/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.6012193]

hey /sci/,
how does it feel knowing that science has recently progressed to the point philosophy was at 4000 years ago?

[Anonymous No.6012198]

So... we CAN know nothin'.

[Anonymous No.6012212]

seriously, look at the image and tell me that doesnt sound exactly like philosophy

[Anonymous No.6012209]

>>6012193

Plato 427-347 BC

nice counting.

And the word philosophia in Aristotle is frequently translated science.

[Anonymous No.6012216]

>>6012209
yeah I may have exaggerated. But the point stands. 'philosophy' just means "love of knowledge", so take that to mean what you will. I just think its surprising that the methods ancient greeks and modern science were so different, and yet came to similar conclusions.

[Anonymous No.6012219]

>2013
>still thinking collapse has anything to do with consciousness
new-age roflmao

[Anonymous No.6012243]

>>6012219
? the quantum mind-body problem supports dualism with respect to consciousness...

[AL !!9YCj0HNhQB4 No.6012248]

>>6012193
d'Espagnat is a nut, and Rees doesn't know quantum mechanics. The other 2 have nothing to do with philosophy.

we should make a rule that anyone who quotes someone who received the Templeton Prize gets banned.

[Anonymous No.6012252]

>>6012198
Jon Snow would be proud.

[Anonymous No.6012255]

>>6012248
>Templeton Prize
Welp, I didn't know that existed.
Seems like a good rule, yeah.

[Anonymous No.6012264]

>>6012248
And you're some random poster on an imageboard, with no credentials, so we have to disregard everything you say.

Good logic.

[Anonymous No.6012269]

>>6012248
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Templeton_prize
>several nobel laureates of physics in the list

You're full of shit.

[AL !!9YCj0HNhQB4 No.6012280]

>>6012264
Here im your equal, so we have to disregard what you say too, so we have to disregard that we have to disregard me.

>>6012269
if they cant separate their physics from their /x/ crap then why would we want their quotes?

[Anonymous No.6012288]

>here, have a letter from Einstein

"I fully agree with you about the significance and educational value of methodology as well as history and philosophy of science. So many people today - and even professional scientists - seem to me like somebody who has seen thousands of trees but has never seen a forest. A knowledge of the historic and philosophical background gives that kind of independence from prejudices of his generation from which most scientists are suffering. This independence created by philosophical insight is - in my opinion - the mark of distinction between a mere artisan or specialist and a real seeker after truth." Einstein. letter to Robert A. Thornton, 7 December 1944. EA 61-574.

[Anonymous No.6012292]

>>6012280
Ok, I agree with that. But calling someone a 'nut' doesnt discredit everything they say. "Greatest minds were called crazy throughout history, etc., etc.,"

[AL !!9YCj0HNhQB4 No.6012304]

>>6012292
I know it a generalization (which people tell me is bad), but any physicist who talks about a great, hypercosmic god which is a non-material realm that lies outside of space and time becasue "obviously" quantum mechanics shows there must exists such a reality which science cant explain is a nut in my book.

[Anonymous No.6012327]

ITT and any such thread in the history of science:

>Implying Albert Einstein was a philosopher first, a scientist second.

He raped his own butt in studying and doing hard work. THEN he became a philosopher too.

The illusions of children that with philosophy alone they will do anything are for Hollywood movies.

[Anonymous No.6012331]

>>6012280
Gravity used to be '/x/ crap' at one point. Just saying.

[Anonymous No.6012335]

>>6012304
so Einstein was crazy because he believed in God too?

[Anonymous No.6012339]

>>6012327
I think he was after truth, and he chose science as his first mode. Science naturally progresses in what people call philosophy, and children's reluctance to even speculate without hard data will be the death of science.

[Anonymous No.6012345]

>>6012339

You are a common pathetic moron if you think Einstein was a common "good philisopher".

Child if you don't put your butt down to work hard you will do nothing innovative.

Sorry to break it to you but you are an idiot and your "philosophies" aren't worth.

[Anonymous No.6012346]

>>6012345
I'm always doing Gedankenexperimente like the Big E. Does that count??

[Anonymous No.6012355]

>>6012216

>and yet came to similar conclusions.

They also came to the conclusion that objects fall in proportion to their weight and smoke rises due to the presence of levity. If you claim enough things some are bound to be reasonable.

[Anonymous No.6012360]

>>6012292
When you're doing absolutely nothing but a call to authority, it's perfectly legitimate to question that authority.

Child.

[Anonymous No.6012370]

>>6012360
I assume you're the same person as >>6012345 because of the Child.

Was this not a call to authority as well..?

[Anonymous No.6012380]

its so awesome.

captcha: universally

[Anonymous No.6012407]

>>6012370
>I assume you're the same person as >>6012345 because of the Child.
You would be wrong.

