/sci/ - Science & Math

>>5964729
yfw hipsters love schrodinger but don't understand the box analogy at all

my non existent face when I really don't care

>yfw mathfag who never found the uncertainty principle the least bit interesting.

>mfw undergrads make fun of other people for being "casuals"

>>5964764
buttt everything's a probabilistic function. EVERYTHING
I think that's pretty cool.
Also I couldn't wrap my head around this until I understood probability and I couldn't understand probability until I took udacity's probabilistic robotics class

>mfw retards who only knew about schrodinger after that stupid fucking shirt

>>5964729
>thinks putting O with umlaut makes him an expert

>>5964829
doesn't realize OP speaks German

So there's this cat in a box and hey maybe it's dead, but who knows!? SCIENCE!

>>5964829
>>5964729
>not using standard English translation "Schroedinger"

i know about schrodinger WAY before google had it up! I love being smart with you guys! everyone around me is stupid like penny

>>5965037
bethesda

danke

>>5964882
>Not being able to type "Ö"
>2013
Is this what the world have come to?

Every day is a good day to read his paper and finally bury the f*ing cat meme:

Erwin Schroedinger, The present situation in quantum mechanics

www.tu-harburg.de/rzt/rzt/it/QM/cat.html

>2013
>taking Schrödinger seriously

The guy believed in qualia.

oh, a qualia denialist

>>5965312
Perception exists, qualia doesn't.

Qualia was defined by a philosopher that was tired of losing debates.
So he took an existing and documented concept and added "that cannot be defined by quantiative methods" as a suffix.

It's a circular argument compressed into a single word.
It's like saying consciousness can't be defined because consciousness is by defnition undefined, only that it's in a single word that's defined as a patently false statement.

I guess we could call it a one-word trolljob too

>>5965312
>not applying Hitchens razor

And did this SchrÖdinger ever do something that wouldn't have made PETA go postal?

>>5965302
I think your definition of qualia is wrong. Qualia just means qualitative experience. If you agree that you are having a qualitative experience of pain if I were to stick your hand in fire, then this means qualia exists and requires an explanation.

Thus, denial of qualia would be the denial that you are actually feeling pain when your hand is in the flame, rather that your body just behaving in a knee-jerk reaction kind of way to remove it from the fire. Obviously if you were to put your hand in fire, first you would get the knee-jerk reaction of your muscles pulling it away, then a split second later something altogether different: a recipient who is suffering the pain. The fact that there is a "you" in there on the receiving end of that pain is what requires further explanation in order to fit in with materialism and/or evolution. That is what qualia is referring to.

Also this doesn't mean that qualia cannot be equivalent to material processes, as to imply otherwise would be the homunculus fallacy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homunculus_argument

It may well be a category error to equate brain states to mental states (qualia), but it's certainly not a logical error (the idea contains no inherent logical contradictions).

Whenever I think of Schrodinger I also think of Heisenberg, and visa versa.
Its wierd.
I guess its because they both have long, very Germanic names.

>>5965365

Hitchen's razor is asserted without evidence, so I'll go ahead and dismiss it. Phew, dodged a bullet there

>>5965388

>>5965365

>>5965424
>Hitchen's razor is asserted without evidence

top lel

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=14JavH4Rk7k

>>5965444
You can't get around the fact that it's circularly defined, and so you end up having to just "define" something to be true. To do this, and to then criticise others for doing the same thing, is astonishingly hypocritical.

>>5965450
>You can't get around the fact that it's circularly defined

No. What is being circularly defined?

>>5965439
How would you even be able to scientifically verify science if the validity of scientifical verification was up for question? That kind of circular reasoning is just silly.

>>5965424
Occams razor. Not Hitchens. Occam.

>>5965462
>this nigga who cannot even read pictures

>>5965458
If you're allowed to make exceptions to what assumptions require justification by evidence; how do you justify how many, or which?

>>5965439

>>5964829
there is an ö-key on the german keyboard
also ö,ü and ß.

>>5965439
>verify

>>5965466

>There are people who think science is done on /sci/

>There are people who think /sci/ is an authority on anything at all

Look at them. Look at them and laugh.

>>5965466
>Hitchen
>scientific method
When did we appoint him as the king of science exactly?

