/sci/ - Science & Math

Got to have a zero element

not science or math

>>9924339
Because civilization hasn't completely collapsed, yet.

Because muh is/ought gap

>>9924339
Admit it, it is bigger than science, it gave birth to science, it helps keep science in check. It is absolutely necessary for humans and hopefully will never die.

>>9924363
>it helps keep science in check
which is why China is taking over, gj moralfags

Science without philosophy could run into problems down the road. How would one make sense of competing theories, etc?

>>9924339
Because humans are degenerates. If humans were fit for being the rulers of te universe, philosophy would just be studied as a subset of logic, so as a subset of a subset of math. But the fact that there exist non-mathematician philosophers shows we haven't evolved from just being monkeys with big heads. If humans don't die from our own stupidity, when we push out of this star system we will be confronted by a mathematical theological universal empire that will destroy us.

>>9924339
Considering the fact that your question is literally a philosophical enquiry should it really be that difficult for you to produce your own answer? If you're going to rely on other people to do your thinking then at least make the discussion open-ended.

>>9924386
You believe aliens will have solved is/ought with math?
You sound like you are privileging math over other forms of knowing, why would aliens do that?

>>9924471
A theological empire based on mathematics is the ultimate form of government. Political power will be distributed based on the influence of your publications in pure mathematics. There is no way to cheat the system. You can't steal theorems because there will be AIs checking the archives to be sure all published results are original. You can't fake knowing math because it is impossible. Etc.

The highest mathematicians will be given full control of an entire space fleet, where they may travel and conquer. They can take their postdocs and PhD students on adventures.

For edgy teenagers perhaps xD

>>9924498
False. The AI gatekeeper would recognize that all theorems are implied by previous theorems and there would be no original work, and therefor there would be no leaders, no political power, and no gov... oh I see what you did there.

>>9924506
The AI would definitely check for equivalences between papers to check for plagiarism, but there is also an element of originality. If two papers define the same concept in two different yet equivalent ways, but then the two papers diverge in the problems they solve and direction, that is original content.

>>9924344
Anon gets it. Become as strong as you can in as many ways as you can imagine to protect what you value. And if you don't value anything, you are not in control. Hard times aren't just on the horizon, they're here now. It's only ever been hard times. Get strong mother fucker, get strong.

>>9924537
The white knight dilemma. Too many villains, too many victims.
>but one day i will get my chance

>>9924537
>It's only ever been hard times
Times were pretty good before women's rights. I wanna go back to the good old days.

>>9924542

Looks to me like you got little faggotgoy syndrome. Thats OK, you have a lot of time to better yourself. I imagine you're young since you're posting here.

>>9924419
'Philosophical' inquiry isn't the same as the trash heap that is a large portion of philosophy the discipline. Indeed, philosophy shits upon the philosophical.

>>9924542

It looks to me like you got little faggotboy syndrome. Thats ok, you have lots of time to better yourself. I imagine you're young since you're posting here.

we can't know nuffin man

>>9924550
"Philosophy" is so broad that it makes me wonder if you're serious about discussing it as a whole, what branch of philosophy do you feel should be discarded? Political theory? Philosophy of mind? Logic? Phenomenology? Be more specific

A long time ago(i may be wrong tho), philosophy was the study of everything like math, physics, chemistry..etc. And as time passed, the field got taken apart for the other fields of studies. That's how we have all these different fields now instead of having only one field which is philosophy.

>>9924550
also, see >>9924375

Furthermore, how would you make sense of astrophysics or cosmology when it piggybacks on non-empirical principles? The only reason you probably have a basic understanding of the universe is because of the cosmological principle, which is "philosophical", (By philosophical I'm guessing you mean unverifiable.)

Because abstract thought is necessary for original thinking. Cognitive recombinancy, like what is witnessed when a blind person uses their visual cortex, and their other senses sharpen.

>>9924498
>Political power will be distributed based on the influence of your publications in pure mathematics.
Ooh I see. You think you've solved is/ought but you don't understand the question. Please try again

>>9924339
Because there are still unanswered metaphysical and ethical questions, and because the Philosophy of science and maths is as-yet incomplete.

>>9924339
Can you imagine a world where science goes off in all possible directions, producing 99.99999% useless knowledge? That's what a world without philosophy would look like.

