and life-affirming than Jordan "soggy bread" Peterson. Evola in particular strengthened my desire to go on with life in the modern world, that there is some positive that can be carved out, but that fundamentally one has to maintain discipline of the self and never let the corrupting influence into the inner part of oneself (for starters).

[Anonymous No.17560658]

>>17559064
>riding your bike without training wheels
>logging on to the Disney channel website without asking for your parents' permission first
>walking on a path reserved for bicycles
>not saving before challenging a legendary pokemon to a battle

[Anonymous No.17560666]

>>17559064
you´re so retarded I don´t even know where to start

[Anonymous No.17560681]

>>17559134
>being a wagie, going to clubs and banging a few women is the ubermensch

Its like you people view the average "chad" as being some sort of demigod when they're actually fairly boring

[Anonymous No.17560691]

>>17560681
I think this is what he meant by the modern Übermensch

[Anonymous No.17560703]

>>17560666
Fuck off Satan
NEETcj btfo

[Anonymous No.17560711]

>>17560691
I think Trump is more of an Ubermensch than billionaire niggers, because Trump has his own set of values and is completely immune to outside influence

[Anonymous No.17560724]

>>17559064
>he thinks Nietzsche is a hedonist

[Anonymous No.17560728]

>>17559064
He thought so dangerously that he went insane.

[Anonymous No.17560736]

>>17559064
living on the edge is atheism

[Anonymous No.17560737]

>>17559134
>LADR
Wtf does that stand for

[Anonymous No.17560754]

>>17560711
Trump is an actual narcissist, like with NPD. I don't really get the different between a narcissist and the mindset Nietzsche praises though. In fact I have never understood how Nietzsche is supposed to deal with a delusional schizophrenic who thinks he is a conquering king, since Nietzsche denies the existence of objective reality at all.

[Anonymous No.17560761]

>>17560522
That Nietzsche quote is pretty profound but Peterson is trash.

[Anonymous No.17560854]

>>17559064
He did try living dangerously. So he wrecked his body.

[Anonymous No.17560868]

>>17560754
The noble man is arrogant in contrast as the base man is vain. Since one denies all outside values, and the other consumes it

This should clear up your confusion

[Anonymous No.17560880]

>>17560681
This is actually one of the things that makes me feel bad for 4chan posters. Sometimes when you see them talk about Chads, you realize just how far into the incel paradigm they’ve unwarrantedly psyop’d themselves.

[Anonymous No.17560889]

>>17560868
>Since one denies all outside values, and the other consumes it
Doesn't a schizo deny all outside values and invent their own entire world?

[Anonymous No.17560890]

>>17559064
>literally just YOLO lmao
People take this shit seriously?

[Anonymous No.17560906]

>>17560890
>I-I actually enjoy spending my whole life in a 2x4 cuck shed!

[Anonymous No.17560912]

>>17560868
There is nothing noble in arrogance or the ignorance of values. That's the complete opposite of power, a tyrant at best or a democrat in denial at worst.
Anyone who has read the Greeks should know this.

[Anonymous No.17560917]

>>17560906
>life is boring so the only solution is to murderape
You seriously consider it a worthwhile philosophy? Like, it's not a great mystery that adrenaline makes you feel briefly amazing, thats why people climb mountains without safety, but what exactly comes out of it? So you lived "dangerously", and? You avoided boredom by artificially placing yourself in harm's way, looking for trouble and taking unnecessary risks, so WHAT?

[Anonymous No.17560919]

>>17560906
Lmao at Nietzsche's life.

[Anonymous No.17560920]

>>17560912
Nietzsche knew the Greeks intimately, he just didn't like them nor agree with them.

[Anonymous No.17560928]

>>17560917
>life is boring so the only solution is to murderape
Said no one

[Anonymous No.17560943]

>>17560912
I´ve read the greeks and you´re still wrong. he´s not explicitely saying "All outside value is bad" he´s saying most of it is just a will trying to impose their will on your, he doesn´t say to be a retard and ignore reason. Also the arrogance is just a transition phase towards the child, it isn´t a perpetual state

[Anonymous No.17560947]

>>17560889
retarded comparison and you know it. Stop being dumb

[Anonymous No.17560955]

>>17560943
How do you determine if you're imposing your will on other people without reference to an objective shared reality?