>>5965460
>How would you even be able to scientifically verify science

By observing that modus ponens corresponds to physical cause and effect, and discrete physical objects to set theory.

Purely rational arguments constitute evidence too, it's just that rationalism happens to come from physical evidence.

>>5965465
>If you're allowed to make exceptions to what assumptions require justification by evidence; how do you justify how many, or which?

By reductio ad absurdum: if we don't at least grant that "I exist" and "My senses are sometimes accurate" then we must be radical skeptics. The rest follows from those first 2 assumptions.

>>5965474
Tell me more about how you believe unobservable and untestable claims are valid science. Could you perhaps show me a ghost? /x/ is over there --->

>>5965479
>reductio ad absurdum
How can we be qualified to talk about what is or isn't "absurd" in order to determine whether evidentialism is valid? You have to be able to do that _without_ evidence, because you need evidentialism to be true in order to use "evidence".

>>5965480
>Tell me more about how you believe unobservable and untestable claims are valid science.
You're talking about Popper here, not Hitchen.
Give back to Caeser what belongs to Caesar.

"hurr what can be affirmed without evidence can be dismissed without evidence" is a gross simplification for people who can't read Popper or understand Occam's razor.

>>5965470
>_my_ assumptions are excluded from enquiry or justification, but none of yours are
Be consistent.

>>5965482
Hitchens razor is a principle of rationality and a fundamental assumption of the scientific method. Science works because it logically explains observations without pointlessly having to ask "lol what if actually everything is caused by supernatural forces nobody can see?" /sci/ is a science board and if you want to believe in unnecessary bullshit instead, you belong on >>>/x/

>>5965484
>dat missing apostrophe
Good, as it isn't Hitchens' anyway.

>>5965484
Hitchens razor isn't a "principle" at all, it's a dumbing down of Occam's razor for casuals who are too retarded to into formal logic and think there is such a thing as "a negative statement".

>>5965487
>apostrophe?

>>5965481
>You have to be able to do that _without_ evidence

But then I could say anything is true without evidence.

>you need evidentialism to be true in order to use "evidence".

All we need for evidentialism to be true is

1. i exist
2. my senses are sometimes accurate

Even rationalists argue in favour of these 2.

>>5965494
What I mean is, you need to be able to establish that evidentialism is true using something other than the "evidence" that evidentialism will permit once it _is_ established to be true. Otherwise you're basically saying "I'm arbitrarily defining X, Y and Z to be true".
>inb4 not arbitrary
You also have to justify why your way of deciding _how to decide_ non-arbitrary axioms is true, again without using that which you're trying to prove counts as valid.

>>5965487
>who are too retarded to into formal logic

It's funny that you're saying this, given the fact that it's you who doesn't even understand modus tollens. Because that's all Hitchens' razor is about.

>>5965494
>I exist
Up for debate.
>My senses are sometimes accurate
When? How do we know that's the case? How do we tell the difference between the times they are and the times they aren't? If we can't say that, then how can we say with any confidence that _anything_ from our senses is accurate?

You can't just turn "probably" into a fact.

>>5965501
>modus tollens
Nothing to do with it.

"Hitchens'" so called razor is about the burden of prove.

>>5965501
No, no it's not, and it's sad that you think it is.
People who know formal logic know there is no such thing as "a negative statement". The negation of a statement means something, a "positive statement" or "negative statement" doesn't.

Also, there is no way to do formal proofs of general laws in the natural world, hence why science doesn't look for "evidences", it looks for refutations, because we can only know that a theory is wrong.
Open a Popper for fuck's sake, it's not that complicated.

>>5965384
>The fact that there is a "you" in there on the receiving end of that pain is what requires further explanation in order to fit in with materialism

No, the fact that you feel pain means your thalamus is working properly and relays pain signals to your cortex. There's nothing magical at work here. The purpose of pain of course is to negatively reinforce the idea of sticking hands into fire so that you don't do it again.


>That is what qualia is referring to.
If you mean that qualia refers to the fact that gullible idiots will try to use explanation of things they know nothing to try to convince themself and others that human beings are powered by some form of magic, then yes, that's true that it is what qualia is referring to, but just because the word exists doesn't mean it's somehow anymore true than the, say, luminiferous aether

>>5965508
If something exists, it must be possible to find evidence. By modus tollens: If it cannot possibly have observable evidence, it doesn't exist. That's Hitchens' razor.

