/sci/ - Science & Math

I hate it when scientists cease to be scientists and venture in the land of their own fantasies.

>>3246917
>Talking about people that gained great insights into the workings of the universe

>>3246917
>Hates language and will never accept anything but pure, sweet, discrete mathematics.

One of my favourites:

"Buddhism has the characteristics of what would be expected in a cosmic religion for the future: It transcends a personal God, avoids dogmas and theology; it covers both the natural and the spiritual, and it is based on a religious sense aspiring from the experience of all things, natural and spiritual, as a meaningful unity."
-Albert Einstein

>>3246924

False dichotomy is false.

god exists wether you dirty fucking bitches like it or not. deal with it.

>>3246935
Oh? So language and discrete mathematics are not dichotomies?

>>3246924
I like language, despite its many, many flaws.
He jumps from "everything originates and exists from a force ( a force = energy)" wich is correct to "we MUST (wtf? why?) ASSUME ("assume"? I'll assume he is totally wrong then because..why not? It's as arbitrary as his claim that : energy = mind. What the fuck seriously.)

>>3246922
Each people, as brilliant as one could be, has his limitations. He had just hit his on the nail with that claim.

>>3246980
>2011
>Not accepting mind=matter hypothesis

>>3246980
So you're completely ignoring the basis that he's comparing the universe to a single mind?

And some how, this illustrative metaphor urks you?

Are you completely aspie? Have you left all sense of decency behind and will attack anyone who even hits at something other than atheism in the universe?

How far as your tangled hate for Christianity taken you?

>>3246924
Define "languages".

>>3246995
>2011
>thinking mind=matter is a hypothesis and not a physical law on which all neurobiology and psychiatric medicine is based

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Weu7Rh6dYrM

>>3247015
The method and means to communicate all human thoughts.

>>3246909
Appeal to authority fallacy. The "we must assume..." bit is patently false and quite unscientific.

>>3247036
So, we shouldn't assume consciousness comes from forces in the universe?

>>3247010
Ok. You won. I must admit that I over estimated my understanding of english, particularly this part "we must assume" . I understood it like this : " we have no choice but to admit [by lack of opposing evidence] that the universe is blah blah intelligent mind blah - lost attention to the rest of the citation-".
I need to recheck the defintion of "to assume"

Sooo...since we're on 4chan /sci/, the idea of a troll trying to use what seemed to me to be a foolish claim by an otherwise great man poped instantly in my mind.
It's not OCD towards christianity, it's being used to /sci/ fauna and flora.

Now you have the full story

My mistake .

>>3247065
It s'ok. Trolls love it when people fail to recognize a possibly fruitful context from a completely uncontextual comment.

>>3247071
For my ego's sake, I didn't fail to recognize in a sense that would apply to any anglophone, I had an uncorrect definition of the verb "to assume" in the "non native languages" section in my internal data banks .

Just sayin'

>>3247090
“Anybody who has been seriously engaged is scientific work of any kind realizes that over the entrance to the gates of the temple of science are written the words: 'Ye must have faith.' It is a quality which the scientist cannot dispense with.”

-max planck

Does this make you rage?

>>3247090
Or this:
"My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind."

-- alber einstein

>>3247090
How bout this:

"A human being is a part of a whole, called by us _universe_, a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings as something separated from the rest... a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty."

-- Albert Einstein

>>3247055
I didn't say that at all. If we define consciousness to be what we humans have, in whatever abstraction, then obviously consciousness is the result of natural forces.

In no way does that imply it's correct to assume the inverse; that natural forces come from consciousness. You would have to ascribe something literally "supernatural" to our definition of consciousness in order for that to be a valid assumption.

>>3247136
I think you confuse what he means when he says 'behind this force'

>>3247139
No. I think you confuse what "assume" means. Saying "we must assume X" without any attempt at logical proof is nothing short of religion.

(LOL "Cauchy" in captcha)

"It is the faithfulness of God that allows epistemology to model ontology."
-- John Polkinghorne, discoverer of the quark, using words you don't even understand to demonstrate God's existence

>>3247147
The proof is:

Matter originates and exists by virtue of a force.

>it goes without saying we have conciousness and an intelligent mind

We must assume behind (what went without saying) this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind.

You completely miss the end where he tl;dr:

This Mind is the matrix of all matter.

But go ahead, believe that he's trying to advocate theism.

Trolls enjoy that as well as illegitimate children.

By posting an inherently illogical statement by a person famed for the logic, be it Planck or Einstein or whomever, is the textbook definition of the appeal-to-authority fallacy.

This isn't even to say that I reject their philosophical musings, merely that I acknowledge a leap of faith that I'm sure they acknowledge as well. Skilled scientists/logicians are plenty free to wax philosophic and indulge in the arts as anyone; this doesn't mean we can blindly accept it.