[Anonymous No.17560968]

>>17560947
Can you explain why the comparison is retarded? To explain why the schizo is wrong you have to refer to a larger group of people's perspectives on the issue or objective reality

[Anonymous No.17560998]

>>17560955
the goal IS to impose your will on other people, not to not impose it lmao
>Shared reality
Nietzsche spends his entire philosophical corpus exactly trying to make you not have an objective shared reality, he wants you to stick to reason and not the wills of other people

>>17560968
A schizo is incapable of refering to other perspectives, the noble man can, but he sees how the will functions

[Anonymous No.17561077]

>>17560998
>Nietzsche spends his entire philosophical corpus exactly trying to make you not have an objective shared reality,
This is exactly what a schizo does, that's my whole point. What authority can you condemn the schizo upon apart from the 'shared reality' we are supposed to not care about?

[Anonymous No.17561103]

>>17561077
perhaps i´ll explain myself better with an example. Do you think Abraham Lincoln is a schizo?

[Anonymous No.17561106]

>>17561077
Schizos do not scientifically explore biological reality and its implications on the powers of the mind. Whether you like it or not, Nietzsche's perspectivism was a scientific revelation.

[Anonymous No.17561108]

>>17560920
Fake and gay

[Anonymous No.17561142]

>>17561106
science literally depends on the concept of 'shared reality', the entire point is that someone else reproduces your results independently, and the two of you agree that you're seeing the same thing.
>>17561103
No I don't think Lincoln was a schizo, but I also believe in objective reality so it makes sense for me to say things about whether Lincoln's worldview was insane or not, ie. whether it corresponded to the objective reality.

[Anonymous No.17561177]

>>17561142
>science literally depends on the concept of 'shared reality', the entire point is that someone else reproduces your results independently, and the two of you agree that you're seeing the same thing.
The nature and definition of that shared reality has changed especially since the theory of evolution, the discovery of DNA, and experiments of quantum physics. But all of these are "schizo" in your language so you don't consider them.

[Anonymous No.17561180]

>>17560943
Ok so where do the noble Greeks say to be arrogant piece of shit?
They don't. Imagine thinking you've read the Greeks when you're a qtard.

[Anonymous No.17561187]

>>17561142
>No I don't think Lincoln was a schizo, but I also believe in objective reality so it makes sense for me to say things about whether Lincoln's worldview was insane or not, ie. whether it corresponded to the objective reality.

I understand your point of view, but Nietzsche goal wasn´t just to "discard objective reality and become a schizo", he deconstructed objective reality to show you how the will works, how things are influenced socially and how the social factor is always the most primordial one.
He´s giving you an analysis of the will

[Anonymous No.17561198]

>>17561180
he doesn´t mean noble as in a social caste you fucking retarded ape. Stop reading Evola

[Anonymous No.17561208]

>>17561180
>>17561198
Also I forgot to meantion the fact that just for trying to accept what the "Noble greeks considered noble" you´re already a retard and didn´t comprehend what Nietzsche meant by noble

[Anonymous No.17561219]

>>17560658
Based.

[Anonymous No.17561225]

>>17561187
>how things are influenced socially and how the social factor is always the most primordial one.
brainlet take. or maybe you've just read too many postmodernists.

[Anonymous No.17561238]

>>17561177
>The nature and definition of that shared reality has changed especially since the theory of evolution, the discovery of DNA, and experiments of quantum physics
Of course it's changed, that's how science is set up, to be perpetually changed based on new evidence that is reproduced by multiple investigators to confirm it in the 'shared reality'. Why would I call any of that schizo? The schizo doesn't ask someone to independently verify his conclusions.

>>17561187
>how the will works, how things are influenced socially and how the social factor is always the most primordial one.
How is he making this analysis of psychology and society without some concept of objective reality, implicit in the description is that he's standing outside and observing how people function.

[Anonymous No.17561247]

>>17561225
its not a pomo POV, he specifically claims in Zarathustra that the goal is to combat all "Thou shalts" and be a self-propelling wheel
In BG&E he explicitely claims that the goal is to stop being a consumer of values in regards to other people
In genealogy of morals its an entire in depth critique how morality is essentially social in nature

[Anonymous No.17561264]

>>17561238
>Of course it's changed
So... why are you acting as if perspectivism is schizo rather than scientific? It meshes great with those advancements in science. They even demand the notion.

[Anonymous No.17561268]

>>17561238
>How is he making this analysis of psychology and society without some concept of objective reality, implicit in the description is that he's standing outside and observing how people function

My guy you´re being way too metaphysical, he´s an ethical philosopher and dives too little in metaphysics

[Anonymous No.17561275]

>>17561247
you didn't even understand what i criticized in your post. all of that stuff is obvious except for the last part, "essentially social in nature." no, that is not what nietzsche ever said, it's postmodernists reading it into him to support their views about society. the fact that the term "genealogy" is used should tip you off a bit (and no, i'm not implying nietzsche was a nazi or a vulgar racist).