>>5965512
Go be dumb somewhere else, philososhit. We're talking about actual formal logic here, i.e. mathematical logic, and not your shitty dumbed down philosotard "logic". This is about rigorous rules of inference and not about how to rhetorically convince a preschool audience. You're lacking the intelligence to participate.

>>5965499
>you need to be able to establish that evidentialism is true using something other than the "evidence" that evidentialism will permit

Evidentialism permits any evidence that follows from the first two premises. That includes rational evidence, empirical evidence, or both.

>Otherwise you're basically saying "I'm arbitrarily defining X, Y and Z to be true".

It's true that we're arbitrarily defining "I exist" and "my senses are sometimes accurate" as true propositions. But the alternative is that we have nowhere to go epistemologically. It's entirely possible that our senses are wholly innacurate, eg. we could be living in a simulation, or God could be manipulating things to seem a certain way. But then we'd have to be just as skeptical about the existence of the simulation and God too. It gets us nowhere.

>>5965524
>If something exists, it must be possible to find evidence.
[citation needed]

>>5965524
>We're talking about actual formal logic here
I am, you're certainly not.
You would now that if you had actually read Popper epistemology instead of watching Hitchen on Youtube.

>>5965524
Not the anon you are arguing with, but Hitchens' has nothing to do with Modus Tollens. I'd like you to explain why you think it does.

>>5965524
>your shitty dumbed down philosotard "logic"
lel, so you actually think there is such a thing as a positive statement?
It's a yes or no question.

>>5965526
As long as we can agree that it is arbitrary. I'm a fucking Physics postgraduate, I understand the utility. I'm just not sure whether it's right to be authoritative and condescending about something that you essentially have to guess at.

>it gets us nowhere
I know plenty of people ready to argue against the presupposition that we need to "get" somewhere with our epistemology, and that by believing so you end up affirming the consequent rather than reaching any genuine theory of knowledge.

>>5965524
>If something exists, it must be possible to find evidence. By modus tollens: If it cannot possibly have observable evidence, it doesn't exist. That's Hitchens' razor.
No it isn't.

HR isn't about existence claims, it's about extraordinary claims.

>>5965523
>The purpose of pain of course is to negatively reinforce the idea of sticking hands into fire so that you don't do it again.

So why doesn't your hand just retract from the fire without you feeling pain?

>If you mean that qualia refers to the fact that gullible idiots will try to use explanation of things they know nothing to try to convince themself and others that human beings are powered by some form of magic, then yes

Did you even read my previous message where I specifically debunked the explanatory power of any such magic, i.e the homunculus fallacy.

It's like you just read the word qualia and had some kind of toxic reaction to it and had to cut it out like a bad tumour or something. Qualia has NOTHING to do with magic or deism or theism or any such woo.

>>5965524
Electrons didn't exist till the 1800s then, and then when it was possible to detect them, they magically started to exist? Top lel.

>>5965527
How about you show me something that exists but cannot have evidence? Oh yeah, you can't.

>>5965528
I did neither of those. Instead I studied science and math. Those words might sound very unfamiliar to you, since you obviously prefer to dwell in teenaged pseudo-intellectualism instead. It's time for you to look at the fucking board title and realize you're wrong on /sci/.

>>5965529
I explained it in the post you're referencing. Are you reading impaired?

>>5965530
I don't give a shit about your pseudo-intellectual and unnecessary twisting of semantics. Post a rigorous definition or fuck off.

>>5965524
If something exists, it must be possible to find evidence. By modus tollens: If it cannot possibly have observable evidence, it doesn't exist. That's Hitchens' razor.
No it isn't.
HR isn't about existence claims, it's about claims in general.

>>5965536
Electrons are detectable. What's your fucking problem? Being unobservable or untestable was never a defining property of electrons.

>>5965526
>But the alternative is that we have nowhere to go epistemologically.
What a load of crap. Epistemology didn't wait for you, thankfully. Evidentialism a shit.

You ever heard of that thing where you admit that you can't formally know a model is right, so instead you make multiple models, devise experiments to discriminate between them, and then you go with the one which wasn't falsified?
Whatever happened to popperian epistemology? Now it's all "hurrr gotta have muh axioms quick" from "what's obvious".

