/sci/ - Science & Math

Switching positions of Einstein and Everett, the graph could have been made look much smoother. Strange decision.

PS: I'm an anti-realist.

>>6520615
"Neils" Bohr

Einstein, he's always right

>>6520615
Bohr, of course, anyone realist about mathematical models is mentally deficient.

Einstein

He was the 3rd smartes scientist of all times.

>>6520615
I don't get what all the hoo-hah is about quantum mechanics. P(r)dr = |y(r)|^2 dr is all it really comes down to. This is just a probability throughout space. So I can say my particle has a certain probability of being somewhere, which is still objective reality because we can predict what outcome can occur with what probability. So there is an objective reality (Yes).

Do wavefunctions constitute reality? Its not hard to understand that particle like properties come from more localised wavepackets in space if you know anything about Fourier transforms. We can tend that packet to a delta function and produce a particle out of any field. The question now becomes: what field is each particle an excitation of? Photons are excitations of EM fields, the Higgs boson is an excitation of the Higgs field so is it much more of a stretch to say that larger particles are just more localised and stable excitations of the same Higgs ("gravitational") field? Ones with energy we cant reach yet, but the big bang could. So yes, wavefunctions constitute reality but that shouldn't be so shocking.

Again, on their own or with something else is a silly question. They describe everything we can observe in existance so yes they are their own reality in that sense.

Guess Im Everett.

>>6520743
^

>>6520743
Why?

Everet,

people should be banned from talking about quantum mechanical effects unless they know QFT. QM can easely be interpreted as only a model based on probability, its only in QFT that you really see why thats a shit idea.

>>6520615
Bohr, of course. Rest don't really work and have numerous issues. Copenhagen interpretation has withstood the test of time and every quantum effect that was discovered of thought of in the past 100 years was proven to be compatible with Copenhagen. Rest fell apart.

>>6520615
Bohm, obviously, because Everett can't justify the Born rule in a non ad-hoc way, Einstein's "Local Realism" is essentially completely disproven due to Bell's Theorem, and Bohr was a delusional positivist who fanatically insisted (essentially) that the universe itself doesn't exist (and that even talking about it was non-sensical!) because all you ever "observe" are readouts on classical apparati.

>>6520858
you're always posting that shitty pilot wave nonsense. Other than few cranks and nobodies, nobody credible believes that shit. You're wasting your time kid.

>>6520615

Wait, people think quantum theory <span class="math">\mathbf{doesn't}[/spoiler] describe objective reality independent of an observer?

And why is Einstein in that position. He was skeptical, and later turned out to be wrong, and iirc he later changed his tune to rectify this as all good scientists do?

>>6520615
Bohm.

>>6520795
QFTs are all festering unmathematical bullshit.

They have already proven that in fact quantum reality is not objective. Einstein is wrong.

>>6520816
>Rest fell apart.
All (yes, ALL) QM interpretations have their own unique issues, but each issue is only really a "problem" when viewed from the standpoints of another interpretation. The only interpretations which have objective, insurmountable problems are those which attempt to preserve Local Realism.

>>6520873
>unmathematical
what the fuck does this even mean?

>>6520861
>shitty
>cranks
>published in peer reviewed journals
Pic related. Or, sounds like someone doesn't like the idea that QM doesn't have to be "mysterious" and confusing, because they've already invested heavily in telling other people that it is, and have gained social capital through being able to seem superior/more intelligent.

Neither.

I cannot accept an intepretation of QM that denies or ignores the importance of consciousness in the quantum mechanical measuring problem.

>>6520955
>importance of consciousness in the quantum mechanical measuring problem.
Now this is /sci/posting.

>>6520767
Because his opinion is fact, and anyone disagreeing is automatically mentally ill. Haven't you seen this guy before? He's quite a prolific poster here.

Feynman; Shut up and calculate.

>>6520965
>too dumb to tackle fundamental question
>"I know, let's just tell everyone to shut up about it, because that makes the problem actually go away!"
People who don't care about the quest for understanding how Nature really works, please go back to the >>>/engineering/ department where you belong. Let the Physicists actually ask questions about the *Physical* world.

