[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 91 KB, 612x794, 1386457356912.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6209956 No.6209956 [Reply] [Original]

You are pursuing science in order to answer some overarching question.

What is that question?

>> No.6209959

That's not true. Don't project.

I literally just like to understand how physical systems work. I also enjoy biology because the emergence of autonomous, self-replicating intelligence from chemical and molecular interactions is very, very interesting.

>> No.6209960

Does 0.999... really equal 1.

>> No.6209965

What does Kurisutaru's, or rather one of her planet's coinhabitant's vagina feel like

>> No.6209968

>>6209959

>I also enjoy biology because the emergence of autonomous, self-replicating intelligence from chemical and molecular interactions is very, very interesting.

there is a bigger question operating here, perhaps you are avoiding it, on purpose or by accident...

>> No.6209971

>>6209968
>there is a bigger question operating here

And what question might that be?

>> No.6209972

>>6209956
Casimir
skin effect
and a few other questions brought about by investigation into exactly how / why a piece of equipment I operated / repaired / tuned. A C-band transmitter (multi cavity tuned Klystron) and a Ku-band TWT amplifier

>> No.6209977

>>6209971

try and guess

>> No.6209979

>>6209977
*Try to guess, faggot.

Stop projecting.

>> No.6209980

>>6209977

Depending on the kind of person you are, you could be asking me about anything from God to the existence of the soul.

Both are inane and irrelevant questions in scientific discourse.

>> No.6209995

>>6209980
>you could be asking me about anything from God to the existence of the soul.

try again

>> No.6210002

>>6209995

I really have no idea, because I can't read your mind. Consider that not everyone in the world is curious about the exact same things.

>> No.6210005

>>6209979
"try and guess" is also a common idiom

"try and guess my name" google it.

>> No.6210011

>>6209956

"Why?"

>> No.6210013
File: 39 KB, 204x252, 1386459414684.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6210013

how to get gf

>> No.6210026

>>6210002

>I literally just like to understand how physical systems work.

Of course you do, and flies enjoy the aroma of shit. But now ask yourself the deeper question.

>> No.6210030

>>6210026

Platitudes don't serve you well.

>> No.6210035

>>6210030

maybe you really don't see it yet...

>> No.6210041

>>6210035

I see that you're a pretty dumb person. Did you come here from /lit/? Do you have a philosophy class to attend or something?

>> No.6210048

'Is it possible to become a god?'

>> No.6210049

>>6210048

Christ, you're stupid.

>> No.6210053

>>6210049
*tips fedora*
Well said, friend. People truly are idiodic. Wait for me as I post this to facebook to my 600 friends so that we may bond on the subject of how much we hate people (but not each other of course lol ;))

>> No.6210052

I want to build a machine the likes of which they have never seen.

>> No.6210056

>>6209956
I want to study cerebral palsy.
I have mild cerebral palsy.
Hence my bio career.

>> No.6210067

>>6210056
do you have the CP voice?

>> No.6210068

How's shit work?

>> No.6210071
File: 38 KB, 360x640, walter-jr-wow-what-a-great-audience.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6210071

>>6210067
d-d-d-dad?
w-w-w-wheres breakfast?

>> No.6210070

>>6210056
-Anon can you handel that ebola virus
-Yeah sure!

And thats how we gonna die... Thanks anon you shit head.

>> No.6210074

Why do we exist?

I considered "What is the origin?" But even if we knew the origin, why is there any origin?

>> No.6210076

>>6210071
CP doesn't result in stammer, it results in a kind of nasal salivary drawling.

>> No.6210077

>>6210067
Nah. I do have a gimp walk though.

>> No.6210080
File: 2 KB, 213x165, 1386461663010.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6210080

>>6210076
ewww!

>> No.6210083

the overarching question is "what are the universal constants" but more specifically, "what determines the values of universal constants." finding this would allow us insight to the one true nature of the universe's root and we could from there develop a hypothetical Theory of Everything. isnt that exciting?

>> No.6210085

problem of universal/algebraic geometry/thread!

>> No.6210088

What happens when a sun made of ice collides with a sun made of lava?

>> No.6210105

>>6210053

Nah, it's just you that's idiotic.

>> No.6210108

Why?

What is Truth?

What is Existence?

What is God?

Am I being deep yet? Come on guys, these are valid scientific questions! Science and philosophy are the same thing!

>> No.6210114

>>6209956
Why am I a virgin?

>> No.6210121

>>6210114

Why is anon a virgin?

>> No.6210137

>>6210108
To argue that they aren't at least fundamentally connected is to ignore a large part of the truth.

>> No.6210140

>>6210108

The real philosophical question would be: what do you mean when you say 'truth' or God, etc

>> No.6210144

>>6210137
>muh truth!

4chan really needs a /phi/ board to segregate these types of stupid posts.

>> No.6210171

>>6210144
As much as I would love a place to flood with my hatred of intuitive paradoxes, /lit/ doesn't deserve to have one of its arms cut off and thrown into a pit of shit with /x/ and /r9k/.

>> No.6210172

>>6209956
Can I live long enough to get tired of life?

>> No.6210180

>>6209956
Why is there something instead of nothing

>> No.6210221
File: 412 KB, 1836x2448, 1386467005001.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6210221

>>6209956
Because people should get awesome mechanical limbs and not barbie doll parts.

>> No.6210227

>>6209956
>You are pursuing science in order to answer some overarching question.
Actually, no. I'm just working toward the singularity. I guess you could say the "question" is whether or not the singularity will happen, but I already know the answer.