>How about you show me something that exists but cannot have evidence?
You pre-supposing that I have to be able to show you it in order for it to exist.

>>5965539
>I explained it in the post you're referencing.

You said something about existence.
HR isn't necessarily about existence.

>>5965539
>Post a rigorous definition
What? You're the one who has to post a rigorous definition.
Hitchens razor relies on the asumption that there are "positive and negative statements". Define them.

>>5965534
>>If something exists, it must be possible to find evidence. By modus tollens: If it cannot possibly have observable evidence, it doesn't exist. That's Hitchens' razor.
>No it isn't.
>HR isn't about existence claims, it's about extraordinary claims.

This post was right, I don't know why you deleted it.
The guy arguing ITT for Hitchens razor has no idea what it is.

>>5965546
HR isn't necessarily about the unobservable or untestable, it's about claims without supporting evidence.

>>5965548
>Hitchens razor relies on the asumption that there are "positive and negative statements"
No it doesn't. have you actually read it? Here it is

What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

>>5965547
Of course it is about claims of existence. What else do you think it is about, dumbass?

>>5965548
>Hitchens razor relies on the asumption that there are "positive and negative statements".
No, it doesn't and you still haven't told me what that's even supposed to mean. Hitchens' razor is solely a rephrasing of modus tollens. Unfortunately you are too uneducated and possibly also too cognitively deficient to understand classical logic.

>>5965552
The unobservable and untestable surely doesn't have supporing evidence.

>>5965557
>Of course it is about claims of existence.
Citation needed.

It is about claims without evidence.

For instance, "I have slept with 10,000 women". You would dismiss such a claim as I offer no evidence. Dumbass

>>5965557
>Hitchens' razor is solely a rephrasing of modus tollens.
Sure, keep insisting on that, it only shows you don't understand what it's all about.

>>5965556
>statement A is asserted without evidence
>non-A too
>I guess A is right and wrong at the same time

>>5965557
Why do you think it is about existence?

>>5965532
>As long as we can agree that it is arbitrary.

Then there is no such thing as a non-arbitrary proposition. This quickly leads to absurdity and contradiction.

>>5965560
yes, but you didn't read the word "necessarily" in my post, did you.

HR is about more than your narrow application of it.

>>5965539
>I did neither of those.
And here we go.

>Instead I studied science and math.
Most people here did.
Also math doesn't teach you anything about the epistemology of natural sciences.

>>5965568
non-A may have evidence

>>5965563
That claim has nothing to do with science or math.

>>5965568
I happen to be more educated than you in the field of logic.

>>5965570
So what? This is science and math board. We use Hitchens' razor in the context of science.

>>5965572
>Most people here did.
Except for the anon I was replying to. He obviously didn't.

>Also math doesn't teach you anything about the epistemology of natural sciences.
The scientific method utilizes logic. Logic is a topic of math.

>>5965582
>I happen to be more educated than you in the field of logic.
How about those assertions without evidence?

>>5965582
>That claim has nothing to do with science or math.
you just revealed your troll

>>5965568
It is not about positive and negative claims, but ordinary and extraordinary claims.

Obviously such a distinction is problematic, which is why Hitchens is a bit dumb.

>>5965582
>So what? This is science and math board
science and math is about more than just existence.

>>5965584
Are you retarded? It is about the useful distinction between claims which can have evidence and claims which can't have evidence. The latter are to be dismissed.

>>5965588
Tell me what does anon's claim "I have slept with 10,000 women" have to do with science or math?

>>5965593
Science cannot research something that doesn't exist.

>>5965582
>The scientific method utilizes logic. Logic is a topic of math.
And since scientists use pens or keyboards, I guess being a pen or keyboard manufacturer makes you an epistemology expert.

>>5965596
>Tell me what does anon's claim "I have slept with 10,000 women" have to do with science or math?
No-one who studies science or math gets to have sex with 1 woman, never mine 10000.

Asserting that there are no propositions that are true in all possible worlds leads to a contradiction. We would have to concede that the statement 'there are no propositions that are true in all possible worlds' to be true in every possible world!