>>6520953
>Pic related. Or, sounds like someone doesn't like the idea that QM doesn't have to be "mysterious" and confusing, because they've already invested heavily in telling other people that it is, and have gained social capital through being able to seem superior/more intelligent.

You're either an idiot or you have no fucking clue about pilot wave theory. Pilot wave theory predicts that things can move faster than the speed of light, it has no contextually which means it cannot even predict what QM (Copenhagen) can predict. Finally, and most importantly, the theory is not consistent in its interpretation. If you actually look at PW probabilities, they're actually classical in nature. And that's why it's useless for experimentation.

In short, I really hope you're some undergrad who's had his baby QM course and you're not a serious researcher because if you are, you'll be just another crank and end up as another wasted potential.

>>6520969
I'm just too intelligent to waste my time with unanswerable and pointless metaphysics. There are enough interesting things in reality to be researched scientifically. Metaphysical musings are nonsense. I prefer to put my intelligence to good use.

>>6520979
Scientists like Mach dismissed the microscopic account for macroscopic properties like pressure and temperature as "metaphysical musings". I'm sure you would consider them "physical" the moment someone built a device to do something which can only be accounted for via these "metaphysical" accounts of reality; but do you seriously expect to ever get there without people taking the interpretations seriously and trying to actually work out the interesting observable edge-cases? We can't just stick our fingers in our ears going "can't see it, isn't there, its metaphysics" and be satisfied, otherwise we'll never get anywhere.

>>6520983
You sound like you don't even know the difference between science and philosophy. Never heard of the scientific method?

>>6520979
>unanswerable and pointless metaphysics. There are enough interesting things in reality to be researched scientifically.
Confirmed for knowing nothing about the wider academic field of Quantum Foundations, and having only bothered to read one shitty New Scientist article.

>>6520757

>>6520989
>doesn't realise that science is a branch of philosophy
>doesn't realise that we only have the scientific method because philosophers were able to work out the kinks in empiricism, kick out positivism, and usher in falsificationism

>attempts to discredit others by claiming that they are unaware of the difference

Oh, the ironing.

>>6520990
Quantum physics has mathematical models and testable predictions. That's all we need for science. Philosophy is for those who don't understand the scientific theories.

>>6520989

>>6520994
Science made philosophy obsolete. Every meaningful inquiry has been incorporated into science. The only thing left to philosophy is metaphysics, i.e. untestable and irrelevant subjective beliefs.

>>6520996
Dismissing genuine scientific-philosophical inquiry is for those who don't understand the philosophy or the science.

>>6520998

>>6521000
>attempts to iron out the evident internal inconsistencies with orthodox quantum theory
>attempts to form a genuinely consistent description of the universe itself
>"subjective"
>"irrelevant"
Confirmed for le reddit fedora.

>>6521001
Science doesn't need philosophy. We have facts and logic, we don't need baseless opinions.

>>6521004
The math of QM works. The predictions are consistent with experiments. No philosophy needed.

>>6521005
[confirmation of now knowing what the philosophy of science is intensifies]

>>6521008
The only people who give a shit about "philosophy of science" are philosophers. Scientists don't care and don't read their garbage. We have the scientific method. Science works, bitches.

>>6521005
[confirmation of not knowing what the philosophy of science is intensifies

>>6521005

Presuppositions are an inescapable part of science. No matter how hard you stomp your feet, science can't explain everything and no matter how much you don't want it, you need philosophy before you can have math.

>>6521011
Read the reply here: >>6521010
It wasn't necessary to delete and repost just to correct a typo.

>>6521010
>>6521007
I'm clearly wasting my time. Have fun tipping your hats at each other eternally unable to comprehend why your theories fail you, because you deny yourself the tools.

>>6521013
The things science can't explain philosophy can't explain either. Philosophy hasn't ever solved a single question. For millennia philosophers failed for example to solve the problems of free will or objective morality. Then Sam Harris applied the scientific method and solved both.