Why is it still a thing?

>>9925463
It does go off in all directions and we find more connections than disjoint research.

>>9924546
Based and red pilled.

>>9924339
without philosophy humans are just a pretty crafty chimp, nothing less, nothing more

>>9925503
There's a big difference between going in many CHOSEN directions, and going in ALL possible directions, which was the original point. You don't seem to understand just how much there is to know. The graphic was meant to helpfully illustrate that, although it's still understated. Newton himself said of his work that he was "merely playing with a few pebbles on the beaches of a vast ocean".

So again, how do you choose the directions to go in? That's where philosophy comes in.

>>9924339
how far would you get in math or science if you didn't have logic or set theory?

math and science are a subset of philosophy, and so is just about everything besides the arts and crafts and physical activities

>>9924687
>the cosmological principle is philosophical
That's why no one takes philosotards seriously.

>>9925843
t. Bachelors in Math passing dead last.

>>9925858
You know since the cosmic backrownd radiation, and the observations by supertelescopes and spaceships, wr have means to test it right?

>>9924339
Hatred of philosophy is the surest sign of being a brainlet.

>>9925862
Not that guy or defending him. But you're retarded for dismissing Philosophers because of his stupidity.

>>9924344

Brainlet here, I don't get the Schrodinger one, could someone please spoon feed baby?

>>9925872
This. Reading the Critique of Pure Reason is necessary for everybody ITT right this instant.

>>9924344
Add Richard Feynman to the right friendo

>>9925923
No. He hated 'armchair philosophers' who would comment on physics without understanding it and stuff he thoughts useless or overreaching, but he was deeply interested in the fundamental basis of scientific justification.

>>9925920
i don't think i'm a brainlet, and i too cannot make sense of this schrodinger excerpt

the only thing i can think of which could accord with this quote is that schrodinger is appealing to the many-worlds idea of quantum theory: that the "collapse" of the wavefunction is really a "branching" of realities for observers (and the branching happened when the quantum event occurred, not when a measurement was made to determine the outcome).

my optimistic interpretation is that schrodinger foresaw the many-worlds interpretation and was explaining things in terms of "facets of the crystal" in analogy with the various "universes" that the MWI provides. the quantum state of the universe (the universal wavefunction) can branch into many different macroscopic possibilities, and the various manifestations, according to schrodinger, correspond to the different faces of the "crystal" schrodinger is referencing

if you don't study philosophy you will be a brainlet forever and never have original thoughts. you might get lucky and get proto-logical and be able to perform feats of minor reasoning but without philosophy you will never be able to contribute to physics or ontological research at all or understand good entertainment either.

>>9924373
China will collapse like it did many times

>>9925920
Pretty sure it's about how different viewpoints on something don't make multiple iterations of that thing, and that our perceptions of reality or phenomena aren't necessarily truth. Like how our common sense runs counter to QM, but QM seems to be a valid means of describing fast and small stuff.

>>9925828
Proofs in metalogic and metamathematics are philosophical. The efficacy of truth valuation functions are philosophical. The roots of the scientific method are philosophical. Analysis of art and religion are philosophical, even if you don't believe of the truth of either. The foundations of rational decision making are philosophical. Ethics, even if they exist only to boost social cohesion, are philosophical.

Science, Math, and Engineering design, create and exist as the gun, philosophy is the hand that both aims it and decides if the trigger should be pulled.

You don't need to major in philosophy to grasp the bigger picture, but the bigger picture needs to be grasped.

>>9925921
You mean phenomenology of spirit

>>9924339
You must be one of those fags who thinks philosophy is outdated because of science. You also probably take Lawrence Krauss and the science nigger seriously. See >>9924344 and get a grasp of how far your head is up your ass when you say "philosophy is useless".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ROe28Ma_tYM

Here's a video of you

>when a "science guy" says philosophy is useless near me.

>>9925920
>>9926007
>>9926142
You guys haven't heard of Vedantic philosophy. Schrodinger is referencing the concept of Brahman, the unity of everything in the world.

