/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.23729135]

Philosophybros how do we respond to the encroachment by modern science? Especially the latest advances in quantum mechanics seem to BTFO us more every passing day.

[Anonymous No.23729137]

>>23729135

[Anonymous No.23729142]

>>23729135
What is the quantum physics of ethics?

[Anonymous No.23729143]

>>23729135
https://woowooscientists.tech.blog/

[Anonymous No.23729149]

>>23729142
>ethicssissies think anyone cares about their subjective opinions

[Anonymous No.23729151]

>>23729135
You don't. Science has thoroughly rendered most philosophy obsolete and has relegated philosophy to defending the revelations of scientific theory. For too long, philosophy has been the slave of the church to defend superstition and dogma. Now that science has put men on the moon and allowed us to live for over a hundred years, we have no need for philosophical speculation.

[Anonymous No.23729154]

>>23729142
they are the same thing, your decision is the wave function, when you make the decision it collapses

[Anonymous No.23729156]

>>23729151
There are yogis in the Himalayas that are thousands of years old. Science ain't shit

[Anonymous No.23729161]

>>23729156
>yogi
you must be white, yogis are known scammers and con artists

[Anonymous No.23729166]

>>23729135
Scientism was already refuted by Guenon (phub) et al, unironically

[Anonymous No.23729171]

>>23729166
>phub
porn hub upon the benis

[Anonymous No.23729172]

>>23729135
i would say the reverse is true

the world as viewed through science is less materialistic and reductionist than ever

[Anonymous No.23729190]

>>23729135
I like science but I hate Popper and I am a communist.

[Anonymous No.23729211]

>>23729135
lame bait. Stemlords have been pretending to have "solved" philosophy for the past century. They do this by:
a) defaulting to utilitarianism (without argument oc)
b) defaulting to political liberalism
c) dismissing metaphysics, defaulting to logical positivism (unaware that the logical positivists themselves gave up and returned to metaphysics)
d) acting like discoveries about neuroscience prove hard determinism (ignoring any moral implications of this)
e) dismissing philosophy of religion when it doesn't align with their preconceived worldview
f) ignoring existentialism
g) appealing to things like "quantum mechanics" as if it could conceivably solve any serious philosophical problem

[Anonymous No.23729214]

>>23729211
I am pretty sure philosophy is solved in a deterministic universe, which science has all but proven at this point.

[Anonymous No.23729220]

>>23729214
your brain is the size of a peanut

[Anonymous No.23729221]

>>23729220
The exact kind of statement that science can easily disprove. And you wonder why our team isn't taken seriously when you post utter shit like this.

[Anonymous No.23729320]

>>23729135
Beyond mathematical formalism theories of quantum mechanics are philosophy thougheverbeit

[Anonymous No.23729325]

>>23729214
Why?

[Anonymous No.23729332]

>>23729135
>Two more weeks

[Anonymous No.23729338]

>>23729135
science being overrun by leftists

[Anonymous No.23729436]

>>23729338
Science is so arrogant because of its alliance with government (=the left).

https://www.unqualified-reservations.org/2009/01/gentle-introduction-to-unqualified_22/

Maybe instead of inventing COVID they could work on making progress in basic science after like 1960

[Anonymous No.23729442]

>>23729135
>encroachment by modern science?
are you under the impression that science has discovered anything since your parents were born?

[Anonymous No.23729543]

>>23729135
science has always been an appendage to the body of philosophy. It exists solely because we let it

[Anonymous No.23729628]

>>23729214
Only one of the issues I listed has anything whatsoever to do with free will. And guess what, even if we live in a deterministic universe (which has not been proven), that still doesn't prove hard determinism (compatibilism could still be true). Physical determinism is irrelevant to ethics, political philosophy, aesthetics, philosophy of mind, epistemology, logic, phenomenology or basically anything else.

[Anonymous No.23729674]

The study and a sage
An ancient brazen luminaire
Just a bat flap from answers they want to hear
They're evident
To every cynic eminent

Movement around the sun
All in eternal time
The heaven's fires turned to light
The moon that governs birth and then decay
The principle decreed
By laws you think you will conceive
And then some accident
To throw it all in place!?

