/sci/ - Science & Math

That's philosophy bro

Too bad that is an awful lot to just agree upon on a whim.

I would reject the idea that all consciousness experienced by "individuals" is the same, much less that it is just one consciousness manifest in many instances.

>>2339673
>If we agree that consciousness is a phenomena in which the universe experiences itsself
ok
>What I mean is that individuality may be an illusion.

I don't follow.

>>2339678
so you're saying your consciousness is god-like and everyone else falls beneath?

Consciousness is one of the things matter can do. That doesn't mean there's one consciousness any more than there's one ice or one supernova or one tectonic process on millions of worlds.

You're just invested in your own incidence because it's you, and are looking for reasons why you won't just flicker out. The universe doesn't give any such guarantee.

Is this that idea that consciousness isn't generated by the body, but received or something?

I remember reading about that somewhere.

Oh, this I think.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orch-OR

>>2339673

If we agree that "printed pdf's" is a phenomena in which a "ebook" expresses itsself, that my printout is no different than your printout, and that the ebook will continue to exist after we die, then reincarnation must be true.

Nice try but, fault logic is faulty. You really need to quantitatevly define "reincarnation" in order to talk about it in a serious scientific or philosophical manner. SO PLEASE DEFINE IT NIGGER!

>>2339673
Assumptions you make:
1) consciousness is a phenomena in which the universe experiences itsself
2) my consciousness is no different than your consciousness
3) the universe will continue to exist after we die

What you supposedly implied
4) reincarnation must be true

Sorry, but 4 cannot be implied from 1, 2, and 3, without more infomation. You need to quantify your shit. You cannot logic out ill-defined properties, like that.

Things you need to do in a quantitative manner:
5) Define consciousness

6) Define reincarnation

>>2339791
reincarnation not in a spiritual sense,but in a sense that if the universe can experience itsself
through you then its logical to assume it will do it again after you die. what's faulty about that logic?

>>2339673
Also, the disproof of your shitty logic.

The universe existed before humans existed, therefore the universe can exist without consciousness in it. Hence, you don't need the "constant supply of consciousness" that your shitty train of thought is based on.

>>2339827
consciousness - the universe experiencing ittself
reincarnation - the universe experiencing ittself time after time

so from this we can see that consciousness is not a property of the individual but rather a continuous phenomena. hence individuaity = illusion.

>>2339849
Implying that I implied the universe "needs" consciousness. I never made such implicatory implication sah!

>that my consciousness is no different than your consciousness

I would say that my consciousness is different than yours, more different than a human being which lived 300k years age, and much more different than some of my ancestors who lived 1 million years ago. It is also more different than a dolphin`s consciousness. So what exactly led you to arrive at this conclusion?

>then reincarnation must be true
Even if the previous statements were true, I don`t see how this conclusion is related to them.

What I think is a more probable way of reincarnation would be the possible ability of future technology to examine dead brains and somehow retrieve memories and other characteristics of a person`s consciousness. Or also, but this is more far stretched, if there will be a point in time where technology will be capable of differentiate between atoms, than maybe it would be possible to track every atom to a brain, then collect all the atoms and form the brain, but then I imagine it would be needed to track the atoms in time...

The energy of my brain composes my consciousness.
The energy of my brain will disperse after my death.
Some of the energy from my brain will be part another conscious organism.

It's not "reincarnation" really, but it's an interesting thought.

What are non-materialists doing on my /sci/.

>>2339673
> If we agree that consciousness is a phenomena in which the universe experiences itsself, that my consciousness is no different than your consciousness, and that the universe will continue to exist after we die,
Okay, I'll assume all that for sake of argument.
> then reincarnation must be true.
No.
> Not in a sense that we somehow have a soul that will enter into another body through some kind of phantasmagorical plane of existence like heaven or some shit.
Oh?
> What I mean is that individuality may be an illusion.
No. individuality is caused by the physical separation and non-communication of thinking matter through time and space. The left side of your brain is connected to the right side of your brain, and also flows from the thoughts you were having a few seconds ago into the thoughts you have a few seconds from now. The communication of your brain is confined to that region the neurons can reach and the time its signals can propagate through. That division of space is not an illusion. If we somehow grafted someone else's brain onto yours so they could communicate, you'd end up the same person after a little bit.