>>9925843
>>9925862
>>9925918
So you think you're able to make deductive inferences about the homogeneous nature of the entire universe because of cosmic backround radiation? Cosmological isotropy confirms that the universe is isotropic, but why would you assume that it's homogeneous because of that? Because homogeneity logically follows from isotropy, and that's a philosophical, non-empirical principle

Now suck my dick

>>9924339
Love retards who ask questions like this there's nothing funnier... legitimately don't understand how anyone over the age of 14 can ask this question. Must be stunted or something there's no other explanation. Yall got the mind of a child hope you understand this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vib2rqJKS08

>>9924344
>it's just common sense bro

Why does the right side of the pic fall into this?

>>9925920
He's saying that reality considered apart from perception is uniform... that it is not inherently terminated but rather the termination is a result of existing apprehended in things as something phenomenologically significant.

Philosophy asks the questions and science proves whether its right or wrong? Still not 100% convinced philosophy is needed for that. I just hate it when philosophers get too caught up in thought over fact.

>>9926468
>Philosophy asks the questions and science proves whether its right or wrong?
Wrong, contemporary philosophy tries to solve the questions that science is unable to

>>9926471
Oh come on now that just seems arrogant.

>>9926479
Science is limited, and with pure thought philosophy tries to find these limits and also push the boundaries of the current sciences. It is hard for a specialized science to do anything of sorts who only sees Science(/Wissenschaft) as a whole from one side (from its own science). People with phds (Doctor of PHILOSOPHY btw...) in a specific science come close, but they only have their own science as reference and will thus have problems seing their own science in the bigger picture, which is what Philosophy is suited for... Phds in a specific science might change its own fundamentals, but the Whole its path is lost

>>9926479
There's plenty of metaphysical problems which can't be solved by physicalism, take the "explanatory gap" in philosophy of mind: Were you to accept the theory that every mental state has an underlying neural state, which is a commonly held belief, then consider the case of pain, how would you go about explaining the reason why pain emerges from one particular neural state rather than different type of sensation? How would you go about closing the gap between phenomenal consciousness and the brain?

>>9924339
Unironically better than psych.

>>9926468
>and science proves whether its right or wrong?
How does science prove ethical or aesthetic questions?

>>9926479
How is that arrogant science has to be devoid of direct ontology to be efficacious. The differences between appearances and reality, the "outside world" and the world of experience, or whether there is an "outside world" are questions of ontology. Science can't tell us the difference between something that doesn't exist and something that does... any thinkable object can be said to have an empirical basis on the grounds that it is thought, and what is thought, is. What differentiates one ontological entity from another? The "outside world" may not be outside at all... it may be that nonexistent objects and existent objects differ only in intentionality a la meinong, or it may be that nonexistent objects are constructed on the basis of linguistic terms or syntax that doesn't accurately represent the logical content of the statement, a la russel... show me a calculus with the power to solve these questions.

Is it really a "thing"?

Philosophy these days has become a whole bunch of educated people discussing seemingly pointless questions. But at its roots anyone can be a philosopher as it simply means "Lover of wisdom". Science started as Natural Philosophy and even Newton himself considered himself a philosopher and not a scientist.
Philosophy is not so much a field or genre but more of a mindset or a method that dictates a constant pursuit of wisdom.

Because the deepest questions about truth, ethics, values, scientific method, existence etc. can't be fully answered by science. Philosophy and science compliment each other.

Really wish I could be one of these brainlets who see science as the penultimate human endeavor, I'd be way more productive that way, you know, not knowing SHIT. lmao

Philosophy is a completely different way of thinking than, say, physics. It is more "construct" driven which I would argue is one of the best things that distinguishes the two. Philosophy deals with the problems in which only an intelligent being would hypothesize and think about.

>>9924344
Which side got BTFO?

/lit/ here
Very happy and pleasantly surprised to see /sci/'s reaction to this thread

>>9924339
because you shits still don't know nothin

>>9924359
>>9924363
>>9924375
>>9924386
>>9924419
>>9924498
>>9924537
>>9924625
>>9924651
>>9924672
>>9924687
>>9925429
>>9925455
>>9925787
>>9925795
>>9925828
>>9925858
>>9925862
>>9925872
>>9925918
>>9926019
>>9926241
>>9926318
>>9926344
>>9926431
>>9926448
>>9926451
>>9926468
>>9926471
>>9926540
>>9926551
>>9926935
>>9927336
>>9927372
>>9927424
>>9927449
>>9928098
>>9928121
ITT: Humanities brainlets trying to justify their toilet paper degrees and thinking they can do REAL science, >>>/his/ is that way you niggers.

