/sci/ - Science & Math

>>6689271
Sounds like you do realize it

>>6689276
>I fucking love science XDDD so randum such a nerd wallpaper
>16:10 aspect ratio
it's like you're actively trying to be awful

>>6689279
Eventual realization isn't the same as being aware of something the entire time it existed.
A cat can go a majority of its life without understanding that mirror reflections aren't other cats, but it could find out even near the end of its life.

>>6689271
Then you are god and you just don't realize it.

>>6689297
This. This is insightful.

>>6689289
I don't know about you but I like these pictures.

>>6689335

>>6689335
I like this pictures too, what does it have to do with it?

>>6689338
Why is science is great?

>>6689345
Because it gives you the appearance of certainty to comfort yourself in times when philosophy and other fields regarding such have been labelled as not cool. This is why:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y68mGbvZZZg

>>6689344
You said you like this pictures too. First of off, I'm sure you mean picture instead of pictures. If you were referring to plural, you would say these instead of this. You used suppose to use the same word twice in a sentence. You used it twice. My pictures were badass meanwhile yours is the work of a nihilism. You really don't take my post seriously as your poor grammar shows trying to diminishing the quality of my post by typing in poor grammar.

>>6689354
my por grammar shows poor grammar. Grammar only. What about the rest? What about the question? Your pointing to the grammar points.

Don't you think this comic has something to do here?

I bike this bicture too

>>6689271
You mean you suffer from Messiah Complex?

>>6689354
Oh, and 'work of a nihilisT'. Tell me again what your own poor grammar would show yourself?

>>6689365
I suffer from Bessiah Bomplex, you are completely spot-on. It's devastating and brought all my life into a neverending awful spiral of success and mediocrity. I described that with an equation you can also use, so it's real.

>>6689367
You only typed proper grammar when you were actually trying to debunk somebody post!

SCIENCE! ;)

>>6689376
Yes, grammar proves something! YAY FOR GRAMMAR! The only thing that differentiates we from mere apes who wear clothes and have jobs and preside scientific comitees.

So, if I did it on purbose, what's the brolem iwth the brammar? I bon't get it. If I'm bad at grammar on burpose, is it because I'm pad at brammar or bebause I'm bood at brabbar? Bomethinb ib nob bight bhere.

You can only hold my attention for so long. Somebody post

>>6689271
Because God is omniscient, you would KNOW if you were God. Also, I'm also conscious and smarter than you, that's objectively demonstrable with my IQ and math skills. you not being omniscient and being the smartest human, makes you a shitty candidate to be God. Your just a piece of shit monkey like the rest of us.

>>6689271

Define God

>>6689271
what if not realizing it is the conditio sine qua non to be god?

>>6689397
Omniscient, means having the CAPACITY to know, not the actual knowledge. For example, you have the capacity to suck a guy off. It doesn't mean that you did it, even less, that you are doing it!
Perhaps you are omniscient and you don't know it, it's completely logical

On the other hand, if 'God is everywhere' indeed it is inside IQ tests and shits and monkeys, and piece of shit monkeys (if they exist), and us.

>>6689397
>objectively demonstrable with IQ and math skills
hue

Also, if I were a God living inside of my own mind, I would restrict my knowledge and experience the scenario as if it were all I had ever known.

>>6689400
We can define some proper God as being the characteristic or property or element that has consequences but no causes.

>>6689419
Ok, show me something that has no cause.

As Alan Watts occasionally mentioned,
Finding out that you are god would be quite an embarrassing event. You'd have so many responsibilities and until now you've been neglecting them all

>>6689289
This is the hipster effect, friends.

Dear diary, social norms are making it okay to do things that I enjoyed doing beforehand. Its. Not. Fair.
Rather than disliking these people, you should embrace it. That means more people doing science, and thus more funding to get more science done.
Anyone who is truly passionate about something would encourage others to be passionate about it as well. In this case, we have the added benefit of progressivism for humanity.

>>6689271
>Solipsism

Then why did you post this

>>6689423
Existence

My problem with solipsism is that the conversation seems to stop at 'this is not impossible'

>philosophical question
>on a board related to math and science
>>>/x/

>>6689456
Philosophy is a science.

>>6689461
>philosophy is a science

Maybe we can measure existence by Descartes' method. If we are aware that we think, we are our own measurement device to measure existence, and relating that measurement to others would constitute science.

I don't think all philosophy is science. Maybe some of it is, but we aren't aware of it yet. On the other hand, in science the question of the reality of measurements is moot, so reality and existence is out of the scope of science. That would deem science not to deal with reality, which many people would resent.

But, maybe they overlap on that 'existence' thing. I don't know. After all, when you use the operator identity in basic quantum mechanics, it is sometimes labelled 'existence operator' (If something exists, it has eigenvalue 1, if not, zero). Example: http://books.google.com.ar/books?id=82s3AAAAIAAJ&lpg=PA332&ots=C756oPgcIS&dq=quantum%20%22existence%20operator%22&pg=PA320#v=onepage&q=%22existence%20operator%22&f=false

This thread is in violation of Rule 3. Why has it not been deleted?

>>6689271
>What if I'm god
What if you're not? What a tantalizing possibility!

not science

>>6689271
What if you were about to become god for an extended period of time?

>>6689482
Philosophy is science.

>>6689490
Philosophy is burgers

>>6689490
Philosophy is your ass.

>>6689501
Philosophy is your bass

>>6689271
What sense is there in asking about the validity of an idea that is not falsifiable?
>>6689456
I know it's hip and cool on /sci/ to shit on fedora wearing philosophy majors (and rightly so sometimes), but to cut out philosophical questions entirely from scientific inquiry is the highest level of retard. Various fields of philosophy contribute greatly from scientific inquiry.

>What kind of knowledge is scientific, where does this knowledge come from?
Epistemology
>Knowledge of electrons is distinctly different from knowledge of historical events, why is this so? What is the essential nature (being) of entities that makes them different?
Metaphysics
>Why study things like mathematics, engineering, and biology at all? Why SHOULD we engage in scientific inquiry? What SHOULD we do with the knowledge gained from scientific inquiry?
Ethics

>>6689520
I like bass =)

>>6689437
What if there is no god? Then who will be responsible?