[Anonymous No.17561301]

>>17561275
oh I see what I got wrong, I was trying to say that you could apply a lot of his metaphysics mostly to the social aspect because that´s the biggest influence in life and how societies function. But yes, it isn´t "social in nature", my bad

[Anonymous No.17561304]

>>17561264
Because perspectivism is the complete opposite of the scientific method, which relies on the concept of an objective reality that everyone has access to, that's the entire point of independent replication of a scientific result. Nietzsche would just have the first guy force the second to believe what he said(or if we go all the way he would care only about his own perspective of whether other people agreed with him or not).

[Anonymous No.17561313]

>>17560445
jfl

[Anonymous No.17561321]

>>17561198
>>17560912
>>17560868
>>17560711
>filtered by peterson tier discussions again
The posts hardly even mentioned Nietzsche stupid slave.

[Anonymous No.17561327]

>>17559064
Who the fuck cares? I still gotta do what I gotta do and move up. You still gotta do what you gotta do and move up. Arguing semantics for the sake of doing it is retarded.

[Anonymous No.17561328]

>>17561304
Perspectivism is the philosophical counterpart and conclusion to those advancements. It's only the "opposite" to them in the sense that it is a period rather than a question mark.

[Anonymous No.17561367]

>>17561301
the social aspect of morals was important to his view, but what has to be taken first and foremost is that the moral conditions of peoples are shaped first and foremost by great individuals (ie, from the top and then down), and that those individuals are themselves subject to those forces of the will that nietzsche talks about, which isn't social in itself, but becomes social after it is eventually projected onto and between the people. ultimately, nietzsche's morals are in their origin subconscious and purely personal rather than social (which primarily applies to "great individuals", and then filters down in a purely social and orthodox manner to the rest).

[Anonymous No.17561401]

>>17561328
The scientific method requires an objective reality that everyone who has functioning senses and reasoning ability can access. What does this have to do with perspectivism in your opinion?

[Anonymous No.17561417]

>>17561401
>The scientific method requires an objective reality that everyone who has functioning senses and reasoning ability can access.
Not exactly, since objective reality was officially brought into question among scientists when QM arrived on the scene, and the scientific method is still used there.

[Anonymous No.17561443]

>>17561417
>objective reality was officially brought into question among scientists when QM arrived on the scene,
What do you mean by this? QM scientists still relied on independent verification of their results, assuming that there is one reality that anyone can access by applying the same procedure.

[Anonymous No.17561447]

>>17560912
>filename
Wrong

[Anonymous No.17561469]

>>17561443
>What do you mean by this?
What I mean is that no possible evaluation of said reality can be summarized as "objective" as of QM. All of our evaluations are now brought down to an evolutionary biological locale. Nietzsche's perspectivism (that everything is interpretation) fits perfectly there.

[Anonymous No.17561501]

>>17561469
>All of our evaluations are now brought down to an evolutionary biological locale.
What does this have to do with QM? Explain what specifically you think QM said about reality not being objective, and what that has to do with an 'evolutionary biological locale'.

Again if there were no shared access to reality then scientists couldn't independently confirm the results of QM experiments.

[Anonymous No.17561552]

>>17561501
>Explain what specifically you think QM said about reality not being objective, and what that has to do with an 'evolutionary biological locale'.
QM states that things can't exist before they are measured. The universe is so constructed that reality is not a question of things which are measured by an external "impartial" observer, but that the nature of the universe is such that an event is an inextricable unity of the thing observed, the observer, and the equipment. This is a quantum event, i.e., a quantum state. Reality is a question of quantum states. This is also what Nietzsche was getting at with his perspectivism and the will to power, by the way.

[Anonymous No.17561566]

>>17561552
>his is also what Nietzsche was getting at with his perspectivism and the will to power, by the way.
I thought that's what Kant was getting at with his thing-in-itself, and then Schopenhauer when he reformulated it into the Will. Which one should I go with?

[Anonymous No.17561578]

>>17561566
>Which one should I go with?
You should have knowledge of all three, but Nietzsche took it the farthest.

[Anonymous No.17561584]

>>17561578
But I thought Nietzsche believed Kant was a goblin not worth of consideration?

[Anonymous No.17561601]

>>17561584
If you don't know any Kant, you won't understand why Nietzsche opposed him.