>>5965594
The scientific method is the only epistemology we need. We don't need and we don't want anti-intellectual douchebags holding back scientific progress with useless comments like "u cannot know nuthin" or "what if everything is magic".

>>5965537
>So why doesn't your hand just retract from the fire without you feeling pain?
Because you damage your fucking hand and not all damage are due to acute impulses that trigger reflex circuits.
People that lack pain receptors often end up with damaged extremities, often leading to disability, amputation, or even death due to infections; see diabetic foot ulcers for a common example.

> Qualia has NOTHING to do with magic
Why then does every proponent of the shit claim that qualia is something that doesn't fit into a materialistic worldview, aka known as >implying that magic exists
Why even use the term qualia when you could just use perception instead? Instead of saying "I can percive [stimuli]" you somehow have to convolute it by saying that [stimuli] is a qualia which is uniquely special for conscious being and >Implication of magic and implied refutation of materialism and implied the bible is right! And quantum Deepak magic too!

>>5965596
>Science cannot research something that doesn't exist.
yes, but there is much more than just existence to research, and HR applies there also

>>5965602
>The scientific method
And since you don't know it, you would better keep your mouth shut.

>>5965596
all claims could have evidence. if god appeared there'd be evidence of god.

>>5965596
>Tell me what does anon's claim "I have slept with 10,000 women" have to do with science or math?
So you think Hitchens' razor is only applicable in these fields?

>>5965596
3/10

>>5965604
>Why then does every proponent of the shit claim that qualia is something that doesn't fit into a materialistic worldview,
For the same reason every proponent of science and rationality dismisses qualia. Because something without observable effects does not exist. Hitchens' razor, fucktard.

>>5965603
gb2>>>/r9k/, loser

>>5965605
So what? That's not what we were talking about ITT.

>>5965606
I utilize the scientifc method every day. Unlike you I do actual science.

>>5965610
>all claims could have evidence.
Wrong. Claims like qualia already assert the impossibility of observational evidence. Therefore these claims are unscientific and to be dismissed.

>>5965614
I don't care about anon's sexuality. This board is for science and math.

>>5965615
That's approximately pi. What's your fucking point?

>>5965626
>I utilize the scientifc method every day. Unlike you I do actual science.
Being a lab monkey doesn't qualify you on epistemology.

>>5965576
>non-A may have evidence
And what if it doesn't?

>>5965604
>>5965604
>Because you damage your fucking hand and not all damage are due to acute impulses that trigger reflex circuits.

But that doesn't mean there is no qualitative experience being had.

>Why then does every proponent of the shit claim that qualia is something that doesn't fit into a materialistic worldview

The answer is it doesn't fit into a materialistic worldview, BUT NOT NECESSARILY. The key words are the parts in caps. Because logically, there is nothing contradictory about physical brain states being equivalent to qualitative experiences. So its entirely possible that physical brain states = qualia. I made this clear in my original message.

>>5965626
>every proponent of science and rationality dismisses qualia

Try holding your hand in fire and telling yourself that you're not actually feeling any pain and that its just an illusion.

Pain is not an illusion.

Therefore, qualia is not an illusion.

>>5965630
Having a science education qualifies me to talk about science. Take your "u cannot know nuthin" philosogarbage somewhere else.

>>5965634
>Because logically, there is nothing contradictory about physical brain states being equivalent to qualitative experiences

There is however an explanatory gap and lack of evidence. Unless you can propose a testable mechanism, it is not science and you're operating on the same level as interactionalist dualists who cannot explain how their "consciousness" interacts with the brain.

>>5965641
Keep strawmaning faggot.

>>5965644
Pulling your hand out of fire is a simple biological feedback loop with obvious evolutionary reasons. It has nothing to do with magic.

>>5965649
You don't even know what that word means.

>>5965652
>You don't even know what that word means.
I know very much what a faggot is, thank you very much.

>>5965644
What's the difference between the perception of pain and the qualia of pain?

>>5965641
kek, did they teach you about Hitchens' razor in your community college?

>>5965654
>lol I say "faggot" on 4chan
Go back to >>>/b/ newfag.

>>5965655
No, but thanks to my high intelligence was able to learn it on my own.