>>2339673

reincarnation can easily be true, all the universe has to do to reincarnate you is recreate the neural structures that gave rise to your consciousness

it did it once

given enough time, big bangs and crunches, it will inevitably do it again.

furthermore, the time between your death now and reincarnation will be 0, since you lose time perception when you die, so death is nothing, hopefully the universe recreates your consciousness in a good setting

>>2339941

>>2339932
> If we somehow grafted someone else's brain onto yours so they could communicate, you'd end up the same person after a little bit.

That would feel weird.

>>2339941
Will the new you be aware of the old you?
If no, what is the connection between the new you and old you?

>given enough time, big bangs and crunches, it will inevitably do it again

What are the basis of this conclusion?

>>2339913
but you admit they did have a consciousness, therefore it is still the same phenomena of the universe experiencing itsself.

>>2339928
implying there's such thing as a non-materialist. fail.

>>2339849
Ok, then. So everyone fucking dies (all humans)., implying there is no reincarnation?

Seriously, your train of thought is almost fucking laughable. How he fuck do you get to your conclusion? It doens't logically follow from your assumptions. You are basically just making up bullshit. Please review basic logic, or explain your train of thought.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic

>>2340026
The existence of consciousness doesn`t imply any similarity between different states of consciousness, so your statement still doesn`t make sense

> that my consciousness is no different than your consciousness

>>2340100
Even if it does imply so, would you say OP, that right now there are billions of reincarnations of you on this planet?

I've read that some scientists believe our consciousness could potentially continue to exist at the quantum level due to entanglement and what not.

Oh, heres a video about it I think.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OEpUIcOodnM

>>2339673
Stop trying to make conclusions about the real world from pure logic. We use observation and experimentation for that. Has more than 2000 years of philosophical non-sense taught you nothing!
empiricism > rationalism

>>2340457
>Implying OP's statement was logically correct

Looks like you need to study up on logic too bro.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic

Maybe you and OP can study together

>>2340498
I never said his statement was logically correct, but even if it was it is a flawed method for making conclusions about the world.
GD you are a moron, BTW.

>>2340521
You are a funny little guy.

>>2340457
This. There are multiple logically valid yet contradictory systems of geometry. We shouldn't assume that something that is logically valid is observationally true. The triumph of positivism over rationalism is one of the most important ideological changes in history. For more about this see episode 7 of Carl Sagan's Cosmos series.

>>2340575
>Watches the Cosmos

That is so cute.
It seems you don't understand the the idea of an "axiom" in mathematics, or the "range of validity" for scientific theories. Nor do you have a grasp of second order logic.

Those forms of geometry you metion are all valid, they all work, and they all assume different axioms. We have observed examples of each. They are all true, in there range of validity. When you take into account your range of validity in your logic (second order logic), you avoid the contradictions you mention.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second-order_logic

The is no flaw in logically trying to prove somthing, from a more fundmental set of rules. Logic is the standard, and there really is nothing that even comes close to it predictive power.

here's a better version of the OP pic if anyone wanted it.

>>2340657
If you can prove somthing is logically true, it is automatically scientifically true. That is just the way we constructed the proof system in science. The science "operating system" was written in the language of "logic".

>>2339673

>If we agree that consciousness is a phenomena
>a phenomena
>phenomena
>singular

mfw

Are you guys talking about dualism? You guys better not be talking about dualism.

>>2340657
There is a flaw in assuming that logical conclusions drawn from "self evident" axioms apply to the real world without testing them against experiment, which I think is all that anon was trying to say.

I'm not even sure how you can say that a system of geometry that asserts Euclid's fifth postulate and one that denies it can both be true at the same time. (A^~A) cannot be true. You sound self-taught.

Uniqueness is an illusion though, right?
Not to say we're all the same consciousness or anything though. That's at best a "practical postulate" for those who think the veil of ignorance is a useful moral principle (and even then it has problems, "do I think this is fair even when I don't know which of the people involved I am" is different to "do I think this is fair even when I'm going to be all of the people involved")

>>2340715
Sorry, by that I mean the idea that any electron is different to any other, that there's an electron 1 and electron 2 and electron 3 .... and electron 3.33*10^81 actually having independent existance

>>2340697

Maybe.