[Anonymous No.17561603]

>>17560912
Based. There's no reason to read neet when you can read the Ubermensch himself.

[Anonymous No.17561613]

>>17561552
>things can't exist before they are measured
Lmfao that's not what the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle says you midwit.

[Anonymous No.17561622]

>>17561552
>QM states that things can't exist before they are measured
It doesn't really state that, it states that measuring these systems requires interacting with them and that changes them, we can't observe them without this change.

This is still not the same kind of perspectivism that Nietzsche was talking about because every scientist gets the same results when measuring the systems, it's not a matter of individual wills or perspectives, there is still a shared reality between the experimenters, so that they get the same resutls when applying the same procedures.

[Anonymous No.17561652]

>>17561601
I thought Nietzsche just hated him because he was ugly, and tried to impose his morality on others with the categorical imperative. Never really understood why these were considered good reasons to reject the main aspects of transcendental idealism
>>17561622
>>17561613
>it states that measuring these systems requires interacting with them and that changes them, we can't observe them without this change.
Incorrect. It is baked into the nature of wave packets, it has nothing to do with observational effects. No one here is a physicist I'm guessing so you'll have to believe me on this when I say that it has nothing to do with observational equipment affecting the measurement. It is a fundamental property of nature at a quantum level which is that the certainty of a location of a wave is inversely proportional to its certainty of momentum. This is because if a wave's position is known exactly, it no longer possesses a wavelength and thus loses all momentum (or at least certainty of momentum). Waves can fundamentally only be known, in Kant's terms, either over extensive magnitudes or intensive magnitudes, not both. Momentum is quantification of an extensive magnitude, position is quantification of an intensive magnitude, and the nature of wave packets means knowing the latter rules out the former because they are co-dependent variables.

[Anonymous No.17561656]

>>17560943
Retard.
All that will happen is that you will get stuck. Becoming is just a type of Being for the weak.

[Anonymous No.17561661]

>>17561613
It's what wave interference, the double-slit experiment, Planck's constant, Bohr's complementarity, Bell's theorem and Bohm's quantum potential all say.

[Anonymous No.17561687]

>>17561661
>>17561652
No, it isn't. Go read a fucking book. If you'd like an undergraduate textbook book on this subject, I can recommend you one. I assume that you have done calculus, linear algebra, and differential equations because otherwise this shit is meaningless to you. There is not a single quantum physics textbook that will ever tell you that things don't exist until someone looks at them. You are fundamentally misunderstanding how these things work.

[Anonymous No.17561705]

>>17561687
>you need to know math to understand quantum mechanics
Oh fuck off you STEMlord fedora.

[Anonymous No.17561707]

>>17561687
I can send you a video of a man with a PhD explaining this to you in almost childlike simplicity if you'd like.

[Anonymous No.17561709]

>>17561661
imagine being such a brainlet
I have seen people on /X/ use litteraly your same argument to justify their belief in moving stuff with their mind.
Go there, I'm sure you'll fit better.

[Anonymous No.17561718]

>>17561705
But you don't understand math, and you don't understand quantum mechanics, so you're just proving his point.

[Anonymous No.17561720]

>>17561687
>There is not a single quantum physics textbook that will ever tell you that things don't exist until someone looks at them.
Except I am getting this information from F. David Peat, Bernard, d'Espagnat, and Roger Penrose who all wrote books on QM.

[Anonymous No.17561725]

>>17561718
Fuck you, I watched a video on youtube explaining it!

[Anonymous No.17561728]

>>17561720
Bernard d'Espagnat*

[Anonymous No.17561733]

>>17561709
>>17561718
>>17561725
This reminds me of that reddit post by some physicist chick explaining basic stuff to her boyfriend (husband?) and he keeps getting angry because he studied Kant or whatever and atoms don't have hands so they can't process noumena or whatever.

[Anonymous No.17561737]

>>17561725
and you misunderstood it you fucking brainlet

[Anonymous No.17561740]

>>17561321
You have to understand that Nietzsche is an atheist, a nihilist, a postmodernist which appeals to a lot of liberals and other deeply neurotic teenagers because Nietzsche is the achievement of the secular humanism which booted Christianity out of power. Nietzsche is overtly anti-christian, and it permits to all the atheist bug men to actually see themselves as the righteous resilient guy who create his own values.
In effect trannies are the best ubermen ever: they ate to see themselves as they really are, so they change both their neurotic spirit and also their body to match the narrative of the ubermen and even better, they impose their values to non-trannies. Same thing with feminists and all the idolized minorities in Humanism.