>>5965657
>Thanks to my high intelligence, I went to a journalist to learn epistemology because of some youtube videos instead of reading who everyone considers to be the father of modern epistemology

>>5965647
> lack of evidence

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LeX9FpULcR4

>>5965596
>Tell me what does anon's claim "I have slept with 10,000 women" have to do with science or math?
Tell me what Hitchens has to do with science?

>>5965660
This is a science board, not a philosofaggotry board. Nobody cares about your "u cannot know nuthin drivel". Science works irregardless of your "epistemological" objections. Deal with it.

>>5965662
he has a PhD in science

>>5965660
This is a science board, not a philosofaggotry board. Nobody cares about your "u cannot know nuthin" drivel. Science works irregardless of your "epistemological" objections. Deal with it.

>>5965666
>This is a science board
>goes to a journalist to learn the scientific method
pfah

>>5965666
>irregardless

>>5965653
Depends what you mean by "perception of pain".

Qualia means "A quality or property as perceived or experienced by a person."

It doesn't mean "some magical entity that floats around in some luminiferous aether that claims existence within its own right and which possibly lives fureva cuz its not materioolllll.."

>>5965662
>>5965670
Hitchens' razor is a neat rephrasing of modus tollens. Science embraces logic and I encourage you to take a class or read a book on formal logic.

>>5965672
>Modus Tollens
Nope

>>5965672
>Hitchens' razor is a neat rephrasing of modus tollens.
Repeating it won't make it more true.

>>5965675
Yes, because "more true" doesn't make sense. It is just "true".

>>5965676

>>5965677
Nope

>>5965680
Tell me how something can be "more true" than "true".

inb4 "non-classical logic" mumbo jumbo

>>5965671
>Depends what you mean by "perception of pain".
What ambiguity do you see that statement?

>Qualia means "A quality or property as perceived or experienced by a person."
So the word is really just a redundant and confusing way to restate what a perception, great.

I always suspected that philosophy was about saying the same old thing(or nothing at all) in a new and fancy way, and then debating it endlessly, guess I finally got it confirmed.

>>5965677

>>5965685
It can't. I don't dispute that part. Anon's use of "more true" was, I'm guessing, humorous.

I'm saying "nope" to the last sentence.

>>5965665

he read philosophy, politics and economics at Oxford.

>>5965685
>Tell me how something can be "more true" than "true".

>Pi is approximately 3
>Pi is approximately 3.1

>>5965691
>I'm saying "nope" to the last sentence.

Why would you do that?

>>5965698
both those statements are true, neither is more true than the other

the second is however less approximate

>>5965698
>0.999... is approximately 1

>>5965672

P -> Q
~Q
-----
~P

I assert without evidence that there is a Studebaker in my garage.
Therefore you must conclude there is no Studebaker.


This is so messed up and wrong, you are obviously trolling.

Thanks for playing.

>>5965701
because it's less than false

>>5965710
Irregardless of the fact that I don't know what a "studebaker" is and can't be arsed to look it up, I will assume it is something observable. Therefore your claim is easily testable and if we look into your garage and don't find evidence, we will have to dismiss it.

>>5965710
>I assert without evidence that there is a Studebaker in my garage.

So you stand in front of your empty garage and claim there's something inside? If something was inside, we should be able to see it. We don't, therefore your claim was wrong. Modus tollens. What's your problem? Logic too hard for you?

>>5965713
>Irregardless

>>5965713
HR is about assertions, not experiments like the one you propose.

>>5965715
>So you stand in front of your empty garage
Are you stupid, he's in front of his computer right now.

>>5965714
If an assertion cannot be tested because it does not allow for the existence of observational evidence, it can be dismissed. Hitchens' razor.

>>5965714
The troll is conflating Hitchens' Razor with all kinds of other philosophy of science. Probably deliberately for trolling effects.

>>5965719
>If an assertion cannot be tested because it does not allow for the existence of observational evidence, it can be dismissed.

This is true, but it isn't Hitchens' razor, just a corollary of it.

>>5965719
Anon's example does allow for experiment. But he asserted without the experiment. HR says we can dismiss such an assertion irrespective of whether such an experiment can be or is performed.

>>5965705
>neither is more true than the other
In a binary truth system, yes.
In a fuzzy logic truth system, no.