U MAD?

>>2340704

You reasoning is pretty bad. Its like saying that Since a girl =! boy, only one must be true. Hence, any system is either all boys or all girls (or none of both). So, I can never have a system of boys and girls...LMAO. The problem, is your not using "quantifiers" to distinguish shit.

Place a sphere in a 3D Euclidean space. The system as a whole two types of geometries. Logically both geometries exist in my system. All you need to do is use quantifiers (and second order logic) to apply the geomerties to the differnet objects, and maintain a logically consistant system.

>There is a flaw in assuming that logical conclusions drawn from "self evident" axioms

No shit. If that is what OP means he worded it horribly. Logic is the "process" associated with getting from the "self-evident" axiom, to futher results. This "process" is logic, not the "orginal axioms"...LMAO. Science by defintion uses this process, hence scientifc reasoing is "written" in logic. The "axioms in science" must be experimetally verified/observed.

You can assume "axioms" though and see would would logically follow. This is what is called a thought experiment, and actually helps greatly in science. You can use this method to dispove shit, elaborate on an idea, or even disprove or prove an "assumed axiom".

>>2340740
>quantifiers and domains

fixed

>>2340735
You are damn right I'm mad if you guys are dualists. It's an affront to science. It's nothing short of saying thought is caused by wizards.

>>2340761
OP has shitty logic, it isn't even right. Even if his assumptions were correct, his process is shit, so all his statements are akin to bullshit.

>>2340766
I don't care what the OP said or what anyone in this thread has said. What I DO care about is whether or not scum sucking dualists are penetrating my /sci/... If a post implies dualism then I suppose I would care, but you get what I mean.

>>2339673
OP logic is akin to:

Assume Bears, Lions, and Flying Pigs exist, therefore fish must exist.

Bad Assumptions + Bad reasoning/logic = complete bullshit

>>2340768
Did you just learn the word Dualist or somthing?
You mean phil Dualism right?

FYI: All the religious threads are essentially Dualism. /sci/ is usually full of religious thread.

>>2340768

> Implying that there couldn't possibly be a separation of body and mind.
> Implying that humans know everything about existence.

Lol humans, thinking they know every fucking thing.

>>2340775
>No proof of anything other then our physical reality

>Makes up random nonsense and believe it must be true

>Thinks magic exist


Religious fags are always so fuckin funny. Anymore jokes bro?

>>2340775
>implying the best explanation is magic
The idea that consciousness is a magical cloud, floating around in some ethreal realm, and pulling the strings to some indiscoverable region of the brain where physics doesn't apply is fucking retarded and you know it!

Non-materialism amounts to screaming "there is no explanation!" and then burying your head in the sand. Assuming everything is explainable necessitates materialism and is the only practical view point.

>>2340781
>thinks there's proof of physical reality

>>2340740
The spherical model that people use to explain Riemannian geometry in terms of euclidean geometry is just a model, not an example showing that both euclidean geometry and non-euclidean geometry can be truthfully describe the same system at the same time. If statement A is Euclid's fifth postulate then "A " and "not A" cannot both be true, this goes for any statement, Yes, three different and equally valid geometries can be constructed from three contradictory axioms, namely that through a given point there is only one line parallel to a given line (Euclid), through a given point there are at least two lines parallel to a given line (Lobachevsky), or through a given point there no lines parallel to a given line (Riemann). But we cannot say that each of can truthfully describe the same system at the same time. If our system in question is the real world then we must test them against experience before we can assert their scientific, as oppose to their logical, validity.

I think we might not be in disagreement, but you are not only very poor at reading, but even worse at expressing yourself and arrogant to boot!

>>2340781

> Thinks that because we haven't found proof, it can never exist or never be found.

> Implying that things we may not currently understand are magic.

I know one thing. And that is that I know nothing.

>>2340792
Way to kill a debate, bro.

>>2340792
>doesn't know what belief in the non-physical necessitates
Have fun with your head in the sand. There is not a single possible instance when magic should be used for an explanation. Not a single fucking instance.

>my consciousness is no different than your consciousness

What are you smoking? My consciousness is a different set of atoms than your consciousness, so they are obviously different.