Naturally, the atheists cant know right from wrong, so their mental gymnastics about the uberman is flawed. The uberman is actually the last man: the uberman despises so much reality after seeing nihilism, that out of resentment for reality, the uberman CHOSE to sink further in his delusion by building a narrative where is not the last man, but actually the opposite, ie the uberman who creates his own values, ie living in own brain farts until he dies.

[Anonymous No.17561753]

>>17561652
>It is a fundamental property of nature at a quantum level which is that the certainty of a location of a wave is inversely proportional to its certainty of momentum.
>certainty of a location
How is this not about measuring?

And it still doesn't mean that this situation applies to Nietzschean relativism on a social/cultural level.

[Anonymous No.17561759]

>>17561718
>>17561725
>>17561733
The actual problem in question requires maths not much higher than highschool algebra. And it seems like the midwit brigade is in full force today, so I will post the video. Maybe you'll learn something and not be so cocky next time.
https://youtu.be/VwGyqJMPmvE?t=48

[Anonymous No.17561765]

>>17561759
>it seems like the midwit brigade is in full force today, so I will post a youtube video.
Is this satire or something

[Anonymous No.17561767]

>>17561759
>it seems like the midwit brigade is in full force today
>posts a video

[Anonymous No.17561778]

>>17561767
>>17561765
>I'm smarter than man with phd in field
you're not fooling anyone
>>17561753
Everything is about measuring, we've already established that. But it's not a problem with measuring, which is what you or someone else stated.

[Anonymous No.17561786]

>>17559064
There are few more certain ways to win damnation.

[Anonymous No.17561794]

>>17561778
Peat, d'Espagnat, and Penrose all have PhDs, and those are real writers, not youtubers.

[Anonymous No.17561799]

>>17561753
It is, that's the problem. He's misunderstanding how conjugate variables work, among other things. The tl;dr is that there's certain physical quantities, such as position and momentum, spins, and a few other things that don't really have easy macro-scale analogues. In short, to find one, you have to alter the other. A really simple example of this is imagine trying to find out where a moving billiard ball is while blindfolded; if you touch it, you alter its trajectory, even slightly.

Anon is trying to imply that this means that you need a human to view it, but that's not the case as this is done with machines anyways. The common response to this is that there needs to be a human in the area to cause the effect (because reality is generated around humans for some reason), but this also isn't the case as you can do this as remotely as you please.

Which is sort of a wikipedia-scholar level hangup as modern quantum mechanics has actually moved past this (tl;dr there aren't discrete things, just smears of continuity and probability). But then, you could pick this up based on the fact that he's watching pop-sci and rejecting the mathematical basis of qmech (one of the best criticisms of qmech is that it's just math rather than actual answers or theories). He'll probably bring up Schrodinger's cat as a response to his.

[Anonymous No.17561801]

>>17561778
>it's not a problem with measuring,
How can you know that? You can't say anything about the phenomena without measuring them, and the word 'certainty' here, what can that refer to except measurements

Also the point is not whether the man in your youtube video is right or not, it's that posting a video is not an argument. What does he say that relates to this converstaion?

[Anonymous No.17561813]

>>17561799
>Anon is trying to imply that this means that you need a human to view it, but that's not the case as this is done with machines anyways.
Machines that humans made to decipher information that humans can understand.

[Anonymous No.17561839]

>>17561652
Are you a physicist?

[Anonymous No.17561871]

>>17561801
>How can you know that? You can't say anything about the phenomena without measuring them
Well, now you're disputing science itself. How can we know anything at all, even though we seem to know things through measurement?
>what can that refer to except measurements
How do you predict measurements scientifically? You use a model or theory which is mathematically valid. Normally you incorporate margins of error for natural problems with measurements which always occur, but in the case of waves it is not a margin of error but the actual fundamental prediction of the theory that the measurement is founded on probability and statistical reasoning, and therefore the result is fundamentally uncertain in its exact value, but certain only in terms of the probability of the different possible measurements.
>What does he say that relates to this converstaion?
He directly contradicts all of the midwits here claiming that uncertainty is only a problem of observation and not baked into the nature of waves themselves.

[Anonymous No.17561894]

>>17561871
Are you a physicist?

[Anonymous No.17561896]

>>17560737
Lay Down And Rot

[Anonymous No.17561899]

>>17561871
>uncertainty
How can uncertainty be a problem of waves? Waves don't have certainty, the word certainty refers to measuring these phenomena, you can't measure one aspect without changing another, because you have to interact with the system.