Given that humans are more of the latter, we ought to not limit ourself to binary truths, though an example of numbers is probably not the best example, a better example would be shade of colour or temperature transition, though technically approximations are also subject to subjective interpretations.
>Pi is approximately equal to Avogadros constant
is also true if you are very tolerant with what qualifies as an approximation, I mean they're atleast numbers both of them.

>>5965727
in fuzzy logic both those statements have truth value 1. the statements with increasing fractional truth values would be

pi = 3
pi = 3.1

go back to pop sci underaged faggot

fuzzy logic isn't binary
that's the whole point

Ah, look at this samefag fueling his own thread.

>>5965603

>>5965582

>I happen to be more educated than you in the field of logic.

>>5965626
I utilize the scientifc method every day. Unlike you I do actual science.

For somebody who keeps harping on about MUH HITCHENS RAZOR you sure don't provide any evidence

>>5965603
Lol, what a fucking projecting loser.

>>5964790
>mfw those who haven't won nobels make fun of undergrads

point being, there's always someone more intelligent and with a better understanding that you

epic

no

Heisenberg > Schrödinger

mouse horse

https://archive.installgentoo.net/sci/thread/S5964729#p5964729

>>5965733
Fuzzy logic is an application of binary logic.

As soon as he said "irregardless" twice you lot probably should have clued in that it was just a troll.

If not much, much sooner.

8/10, you really had them going there boyo, though you got sloppy toward the end.

Last reply one day and 2 hours ago

>yfw casuals use google

baa

>>5974497
"Irregardless" is an acceptable and legitimate word, irregardless of its "nonstandard" status. It is one of my favorite words.

>mfw OP implies that Schrodinger is remotely underground

nice.

>>5965666
Also, lovely trips.

I remember when he was just a kid.

Plinking out tunes on his little toy piano.

Don't tell me I'm fucking casual.

>>5980041
That's a needlessly flammatory remark.

LOL goies! this thread is both dead and alive at the same time!!!
quantum mechanics is so whacky1!!

>>5980130
Not many people know about Schrodinger.

can someone please post the comic, i live in a shit country that doesn't allow google.

>yfw casuals who watch BrBa think they know who Heisenburg is
>yfw they justify it with trying to make a pun with the word "UNCERTAIN"

>>5980760
every fucking hipster and their mom know his shitty cat story and they all talk about it like they're fucking experts in quantum physics because they watched a 3 minute youtube video about it.

>you see dude, like, the cat is both alive AND dead cause you dont, like, know if it is or not

>>5964729

He was that guy from the big bang theory

>yfw this is the most autistic board in all of 4chan
>yfw you need to make fun of people to compensate for it

>>5981226

I would regardless.

>>5981226

>Not /a/
>Not /co/
>Not various generals in /vg/

You need to learn much of the world of autism, my young man.

>yfw when everybody's talking about schrodinger and this stupid "cat in-a-box" experience and you just don't give a flying fuck
>Damn it feels good

What cartoon?

Why don't you tell us who he was?

>>5964729
>mfw my nigga Max Planck is God-Tier
>inb4 muh wave mechanics

> using google

oh wow

>>5985769
What else do you use?

>>5980776
Is the show really that bad? I never watched it.

>>5981026
No but the subject of the experiment was on the show at various times.

>>5987313
It's called hipstr. You've probably never heard of it

>>5965606
Every high school child knows it.

>>5989965

only a pop sci understanding of it....

>>5989972
What does that mean? How can one have "only a pop sci understanding" of the scientific method? Either you know it or you don't.

>>5990898
It means they know the basics of the accepted theories and many associated buzzwords, but have no idea about the process with which those theories came to be accepted or the implications of the theories on the real world and often can not differentiate a subject's thought experiments from the actual experiments and give equal value to both.

>>5991517
It seems you didn't read my post before replying. We were talking about the scientific method, not about theories. Either you know the scientic method or you don't.

>>5992409
No, that was my point, a popsci understanding of the method means only understanding the first and last steps, thought experiments and the accepted theories, not the steps in the middle that make the actual scientific method where all the work is required.

>>5993056
That means they don't understand the scientific method at all.

>Everyone knows schrodinger for the cat thing.
>Most people think he agreed with quantum physics and wasn't mocking it.
>Most people don't give a fuck about Euler and Boltzmann.