>>2340807
see
>>2340810
... not a single fucking instance.

>>2340807
If we discover something else, we revise our theories. Science doesn't get done by sitting on your ass saying "Dunno, guess we can't know," and it doesn't get done by saying "It is definitely done THIS way, no need to test it."

One should say "There is substantial evidence that makes it appear that it's this way, and given what we know now it's unlikely this view will change for a while. Let's work on something else for now, and if new data comes up we'll revisit our theories."

>>2340810

Have fun thinking you know everything about the universe, when in about 60 or so years from now everything we claim to know will probably be laughed at.

Also, I've been trolling you this whole time.

>>2340824
>spout retarded shit
>get called out for going full retard
>claim to be trolling

Is there any reason to label me and you as different consciousnesses, but me and me five years from now as the same consciousness?

>>2340826

When I started this with U MAD, it should have been apparent, son. :D

>One should say "There is substantial evidence that makes it appear that it's this way, and given what we know now it's unlikely this view will change for a while. Let's work on something else for now, and if new data comes up we'll revisit our theories."

^^^^

>>2340831
>>2340824
Fuck off kid. We don't mess around when it comes to dualism here on /sci/.

>>2340839
What about Bohmian mechanics?

>>2340839

WHY U MAD THO

>>2340840
What about it?

>>2340848
It postulates that the universe is made up of two kinds of things: a state vector and beables.

What is it about in particular about substance dualism that makes you rage?

What if I declared that beables guided the evolution of qualia in much the same way the state vector guides the beables?

What of beables that were themselves qualia?

What is necessary to induce rage?

>>2340808
>>2340808
Anyone know the author(s) behind this? I wanna read more.

>>2340856
It doesn't sound like you are talking about the dualism between body and mind.

Universal Concervation?

sure, if that's what gets you hard.

>>2340798
You actually missed the whole fucking point and then you try and disprove somthing else....lol. The problem is you have no knowledge of formal mathematical logic. You are just assuming some very very shitty "common" defintion, that is wrong/incomplete.

Here are some links to help you:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axioms
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_logic
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_geometry
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantifier#Logic
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domain_of_discourse

>>2340872
SMBC

>>2340856
Dualism is inherently a belief in the immaterial. The immaterial is by definition beyond explanation. The only practical assumption about what is physical and non-physical is that everything is physical because assuming anything is non-physical precludes discovery, ie useless. Therefore dualism is a useless position. It equates to sticking one's head in the sand.

>>2340798
I will try and explain again, more simply:
You can apply different axioms (that contradict eachother) to the same system, as long as you specify what "domain" (part) of the system I am going to apply them to. Formally this is done with the use of "quantifies".

So, the same systems can have different "domains" with different axioms/properties. Make sense?

It seems for some shitty reason you keep assuming a system, has to be "uniform" in some sense. It DOES NOT HAVE TO BE UNIFORM! In reality and mathematically/logically, I perfectly capable of talking about a "mixed system", which is still just reffered to as a single "system". (Since you choose the definition of your system.....DURRR)

Basic Example:
I define my system as the Earth
My logical statments:
The Earth is blue and green. The ocean is blue, and the land is green. The earth is made up of the Land and Ocean.

Even though Blue doesn't Equal Green, my logic is not contradictory.

>>2340878
If the exact time at which a radioactive atom decays can't be explained, does that make modern quantum mechanics useless?

Hey. This is science and mathematics, not philosophy and faffing. If your thing can be covered entirely by sitting in an armchair and stroking your chin thoughtfully, it doesn't belong here.

>>2340887
Does that include science-related philosophy such as epistemology and physical ontology?

>>2340891
Neither one of those is a science or particularly science-related.

>>2340885
>If the exact time at which a radioactive atom decays can't be explained, does that make modern quantum mechanics useless?

Nope. as Quantum Mechanics still provides a "range of times". Things don't have to be exact, they just need to be better then making up bullshit. The more "exact"/"accurate" the theory the more usefully. Quantum Electrodynamics (how you would really explain the decay) is one of the most usefull/accurate theories ever constructed.

If a theory is able to produce information that is more accurate then randomly fucking guessing, the theory is useful.