>>9924339
>Plato has larger name real estate than Aristotle

I bet a filthy platonist semite made this.

>>9928205
Nice memage, friend
>>9928212
>>Plato has larger name real estate than Aristotle
>I bet a filthy platonist semite made this.
I bet some Aristotard made this

>>9928341
>Aristotard
Spotted the brainlet

>>9924339
Many reasons actually. For one, it is the uncharted mystery left in the world.

"Metaphysics is a dark ocean without shores or lighthouse, strewn with many a philosophic wreck." Immanuel kant

"And then they all spoke as with one
mouth: “Who are you, who bear the
emblem of the Childlike Empress and
don’t know that Fantastica has no
borders?”
Atreyu made no reply. He was stunned.
It had never occurred to him that
Fantastica might have no borders
whatsoever. Then his whole Quest had
been for nothing." -The neverending story.

>>9928391
If I had one cent for every philosopher that tried to kill metaphysics and failed I would be rich.

>>9928391
If I had one cent for all the philosophers who tried to kill metaphysics and failed I would be rich.

>>9928655
Name 5

>>9928205
t. Maybe I will look cool by responding to a fuckton of people without providing anything of comparable substance to it

>>9928205
You read through the entire thread to post that? Priorities, friendo. It's time to develop some.

>>9928391
>"Metaphysics is a dark ocean without shores or lighthouse, strewn with many a philosophic wreck." Immanuel kant
Interesting considering that Kant described Hume's thoughts on causality as a ship set to sail but which ultimately wrecked on a beach.

>>9924339
it isn't, when was the last "major breakthrough" or other significant work to do with philosophy? it's practically dead at this point, studying it is for people who want to get an interesting historical perspective and nothing more nowadays.

>>9928725
>when was the last "major breakthrough"
Never, and if you don't understand why then you don't understand the telos of philosophy.

>>9928727
>le dont understand
keep fagging, faggot.
Although science have near-same ultimate like telos, such as UFD. But we can answer just same question. What is discovering higgs boson? Calculating the age of universe? Or even aside from this, such as making the internet?

if you dislike philosophy but liek science xD! then you're such an enormous faggot holy shit get off this board brainlet.

If you only like analytical phil then you're even a worse faggot

>>9928826
It's obvious to everyone that you're completely clueless mate, stop posting anytime before you embarrass yourself further

>>9926376
>homogebeity logically follows from isotropy
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA Jesus philosotards.

>>9928872
>no argument
No surprises here

>>9928872
The universe being COMPLETELY isotropic implies homogeneity, do I have to spell it out further for you, retard?

>>9924339


Since 1900, science is too complex for philosophy.

A physicist discusses time, space, and reality better than a philosopher.

A biologist discusses the origin of life, the relationship between the living better than a philosopher.

It's really impressive, science beats anything: religion, philosophy, imagination

>>9928917
What do you know about any of the subjects you just listed? Do you have the knowledge required to even begin a comparison? You sound like you read popsci, fuck off brainlet-kun

>>9928917
>t. I Fucking Love Science

>>9928941

You fuck off cock sucker, he's right. Philosophy is nice and all, but it's 20 fucking 18. We have unimaginable resources at our disposal. It's high time we side-step our self-indulgent imaginations and simply try and put the pieces together.

>>9928951
I may be a fanboy but i'm right
>>9928941
>Do you have the knowledge required to even begin a comparison?
Yes

>>9928959
How does any of what you said exclude philosophy? Do you actually think you'll be able to seperate scientific endeavor from philosophical discussion? You sound like every undergraduate engineer studenyt I've had the misfortune of discussing anything substantial with kek

>>9928959
>muh current year
t. I Fucking Love Science

>>9928969

I myself don't understand philosophy too well. I'm just discovering it to be the fundamental basis for understanding any and everything. A better expression would be, "Let's use the unimaginable resources at our disposal to immerse ourselves ever deeper into the realm of philosophical discussion."