A rough analogy would be if Einstein painted in his down time, and you were to tell me that Einstein's art is now the correct way to do art.

>>3247175
No, but the paintings would still be analysed because geniuses are so rare they need to be studied

>>3247175
>thinks the word assumption can only be used in manifestos

>>3247167
>Matter originates and exists by virtue of a force.
Okay sure, matter is energy, fine.

>it goes without saying we have conciousness and an intelligent mind

Okay, I'll temporarily accept that as an axiom, but I'm very wary how you choose to define intelligence or consciousness.

>We must assume behind (what went without saying) this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind.

No. We do not have to assume that. The only justification that we *must* assume such a thing would be if the mind was not a natural thing. It's the least tenable statement in here, and the use of "must" strikes me as proof-by-intimidation. I do not accept it.

>This Mind is the matrix of all matter.

Okay, so we're all one mind, and he's advocating some universal Gaia. Whoopdeeshit.

>>3247193
Oh, so you make no assumptions that your mind, composed of matter, by which a force is neccessitated is behind your existence?

I'm confused, are you trying to say you're a theist and planck has put forth an arguement against god?

>>3247186
When you post a quote by a famed scientist/mathematician/engineer, I "assume" that when they use the word "assume" they mean it in the same way they use it in science and mathematics. If that is the case, then there is need to prove the assumption is appropriate.

How about in 5 years when you take a college level math course, and you're told to write a proof of X, you just write "we must assume X." And then turn it in. Let me know how that goes.

>>3247193
Philosophy isn't empirical. You sir, fail.

>>3247193
>The Mind is the matrix of all Matter

No, he's using an illustration that the mind doesn't exist seperate from it's environment. So if one were to COMPUTE, cause thats what MATHEMATICIANS DO, one would have to construct a MATRIX of all MATTER to determine what that MIND is.

Christ, it's like talking to primary schoolers who've never learned more than one definitions of anything.

>>3247203
Christ you sci-tards are fucking stupid. Assigned reading is now the basic logic fallacies on wikipedia. Get to it so I don't have to explain appeal to authority again, dipshits.

>>3247209
Gaia, dumbass.

>>3247200
Ok, so your whole point is it's a baseless assumption to make that since our mind consists of matter, that force is behind it?

Please, extrapolate on what else the mind is if not matter and force.

>>3247210
Nice straw man you got there.

>>3247213
Nothing to do with it. It's a simple, straight forward statement about what inevitably is a hiarachy of force and matter.

Nowhere does he say 'We must assume god exists because matter and force"

>This is your aspie calling, you've missed your play therapist.

>>3247227
>Nowhere does he say 'We must assume god exists because matter and force"

Right, he explicitly says we must assume consciousness and intelligence created the force which created force which created matter which created the mind. That is, "a conscious and intelligent Mind created matter which itself is the Mind."
>We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent Mind

>inevitably
You don't do math, huh?

>>3247244
Yes, behind the force is conscious and intelligent mind.

So in his hierarchy of things he has:

Matter -> Energy -> Consciousness.

Are we to assume the reverse? Or do you think consciousness creates energy? or Matter?

Maybe try this one next time.


"Als Physiker, also als Mann, der sein ganzes Leben der nüchternen Wissenschaft, nämlich der Erforschung der Materie diente, bin ich sicher frei davon, für einen Schwarmgeist gehalten zu werden. Und so sage ich Ihnen nach meiner Erforschung des Atoms dieses:
Es gibt keine Materie an sich!
Alle Materie entsteht und besteht nur durch eine Kraft, welche die Atomteilchen in Schwingung bringt und sie zum winzigsten Sonnensystem des Atoms zusammenhält. Da es aber im ganzen Weltall weder eine intelligente noch eine ewige Kraft gibt, so müssen wir hinter dieser Kraft einen bewußten, intelligenten Geist annehmen.
Dieser Geist ist der Urgrund der Materie! Nicht die sichtbare, aber vergängliche Materie ist das Reale, Wahre, Wirkliche, sondern der unsichtbare, unsterbliche Geist ist das Wahre! Da es aber Geist an sich allein ebenfalls nicht geben kann, sondern jeder Geist einem Wesen angehört, müssen wir zwingend Geistwesen annehmen. Da aber Geistwesen nicht aus sich selber sein können, sondern geschaffen worden sein müssen, so scheue ich mich nicht, diesen geheimnisvollen Schöpfer so zu benennen, wie ihn alle Kulturvölker der Erde früherer Jahrtausende genannt haben: Gott.
So sehen Sie, meine vereehrten Freunde, wie in unseren Tagen, in denen man nicht mehr an den Geist als den Urgrund aller Schöpfung glaubt und darum in bitterer Gottesferne steht, gerade das Winzigste und Unsichtbare es ist, das die Wahrheit wieder aus dem Grabe materialistischen Stoffwahnes herausführt und die Türe öffnet in die verlorene und vergessene Welt des Geistes."
Max Planck

>>3247244
Does this make you rage:
I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness.