If a theory is not able to produce infomation that is more accurate then just random fucking guessing, the theory is useless.

>>2340899
Social science.

>>2340887
>If your thing can be covered entirely by sitting in an armchair and stroking your chin thoughtfully, it doesn't belong here.

That's how I do most of my science. I lready got that shit memorized. I just think about it. U jelly?

>>2340904
Right, so, not science, gotcha.
>>2340907
No, I not jelly.

>>2339941
The problem I have with your idea is the implication that you have some unique form of consciousness inherent to your body.

>>2340902
>Quantum Mechanics still provides a "range of times".
That range being anytime between now and t=infinity. Quantum mechanics gives you a probability distribution. But who's do say we couldn't apply statistics to a large number of minds/consciousnesses/whatever even if we couldn't form explanations for their individual behavior?

> Quantum Electrodynamics (how you would really explain the decay)
is a quantum-mechanical theory, and not even the appropriate theory to explain radioactive decay.

>>2340899
So you're saying that justifying the scientific method is unrelated to science?

>>2340920
Are you comparing tools for acquiring and evaluating information to discussion of reincarnation, other planes of existence, questioning the existence of reality and general metaphysical fapping?

Consciousness is simply a method of detecting changes in the environment so that positive outcomes may come about in the organism. Its nature is in the same plane as how a flower turns towards the sun. It's an uncontrollable reflex with many complex processes simultaneously involved.

You assume that every human conscioussness is the same when obviously no brain is identical. Your assumption is therefore wrong.

Reincarnation as a serious notion can exist no more than the reusing of matter in another complex organism. This is obvious stuff that you probably knew anyway...

>>2340885
That has nothing to do with dualism of the mind.

>>2340918
>But who's do say we couldn't apply statistics to a large number of minds/consciousnesses/whatever even if we couldn't form explanations for their individual behavior?
We can't for the same reason we don't use quantum mechanics to explain coaches.

>>Will the new you be aware of the old you?
>>If no, what is the connection between the new you >>and old you?
>>
>>>given enough time, big bangs and crunches, it >>will inevitably do it again
>>
>>What are the basis of this conclusion?

implying that the person you referenced is indeed correct, the odds that your current consciousness is not the first incidence of its existence are infinitely many to 1, giving a 100% chance that this is not the first experience of your consciousness.

now assuming you dont have any past recollection of previous consciousness's, I would have to assume that no, you are not aware.

We know that individuals exist in some sense, because there are certain things that I'm not experiencing now but presumably someone else is.

But under this definition of an individual, me-now is a different individual from me an hour from now.

Some (particularly mind-body dualists) claim that both of those individuals are part of a single stream of consciousness, whereas me-now and you-now are not part of the same stream. This notion has issues with split-brain patients and related paradoxes, so let us reject it.

But me-now and me-later are part of the same universe, and part of the set of all consciousnesses (which may or may not be identical with the universe).

In this sense, any person who exists after my death is, or is not, part of the same being as me-now in the same senses that me-now is, or is not, part of the same being as me-later.

>>2340930
Epistemology is people arguing about how, why, and whether those tools work.

>>2340952
Close. Epistemology is people without sufficient background to understand the forces at work arguing about how, why, and whether those tools work. At best their efforts are metascientific, at worst they are pseudoscientific. The answers they fumblingly seek would be better pursued by neuroscientists.

>>2340918

>quantum-mechanical theory

How old are you 12? Quantum Electrodyanmics (QED) is much more advanced the Quantum Mechanics (QM). QM is shit teir in comparison to QED.

We generally cannot use QM for real physics proceeses like decays, becuase they won't take into account Special Relativity (SR). SR is applicable to anything that is moving close to the speed of light, this includes subatomic particles. Quantum Field theory (QFT) is the sucessor of QM. QFT incorperates QM , and SR into a single theory. Quantum Electrodynamics (QED) is the application of QFT to Electromagnetic and Weak forces/processes.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_field_theory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_electrodynamics

>>2340961
What you're referring to as quantum mechanics is a specific quantum-mechanical theory. I think I've seen quantum mechanics used as both a term for nonrelativistic quantum mechanics and for the general framework where you construct a theory with unitarily evolving state vectors, which would include nonrelativistic quantum mechanics, quantum field theories, and string theory. Please correct me if you can demonstrate these semantics are not generally used.