I was wrong to advise side-stepping the imagination. It is the most effective tool in terms of conjuring up meaning and making sense of things.

>>9924339
As I have a doctorate of philosophy, good whole thread is offensive

>>9928959
>it's 20 fucking 18.

>>9929065

Good discussion offends by it's very nature. Fuck off title dropper.

>>9929068
I mean good discussion can offend by nature but it doesn't have to, that doesn't make any sense

>>9929076

Well, for me, if people aren't getting offended, they aren't being motivated as much as they could to contribute what they can to the discussion. That's why I like throwing in a "faggot" or "fuckface" from time to time.

>>9924339
Because still to this day there are people like you who do not understand what "rationality" means.
>>9928391
>Immanuel kant
We're taking about philosophy not sophism
>>9928917
>physicist discusses time, space, and reality better than a philosopher.

Because they arbitrarily invented the math and language to do so :>, so no shit they're better at deciphering their own shit. If you ask a physicist to reify any of the things you described they would fail miserably whereas a philosopher already know these things aren't real. A philosopher knows that humans cannot simply make up a language as an explanation for somethings existence

>putting your "Burden of proof" reply here

No dumb dumb. Outlandish and extraordinary claims require a burden of proof, of which there is still none for time or even space. Substantiate your claims.

>>9928917
Your modern scientist is a glorified mathematician who believes in secularized metaphysics (religion). Prove me wrong.

>>9924375
>Science without philosophy could run into problems down the road.
Will and has already done so.

>>9924471
See this is what people don't get. They think the universe runs on a calculator and when you plug numbers into it things start spinning.

>>9924498
>A theological empire based on mathematics is the ultimate form of government.
>God runs on math
This is why we need philosophy, there are too many stupid people out there trying to define what god is with abstract human concepts. Please tell me how math will strengthen our relationship with a deity that does not understand nor concern itself about human concepts. Do you think a human even has the ability to believe in God without applying his own materialistic thinking to him? I'm serious, please answer me.

>>9929096
>Your modern scientist is a glorified mathematician who believes in secularized metaphysics (religion). Prove me wrong.

>>9929107
Quantum mechanics/GR/Special GR=secularized metaphysics
Average scientist in said fields take said beliefs, transfers them over to their hypothesis and uses the math/ equations provided by said secularized metaphysical cult to check and substantiate their findings and proofs.

Next.

>>9929117
QM/GR=metaphysics. You must be that flat earther roaming around this board.

>>9928826
You are literally retarded.

>>9929120
>>9929120
>QM/GR=metaphysics.

Secularized. Please tell me how it isn't.
Two branches claiming that reality is somehow composed of indivisible SECULARIZED "forces" "particles" etc..

>In other words a SECULARIZED group that deals with the first principles of things.

>>9924339
Because you can overthink things for daaaaaays

>>9929135
Maybe I'm not understanding your definition of secular or how you are using secularized to argue that two large branches of physics is metaphysics. I'm sorry physics has gone beyond your backyard science experiments and what you would probably call "natural" science, but it is still physics don't what physics has always done, model the universe in which we live in attempts to describe, predict, and control what it contains.

>>9929144
>Maybe I'm not understanding your definition of secular or how you are using secularized to argue that two large branches of physics is metaphysics.
Maybe that's because you think there's a difference between physics and metaphysics. Just because you substitute a belief of which there is no empirical evidence for with another doesn't make it any more different than metaphysics.
You can call both those beliefs "god" and "physics", both have just as much evidence as each other.

>yeah but we have math to prove it
You certainly do have the tools you made up. but what are you proving?
>that our math is correct
Secularized metaphysics.

>>9929144
i'm genuinely interested in knowing what you think about the wave function collapse. I'm not a physicist social don't know about the current state of thing is quantum mechanics, there is still a debate between many-words and Copenhagen interpretation or other shit

Imagine being a 16 year old «muh science, philosophy is useless»-redditor... really makes you think

>2018
>scientists still thinking they're in charge and not just the literal autistic clockwork puppets of an invasive alien species from the Platonic sector
just lmao

Too many people in this thread are confusing Philosophy with Philosophy Major. Many great scientists took philosophical theories that they thought might be rational and tested them to see if they hold. A large part of making hypotheses is rationally finding a plausible answer and then testing it. The former aspect, though it is built off of previous scientific findings, is still philosophical.

