/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.14479727]

my humanities brain is content

[Anonymous No.14479774]

>>14479727
We got too cocky stemcel bros...

[Anonymous No.14479846]

>>14479727
It seems like we've spread ourselves too thin. QM came about when the map was just about filled classically.

[Anonymous No.14479863]

>>14479727
Well well well....

[Anonymous No.14479865]

how can I profit from this ?

[Anonymous No.14479869]

>>14479865
Short Sagittarius A*

[Anonymous No.14479875]

>>14479727
>physicists continue to lick each others asses
>le black hole
Fuck modern science

[Anonymous No.14479881]

>>14479727
>space time is emergent
no shit, it's a mathematical construct. Let's see what other we already knew bullshit modern physicists will say.

[Anonymous No.14479887]

>>14479727
>the Simulation is real
>the Matrix is real
this does not bode well for humanity.
once the tiger knows how to unlock the cage, the tiger is exterminated.

[Anonymous No.14479889]

>>14479727
Fun fact: every time we get close to figuring out the underlying rules to reality, the simulation makes it slightly more complicated just to fuck with us.

[Anonymous No.14479905]

>>14479727
Nobody cares about this out of the theoreticel physishit basement.

[Anonymous No.14479913]

>>14479905
Sure buddy.

[Anonymous No.14479916]

>>14479865
Make a popsci youtube channel and market yourself as intellectual

[Anonymous No.14479918]

>>14479913
Yeah sure, boomer.

[Anonymous No.14480156]

>>14479727
There are people who thought spacetime was the "root" level of reality?
What kind of materialist retard would assume such a thing..

[Anonymous No.14480170]

>>14480156
Imagine thinking physics could uncover reality lol

[Anonymous No.14480215]

Never trust the physicist.

[Anonymous No.14480262]

>>14479727
So ummm ether 2.0?

[Anonymous No.14481358]

>>14479865
Buy Luna

[Anonymous No.14481360]

>>14479881
Mathematics is a tool invented by human minds to make sense of observed relationships between observed entities. You have it quite backwards.

[Anonymous No.14481370]

>emergent structure
Keep an eye out for this buzzword. They are forming a new soience religion around it,

[Anonymous No.14481371]

>>14479727
>Space time is not the root level of reality, but an emergent structure of something deeper.

That's because structures in time can control the past by manipulating the future.

[Anonymous No.14481561]

Didn't David Bohm figure this out 50 years ago?

[Anonymous No.14481591]

>growing evidence

[Anonymous No.14481857]

>>14479727
What if black holes are just path ways to other universe's

[Anonymous No.14481881]

>physicists confirm trivial shit that was known in CTMU 40 years ago already

[Anonymous No.14481916]

>>14480156
>imblying there's anything but more materialism under the materialism

[Anonymous No.14483395]

>>14481857
what is it about black holes that makes them the number one most popular popsci topic of discussion amongst the brainlet soience fangoys?
is it the comic bookish aspects of the spectacular, unrealistic and completely non disprovable conjectures which go along with the topic that make black holes so popular amongst the scientist posers and wannabes?

[Geo No.14483667]

>>14479727
Strange clipper

[Anonymous No.14483708]

>>14481916
if you want it, you will invent it

[Anonymous No.14483751]

>>14479889
I like this theory, would mean the world of the ancients worked literally the way the thought it did.

[Anonymous No.14483755]

>>14483395
We don't understand it -> magic happens there
Tale as old as time.

[Anonymous No.14483781]

>>14479875
A black hole is the only environment in the universe with extreme relativistic conditions as far as I know.

[Anonymous No.14483792]

>>14479727

Everything is emergent from conciousness, God is real and planck was right. Naturalist and physicalist are retarded.

[Anonymous No.14483826]

>>14483781
which version of relativity, the one that doesn't predict the observed distance-redshift relationship, the one that doesn't predict galactic orbits, the version where neutrons are fundamental particles or the dark matter version?

[Anonymous No.14483837]

>>14479865
You can't this is purely cosmological masturbation. The government is paying hobbysts to look through telescopes and write stuff that can't be tested falsifiability.

[Anonymous No.14483930]

>>14479727
How significant and likely-true/confirmed/well-received is this?

[Anonymous No.14483935]

>>14479727
>implying

[Anonymous No.14485379]

>>14483837
Who cares about actually testing things? We got the math nailed down. We just gotta stare at these equations some more and hope we discover something new about reality.

[Anonymous No.14485491]

>>14479727
>can shed information
board tourist here, what does this mean? what the fuck is this, how could this possibly even remotely be proven?