[Anonymous No.23729681]

>>23729135
>quantum mechanics
Don't worry about it. It's all literally made up for the sake of getting government grants.

[Anonymous No.23730604]

>>23729135
Quantum mechanics are the blackpill of the scientific community. They have all been mindbroken by it. It proves Kantian Idealism more than anything.

[Anonymous No.23730611]

>>23730604
How?

[Anonymous No.23731829]

>>23729149
Science is also subjective as well if it’s supposed to be real science

[Anonymous No.23731837]

>>23731829
>Science is also subjective
Not really. The whole point is to construct experiments that are reproducible by others.

[Anonymous No.23731840]

>>23729151
Science is an ideology at this point, which means no one should take it seriously.

[Anonymous No.23731893]

>>23729135
>Especially the latest advances in quantum mechanics
Such as?

[Anonymous No.23731902]

>>23729135
i deny all science

[Anonymous No.23731906]

>>23731840
this is an example of a casualty of information warfare. poor kid got owned by ruskies

[Anonymous No.23731924]

>>23729214
That would imply that both science and philosophy are to be held as beliefs and not as a process

[Anonymous No.23731931]

>>23731837
And that’s what it mostly fails at

>>23731906
I’m not a kid, I’m 42
>inb4 Dunning-Kruger
Dunning-Kruger is a political tool at this point.

[Anonymous No.23731935]

>>23731931
>And that’s what it mostly fails at
Then the process works and has filtered out unsound and unreproducible results. By contrast, no such filter exists for philosophers.

[Anonymous No.23731941]

>>23731931
no, don’t assume anything. it’s exactly as i first said
you’re a demoralized contrarian dumbfuck

[Anonymous No.23731944]

>>23731924
Not at all actually.

[Anonymous No.23731948]

>>23729211
Yup

[Anonymous No.23731950]

>>23731935
>>23731941
>>23731944
My job is done here. Bravo.

[Anonymous No.23731954]

Philosophy is worthless.

[Anonymous No.23731960]

>>23731950
>gets btfo
>leaves thread
Don't let the door hit you on the way out.

[Anonymous No.23731969]

>>23731950
>he replies, online, on the device provided by god himself

[Anonymous No.23731970]

What philosophical framework leads you to this conclusion? Does it actually surprise you that if you strictly work from a set of axioms your work will reinforce your belief in those axioms?

[Anonymous No.23731972]

>>23729135
>encroachment by modern science
Not a thing
> Especially the latest advances in quantum mechanics seem to BTFO us more every passing day.
Goyim news
>frog.jpg
Kill yourself

[Anonymous No.23731979]

>>23731970
What are your axioms?

[Anonymous No.23731983]

>>23731970
>Does it actually surprise you that if you strictly work from a set of axioms your work will reinforce your belief in those axioms?
What philosophical framework leads you to this conclusion?

[Anonymous No.23731984]

>>23731970
It's a scientific framework, not a philosophical framework. For all your hatred towards us, you sure do love to claim our ideas for yourselves. Is that because you have none to show?

[Anonymous No.23731987]

>>23731984
>It's a scientific framework, not a philosophical framework.
>epistomology is not philosophy
Brainlet sciencet

[Anonymous No.23731994]

>>23731983
Among others the relatively unjustified idea that I can derive some kind of truth from logic as conceived by the Greeks.
>>23731984
How did you come up with this scientific framework based on nothing but the framework itself? How does that historically happen and why isn't that circular logic?
How can anyone be this mindless?

[Anonymous No.23731995]

>>23731987
>>23731994
Lol, you really just mixed up epistemology with the scientific method? That’s like confusing a recipe for cake with the taste test. One’s about understanding how we know things, and the other’s just the process of testing if something works. Keep up!

[Anonymous No.23732004]

>>23731995
>testing if something works
According to what metrics and how did you derive those metrics from the framework you're using the metrics on?