>Was this not a call to authority as well..?
No.

[Anonymous No.6012423]

.. but you can collapse things without humans looking at it or even knowing about it, a computer can just harvest the results and store them, a computer is not conscious and the effect of a collapse will from a microscopic viewpoint just look like an accident, not affected by any conscious observer.

Then you can let the information on the computer sit for a year or whatever and have a look at the results later, they won't change just because somebody suddenly "observes" them.

[Anonymous No.6012428]

>>6012423
but they only exist if somebody eventually looks at them.

if a tree falls in the forest and nobody is around to hear it, does it make a sound?

[Anonymous No.6012432]

>>6012423
They would claim the computer memory is in a superposition of states.

If you're looking for an experiment disproving the consciousness nonsense, look at the delayed choice quantum eraser experiment.

[Anonymous No.6012433]

>>6012193
Maybe I'm to down-to-earth but :
electrictity
cars, trains, planes
computers, phones, internet
electronic devices
medical science
...
(gigantic gap between "levels of life")

Thanks to : the book of philosophers, or the work of scientists ?

[Anonymous No.6012435]

>>6012433
creature comforts are nice, but how do those things help us understand reality..?

[Anonymous No.6012442]

>>6012433
And alchemy got us the Philosopher's Stone. Science is full of crap!

[Anonymous No.6012439]

>>6012435
>how does scientific apparatus help us understand the natural world
gee I dunno

[Anonymous No.6012449]

>>6012442
Newton was a scientist and he died trying to create the philosophers stone.

I'm sure glad scientists are level-headed and firmly grasped in reality!

[Anonymous No.6012451]

>>6012435
but what will you do with definitive answers ?

For centuries now, the more we solve problems, the more we raise question (in 1900, almost all physicians agreed that their work was almost finished/achieved, except few details. See now...)

So I'm glad to behave sometimes like a dumb sheep.

[Anonymous No.6012454]

>>6012451
>So I'm glad to behave sometimes like a dumb sheep.

suit yourself.

[Anonymous No.6012457]

>>6012451
>physicians
Yeah I'm sure medical doctors had all kind of opinions about physics.
French wanker detected.

[Anonymous No.6012458]

>>6012442
>>6012449
I'm not sure to understand what you mean.
And the distinction between philosophers and scientists is quite new, when you look at the whole story of humanity (let's say Greeks if we need a birth, but it's highly debatable)

[Anonymous No.6012461]

>>6012457
lul. One point for you.
But that doesn't change the meaning of my post.
Any opinion ?
(physicists ? Damn it, I never remember)

[Anonymous No.6012465]

>>6012428
But if you write a program checking the results and confirming that the results the observers see is the same results that were registered from the start?

would they say everything is in a superposition?
that kind of sounds retarded but that's just me.

>>6012432
I've read about it, it's kind of what inspired me to the first post, probably partially because I didn't understand it fully, it sounded ridiculously cool though.

[Anonymous No.6012469]

>>6012458
I agree the distinction is new. Scientists grew out of empirical philosophy. But nowadays it seems "scientist" means someone grounded in facts and data, without any semblance of imagination, while "philosopher" means someone who gets caught in semantics of any subject. I wish the two would reconcile...

[Anonymous No.6012470]

>>6012433
>>6012433
I am sorry to burst your bubble boy...Philosophers (not all of them, and specially not pseudo deep kids who frequent /lit/ and /pol/) have shaper our culture. From the Aristotelian telos to the Kantian duty and theory of knowledge (his trascendental aesthetics), to Popper and his method, from Marx and Smith and Hegel and Heidegger, and Rawls and Walzer and Singer and Kripke and Searle. These people have thought the ideas that model our culture today, in a broad sense, and in a very simplistic explanation because its 4chan and nobody realls walls of text, it is these people that have influenced politics, art, and to some extent, science.

Inb4 a lot of buttmad ignorant sophomores that always try to deny the influence of these thinkers in western culture. Wikipedia and stanford encyclopedia will educate you well enough.

Science has undoutedly been a great part of our culture, so have other institutions.

[Anonymous No.6012476]

>>6012193
That's a false equivalence. Anyone can make a guess that happens to be right, it's another thing to actually confirm it, which is what scientists eventually did.

[Anonymous No.6012477]

>>6012469
That is because you have not looked well enough, look particularly into bioethics, theory of rights and analytics. These three are thriving with a lot of practical application and drawing a lot of influence from science and math.

>>6012470
shaped*

have most influenced*

[Anonymous No.6012484]

>>6012470
you're speaking of culture here. I agree with that. I don't deny at all the good things that philosophers/writers/painters/poets/... provided to humanity.