[Anonymous No.14485698]

>>14479727
>emergent structure
Even in the face of irrefutable evidence that scientific materialism is wrong, physicels still insist that their materialism is actually correct and consciousness must be somehow "emergent" and "reducible" rather than a fundamental property that exists regardless of whether it is imposed on matter or not.

[Anonymous No.14485856]

>>14483930
Space and time are intuitions, and thereby, subjective. The relations among analytical things are bound by a different apparatus. This is little different from the geocentric and heliocentric models of the relative motions of the heavens. The same intuition that tells you the Moon is moving also informs the Sun's motion. There is a kind of elision between intuition and understanding, especially those expressed in semi-formal systems like language. We prefer decisive information, given quickly, and in otherwise agreeable forms. The subtle gives way to the obvious.
Are these words that you are reading right now? I don't just mean pixels on the screen implying some holographic reality beneath our notions of space and time. I intend that the true meaning of words are not within the words, but they point to the understanding of the word. We no more read words than we visit the Disneyland sign or mile marker 69 on some interstate. A quick spell for improving memory, or just telemetry analysis.
Intuition necessarily begets from a unity and has a fatal flaw. Everything from it are going to appear, at all times, to point in a certain and similar direction. This unity may not underlie or reflect whatever may be out there. It really just reflects the orchestration of itself and parts. It is shorthand for something, for being in the middle of nowhere, looking like a human, raised in such and such circumstances, witness to many great and unfortunate things. Much defies intuition, who cares if they add one more to the list?

[Anonymous No.14487441]

>>14479727
The simulation is real materialists fags BTFO yet again

[Anonymous No.14487447]

>>14485491
It's just an emergent property of black hores, bro. Learn some science, will ya?

[Anonymous No.14487451]

>>14485856
This is what a bot post actually looks like. It's not the kiddie one liners. It's stuff like this that's obviously AI-generated.

[Anonymous No.14487462]

>>14485698
>>14485698
> rather than a fundamental property that exists regardless of whether it is imposed on matter or not.
Let me guess: pan-psychic nigger? Also, how can you describe this property? It is intangible or something more metaphysical.

[Anonymous No.14487465]

>>14479727
The simulation theory is such a fucking meme.

[Anonymous No.14487466]

>>14487462
He's an NPC just like you.

[Anonymous No.14487468]

>>14479727
They have been saying pic related for years, so how is this big news?

[Anonymous No.14487471]

>>14487466
Then who are you? The protagonist or just another fellow npc? If the answer is the last one then who is the real protagonist of this game?

[Anonymous No.14487483]

>>14487471
>Then who are you?
A neutral observer watching NPCs having irrelevant knreejerk reactions. Why is that faggot rambling about consciousness? Nothing in OP's pop-soi pic implies anything about consciousness, objectively speaking. Why did you react to him with some whining about pan-psychist boogeymen? You people are obsessed with your retarded culture war.

[Anonymous No.14487509]

>>14487483
>A neutral observer watching NPCs having irrelevant knreejerk reactions.
Neutral observer my ass nigger. The fact that you decided to respond my answer and stated your opinion already implies that you are already taken a position indirectly, thus you are not neutral. A true neutral observer doesn't intervene in any sort of way. Ironically, you seem to be the NPC that doesn't think is an NPC and claims to be different than the others(le hecking radical centrist).
>Why is that faggot rambling about consciousness? Nothing in OP's pop-soi pic implies anything about consciousness, objectively speaking.
No idea. I assume that it was that schizo obsessed with pan psychic and the simulation theory
>Why did you react to him with some whining about pan-psychist boogeymen?
There is a schizo that in this board that is obsessed with pan-psyschic. I like to piss him off by being a contrariant and he sometimes spergs out
>You people are obsessed with your retarded culture war.
This isn't part of a culture war you nigger. I just hate that annoying retard and I want to start a dumpster fire. Is funny

[Anonymous No.14487513]

>>14479865
Buy GRT

[Anonymous No.14487518]

>>14487509
In other words, you are a dirt-worshipping NPC, some other poster gave you PTSD by contradicting your cult's dogma and you just can't get over it so now you spend your days bark at shadows.

[Anonymous No.14488386]

>>14487462
>how can you describe this property? It is intangible or something more metaphysical.
Yes. There is more to this universe than what is purely physical, anon. We are not just random particles bumping around. You cannot build a human mind from a series of switches. An inert piece of silicon will always be inert, no matter how many circuits you carve into it, and it is the mark of human hubris to foolishly believe otherwise.