>>6521017
Philosophy is about asking the questions, and working out what questions even make sense to ask, or what entirely different approaches might exist.

>>6521019
⇒Philosophy is about asking the questions
Everyone can ask questions. Asking meaningful questions in science requires profound knowledge of science, which philosophers are lacking.

⇒and working out what questions even make sense to ask
Metaphysical questions do not make sense to ask, since they are by definition not answerable, remain a matter of subjective belief and have no impact on reality.

⇒or what entirely different approaches might exist.
Science and logic are pretty good approaches. Try to find a better one. And no, "muh baseless opinion" is not a valid approach.

>opinions
>beliefs

That shit has nothing to do with quantum mechanics. Science is objective.

>>6520947

durr perturbations arent closed form solutions so qft is bullshit durrrrrr

>>6521024
THIS

>>6521017
>Philosophy hasn't ever solved a single question.
Is this what autists actually believe?

>>6521042
Example?

>>6521046
An example of an autist that holds that opinion? It's the person I quoted.

>>6520947
It all pseudo-mathematical heuristics being foolishly passed as rigorous derivations. It no better, if not far worse, than the meaningless garbage of "generality of algebra" used for calculus and classical mechanic in the age of Newton and Euler. Sure, when it worked it worked perfectly but you never knew when you've strayed too far and everything blows ups for god knows why. Rigorous analysis was able to "fix" classical physics into a respectable theory.

Most work in QFTs has nothing of true rigor in it and any of it's great "results" are quite frankly out of pure utter luck than mathematical calculation. Axiomatic QFTs are still decades away from recreating these lucky results and still need a lot of work.

Until someone can "fixes" or reinvent a mathematical theory of quantum fields, holding the current theory as gospel is stupid and you shouldn't judge interpretations of QM on how well they mesh with QFT.

>>6521047
No, of philosophy solving some question. In a scientific sense anyway. You're just calling people autists like an autist.

>>6521056
Philosphy rarely solves questions in exactly the same way basketball rarely solves questions. It isn't an oracle. It seeks to explore the space, to probe the edges, to seek inconsistencies, uncover begged questions, point out redundancies, and see what happens when assumptions are questioned. None of these pursuits are aimed at giving answers to questions. They are there to limit the space of questions, to make sense of questions, and to give insight into what form answers must take, should they come to light by some other means.

>>6520969
>please go back to the >>>/engineering/ department where you belong

Engineers don't touch QFTrash

>Physicists actually ask questions about the *Physical* world

Nearly all physicist take the SUAC stance if you push them on it. Mathematicians are the only ones truly asking questions about the *Physical* world and getting meaningful answers.

>>6520996
>Quantum physics has mathematical models

HAHAHA, No.

>>6521065
So it just poses questions without answering them, because by definition they can't be answered. Questions can be posed scientifically as well, but the difference between science and philosophy is that science actually finds ways to solve them.

Science starts where philosophy ends, in other words.

heh, talk about good timing… here's an article that shits all over Tyrone:

>Why Neil deGrasse Tyson is a philistine

>The popular television host says he has no time for deep, philosophical questions. That's a horrible message to send to young scientists.

http://theweek.com/article/index/261042/why-neil-degrasse-tyson-is-a-philistine

And big-time physicists are agreeing with this article!

>Sean Carroll
>Disagree with @neiltyson (though Linker is histrionic): asking deep philosophical questions is crucially important.

https://twitter.com/seanmcarroll/status/464118096266289153

>>6520978
>Pilot wave theory predicts that things can move faster than the speed of light, it has no contextually which means it cannot even predict what QM (Copenhagen) can predict

Either you're a trying too hard to troll or don't have a fucking clue what you're talking about. Bohmian mechanics predict EXACTLY what QM predicts (with Copenhagen, MW, or what ever you view it as). Copenhagen magically doesn't turn QM into a relativistic theory.

>>6521079
Philosophical thought can lead to inspiration. A moment of inspiration can make all the difference when trying to figure out something. We've all had those moments.