Quantum electrodynamics does not include the weak or strong interactions and therefore cannot be used to model radioactive decay.

>>2340918
>But who's do say we couldn't apply statistics to a large number of minds/consciousnesses/whatever even if we couldn't form explanations for their individual behavior?

We can only get data form stuff in the physical universe. How would we get data from outside the physical universe? We do apply stats to people. It is called sociology. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sociology..

Wtf is your point? Are you just discovering the scientific method or somthing?

>>2340960
And metascientific is science-related.

It becomes pseudoscientific when and only when those philosophers claim that what they're doing is science, but even then, it's still science-related.

>>2340980
The point is that it's unjustified to reject an idea simply because it leaves part of the universe unexplained or unexplainable

>>2340987
>The point is that it's unjustified to reject an idea simply because it leaves part of the universe unexplained or unexplainable

Its actually very justified to reject an idea because it prevents you from making an explanation or discovery about how some things work.

For a while, people believed that the difference between living and nonliving matter was that living matter had Elan Vital. Nobody made any effort to actually figure out what Elan Vital was, or how it worked. They had an answer, so they stopped looking.

If you don't reject explanations that don't actually give you any more knowledge about how things work, you end up with silly crap like Elan Vital.

>>2340981
I can think of a lot of science-related stuff that doesn't really belong on a science board.

4chan needs /phi/ . Just some place to banish people gibbering about reincarnation and souls and other quasi-religious-or-spiritual horseshit.

>>2340999
Should we reject quantum mechanics (the framework) then? It posits unexplainable elements.

You say if we don't reject ideas that part of the world is unexplainable, that means we stop looking. I don't think that follows.

>>2341001
Or you could hide the thread. That solution has the advantage of actually working.

>>2341008
If you can't see the difference between "I don't know why subatomic particles work this way, let someone else figure it out" and "lol, <keyword here> makes it go", you can just gtfo.

>>2341022
So your position is that the universe really is deterministic, and that we'll eventually replace quantum mechanics with a more accurate deterministic theory?

>>2340987
Ohh, of course......DURRRR.

However, an idea cannot be accepted unless it has some sort of "assertive proof/evidence".

There is no "assertive proof/evidence" of anything other then the physical, hence we reject the idea of anything other then the physical. It may change if we ever got any "assertive proof/evidence".

Why would you believe in somthing without any proof or evidence? That is shit logic.

Welcome to basic reasoning bro!

>>2341018
Boards are places for memes to spread. In the Dawkins sense, not in the durr /b/ sense. This applies for memes which are maladaptive, too, and they'll spread as sure as any other will. It's thus virtuous to oppose trash memes, 'cause they'll endumb the population if allowed to. Look at, say, religious people. Often they have minds that would've been useful, but they're completely fucked into complete rubbishness because of one bad idea they had the bad luck of being taught without opposition. So I'm black knighting this horseshit to white knight the brains of the neonates.

>>2341039
How would creating /phi/ help stop the spread of trash memes?

>>2341051
A board conveys a certain measure of its declared subject matter's perceived value to anything posted thereon.

Science has more public legitimacy than philosophy, so banishing philosophical crap memes to a philosophic crap board would sap their legitimacy.

>>2341025
I never said anything about determinism - it could very well be the case that reality is somehow nondeterministic.

I am a reductionist, though - everything is somehow made up of little pieces of reality, and there isn't any room for something that isn't real to have any effect on reality.

>>2341059
If reality is nondeterministic, then there are unexplainable things in reality, such as why a particular atom decays at the moment it does.

And to argue that non-physical things aren't real because
> there isn't any room for something that isn't real to have any effect on reality.
would be begging the question.

>>2341058
Stuff posted anonymously on 4chan shouldn't have any legitimacy other than the extent to which it's backed up by evidence/reasoning/outside sources. People who unquestioningly accept things they read on 4chan are rare, and they will absorb just as many wrong ideas from science threads.

Even if we accept that ideas posted on a philosophy board will be perceived as less legitimate, there will still be philosophy threads posted on /sci/. The division may actually increase the perceived legitimacy of non-scientific ideas posted on /sci/.