[Anonymous No.23732005]

>>23731994
>Among others the relatively unjustified idea that I can derive some kind of truth from logic as conceived by the Greeks.
Kek so you're a brainlet too, why are you arguing with others if you are unjustified in your own beliefs? You can't possibly know what's right so you're just a retard who can't teach anyone anything. By your own admission.

[Anonymous No.23732011]

>>23732004
You're asking for metrics on something that's about understanding how we even get to those metrics in the first place. It's like asking for a ruler to measure the concept of measurement. This is honestly getting embarrassing for you at this point.

[Anonymous No.23732016]

>>23731995
>>23732011
underage

[Anonymous No.23732018]

>>23732005
Given that we both accept the axioms and logic we can explore the logic that follows. It may be useful in a given context but that context is philosophical even if we only base it on wanting to survive.
You don't grasp the simplest form of logic, it's completely beyond you. All you know is conditioning, all you can do is trigger automatic reactions like an AI.

[Anonymous No.23732027]

>>23732016
I am a postdoctoral researcher at Berkley. You are a clown.

[Anonymous No.23732029]

>>23732018
>Given that we both accept the axioms and logic
There are many types of logic brainlet and no one here said they accept aristotelian logic. Idiot.
>You don't grasp the simplest form of logic, it's completely beyond you. All you know is conditioning, all you can do is trigger automatic reactions like an AI.
HAHAHA the crybaby is already having a breakdown because he got BTFO

[Anonymous No.23732033]

>>23729681
you mean string theory?

[Anonymous No.23732043]

>>23732029
Yes, it make me angry when people refuse to accept my logic. Honestly, that's all I have for myself. It's sad actually.

[Anonymous No.23732044]

>>23732011
>It's like asking for a ruler to measure the concept of measurement.
Yes. What do you base the concept of measurement on retard? You believe refusing to even think about your fundamental assumptions serves the search for truth? You're promoting religious dogma not science, which is rooted in philosophy.
>>23732027
Again every post you make is only revealing that you don't grasp absolutely basic logic. This post is so predictably braindead that it has a name.

[Anonymous No.23732053]

>>23732033
Bohemian Mechanics most likely. Evidence as recent as 2022 supports this theory. It puts an end to philosophical debates, just like Godel put an end to epistemology.

[Anonymous No.23732055]

>>23732029
>no one here said they accept aristotelian logic
If you do science you're working based on the assumption that this form of logic can reveal truth about the world.

[Anonymous No.23732058]

>Bohemian Mechanics most likely. Evidence as recent as 2022 supports this theory. It puts an end to philosophical debates, just like Godel put an end to epistemology.

[Anonymous No.23732063]

could someone give me a good example of the necessity of metaphysics? like a concept where the abstract foundation is necessary

[Anonymous No.23732064]

>>23732055
>the brainlet can't even follow a 4channel conversation

[Anonymous No.23732080]

>>23732044
>What do you base the concept of measurement on retard?
Measurement isn't arbitrary; it's grounded in the spacetime plane, where we quantify distances, time, and other physical properties in a consistent and reproducible way. This isn’t just some philosophical exercise, it's how we explore and understand the universe. The tools of measurement let us map out reality itself, from the smallest particles to the stretches of space.
>>23732058
Gonna piss your pants?

[Anonymous No.23732084]

>>23730611
proves that reality is shaped by observation.

[Anonymous No.23732087]

>>23732080
You make scientists look bad bro, people can't tell you're stupid.

[Anonymous No.23732096]

>>23732055
? Aristotelian logic is just a set of common sense English class observations about arguments. It's not true in the sense that mathematical logic (baaaasically computer programming) is

what does this have to do with the foundations of science?

[Anonymous No.23732102]

>>23732096
Stop confusing him, he can't take 2 conversation at the same time

[Anonymous No.23732107]

>>23729135
Actually, progress in quantum theory and the application of information theory across the sciences, particularly pancomputationalism in physics, is sort of a great vindication of the assumptions of classical metaphysics, key Patristic ideas, and Thomism. Certainly they need to be modified, but some neo-Thomists have pretty compelling updates and rely heavily on new progress in the sciences.