>>9928902
A sphericall ball with density that depends only on r is isotropic and not homogeneous.

Raise your hand if you think "spacetime" is metaphysics.

>>9929179
What we have to show are concrete results that anyone with the knowhow can test. Those with the knowhow and money do test them. Often times the knowhow isn't so significant and even undergraduates do it and sometimes the money is shall enough that it can be done without grants or relying on outside sources. Other times it requires a more technical hand that I add a theorist leave to the experimentalists who are better suited for it. It is the concrete results that test hypotheses, not circular logic you are presenting here.

Either way, this is my last post to you. This is a sci&math board. If you don't think something is science, don't post it here. If you think everything is metaphysics and shouldn't be posted here, then go report all the posts that "aren't science or math"

>>9929117
>physics = metaphysics
cringe

>>9929405
>thinks dark matter isn't metaphysics
Cringe.

>>9929473
>Thinks our world is limited to "natural" science but has a shitty definition of "natural" science
cringe

>>9929487
Natural science is observable, measurable, testable and repeatable. It is primary knowledge gained through the 5 senses.

>>9929565
Agreed with everything except allowing instruments and tools to help measure things

>>9929604
Using tools to measure things within our closed system on earth, or outside it?

>>9929654
Earth is not a closed system. We can only measure things on Earth since that's where our tools are. When you measure things from stars, you are measuring the photons on Earth that came from those stars. Though most of the measurements I have in mind aren't astronomical.

Using tools to measure things within our open system on Earth, yes.

>>9929815
What tools have measured curved spacetime?

>>9929834
You measure the predictions made by the theory. I.e. curvature of light, precession of orbits, gravitational redshift etc etc. All this can be explained with "curvature" which really means using a different way of measuring distances.
>hurr durr but le black science man said
Well that's why entry level popsci is not considered proper understanding of physics.

>>9929845
How much does curved spacetime weigh?

>>9924339
Because science is fundamentally limited.

>>9929849
That question is nonsensical.

What do you mean? Philosophy is the core of human experience, how could it ever not be a thing?

>>9929852
But it's curved? So it must be physical.

>>9928205
I'm actually getting my degree in physics and while I do think philosophy is only really useful if you're a college academic, it's still a great subject that makes you think.

>>9929861
SU(3) is "curved" and it's "physical" as you can model rotation of rigid bodies using it and it's 3-dimensional but not isometric to 3 dimensional coordinate space. Your poor understanding of math and it's interpretation in physics doesn't put any serious concern on the theory.

>>9924339

There is no scientific approach without rational skepticism, since modern science is rooted from that.

>>9928205
>>9924359 was an exquisite point you fucking brainlet.

>>9929916
Not interested in modelling it, I want it measured as a physical substance.

>implying STEMfags have the capacity for philosophy
Let the automatons just do their equations in peace

>>9930000
Based, redpilled and witnessed

>>9929834
None. Curved spacetime is a model which has given significantly accurate predictions to phenomena such as time dilation, geodesics, and gravitational lensing, which have been verified with satellites or measuring half-life if you don't like GPS, flight paths, and black holes/Einstein rings around black holes.

Nothing proves a theory or model, but there have been enough experiments to validate the findings of predictions of GR/QM that they are accepted as valid theories within their domain of prediction/application.

>>9929996
Physics is mostly concerned with appropriate models. If you're saying spacetime is metaphysical because I can't say how much it weighs, then that's the same thing as saying the magnetic field is metaphysical for the same reason. Same as forces, vectors, cardinal directions, etc.

>>9928826
What in the fuck are you going on about?

>>9930000

Holy shit yesssssssssssssss 1000+ intranetz to you sir

>>9928205
Cringe

>>9930000
STEMfags BTFO

>>9929096
Kant isn't sophism. His philosophy was a mixture of morality and the limits of metaphysics.

>>9924339
Because the process of science is rooted in epistemic philosophy, even if you're the biggest positivist in the universe you're still taking an philosophical stance you faggot.

>why is this still a thing?
>why
Hmm...

>>9930000
Basado y rojoempastillado