- Max Planck

>>3247244
Will this make you cry?

We have no right to assume that any physical laws exist, or if they have existed up to now, that they will continue to exist in a similar manner in the future.

-- Max Planck

>>3247257
that's not an hierarchy you dumb motherfucker, it's a circle. circular logic. get it?

>"existence of a conscious and intelligent Mind" -> "force" -> "matter" -> "matrix of all matter" -> "Mind"
>"mind"->"force"->"matter"->"matrix"->"m
ind"
>"mind"->"matter"->"mind"
>"mind"->"mind"

stupid motherfucker.

>work yourself to the limits of human knowledge
>cannot into beyond
>invoke intelligent design because you can't explain anything further
>some faggot on the internet thinks by doing so you are proving that god exists
>100 years later someone picks up where you left off and explains what you couldn't
>egg on the face of the religious
>then they get to the edge of what they can explain
>the cycle continues
>etc

Has happened since science began, will continue to happen.

>>3247260

Max Planck just confirmed for faggot.

>>3247209
There is only one definition for any concept given.
Only one, always.
You may be have 300 words of vocabulary tops but I assure you that if you search, you'll see there is a word for every subtle (but most important) nuance in the strict and CORRECT meaning.

>>3247267
Uh, I guess when YOU think about it, it's circular.

But for us with greater rational and linguistic integrity, it's fairly straightforward.

The scholastics would choose a book (say, the Bible) by a renowned scholar, auctor (author), as a subject for investigation. By reading it thoroughly and critically, the disciples learned to appreciate the theories of the author. Other documents related to the book would be referenced, such as Church councils, papal letters and anything else written on the subject, be it ancient or contemporary. The points of disagreement and contention between multiple sources would be written down in individual sentences or snippets of text, known as sententiae.

Once the sources and points of disagreement had been laid out through a series of dialectics, the two sides of an argument would be made whole so that they would be found to be in agreement and not contradictory. (Of course, sometimes opinions would be totally rejected, or new positions proposed.) This was done in two ways.

The first was through philological analysis. Words were examined and argued to have multiple meanings. It was also considered that the auctor might have intended a certain word to mean something different. Ambiguity could be used to find common ground between two otherwise contradictory statements.

The second was through logical analysis, which relied on the rules of formal logic to show that contradictions did not exist but were subjective to the reader.

>>3247273
>aspie detected
>can tell us exactly which definition anyone is using at any given time with minimal level of contextual evidence, historical predisposition an forgotten subtext

>>3247276
>The first was through philological analysis. Words were examined and argued to have multiple meanings. It was also considered that the auctor might have intended a certain word to mean something different. Ambiguity could be used to find common ground between two otherwise contradictory statements.

>The second was through logical analysis, which relied on the rules of formal logic to show that contradictions did not exist but were subjective to the reader.

THE WRITER IS FLAWED! NO! IT IS YOU, THE READER WHO IS FLAWED!

>>3247286
hey dumbass? words mean things. communication would be impossible if we all simply redefined things at will.

if you're going to copypasta brief quotes in a lost attempt at not looking like an idiot including no "context", "historical predisposition", or "forgotten subtext", you don't get to bitch when people interpret those statements using the definitions of the words therein (because words mean things) as somehow lacking in context, predisposition, and subtext. when is mom calling you to dinner?

>>3247316
Indeed they mean things, but short of extensive contextual evidence, the conclusion drawn from the meaning can be vague an ambigious.

In the quote OP posted, Max Planck is extolling the virtue of the mind, and as other quotes have suggested, he has a lot of care for consciousness.

But some people think that any illusion to something 'larger' or 'inclusive' of the human mind makes someone a theist.

So buck up old chap, do some research. Feel free to follow the thread, and then ponder long and hard about the rhetoric presented by Max planck.

>>3247338
Look at this >>3247260 quote. It is the same posted in the OP, but not completely taken out of context. I posted it in german, since in this version, obviously nothing has gone lost in translation.
Here, he clearly advocated god, i.e. theism, as he even uses the word "Gott" (german for god).
Besides, it is no secret that Planck was a theist.

Anyway, it has been clear for quite some time that this is nothing but a troll thread.

So, /sci/ hotons don't exist, neutrinos don't exist, bosons don't exists etc. Light is a wave, matter is a wave, everything is made of stationnary waves. Time doesn't exist, time relativity is false, Einstein was wrong, our most recent theories (that are actually 80 years old) are totally full of nonsensical, magical crap .

"Ether" exists.

At least, let's make real science again !

>>3247372
>Still thinking Planck meant god as in entity
Your hate for Christianity is making you delusional and closes your mind to anything that doesn't fit with your atheistic logic