>>5964729
>yfw he was being sarcastic about the cat yet the majority of physicists think knowing about the experiment makes them special

>>5994170
>>Most people think he agreed with quantum physics and wasn't mocking it.

You are retarded. Schrodinger was among the people who invented the formalism in quantum mechanics.

>>5994176
Yes this is true. But he didn't agree with the interpretations.

>>5994114
Tell that to them, they sure seem to think they understand it and having pandering jackasses like Michio Kaku around to encourage them doesn't help

>>5994653
Michio Kaku is a good science educator.

>>5976244
Do you know a better search engine?

>>5965388

Whenever I think of Heisenberg, I think of Walt Whitman. And whenever I think of Walt Whitman, I think of Gale.

>>5995644
I wouldn't know, I only ever see him discussing science fiction as if it were real science.

>>5994250
In science nobody cares about philosophical interpretations. All we want are testable predictions.

>>5964729

>>5964729
he isn't notable anyway

>>5998921
10/10

>>5965037
Zimbabwe!!1!

>>6001367
Zimbabwe is a country in Africa. How is it related to Schrodinger or this thread?

>>6002999
btard must have stumbled onto wrong board

>>5964790
This. There are, like, maybe 5 scientists at /sci. The rest are some retarded highschoolers and undergrads..

>>6003036
Like yourself :D

>>5964729
if there was a Mod, this thread would have been deleted months ago...

>>6003036
How do you know? We are all anonymous.

>>5964729
yfw casuals actually heard about it from "The Big Bang Theory".

Disgusting it is.

>>6004482
TBBT is a very intellectual and entertaining sitcom. Most of the jokes cannot be understood without science education.

>>6005608
Name one.

>>6005610
The joke about Schrodinger's cat.

>>6006666
The Shroedinger's cat joke is intro to modern physics level.
It should be taught in high school, but it isn't because they have to spend one semester without calc and another with calc.
And still their understanding of Shroedinger's cat would be terrible.
When you actually know what he was talking about, you'll realize the joke is in fact incorrect and not funny.

>>6005608
hmmm intellectual, but doesnt need education...

>>6006671
Okay, how about the episode where they had to solve Feynman diagrams?

Out of everything related to science, why is SchroCat at the forefront of pop-science maymays?
>inb4 TBBT
That can't be the only reason...can it?

>>6008444
now that sounds more reasonable.
I don't watch a lot of the show because it makes me want to punch the TV.
>see Tyson spotlight on TBBT

Holy fucking shit how is this thread still ip

>>6010077
>why is SchroCat at the forefront of pop-science maymays?

Because it is too absurd to think of a cat being dead and alive at the same time.

>>6006666

That joke is a good example of everything that's wrong with TBBT. If you understand Schroedinger's cat at all (and I'll admit I only have a very vague grasp of it) you'll realise that Sheldon's metaphor is incredibly poor and basically irrelevant to Penny's problem. It's crowbarring science in where it doesn't fit.

>>6011964
>and I'll admit I only have a very vague grasp of it

What makes you think you're qualified to comment on higher quantum physics when you only have a very vague grasp?

>>6011964
>It's crowbarring science in where it doesn't fit.

Science always fits because everything is science.

>>6003036

nigger, what is a scientist? being in a phd programme doesn't necessarily make you a scientist. doing a post doc doesn't necessarily make you a scientist. being an economist definitely doesn't make you a scientist I know undergrad scientists doing excellent work.

seriously, what the fuck do you know? you may not even be in or have completed higher education. you just parrot what you hear the "apparently cool kids here" are saying.

being a condescending prick pretending like you belong doesn't make you an authority on anything, and furthermore just establishes the fact that you're an utter asshole that managed to alienate himself from the community and is now desperately trying to backpedal.

you can thank jesus fucking christ that you're anonymous.

Fagwheasasas

>>6015747
>doing research doesn't make you a scientist
Ok thank you for your input Jose.

>>6015747
No need to be upset

awetgbzxcvnSDfrk;ar

>>5965666
>irregardless

>>6019023
>it's actually a word

>>6019027

Try "irrespective" or "regardless". How does "irregardless" make sense?

Just die.

>>6019027
Learn what informal means you worthless shitbag.

He wasn't even that important. The cat thought experiment was pretty pointless.