Consciousness is fundamental. It exists regardless of the physical world. Matter is a substrate for our consciousness. Perhaps one day we will gain some understanding of the metaphysical world as well as our physical one, but it won't be done through the instruments of science.

[Anonymous No.14488403]

>>14488386
Massive cringe. Probably a false flag from the dirt worshippers.

[Anonymous No.14488412]

>>14488403
Funny how scientific materialists believe everything can be reduced to their laws of science, that everything is just particles randomly bumping around according to well-defined and well-specified laws. Yet all of their attempts to actually describe and specify such a system in accordance with observation fail miserably. Does that make you seethe?

[Anonymous No.14488417]

>>14488412
>Does that make you seethe?
No because I don't care about "materialism". You're just the other side of that retard coin, if not one of the people you're whining about trying to poison the well.

[Anonymous No.14488428]

>>14488386
>>14488403
>>14488412
>>14488417

[Anonymous No.14488435]

>>14488428
Take your meds, pseudoscientific dirt worshipper. No one wants to hear about magical emergence theories, the simulation, the singularity, or your AI gods.

[Anonymous No.14488872]

>>14488386
If silicon was inert my phone wouldn't be able to wake me up with an alarm in the morning, it does it per it's own memory, not as a reaction to my action - I'm sleeping at that moment and doing anything.

[Anonymous No.14488882]

>>14487462
Pan-psychism is materialism, it's just confused when mind emerges. "Materialism is wrong" is dualism or idealism.

[Anonymous No.14488885]

>>14488872
A wind-up timer can wake you up just as easily. Do you believe that mechanical devices are conscious?

[Anonymous No.14488886]

>>14488412
It's the opposite, materialists describe mind as neural activity and there's a lot of neuroscience about it, but idealist can only say "hurr durr" and not much else.

[Anonymous No.14488891]

>>14488885
They aren't conscious, but they aren't inert either.

[Anonymous No.14488913]

Physicists have been making shit up since they go to subatomic shit. Quarks aren't real, string theory is bullshit, it's turtles all the way down.

[Anonymous No.14488945]

>>14479727
the first half of that statement has literally no logical connection to the latter half
it's a literal non-sequitur

[Anonymous No.14489128]

>>14488913
>Physicists have been making shit up since they go to subatomic shit. Quarks aren't real, string theory is bullshit, it's turtles all the way down.
based

[Anonymous No.14489173]

>>14479865
Sell black hole T-Shirts

[Anonymous No.14489202]

>>14479727
If I go into this heavy ball, can I tell my past self to change majors?

[Anonymous No.14489908]

>>14481857
It’s just a gigantic recycling bin. It gobbles up everything and creates new stars from it.

>Black holes can not only rip stars apart, but they can also trigger star formation, as scientists have now seen in a nearby dwarf galaxy.

[Anonymous No.14490222]

>>14488913

[Anonymous No.14490576]

>>14483395
It's something theoretically big and vast and unknowable to us as humans. Do we love that shit. You would have replied to this thread on /his/ if it was about god in some pseudo way that tickled your eyes.

[Anonymous No.14491926]

>>14479918
oh wow, nice come back, i'm sure he's crying himself to sleep over that, you should tell him ywnbaw and to sneed just to finish him off.

[Anonymous No.14492074]

>>14479727
Study computer science or physics then?

[Anonymous No.14492123]

>>14479727
It is another:

>le sensationalist journal misinterprets a PhD level paper and contradicts a few dozen laws of thermodynamics in the process

Information CANNOT be lost, no matter how much you cosmological nerds try to make up corners of the Universe where physics makes no sense.

There is no shedding of information. It is either converting into heat or matter.

[Anonymous No.14492265]

>>14479727
Why is the twitter post unrelated and also less interesting than the article headline they embedded?

[Anonymous No.14492335]

>>14479727
Based. Pathetic sciencecucks kneel before the might of the humanitiesCHAD. You can play around with your little equations and scraping away at the shallow veneer of reality, getting absolutely nowhere and shitting and pissing your pants while you do it. Us humanitiesDEITIES will be out here creating worlds and drawing humanity up out of the muck. You're welcome

[Anonymous No.14492445]

>>14481370
Emergent structures and properties have been one of the cutting edge fronts of physics for over 10 years now anon

[Anonymous No.14492476]

>>14489202
Yes but he obviously didn't listen since you didn't do it.

