/sci/ - Science & Math

DUDE the Chinaman from Königsberg LMAO

>>10983191
Scientific realism vs instrumentalism

Also, welcome to the postmodern age boi

>>10983191
Well you can apply that to physics as well.
The only certainty is that you will die.
And for all you know, the Universe might stop existing after that.

>>10983191
Consider the hypothesis that the world itself is as that we experience am understanding of it.

>>10983207
Then we can't know anything but aposteriori, allowing not even a shred ofplausibility to inductive statements, instead of as we may now say that we can make inductive statements but wether they will actually be true is uncertain since all we ever can rely on is deductive reasoning and our inherent forms of thinking that only allow us to think as we have in expereince.
Hence Dogamtism.
>>10983203
Even that is a postulate for natural science. Freedom of the will, eternity of the soul and God are inherent metaphysical topics, that a natural science could never answer. Metaphysics could yield you a solution to the question of death but it wouldn't fit the qualifications of the physis and hence be ignored by msot STEMfags.

>>10983262
It's ironic because I was hell bent on science solving everything until I got to around 30 years old.
I still don't have a clue what's going on, but I have a few ideas, even though they'll only get validated when I dead, or maybe not.
This is mankind's most important question:
What the fuck is going on?

>>10983262
>not even a shred of plausibility to inductive
Unless you have actual creativity.

>>10983274
Continuing, giving it some more thought.
Let's say we solve everything in physics.
Still doesn't tell you why it's happening.
Now we're left with a nihilistic approach of the Universe randomly popped up???? and spawned us.
Or it happened for whatever reason.
Mind you we might not be the reason.
But for there to be a resolve, there's gotta be someone.

Honestly speaking, it looks like the Universe is infinite.
There's a version of me that's not shitposting at this point in their life because they decided to fetch food instead.
No need for parallel dimensions.

>how can anything be real if our eyes are mirrors?

>>10983191
Who the hell cares about "reality" or what "is". If you're asking questions you cannot answer then maybe you're asking the wrong fucking questions.

>Why even bother with natural science if all you are ever able to do is understnad the world as you can possible expereince it, not as the world in itself is?
Well, in my past experience and my experience of the experience of others, science has been able to predict future experiences fairly well.

>>10983310
>Tfw advanced science turned you theist

>>10983191
>Why even bother with natural science if all you are ever able to do is understnad the world as you can possible expereince it, not as the world in itself is?

I don’t care about that. No one does except pseuds. Science is about making working models that make accurate predictions that we can use to improve our wellbeing.

>>10983412
Doesn’t happen. Only morons believe in “God”

>>10983310
>Hur dur what caused causality to exist

Meaningless and incoherent

>>10983428
Define "God"

>>10983445
Everyone has their own imagined idea of what “God” is supposed to be, so discussing “God” is particularly useless.

>>10983428
>Things I don't associate myself with are inherently bad
>Groups I'm not already a part of are all idiots
>"You actually saw something happen? I personally wasn't there therefore it never happened.

Yep, try talking with me again once you're past highschool kid, maybe once you're actually in college for a change.

>>10983495
>Three strawmen

Got a Tin Man in there too?
Not an argument.

>>10983412
Well, that's what it is.
I wouldn't say I balieve in God now, but I take the hypothesis much more likely.

>>10983431
Yeah, you explain better.

>>10983509
Okay!

Asking what caused the universe is a meaningless and unanswerable question because it’s not caused nor could it be.

>>10983499
>Implying your own ego and worldviews were an argument in the first place
Get out and meet more people man, it will surprise you to know not everyone even within the same groups is the same, like seriously.

>>10983514
Science is meaningless, I' got you on that, so we agree.

>>10983517
>Science is meaningless

Nope.

>>10983519
Explain, then?

>>10983515
>Four strawmen

Impressive.

>>10983504
Yep, most of the pure scientists I know are more often than not agnostic, which is to say they end up open to the idea but not still completely sure of it.

>>10983521
Science: the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

If you want the meaning of a word, they’re in dictionaries

>>10983522
>Maybe if I keep saying strawmen I won't have to reason my simplistic views of people and the world.

>>10983531
Yeah, that doesn't explain shit.
You can still looking.
In the end, you know it couldn't just start from nothing.
>>10983524
I was agnostic. But now I'm agnostic with a bias toward some God existing, no matter how much I hate it.

>>10983533
>Five strawmen

How high will he go?

Don’t misrepresent people. It’s pathetic.

>>10983538
>Yeah, that doesn't explain shit.

Yes it does.

>In the end, you know it couldn't just start from nothing.

Nice assertion with zero evidence.

>But now I'm agnostic with a bias toward some God existing, no matter how much I hate it.

So you got stupider? Where’s your evidence of “god”?

>>10983547
>Yes it does.
OK. That's some denial of critical thought right there, but here you go.
Think back about this in 10 years, I was you 10 years ago.