However, philosophy will never do anything more than that. If you just mentally masturbate yourself all day and revel in your inspiration instead of applying yourself in a scientific way, you'll get nowhere.

>>6521092

Again, you're just posting nonsense without understanding anything.

Bohmian mechanics predicts effects that move faster than the speed of light, and this is due to the quantum potential, which is non-local. So in Bohmian mechanics FTL is not only possible but the main catalyst behind its interpretation of QM.

Go back to >>>/x/ with that shit.

>>6521024
>⇒Philosophy is about asking the questions
>Everyone can ask questions. Asking meaningful questions in science requires profound knowledge of science, which philosophers are lacking.

Who said philosophers are asking questions of a strictly scientific nature? Let the scientists ask the science questions and the philosophers ask the philosophical ones... with a healthy overlapping/cross pollination between the two. Only a fool would believe science has nothing to do with philosophy.

>⇒and working out what questions even make sense to ask
>Metaphysical questions do not make sense to ask, since they are by definition not answerable,

But that's wrong. So laughably wrong.

>remain a matter of subjective belief and have no impact on reality.

That's quite a philosophy you have there. Can you prove it? [pro-tip; you can't]

>⇒or what entirely different approaches might exist.
>Science and logic are pretty good approaches. Try to find a better one. And no, "muh baseless opinion" is not a valid approach.

Ibid.

>>6521030
Ohhh.... so THAT'S why this chart only has one answer.

Wat?

>>6521069
>So it just poses questions without answering them, because by definition they can't be answered.
I don't think this really captures the kind of work philosophers do, no. For instance, Hume points out that there's this little problem with induction. There's no "answer" to this. It isn't a question. And it isn't an answer to a question. There are responses to Hume's statement, like a) it only appears to be a problem but it isn't actually a problem, here's why b) shit, let me recast my arguments in terms of deduction if I can c) you're right, that's a problem, and there is no solution because...

This problem in particular had a pretty large impact on science. There wasn't a clear line where scientists said, "Thanks, David, we'll take it from here." Where is the border between problems with induction (philosophy) and use of induction (crafting theories)? Or are theorists themselves philosophers, and it is only the experimental scientists that are the _real_ scientists?

>>6521103
Science and philosophy are polar opposites. Science is objective, logical, empirical and useful. Philosophy is subjective, based on opinions and beliefs and does never produce any results.

>>6521115
Also, philosophy basically amounts to jerking yourself off while repeating what some other philosopher wrote at some point, which can and often does entirely contradict something another philosopher wrote at another point.

Theories are grounded in reality in the sense that we can use them to explain observable phenomena. Not just that, but we can predict exactly what will happen before it happens. Your whole argument relies on this distinction between theorists and experimental scientists when really, they work hand in hand. They might as well be the same person, they're stillusing the same science. It's not like it changes when you do an experiment.


All you did in that post was talk about the nature of questions and answers, which has nothing to do with whether or not scientific theories actually predict things in reality. Philosophical thought is not independent of the mind of the person thinking it. Scientific concepts are.

>>6521098
Again, you don't understand that Copenhagen QM is ALSO a non-relativistic theory. All non-relativistic quantum mechanical theories allow disturbances to propagate at arbitrarily high velocities. This has nothing to do with the Bohm view at all.

>>6521136

Jesus… you're clueless. I'm done arguing because it's a waste of time. You have no idea about Copenhagen and you have even less idea about the nonsensical theory you're promoting.

>>6521118
>does never produce any results
Apologies if English isn't your first language.

Bonus; when you get your PhD in STEM... what does the 'P' stand for again?...

I'm basically Einstein, guys.

>>6521127
>Philosophical thought is not independent of the mind of the person thinking it. Scientific concepts are.

>Philosophical thought is not independent of the mind
>concepts are

>Philosophical thought is not independent of the mind
>concepts are

>>6521150
Name one result philosophy ever produced.

And I don't care what the P in PhD means. In my country we don't have PhDs. I'm getting a doctorate.