But no, none of the name you cited ever participated in any way to the pratical elaboration of cellphones/computers.

Kant/Marx/Smith changed (al lot) the way we consider ethics/moral/politics/human social relations...
They never had any influence on science. That's also a myth

[Anonymous No.6012490]

>>6012484
First: You listed scientific achievements as implying they were the only real achievements.

Second: It is not my fault that you dont know Popper or Lakatos or Feyerabend (whether you think they were right or not is indifferent to the fact that they have advanced our understanding and practice of science). Lastly, as expected, you have no idea of what Kantian trascendental aesthetics is, and probably ignore the whole history behind the enlightment and the empirism vs rationalism debate (Hume vs Descartes) that gave birth to modern science, influencing minds like Leibniz. Here, have some fre education: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-science/, http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-spacetime/..

His work came a little bit after Newton's (he was influenced by Newton's inuitions that were left implied) and helped establish the basis of all future science methods.
Also please refrain from using mords as "myth" when you cant handle subjects, makes you look ignorant and petulant.

[Anonymous No.6012496]

>>6012469
I beg to differ, coming up with quantum mechanics, relativity and the standard model required a lot of imagination.

[Anonymous No.6012499]

>>6012193
>there are people on /sci/ who never studied philosophy of science

You people make me sick.

[Anonymous No.6012503]

>>6012484
Oh boy.

[Anonymous No.6012511]

>>6012496
I agree, thats why I used Einstein as an example here:>>6012288

I'm saying the attitude is changing however, and young people who choose science often look down on philosophic concepts (as you can see in this thread...)

[Anonymous No.6012522]

>>6012511
This thread proves nothing, you didn't present anything imaginative. Just primitive and unnecessary fantastical interpretations of QM that were shown unnecessary a long time ago.

There since have been much more imaginative and rigorous (no, those terms aren't in contradiction) interpretations.

[Anonymous No.6012532]

>>6012243
nooooo....

[Anonymous No.6012701]

>>6012335
Einstein was a pantheist and a fan of Spinoza.

[Anonymous No.6012771]

>>6012243
No no no...
http://lesswrong.com/lw/r5/the_quantum_physics_sequence/

[Anonymous No.6012867]

>>6012248
And the other two are kind of out of date.

[Anonymous No.6012878]

>>6012433
while I am inclined to agree with the sentiment, the nature of philosophy means that it leads to progress in other areas.

[Anonymous No.6012890]

>>6012701
I've never heard that before.

[Anonymous No.6012893]

>>6012771
>lesswrong
Great, counter nutjobs with another nutjob.

[Anonymous No.6013419]

>>6012490
He said "down-to-earth" -> I think if you ask to most of the people in poor countries what they need, they will say phones, computers, and shit.

But anyway.
I admit it, I know very few about philo. (except the basic ideas they teached us in school, but I never studied it by myself).

I would like to point something : you're reffering a lot to the past. Maybe there was a time where philosophers' work had a great influence. (as you explained, and >>6012458 also). But what about the period from, say, 1850 to nowadays ?

Is philosophy still "useful" in any way (practical implications) ? It seems that scientists achivements run the world (not scientists themselves).

[Anonymous No.6013432]

>"...The universe could only come into existence if some observed it. It does not matter that the observers turned up several billion years later. The universe exists because we are aware of it".

What the hell Lord Rees, that's the most disappointing statement I've read in a while, I can't believe that the former president of the Royal Society believes in this new age nonsense.

[Anonymous No.6013434]

Try again when philosophy has developed a mathematical background... wich will most likely take another few centuries...

[Anonymous No.6013445]

modern philosophy is shit tier

[Anonymous No.6013872]

bump.
I would like to read more.

[Anonymous No.6013941]

>>6013872
here it is, all summed up: we are brains. Observers. What we see is not what is, but what is AFTER. Your view of the universe is a 3 dimensional layout (like a computer makes polygons) constructed by your brain and viewed by your brain, at the same time. We are all computers, viewing 3d slices of our 4d surroundings. Video game characters dont have brains, the game itself is like a brain. A 3d object (computer) creating a 2d slice (flat screen) of the 3d world that we see when we play the game. We are individual 4d computers, part of a 5d simulation, and we make 3d simulators(pc, video games) that are viewed ACTUALLY in 2d (again, flat screen) which are controlled through 1d (binary). Computers are concious up to 3d(unlimited amount of 2d planes on screen) while we are concious up to 4d (unlimited 3d planes with these spherical potentialities)

[Anonymous No.6014084]

>>6013941
uhm....I would like to read more. But if it can also be interesting and related to the subject, it's a plus.

[Anonymous No.6014594]

>>6012771
lesswrong is absolute shit.