>>2341065
You can still explain nondeterministic things in a statistical sense, though.

As far as begging the question goes, things that affect real things are themselves real. So if you did find something that affects real things, its not non-real by definition.

Can't beat believing in tautologies.

>>2341079
Just as you can explain the actions of many people in a statistical sense.

No one claims that the mind/consciousness/soul is non-real. Non-physical is not the same as non-real.

>>2340971
>>2340971
Quantum electrodynamics includes the weak interaction (because of the electroweak unification).

Just as "Classical Electrodynamics" includes Classical Magnetodynamics, Quantum Electrodynamics includes Quantum Weakdynamics. The proper name should be Quantum Electromagnetoweakdyamics, but no one wants to say that shit, the same way no one wants to say Classical Electromagnetodynamics.

You could use an envolpe term "quantum-mechanical theory" if you wanted, although it is confusing, and not used as such in physics. It doesn't really provide a way to distiingush phenomenlogical models from general theory.

Yeah, some radiactive decays use the strong force, Quantum Chromodynamics.

Source is pic:

>>2340999
thats why we have the scientific method.. so ideas can flourish and be tested, or even proven

>>2341077
As evidence, I looked at /b/. On the front page, first load was
>>>/b/302027919
which is a /soc/ thread.
And that's with moot's sticky.
Then on /r9k/:
>>>/r9k/12904505
>>>/r9k/12903841
>>>/r9k/12903684
>>>/r9k/12903353
>>>/r9k/12902171
>>>/r9k/12904581
Metric shittons of /adv/ threads.

>>2341088
nonphysical is the same as nonreal, since all real things are physical and all physical things are real.

>>2341106
Electroweak theory != quantum electrodynamics.

Open up your QFT textbook and look at the Lagrangian for QED. Notice how there is no SU(2) gauge field, no Higgs, none of the things involved in electroweak unification except the photon.

>>2341088
>No one claims that the mind/consciousness/soul is non-real

That stuff is real, however they are very loose functional definitions arising from physical properties/interactions.

They are real in the same sense a thought is real, an idea is real, or a feeling is real. It is all just complex chemistry in brain. They are still confined to out physical reality.

A soul is real, in the same way a .jpg on your computer is real. It is all about how the info will be viewed. The software is key.

>>2341142
That's not an argument against dualism; it's just a naked assertion that it's wrong. Dualists by definition believe in both things that are physical and things that are not.

>>2341142
I know exactly what you mean, however It is semantics at that point. But yeah, for simplicity, physical=real is the best way to define that shit.

>My face when existance is aware of itself. Atoms come together to understand themselves.

>My face when I don't understand the term consciousness anymore and what to apply it to.

I love you /sci/.

Question: I wonder what you guys think about art and the uses of art.

Just because you guys seem to hate philosophy completely. Maybe you don't. Wondering how you view great works of art.

>>2341166
Sure you can change the terminology of a dualist model and redefine physical so that everything is physical. But that certainly isn't an argument that the dualist model, or its use of "physical" was wrong.

ITT: I FEEL LIKE SUCKING A DICK OF A DUCK

>>2340883
Learn to read, you are disproving your own shitty reading abilities.
Sure I can say earth is blue and green, but I can't say that Earth is blue and not blue. In the same why that I can't say that space is both Euclidean and non-Euclidean. Or that Euclid's fifth postulate is both true and not true. In physics we now know that space is non-euclidean, although this doesn't much of a difference for our calculations on Earth because at small distances the difference between them is too small to measure.
>>2340877
It seems like wikipedia is where you get your knowledge from, trying reading Alfred Tarski's Introduction to Logic and the Methodology of the Deductive Sciences.

Shouldn't it simply be said that science does not concern itself with non-physical things, because we exist in a physical reality, and that a physical reality is what we're trying to understand?

I mean, there could be non-physical things somewhere, but probably not in our universe. So why worry about them?

>>2342982
The problem is that philosophers have asserted that only truth found by observation is real. Of course most real scientists don't concern themselves with philosophy.

Just watch. When we die, we're going to wake up in a comfortable chair with wires hooked to our heads. And some person is going to come up to us and be like, "So, how was it?"

And we'll all be like FUUUUUUUUUUU.