>>6521169
> Name one result philosophy ever produced.
the scientific method

Philosophy comes from Love of Knowledge.
Science is a new name for Natural Philosophy.

>>6521180
^QED

>>6521127
>Your whole argument relies on this distinction between theorists and experimental scientists when really, they work hand in hand.
confirmed for not reading what I wrote, I won't even bother with the rest of your shit

>>6521180
With the invention of the scientific method philosophy rendered itself obsolete.

>>6521203
only in your mind

>>6521149
They use the same exact S.E.

They are the same as far as theory goes.

I'm suspending judgement until we have a full theory of quantum gravity.

ITT: people make baseless comments against philosophy and quantum foundations purely out of their own ignorance, to get le upboats from the other engineer "I'm an atheist, debate me" fedoras, and to irritate the handful of genuinely informed posters

>>6521093
Oh wise one, do tell me how you're supposed to know in advance which inspirations are "just masturbatory" and which will lead to results when "applying yourself in a scientific way"?

>>6521292
He's not listening, and he never was.

>>6521366
If you want to see the rest of these notes, go google "Mike Towler Pilot Wave Course Cambridge". I'm bailing out of the thread before I die of cancer.

I agree with Einstein I guess.

I'm not sure though because I just recently took a course on it. The way I understand QM is that wave functions represent a probability of interaction with a particle or system. The hamiltonian will always yield the same value because the energy in the system is conserved. But momentum, position, angular momentum, etc are vectors so you can't predict what their individual values will be from a random measurement.


Is that an incorrect way of thinking about it? I don't actually believe that a wavefunction describes reality. But I also don't believe it's the only answer we could possibly get. That doesn't seem right.

>>6521368
You're a wiser man than I.

>>6521368
>I'm bailing out of the thread before I die of cancer.

you are the cancer.

>>6521505
>I agree with Einstein I guess.

He was resoundingly proven wrong.

>>6521520
Why? Sorry I just finished my QM course this semester. I'm a chem major so I didn't take a physics based course on it.

>>6520744
I knew this would come in handy some day.

>>6521520

About his opinions on quantum theory, maybe. I sincerely hope you don't think relativity is less valid just because we're confident in QM.

>>6521520
There are no loophole-free Bell experiments to this day. Einstein's opinion is still not proved wrong.

>>6521526
http://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0401017

>>6521582
No, special & general relativity are solid. His QM work was a huge disappointment.

>>6521593
Heh. Go read the paper above I referenced.

Hint to all you young physicists… whenever you see a theory with local hidden variables, you can bet almost anything that it's wrong.

>>6521169
You do understand that "doctorate" comes from Doctor of Philosophy, that is abbreviated PhD, right?

These fucking wilful ignorant scientists are trlly appalling.

>>6521048
I'm not sure if you've realized this yet, but physics isn't maths. Physics is based on experiment, mathematics is just a useful tool, but if you worry too much about mathematical rigor you end up massively obstructing progress. Non-rigourous mathematical methods have allowed QFT physicists to predict quarks, the higgs boson, QED, etc. which have all been experimentally verified. If you think all of those predictions were just due to luck, then you probably have brain damage or something.

>holding the current theory as gospel is stupid
I don't think that many people do. QFT is mathematically ugly and the standard model doesn't explain dark matter or anything.

>>6521603
I still don't see why einstein's interpretation is wrong. I haven't done actual lin-alg in a long time and I can't follow some of the math, but basically it says that his derivation of a function for the momentum of a single particle is wrong because it cannot be applied to all quantum mechanical systems? Yes? No?

Still, just because the wavefunction is the "definition" of the system, it doesn't mean that instantaneous functions for position, momentum, etc. don't exist, right?

Statistical mechanics exists because knowledge of individual particle momentum/position is impossible to know. But no one argues that a function for the position of a single atom in an arbitrary system doesn't exist.

>>6521654
>I still don't see why einstein's interpretation is wrong.

Well, you need to study QM then. If you can't comprehend that paper, what you think on this subject is largely irrelevant because your lack proper foundation.

