/sci/ - Science & Math

>>7135505
I never understood how philosophers can be that delusional to presume they somehow had a monopoly on thinking. As if nobody else ever used their own brains. Philosophers constantly talk about other fields they never formally studied and then pretend their dilettantish and primitive ideas based on shallow and incomplete pop sci understandings would somehow be better and more qualified than the expertise of active researchers. Philosophers actually made themselves believe the ideas they produce (which any child could have produced just as well) would be novel and deep insights never thought before. It's actually quite pathetic. I mean when a normal 4 or 5 year old "explains" the world to its parents, then that's cute, but when a grown-up man still mentally operates on the same infantile level, that's really sad.

>>6945520
>>6945642
>implying I said causality is illusory

This is the problem with fucking Phil faggots. Just because something is a derived or emergent phenomena, doesn't make it illusory.

>with the exception of the big bang

Nothing you say makes any fucking sense. Try again buddy.

>>6917496
The "ought" question becomes meaningless without free will