>founded on probability and statistical reasoning
How does this deny an objective reality? Isn't there still just the one probability distribution? Anyone who tries to measure it will get that same distribution right?

And all of this is still not related to Nietzsche because he is talking about individual psychologies.

[Anonymous No.17561904]

>>17559064
Schtick is transparent, could you not

[Anonymous No.17561909]

>>17561813
Right, but that's the entire point. You can create an infinite distance (literal or a chain of machines) in between measurement and measurer and get the same phenomena. Every time we measure, we see this same phenomena. We're left with two possibilities:
>humans are required for reality to function
>humans aren't required for reality to function, we're just seeing things through human eyes
It's a problem that can't be solved, which is why it's been stepped over entirely. It's turning an epistemological problem into an ontological one.

[Anonymous No.17561996]

>>17561909
>Right, but that's the entire point. You can create an infinite distance (literal or a chain of machines) in between measurement and measurer and get the same phenomena
That's not the point at all. All you've successfully done in that scenario is recreate the equipment that humans use to measure things. Sure, the same equipment is going to make the same measurements under the same circumstances, no one is arguing against that and that doesn't mean that the measurements are independent of all the other conditions.

[Anonymous No.17562010]

>>17561899
>the word certainty refers to measuring these phenomena
I just told you why that's not the case here. You're thinking of margins of error. Any system that is contained and controlled can have its components more or less accurately measured if one understands the rules for the "interface" into that system from an external environment/system.
>How does this deny an objective reality? Isn't there still just the one probability distribution? Anyone who tries to measure it will get that same distribution right?
In some sense the distribution is objective, yes, but only abstractly. It's akin to claiming you know exactly how a human being will act in a situation because you know his personality type, though. It's being sure of the extent to which you are not sure. While you can know your own ignorance, there is still a gap in knowledge that can't be filled so you're left wondering what's really there. The uncertainty principle is ultimately just a known limit on how much we can know about certain physical phenomena.

[Anonymous No.17562031]

>>17561996
>the measurements are independent of all the other conditions.
It's not about the conditions, it's precisely about the mathematical structures used to understand the phenomena. You'd need entirely new ones to be able to, say, take both position and momentum of a particle at the same time. As we understand things, you cannot "get" an answer.

[Anonymous No.17562035]

>>17562010
>Any system that is contained and controlled can have its components more or less accurately measured if one understands the rules for the "interface" into that system from an external environment/system.
Except these waves are not like that, that's the point is that you can't measure both aspects at once right? In larger systems you still affect the system in some way by measuring it but it's just negligible.
>In some sense the distribution is objective, yes, but only abstractly. It's akin to claiming you know exactly how a human being will act in a situation because you know his personality type, though. It's being sure of the extent to which you are not sure. While you can know your own ignorance, there is still a gap in knowledge that can't be filled so you're left wondering what's really there. The uncertainty principle is ultimately just a known limit on how much we can know about certain physical phenomena.
Then it seems like you're not even disagreeing with me, this is about our knowledge of these phenomena. To the extent that we can measure them at all, those measurements are still the same no matter who does them if they follow the same procedure, so they are making use of the shared reality necessary for the scientific method.

[Anonymous No.17562041]

>>17562031
Mathematics is a type of equipment, or rather, it's the expression of the equipment in use. This changes nothing of what I just said.

[Anonymous No.17562056]

>>17562041
But that's precisely what I've been saying. It's not an ontological problem, it's an epistemological problem. Just because we can't take a measurement doesn't mean that there isn't one, we just can't get at it. This is the entire point of Schroedinger's Cat (or, rather, criticizing certain possible interpretations of viewing this as an ontological problem rather than an epistemological one).

[Anonymous No.17562060]

>>17559134
Can you incels kys for once already? I'm so fucking sick of muh Chad rope cope BS

[Anonymous No.17562070]

>>17562056
>Just because we can't take a measurement doesn't mean that there isn't one, we just can't get at it.
Sure, but this doesn't suggest that the observer, the observed, and the equipment aren't still interwoven in a unity. If there are measurements we can't personally make, they only exist as part of unities we aren't a part of.

[Anonymous No.17562316]

>>17561899
>And all of this is still not related to Nietzsche because he is talking about individual psychologies.
A perspective, for Nietzsche, was a unity, as it's talked about here >>17561552 >>17562070 so it is related.

[Anonymous No.17562329]

>>17559064
They knew about Pompeii back then?

[Anonymous No.17563509]

Holy based.