ITT: Either trolls or fucking retards who literally don't understand the role of philosophy in bringing the world to where we are today and how it continues to shape the world around them.

Like that anon posted earlier, philosophy encompasses science in its entirety, just as science encompasses physics and chemistry and so on in their entirety. You can go ahead and consider philosophy's metaphysical questions to be above you, and thus have no desire to even ponder them, that is fine.

But you cannot at any point fucking say that the scientific method rendered philosophy obsolete, or ever attempt to put science on a more fundamental level than philosophy. And why is that? It's because you can never prove the external world is real, or supersedes the mental one. You also cannot definitely prove the mental has precedence over the physical. In fact, you might only be sure that you yourself is existing, and that's all. But even Descartes' famous proposition was argued against, it all is. So the fact that we have all these competing theories about the very nature of our subjective experience, however important you may consider it, establishes philosophy above all else. Science is concerned with removing subjectivity and obtaining objectivity, whereas philosophy seeks to explore and reconcile the two.

tl;dr you are a fucking retard if you can't see how important one is to the other. Protip: read what einstein has to say about philosophy

>>6521203
>science answers how, not why
>philosophy is obsolete

>>6521663
That's not an answer. The specific method he used to try and prove his theorem is wrong. He cannot prove his assertions, that doesn't mean he's wrong. I do not see anywhere in that paper where it says "wavefunctions are the only thing that could ever possibly describe a quantum mechanical system".

Please tell me how it is impossible for an equation for the position of an individual particle to exist. I'm not saying we could ever know it exactly, but how does that paper prove it does not exist?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XEZtw1yt8Kc

>>6521638
>but if you worry too much about mathematical rigor you end up massively obstructing progress

Yes and 1=2=π=e=α=√2=-1=0=∞ because fuck worrying about the details.

>which have all been experimentally verified. If you think all of those predictions were just due to luck, then you probably have brain damage or something.

Hell, dimensional analysis is literally "Lets play alphabet soup with symbols and see if the results check out" and occasionally comes out with the correct results. Anything that comes from such hand waving, whether be dimensional analysis or perturbation, comes out of pure luck.

>>6521605
⇒You do understand that "doctorate" comes from Doctor of Philosophy, that is abbreviated PhD, right?
No, it comes from the Latin word "doctor" which has nothing to do with philosophy. I really can't tell anymore whether you're genuinely dense or joking.

>>6521747
Science answers the how and the why. Questions science can't answer nobody can answer. Philosophy does never answer questions. Philosophers only hold opinions and beliefs.

>>6521721
Science superseded philosophy just like astrophysics superseded astrology. There is no demand for philosophers anymore. All meaningful inquiry is approached scientifically. Philosophy is dead. Deal with it.

>>6521944
>Science superseded philosophy just like astrophysics superseded astrology.
What's somewhat disturbing is that I think you're being serious and not trolling.

Philosophy died a long time ago. It now lies in it's own excrement, pointing an emaciated finger at the scientific method and crying "Objective truth, no objective truth." In order to be a modern philosopher you have to be a absolute cunt of the highest order. You have to acknowledge that philosophy is now just a snide poke at science, but master the technique of convincing everyone that you are important and intelligent. Look. I'll give an example.

Philosophers; why is the flower beautiful?

>Schopenhauer - "Here we contemplate perfection of form without any kind of worldly agenda, and thus any intrusion of utility or politics would ruin the point of the beauty."
Utility spoils beauty, but can't get us closer to understanding beauty? Next.

>Hegel - "Art is the first stage in which the absolute spirit is manifest immediately to sense-perception, and is thus an objective rather than subjective revelation of beauty."
Objectivity? Really, Hegel, that's just embarrassing. Next.

>Kant, "the aesthetic experience of beauty is a judgement of a subjective but similar human truth, since all people should agree that “this rose is beautiful"."
Subjective interpretation could lead to an objective consensus? U R 1 Cheeky Kant, m8.