[Anonymous No.14493430]

Bump

[Anonymous No.14493442]

>>14492445
Is that what your mentally ill cult actually believes? Please tell me more.

[Anonymous No.14493449]

>>14479727
>humanities
>brain

[Anonymous No.14493457]

>>14479727
In a landmark series of calculations
lol.
Also, to the cunt who was defending set-theory as the foundation of maths and quoting from the wikipedia article in the /lit/ thread that got pruned.
> >>20384645
>Husserl never claimed that mathematics could or should be grounded in part-whole rather than set theory.
This is why you should not trust Wikipedia articles.
> Husserl’s early first-hand experience of inconsistent sets and some of the more logic defying aspects of Cantor’s theory of sets might actually have permanently inoculated the future founder of the phenomenological movement against any recourse to sets or classes. For Husserl would express grave doubts about extensional logic, by which he meant a calculus of classes (p. 443, for example), for the rest of his career. He would say that extensional logic was naive, risky, doubtful and the source of many a contradiction requiring every kind of artful device to make it safe for use in reasoning ([19, pp. 74, 76, 83]; [18, p. 153]), a wariness already evident in “The Deductive Calculus and the Logic of Contents” and related articles (pp. 92–114, 115–120, 121–130, 135–138, 443-451) in which we find Husserl intent upon laying bare the “the follies of extensional logic” (p. 199) which he would replace by a calculus of conceptual objects. In these texts he seeks to show “that the total formal basis upon which the class calculus rests is valid for the relationships between conceptual objects,” and that one could solve logical problems without “the detour through classes” (p. 109), which he considered to be “totally superficial” (p. 123).

[Anonymous No.14494549]

>>14488386
If consciousness I fundamental then where it was before humans arise on earth? Where were we during the first billion years of universe and before that? Were we in an imaterial world just waiting for earth to conveniently generate bodies for us?

[Anonymous No.14494586]

>>14494549
>If consciousness I fundamental then where it was before humans arise on earth?
Time is a consequence of entropy, which is a property of matter. Consciousness is immaterial, and thus isn't strictly bound to time.

>Where were we during the first billion years of universe and before that? Were we in an imaterial world just waiting for earth to conveniently generate bodies for us?
The universe is infinite in space and time, so in an infinite universe filled with life there is always a place for consciousness.

[Anonymous No.14495836]

>>14494586
Consciousness can be altered by physical properties such as psychoactive substances (coffee, mushrooms etc), or even fully suppressed (anesthesia)

Consciousness arises from sensorial inputs from physical entities of the world. And most importantly consciousness arises. So it's at least less fundamental than whatever it caused it to arise.

There has been progress in neuroscience in images reconstruction from brain activity. Speech creation from brain signals. So consciousness is indeed material.

[Anonymous No.14496934]

>>14489908
>It gobbles up everything and creates new stars from it.
Not true, it gobbles up everything and makes itself bigger. The act itself doesn't create stars.

[Anonymous No.14496963]

>>14495836
>Consciousness arises from sensorial inputs from physical entities of the world. And most importantly consciousness arises. So it's at least less fundamental than whatever it caused it to arise.

[Anonymous No.14497118]

>>14496963
>At first I thought 'qualia anon' was memeing how people who made claims as to the emergent nature of our mind had tiny brains
>but now I realize it's prob meant as how he himself feels when he see all these sentences with words he don't understand.

[Anonymous No.14497140]

>>14497118
Jesus. At least lurk for a while before you make your first 4chan post. This is atrocious.

[Anonymous No.14497176]

>>14489202
You can't since you already choose them.

[Anonymous No.14497412]

PHILOSOPHY BROS THIS IS OUR TIME TO RISE UP

[Anonymous No.14497549]

>>14479727
is there a way to see the research directly? like not filtered through multiple layers of science "journalism"? does anyone on this website attend conferences?

[Anonymous No.14497592]

>>14496963
That's how every conscious thought is formed. It starts from sensorial inputs who arrive to the brain who then interprets them and enacts a response.

The interpretation and enacting of a response is hundred billions of neurons firings signals and communicating between themselves. So it's indeed physical.

[Anonymous No.14497810]

>>14481360
Just because you can create a mathematical abstraction doesn't mean it exists in the real world. You are committing the fallacy of misplaced concreteness, brainlet retard.

[Anonymous No.14497877]

>>14483837
dirty engineer hands wrote this post

[Anonymous No.14498125]

>>14479727
>that space-time is not the root level of reality, but an emergent structure from something deeper
Quanta Magazine