>>10983425
based and wellbeing pilled

>>10983537
Don't worry, I understand feeling the need to protect an exposed ego, I'm sure you'll grow out such a defensive attitude one day. Have a good day.

>>10983555
You asked what the word “science” meant and you got the definition. Go schizo ramble somewhere else.

>>10983562
>Strawman #6 enters the field

>>10983570
Yeah, you read what you wanted.
Science doesn't explain, it just describes.

>>10983575
Wrong. It does both.

>>10983580
No, it doesn't explain at all.
It will come to you eventually.

>>10983572

>>10983584
>No, it doesn't explain at all.

Wrong.
Explain: make (an idea, situation, or problem) clear to someone by describing it in more detail or revealing relevant facts or ideas.

to make known

to make plain or understandable

to give the reason for or cause of

to show the logical development or relationships of

to make something plain or understandable

Go schizo ramble somewhere else.

>>10983587
Fucking toddlers.
I could ban you for underage posting.

>>10983603
Not an argument.

>>10983613
One day, you'll think back about this and realize how retarded you were, Kevin.
I'm not saying there's definitely a God.
I'm saying things don't pop up of a vacuum.

#ImWithOP

>>10983667
>I'm saying things don't pop up of a vacuum.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_fluctuation

You have a very poor understanding of Cosmic inflation if you think it involves the universe “popping up in a vacuum”.

>>10983700
Yeah, keep evading the Elephant in the room.

>>10983702
What do you think the “elephant in the room” is and how am I evading it?
It’d be ironic if you evade this question.

>>10983191
>if all you are ever able to do is understnad the world as you can possible expereince it, not as the world in itself is?
Who cares? Natural science still helps us develop technologies thaf improves our lives.
Sciences isn't about finding "what really is" it's just just about modeling reality in a way that is useful to us.

>>10983711
>>10983400
>>10983425
Are you guys jsut pretending to be retarded or do you seriously not understand that it is necessary to understand something to then make it work. Yes, science has made great progress and it has brought greater comfort but the inherent limitations we have that restrict our possible knowledge of things can never be overcome.
So you saying we understanding things sorta fine to make progress and that is what I stick to: The fact we make progress. But that is exactly the thing that can never be achieved to its fullest.
This realization ought to be detrimental to any hopes of great endeavour to any scientist, especially the natural science ones.
Stop being so dense, this isn't even a anti STEMfag LARP, but a necessary appeal to any STEMfag on his limitations.

>>10983987
>Yes, science has made great progress and it has brought greater comfort but the inherent limitations we have that restrict our possible knowledge of things can never be overcome.

Don’t care at all. We’ll hit whatever ceiling that exists at some point in the indefinite future. Still worth achieving since it’ll improve our wellbeing.

>But that is exactly the thing that can never be achieved to its fullest.

Don’t care at all. We’ll hit whatever ceiling that exists at some point in the indefinite future. Still worth achieving since it’ll improve our wellbeing.

>This realization ought to be detrimental to any hopes of great endeavour to any scientist, especially the natural science ones.

Nope. We have no idea what the limits to our possible achievements are, and you don’t either, so sit down and wait to reap the benefits of the “great endeavors” of “natural scientists” like the existence of the Internet, vibrators, music concerts, and not dying of Polio. You’ll have plenty of time to daydream about pedantic shit.

>>10983274

I had an epiphany during college at one point and its stuck with me ever since. Science describes nature, but even if we figured everything out, we would still not have any answer to what matter and energy actually IS, we woyld sinply understand how it interacts with itself. The most powerful computers on the world spend minutes trying to simulate a few particles. Meanwhile, unfathomable number's od actual particles are all interqcting with each other simultaneously. Come to think of it, the suggestion that wr kive in a simulation is simply absurd. What computer coukd have enough power to simululate an entire universel in real time ? It isnt even possible. The simulation would simply have to BE its own universe... not really a simulation at all.

I used to think that the universe was made of mathematics and models. Butnit turns out that math and physics are useful for predictions and understanding, but theyre fuck all compared to the real thing. Real energy interacting in real time. What the fuck is it??? What is this shit?

>>10984030
Who fucking cares?!

>>10984034
someone who would like to seek the truth of knowledge aka a scientist

>>10984034

If you had more than half a brain you would see the relevance. Abject nihilism is easier when you think the universe is nothing but numbers and equations. But once you realize that can't possibly be true, that the universe doesnt run on equations because there is nothing making any calculations, suddenly the universe becomes mysterious again and pure nihilism is no longer as attractive.

Faggot.

>>10984065
>someone who would like to seek the truth of knowledge aka a scientist

That’s not what scientists are. Science deals only with making working models that make predictions based on observations. What is “actually the case” is simply irrelevant. You may as well navel-gaze.