The answers can only be found in the sciences, the questions need to be asked in those fields too. Our pretty little flower, if we want to understand why it's beautiful, can only be explained in a spectrum of non-philosophical fields. A neurologist or psychologist combined with a biologist can tell us exactly why we respond to the flower and think it is beautiful, and we can express that subjective beauty in art.

The flower isn't 'beautiful'. Beauty, morality, God..., are all linguistic constructs. Science can tell us how and why we have invented these constructs and how we apply them. The beauty of something is not an inherent property, but a subjective appeal based on biological and psychological factors. I think this flower is beautiful because of my genetics, social conditioning, imprints, the way molecules are tasted and smelled and processed by neurological functions. A flower has no beauty, in any other terms, other that what science can tell us about the subjective attraction to the flower. All philosophy can do is cry about axiomatic grounding and objective truth.

•Epistemology (meaning "knowledge, understanding) - Biology, psychology, linguistics, neurology...,
•Metaphysics ( the fundamental nature of being and the world) - physics, chemistry, biology, their sub-fields, how we approach these through psychology, linguistics, neurology...,
•Ethics - meta, normative, applied, descriptive, (moral propositions and their truth values) History, politics, economics, sociology, along with neurology etc.....,
•Aesthetics - (art, beauty, and taste) biology, psychology, neurology...,

Philosophy is dead. Don't even mourn it.

>>6521960
>cherry picking quotes and responding to them like they were posting on 4chan
It's sad that you're not embarrassed by this.

>>6521828
Those units don't cancel out at all.

>>6521965
Please don't encourage xkcd posters.

>>6521965
>[Nm]/[N/m^2] * [m/L] / [m] = [m^3]/[L=dm^3] = [1]

you suck at math

Everett.

Also: Misses a bit about what the hell happens at waveform collapse.

>>6521961
>epistemology and metaphysics have been superseded by science
Yeah, because scientific knowledge is *automatically* valid and infallible and objective, and *never* subject to interpretation, ambiguity, or unjustifiable assumptions. Oh fucking wait.

>>6521944
>waa I'm smarter than everyone else, things I don't understand or don't like are "irrelevant"
Why do you continue to post here?

>>6521961
>>6521960
>>6521944
>WAA, I WANT TO LIVE IN A BUBBLE WHERE NO-ONE IS ALLOWED TO QUESTION THE APPROACHES OR METHODS, BECAUSE IT'S MY OPINION AND THEREFORE OBJECTIVELY CORRECT
Go back to the dark ages and take your dogma with you.

Philosophy: willingness to consider alternative paths to knowledge, out of sheer curiosity and love of the world - constantly leading to new insights both aesthetic and practical, open-minded without neessarily committing to anything, explore ideas in ways that inspire others

/sci/faggotry: unwillingness to sway from specific opinionated position of scientism, dismissal of all other inquiry in principle, unable to think laterally, closed-minded, dogmatic, the cancer killing all human pursuit of knowledge *including* science

>>6522220

This and reminder that high achieving scientists respect philosophy and are often philosophers themselves.

>>6522223
I shouldn't worry about it too much. Most people here are just taking the piss, or because in their immediate "real" lives they're surrounded by asshats who are either religious or paranormal-obsessed nutjobs. It's not like they'll ever publish in journals representing the fields they purport to represent "unquestionable objective knowledge", never mind in the journals devoted to detailed rigorous inquiry of the theory and processes themselves.

To all you kids/engineers/fedoras out there, science is literally more than is in your High School / Undergrad textbook, and it is insulting to the entire domain whenever you forget this and spout your anti-philosophical (i.e. anti-thought) drivel. If you are so strongly offended whenever someone points out the fundamental holes in your most-cherished scientific approaches, instead of conflating such objections with religiously-motivated burden-of-proof-shifting, perhaps you should consider *why* it is that you feel so threatened by such thoughts and ideas.