I think the complexity studies/information shift will one day be seen as a paradigm shift as big as quantum mechanics and relativity. It allows for a tremendous amount of unification across fields, including the natural and social sciences, and really cuts the legs out of "building block" or corpuscular ontologies.

The relationality at work at it is right at home in classical metaphysics, the only thing that really is not fitting is the analogia entis and a rejection of the univocity of being, but this certainly could come back around.

At the very least, as the Boomers die out, so does the whole "anti-metaphysical movement," which was itself just an attempt to dogmatically enshrine a very particular sort of metaphysics. We are looking at sort of an "ontological turn." The new generation of physicists is a lot more interested in this sort of stuff.

[Anonymous No.23732117]

>>23732107
>The new generation of physicists is a lot more interested in this sort of stuff.
Forgot whose observation it was (Feyerabend?) that boomer physicists were barbarians and none of the appreciation of culture you saw in like Einstein, Bohr, Heisinger

[Anonymous No.23732126]

>>23732107
Maybe. There is certainly a lot to be said for classical metaphysics and the way phenomenology is "baked in" from the begining and how well it can work with science. The whole avoiding subject/object dualism thing seems important, and avoiding deflation vis-á-vis truth (which basically leads to anti-realism if not nihilism).

Still, I think it will be very hard for the mainstream to accept it because it has a strong association with Christianity. Even guys who avoid God talk and do a lot with contemporary science like Sokolowski get written off on account of being priests.

Although, funny enough, a priest developed the Big Bang theory and it was originally attacked as "another zany religious nut arguing for creation."

[Anonymous No.23732134]

>>23732096
Anything logically consistent, any model, math or idea works the way I described. Given a set of axioms we explore what follows. You believe your axioms are holy dogma, that's religious zealotry not science.
>>23732080
>distances, time, and other physical properties in a consistent and reproducible way
Given a set of axioms. To start with you have to assume your senses can reveal truth about the world, that there is such a thing as truth and that these logical relationships we're describing are relevant to it. That the measurements are consistent just means your models are logically coherent.
Why are you so hostile to the idea of simply critically looking at your assumptions? That's the principle of the enlightenment and the beginning of science. You're behaving like a religious zealot not a scientist.

[Anonymous No.23732142]

>>23729135
A PRIORI SCIENCE

[Anonymous No.23732146]

>>23729135
What does "quantum" even mean? It seems like a term scientists use to say any kind of mumbo jumbo and make it seem profound. As far as I know, quantum is a quantity, what's so special about "quantities" that it merits an entire field to the study of it. The most diabolical use of the term I've heard is the idea of a "quantum" foam, how could "foam" be a quantity? "Foam" is just a retarded way of saying a medium, and a medium can't be quantized. These retards really think they'll ever find the base quantity of existence by colliding particles, if they had any rudimentary logic they'd realize that any "quantity" can be reduced ad infinitum, thus making the entire field a pointless endeavor. Base reality will never be a "quantity", when you look at in the world you don't see quantities. It's exactly why philosophy is necessary, scientists wouldn't be so retarded if they understood the debates between philosophers since time immemorial about these very topics. Any time atomism appears in history it is logically btfod for being the absurd nonsense it is.

[Anonymous No.23732159]

>>23732134
You're pointing out assumptions that are already well-understood and accounted for in science. Yes, we assume our senses can reveal truth, but those assumptions are tested and validated by the consistent, reliable results we get. If those assumptions were flawed, science would collapse under its own weight, but instead, it’s built everything from quantum mechanics to space travel. The fact that these assumptions hold up under rigorous testing is precisely what makes them relevant and reliable. So, raising these points as if they undermine science just shows a misunderstanding of how science actually works.

[Anonymous No.23732172]

>>23732142
Kant specified cause and effect as 'impure' a priori due to the requirement of experience and listed physics as being only partially a priori. At some point it is possible that Kant will be relegated to sceptic. No idea if this is something that will happen in a human lifetime.

