[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 173 KB, 598x840, physics_smith.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17801633 No.17801633 [Reply] [Original]

book of the century so far

>> No.17801643

>>17801633
what makes you say that, anon?

>> No.17801675

>>17801633
just flipped through it. no math. i find it hard to believe that this will convince anyone

>> No.17801826
File: 166 KB, 1748x2480, 62f12de2-8867-4b0c-af2d-e5c6a6660d07.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17801826

>>17801633
*Blocks your path*

>> No.17801971
File: 421 KB, 1872x2118, 1615859896852.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17801971

>>17801633
I get the feeling Wolfgang Smith isn't taken too seriously by the scientific community. And it's a shame he makes his fringe "vertical causality" notion such a central theme to ALL his works since it'd be nice to have someone who is obviously philosophically competent while also being scientifically literate to help navigate the conjunction between modern physics and philosophy for people who aren't deep in that field.
If anyone who is more scientifically competent than me can offer their thoughts on Smith (or Bohr and Kuhn, for that matter) and how batshit off the mark his stuff is or if it's viable, i'd appreciate it.

>> No.17802307

>>17801971
>philosophically competent
> Aristotelian
kek

>> No.17802928

>>17802307
Cringe

>> No.17802946

>>17801826
>another philosophical revenge fantasy

Why are Catholics so petty and spiteful? Is it to get back at a world where no one takes them seriously anymore?

>> No.17802968

>>17801971
Give me a source pls

>> No.17802983

>>17802946
but wolfgang smith is catholic too

>> No.17803128

I'll take him seriously when he rejects Guenon.

>> No.17803631

>>17801633
I'm interested. Will a humanitiesfag understand this book?

>> No.17803662

>>17801633
>wolfgang smith
ah, it's that utterly unscientific dude who's an unironic metaphysician believing that soul is real

well, can't blame him. he's catholic. but nobody in the actually-intellectual field believes that crap, sorry

>> No.17803680

>>17803662
>ah, it's that utterly unscientific dude who's an unironic metaphysician believing that soul is real
Seems based

>> No.17803726

>>17803128
why?

>> No.17803817

>>17801971
i'm sorry I dont read cumbrain

>> No.17803931

>>17802307
>>17802946
ywnbaw

>> No.17803970

>>17803662
>actually-intellectual field
So he's rejected by kikes? Ordering his book now.

>> No.17803986

>>17801971
Yeah but in reality we care about verifiability. That's why this fuckface and rupert sheldrake are both jokes in their field even if their little theories are true.

>> No.17803993

>>17803970
Epic reasoning skills, bro

>> No.17804022

>>17803986
>verifiability
you are 80 years late

>> No.17804205

>>17801633
It's good... I don't think he should rely on the information theory of a creationist bro to try and prove his points but I did like his takedown of Decartes in this and his explanation of the quantum world as sub-corporeal made a lot of sense to me.

>> No.17804217

>>17803662
back to plebbit you go

>> No.17804412

Feser analysis of quantum mechanics in his AR book >>17801826 and in his conference "matter" on YouTube seems more serious

>> No.17804436
File: 226 KB, 1200x1219, 1614262813206.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17804436

>>17803970

>> No.17804605

>>17802968
https://twitter.com/anna_feet_queen/status/1245227858739572736

>> No.17805681
File: 209 KB, 1536x2180, 712WfMJJicL.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17805681

>> No.17805702
File: 9 KB, 329x499, 31vlCKu45GL._SX327_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17805702

>> No.17805723
File: 381 KB, 1650x2475, 81SNPu4tMoL.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17805723

>> No.17805727

>only word without anyway to tested or prove it

Well well, in the end... is just a book with some dude's opinion, better read a science book.

>> No.17805971

>>17803128
He did in Science and Myth

>> No.17806107

>>17805971
Did he? As far as I remember he only criticises Guenon (severly at times) for ignoring the positive elements of science, I dont think he outright rejects him

>> No.17806161

>>17806107
Ah, you're right on that point. Not an outright rejection. As far as I remember he mentions that Guénon's understanding of science was lacking and that what he was criticizing was not science, but scientism