>>6522220
You might have mistaken philosophy with open-mindedness

>open-minded
>receptive to arguments or ideas

>philosophy
>the study of ideas about knowledge, truth, the nature and meaning of life, etc.
Has nothing to do with being open-minded which btw is one of the key requirements of science, not required in philosophy

>>6522234
>the study of ideas about knowledge, truth, the nature and meaning of life, etc.
>Has nothing to do with being open-minded
What the *fuck* am I reading? Just because individual philosophers *can* be dogmatic and closed-minded about the particular school-of-thought that they subscribe to, doesn't mean that *Philosophy itself* has anything to do with closed-mindedness.

>>6522236
Can you read?
Do you realize that the post doesn't imply that
>*Philosophy itself* has anything to do with closed-mindedness.
Fucking philosophy logic again.
Study more math gives you some actual logic lessons.

>>6522237
You were trying to (weakly-)imply that philosophy was somehow intrinsically more open-minded than science, which is flat-out not the case. Do a philosophy degree from one single viewpoint and reject all others out of hand, and I guarantee you will fail. On the other hand, scientists today are still ostracised for questioning the orthodoxy in fields like cosmology and quantum foundations (Especially between the '20s and '80s).

So, if anything, science is vastly more closed-minded and dogmatic.

>>6522237
>>6522240
Argh, typo.

You were trying to (weakly-)imply that science was somehow intrinsically more open-minded than philosophy, which is flat-out not the case. Do a philosophy degree from one single viewpoint and reject all others out of hand, and I guarantee you will fail. On the other hand, scientists today are still ostracised for questioning the orthodoxy in fields like cosmology and quantum foundations (Especially between the '20s and '80s).

So, if anything, science is vastly more closed-minded and dogmatic.

>>6521961
>Epistemology (meaning "knowledge, understanding) - Biology, psychology, linguistics, neurology...,


In the same way you could say that biology psychology and neurology could solve all mathematic problems and thats retarded. Neurology will show us what happens in a brain when someone calculates, but that doesnt mean that it will solve any mathematical problems.

The same goes for philosophy. Science will tell us how society/brain or language works, but it wont solve any ethical/epistemological/ problems.

>>6522241
I am implying that his post is pure garbage, which it is.
Not sure why you are trying to twist my post.

>>6522245
Alright then, I'll take your word, and grand you the literal reading of your post >>6522234 in lieu of >>6522237. I'm just used to the fact that the *same words* would usually be used by someone who *intended* the implications which I actually responded to. I'll simply re-retort that I disagree with your position on the following grounds:

Since "science" is a specific form of knowledge-pursuit, it therefore necessarily falls under the wider knowledge-pursuit that is, by definition, "philosophy". Therefore it makes no sense to insist that
>science requires open-mindedness
without also acknowledging that
philosophy does also (since it inherits the same spirit of knowledge-pursuit, at least in principle).

I genuinely have no idea how someone could think that philosophical inquiry itself somehow doesn't require open-mindedness, and yet the subset 'science' magically then does.

>>6522249
To extend on my final sentence there, I will point out that I do not conflate the distinct notions of
>performing philosophical inquiry using a particular school of thought
and
>having necessarily actually committed to said school of thought, and rejecting others
Hopefully that distinction clarifies my statement of opinion.

>>6522249
You don't have to be open minded when you study the "truth" or "meaning of life" since you can't have a right answer.
If you are not open minded when doing science you are by definition not doing science.

Philosophy doesn't rely on facts which are the same for everyone, instead relies on opinions which are subjective and can be ignored on a whim.

Science is not a "subset" of philosophy so there is that too.

>>6522260
>opinions which are subjective and can be ignored on a whim
The very idea of accepting or ignoring positions freely IS open-mindedness!

>Science is not a "subset" of philosophy so there is that too.
That's just abjectly, 100% wrong. By WHAT account under the sun does
>the pursuit for knowledge about our physical world, using empirical evidence, mathematical modelling, and falsificationism
(science) not fall under the scope of
>the pursuit for knowledge
(philosophy)?

Oh, and also,
>You don't have to be open minded when you study the "truth" or "meaning of life" since you can't have a right answer.
If truth and knowledge can't "have a right answer", do explain to me how science can, and is exempt from / elevated above this? Without simply defining it to be so, of course.

>>6520953
This guy knows what's up