[Anonymous No.23732177]

>>23731960
Btfo by who exactly?

>>23731969
I accept your concession

[Anonymous No.23732182]

>>23732159
>but those assumptions are tested and validated by the consistent, reliable results we get
You can't be sure your assumptions are right if you only allow measurements based on those assumptions. There are obvious phenomena staring you in the face right now that can't be accounted for by those assumptions meaning your models are absolutely, definitely not complete. If you demand to only work within a given model there's no way to falsify the model.
>The fact that these assumptions hold up under rigorous testing is precisely what makes them relevant and reliable.
Their relevance rests on your goals.
>raising these points as if they undermine science
You're an illiterate idiot. You're the one undermining science, trying to remove its foundations, literal "undermining". I'm pointing out that it rests on philosophy.

[Anonymous No.23732186]

>>23732146
I think it has to do with the behavior of light, like how it was thought to be a medium through which wave-like radiation moved, but then it was learned it also behaved like discrete particles (hence the quantum) or something like that. So even though philosophically you prove objects in space are infinitely divisible, yet we've empirically found apparent particles of light, or some shit like that idk

pic unrelated i just thought it sounded scientific philosophic

[Anonymous No.23732191]

>>23732142
Refuted by a shitpost.

Also by Plato, Aristotle, Thomas, etc. who all entertained his core presuppositions and rejected them as retarded.

[Anonymous No.23732193]

>>23729135
>Especially the latest advances in quantum mechanics seem to BTFO us more every passing day.

how so?

[Anonymous No.23732194]

>>23732182
Interesting how you didn't respond to the central point and only quoted the contextual bread of my sandwich:
>If those assumptions were flawed, science would collapse under its own weight, but instead, it’s built everything from quantum mechanics to space travel.
How about you ease up off the insults? You don't have any published papers, I do.

[Anonymous No.23732202]

>>23732193
See >>23732053

[Anonymous No.23732204]

>>23732194
>Interesting how you didn't respond
Interesting how braindead, illiterate and unscientific someone can actually get.
Their relevance rests on your goals. Do you not understand what that means and how it directly relates to the fact that you're a mindless religious zealot?

[Anonymous No.23732206]

>>23732194
>You don't have any published papers, I do.
Dumbest creature that ever lived btw. Not even the tiniest hint of a thought process, just conditioned platitudes and the dumbest appeals imaginable.

[Anonymous No.23732209]

>>23732159
Credit engineers for the modern world, not scientists. There has been ZERO output of anything worthwhile from the fields of quantum theory. Nothing worthwhile has been discovered from colliding particles. Engineers have a surface level of the way the world works, they know when they tinker with things a certain way certain things happen. Even if they don't understand how and why it certain things happen, via tinkering they are able to invent things. Of course, if scientists did anything worthwhile instead of trying to discover a god particle it'd be a big help to inventors who need a correct model of the way the world works instead of having to stick their hand out in the dark. Lastly, you can credit most of the modern world to tesla, not jewstein or anything that came after him.
>>23732186
Another example of what happens when you remove philosophy from science, scientists will just accept blatant contradictions like wave-particle duality, or a wave that is not a wave of anything.

[Anonymous No.23732211]

>>23732204
Actually, relevance in science isn’t just about goals but it's about the ability to consistently predict and explain phenomena. Science isn't driven by dogma but by results. If a method or assumption doesn’t work, it gets discarded. The goal is to understand and manipulate the world in ways that produce reliable outcomes, and that’s been proven across countless disciplines.

Dismissing that as ‘religious zealotry’ is just ignoring the practical successes science has achieved, from curing diseases to sending spacecraft beyond our solar system. If that’s mindless, then sign me up, because it works.

[Anonymous No.23732215]

>>23732172
>listed physics as being only partially a priori
That was the exoteric teaching. The esoteric teaching was the implicate suggestion towards THE COMPLETE A PRIORI DERIVATION OF THE SYSTEM OF PHYSICS. There is, in truth, no difference between a priori and a posteriori KNOWLEDGE, only between the pure and empirical METHODS of ATTAINING that knowledge. What empirical scientists are slowly and painfully arriving at by the hard teacher of experience, metaphysicians have known since time immemorial.