>>10984096
>scientia - knowledge
who the fuck unironically falls for the positivst terms

>>10984069
>Abject nihilism is easier when you think the universe is nothing but numbers and equations.

I don’t lol try again

>Faggot.

:)

>>10984101
That’s what science is. Not my problem if you don’t like it.

I don’t care what is “actually the case”. It does not matter to me in any way whatsoever.

>>10984106
you are so dense it is not even funny.

>>10983987
I hate philosophy niggers so goddamn much. Do one (1) useful thing.

>>10984111
Cool.

You done now?

>>10983987
>do you seriously not understand that it is necessary to understand something to then make it work
Not really. An engineer can use Newton's laws (which are literally, absolutely /not/ true representations of the world) to get a vehicle on the moon's surface.

>>10983987
>it is necessary to understand something to then make it work

this is historically untrue. nobody knew shit about thermo or electromagnetism before the first engines/motors were made. nigga's literally just trying shit out to see what works.

>>10984112
>Do one (1) useful thing.
You mean like lay down the foundation for all pleb sciences and be hundreds years ahead of every other discipline even if all found from an ivory tower?
np.
>>10984118
>An engineer can use Newton's laws
oh no nono no
Mentioning Newton in a Kant thread.
Kant SAVED Newton from the sceptic replies to his work.

>>10984139
I don't understand what you're trying to say. Perhaps you could work on your communication skills, I know you philobitches are really only good at hyper-verbose spiel.
My point stands that you don't "need to understand everything about something to make it work." Hence, I don't really care that we will never know "what truly is." Natural science is still worthwhile.

>>10983191
>reality is the """true world"""
>subjective perception is """not fully true"""
reality can only be experienced through subjective perception, if you think that reality itself has no meaningful relationship with perception of reality, you might just be retarded.

>>10984146
Imagine two things that have the same predicates and the way they interact with other things are exactly the same, so to us they are the same things, BUT if this identity only relies on the fact we do not see the predicates of the things that distinguish them we do not understand them and are prone to make mistakes.
This is entirely possible by the fact we can only perceive, and more importantly to you numbnuts, think in certain ways that do not have to exhaust the predicates of the things themselves.
This is detrimental.

>>10984161
>we do not understand them and are prone to make mistakes
For example?
>This is detrimental.
Why?

>>10984139
>You mean like lay down the foundation for all pleb sciences

Congrats, philosophers who lived centuries and millennia ago, for laying the groundwork for a vastly more useful thing. That’s so relevant to modern philosophy!

>and be hundreds years ahead of every other discipline even if all found from an ivory tower?

lol
How is philosophy “hundreds of years ahead of every other discipline”? What does “being hundreds of years ahead” even mean when said “””discipline””” doesn’t actually do anything?

>oh no nono no
Mentioning Newton in a Kant thread.
Kant SAVED Newton from the sceptic replies to his work.

Hilarious how you failed to address what he actually said

>>10984148
There are subjective elements but there are necessary objective elements true to any expereience. These are the things that make up "natural laws" BUT since they are necessary for us to think at all we can not attribute them to the things themselves.
>>10984165
>For example?
Stop playing dumb, uncertainty becoming a main parcel of modern physics proves this.
>Why?
soulless swine, you are, huh?

>>10984171
do you retards seriously need a scepticism 101 lesson?
Modern philosophy of science is full of "based" natural scientists coming to the realization of the limitations of their work which had been laid out hundreds of years prior by men like Hume and Kant.
Jsut read on people like Van Fraasen and David Armstrong and any other vein of realism, natural scientist claim to be.

>>10984174
>uncertainty becoming a main parcel of modern physics proves this
...wait, what? Uncertainty is a fundamental, unavoidable part of quantum mechanics. It isn't a "mistake"
>le ad hom
I asked an earnest question. Defend your argument, fag.

>>10984185
>Uncertainty is a fundamental, unavoidable part of quantum mechanics. It isn't a "mistake"
why are you repeating what I have said as if it is something different?
I don't know what else to do but to repeat this again.
We don't understand the things in themselves due to our limitations in thinking and this leads to restriction in pragmatic knowledge such as the example you jsut gave as a refutation to the same example I had jsut given.

>>10984174
>There are necessary objective elements true to any expereience.
For example? Remember you must show that what you're presenting is PURELY and NECESSARILY OBJECTIVE.

Have fun.

>>10984183
That’s great, and completely irrelevant to anything I said.

Science has limits. We have limits

Who cares?

>>10984193
>We don't understand the things in themselves due to our limitations in thinking
I disagree. We don't understand things in themselves because asking "Okay but why?" is always, /always/ going to be a possibility if you are studying the physical world. The ultimate, most fundamental description of reality doesn't exist. But that isn't our fault. I don't know how uncertainty has anything to do with this. Perhaps you don't know what uncertainty is.