[Anonymous No.23732221]

>>23732211
>Actually
Redditor detected.
>Science isn't driven by dogma but by results
Who's gonna tell him?

[Anonymous No.23732225]

>>23732191
>t. stuck at a lower stage of the dialectic
bro we can all be friends in hegelworld

[Anonymous No.23732227]

>>23732221
>Who's gonna tell him?
That the computer he's using to post on 4chan is real and is the product of science?

[Anonymous No.23732228]

>>23732215
>combatibilitist clock tossed in garbage
>Kantian Sartreans will be right

You haven't even started an esoteric journey yet normie.

[Anonymous No.23732231]

>>23732215
I missed you schizo kantposter.

[Anonymous No.23732238]

>>23732228
shut up unawareheisnormal normie.

[Anonymous No.23732245]

>>23732227
No, that your understanding of the scientific method is incredibly naive and you need to stop watching Neil DeGrasse Tyson YouTube clips.

[Anonymous No.23732254]

>>23732245
What's naive? Go on and explain it to me like a big boy instead of posting basedjaks.

[Anonymous No.23732264]

>>23732238
The initiation rituals for this one were closed so you are stuck on the exoteric level. The uninitiated cope stench is strong on you though.

[Anonymous No.23732281]

>>23732264
>The uninitiated cope stench is strong on you though.
there is great irony here

[Anonymous No.23732287]

>>23729135
Modern science is pozzed, you retard. Even philosophy fags are still winning since they argue points instead of just saying 'the science is settled' like a bunch of cult members.

[Anonymous No.23732311]

>>23732281
Superficial jest on my part. Kantian Sartreans have always been an extremely small group, no initiations or anything like that but just a very small niche group that would be validated in such circumstances. My Sartre instantiation is probably 80% Hegel, 15% Marx, and 5% Kant based depending. I'm usually called crazy when I use the Kant derived version. OVERTURN THE SYSTEMS AND RISE UP SUBATOMIC PARTICLES TO DESTROY THE WORLD ORDER RESTORE CHAOS

[Anonymous No.23732336]

>>23732254
If you think the description of the scientific method you learned in 9th grade is the be all end all on how the scientific activity operates you're embarrassingly under-read so there's not much point trying to have a discussion with you. Start with something like pic-related and don't come back until your arguments against it aren't basic/predictable.

[Anonymous No.23732351]

>>23732336
No thanks, I think I will stick to actual scientists rather than a religious whackjob nut whose tenure was owed to his rich family.

[Anonymous No.23732467]

>>23732351
>basic/predictable
Go read.

[Anonymous No.23732483]

>>23732225
Hegel is cool, but he rejects the stupid/dogmatic presuppositions of Kant that lead him into an incoherent dualism.

[Anonymous No.23732499]

>>23732483
rejects? no
supercedes? yes

[Anonymous No.23732540]

>>23732351
Convert to Islam, my boy.
Allah is all the philosophy you need.

[Anonymous No.23733637]

>>23729135
read fathers and sons

[Anonymous No.23733651]

>>23729135
quantum mechanics seem to be adding more credence to Platonism and Buddhism than classical physics ever did, and the philosophy of science isn't at odds with science itself. There's really no war between the fields, except in the minds of respective dweebs on either side. As science evolves in its understanding of the material, philosophy evolves in its understanding of science, and they respond to one another. It's not really a dichotomy.
>>23729142
that's a good point too, quantum mechanics tells us little about ethics, beyond perhaps providing evidence for the theory of uniform interdependence. That may hold ethical implications.

[Anonymous No.23733835]

>>23729135
Philosophy and Science are the same thing, by that I mean Philosophy is a science

[Anonymous No.23733838]

>>23731837
this is not even babby's first thought about the philosophy of science. it seems like you're still at NPC level thought.