>> No.6210229

>>6210180
Fucking great question but I don't think it's answerable within the boundaries of science. I think about that question too much.

>> No.6210233

I want to solve mortality.

>> No.6210237

I want to solve triple integrals.

>> No.6210245

>>6209956
Why are people making robots out of metal and not flesh

>> No.6210293

>>6210237

Triple integrals are easy. Just wait until you start learning about quadruple integrals...

>> No.6210294

>>6209956
To contribute to our understanding of everything

>> No.6210298

I want to contribute to making philosophy absolutely obsolete.

>> No.6210300

>>6210180
You might want to try religion instead.

>> No.6210302

>>6210298
How do you figure you're going to do that?

>> No.6210306

>>6210302

What he doesn't realize is that he doesn't even need to.

>> No.6210304

>>6210302
By doing science. Science is the only method of proving truth.

>> No.6210332

>>6210304
>Science is the only method of proving truth.

what do you mean by truth and who decides what is sufficient proof?

>> No.6210339

>>6209956

I'm not trying to answer any overarching question you bloody wanker. I'm just trying to find out more about the world.

>> No.6210352

>>6209960
yes, shut up

>> No.6210355

>>6210352
How?

>> No.6210358

>>6210339

spoken like a true engineer.

>> No.6210356

>>6210339
so then you question the the working structure of the world.

bloody dumbass

>> No.6210359

>>6210356

/sci/ seriously is the worst board. You guys don't even try. This is depression-level trolling. At least other boards put in a decent effort.

>> No.6210368

>>6210356

Question what about it? Wanting to know how the structure works IS questioning it.

>> No.6210369

>>6210359
>I'm just trying to find out more about the world.

why are you trying so hard to seem like a simpleton?

>> No.6210387

>>6210369

The only simpleton I see here is the one who pretentiously presumes he can know more than his pea-brain is capable of understanding.

>> No.6210409

Am I good enough?

>> No.6210412

>>6210387


>im drawing the line here!! newtonian mechanics is the most our brains can understand!!

ok tough guy

>> No.6210456

>ITT: "cant know muffin's" philowankers / newfags who just finished: "An Introduction to Quantum Theory"

>> No.6210459

>>6210412
>newton is the furthest science has come

Back to 7th grade with you.

>> No.6210467

there is something disgusting about modern science and scientism

the high-priests of science are more like inept engineers, simple mechanics...even the theoreticians are scared to probe deeply and ask hard questions. Go figure

it's great for capitalism and the economy, quite terrible for science and humanity

>> No.6210471

>>6210467
>scared

No, they're just smart enough to realize the mindless frivolity of these questions, unlike you.

You're truly not smart enough to realize how smart you aren't.

>> No.6210482
File: 64 KB, 538x482, 1386475752457.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6210482

>>6210471

>it's good to not question your assumptions and sacred ideas

oh neat, like a religion

>> No.6210483

>>6210482

You made an assumption (a stupid one), and every reasonable person in this thread questioned it. You then grew defensive and arrogantly ridiculed anybody who didn't want to entertain your nonsensical bullshit. Fuck off.

>> No.6210492
File: 2.28 MB, 187x155, 1386476118253.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6210492

>scientists don't question their own assumptions and dogma anymore, don't ask big questions anymore

well they would lose their tenure if they did

>> No.6210495

in 245 years from now, all of our theories will be obsolete.

Ideas like space, time, matter, velocity, momentum, relative and absolute, subject and object will be totally transformed....

and even then, in 245 years, their science will still be misguided and unable to question itself

>> No.6210498

I don't know how any scientist that ever thinks he might be doing revolutionary work embraces such dogmatic hate of philosophy and the liberal arts.

People like you were the geniuses that wanted to lynch galileo.

>> No.6210501

>>6210498

true.
real scientists don't hate philosophy at all.

engineers and pseudo-scientists hate it, because it complicates their simple view of reality.

>> No.6210514

>>6210180
If there were truly 'nothing' then the law that 'something cannot come from nothing' would not exist, hence something would eventually come from nothing.

Not that difficult.

>> No.6210522

>>6210467
The people here are not "high-priests of science", I'm sure most of this board is underage...

>> No.6210523

>>6210514

the question is why isn't there nothing and simply nothing, instead of something coming from nothing.

>> No.6210528

>>6210522
>The people here are not "high-priests of science", I'm sure most of this board is underage...

implying he's talking about /sci/...
he's referring to academics and scientists

>> No.6210534

>>6210528
He's going to need to name some names if he wants to be taken seriously

>> No.6210573

>>6210534

just compare Schrodinger to Feynman and you'll see the difference

>> No.6210578

>>6210573
Spell it out for me.

>> No.6210580

>>6210573

What about them? Both had differing attitudes toward contemporary scientific principles, but both also made enormous contributions to the field. Feynman in particular was an extremely outside-the-box thinker with a remarkable insight into science, pseudoscience, and the confusion of those who could not distinguish the two.

>> No.6210598

>>6210578


Feynman was suspicious of brushing his teeth because there wasn't enough empirical data to back up the practice. While he was very good at physics his horizon was very limited. He never bothered to ask deeper questions about life and the implications of physics.


Schrodinger would write books on how entropy and thermodynamics could effect the origin of life and what metaphysical ramifications this could have on consciousness, etc.
Like Oppenheimer and others during his time he read both eastern and western philosophy very carefully. Their horizon of analysis was extremely wide.

>> No.6210620

>>6209956
Can a cavitation event of liquid lithium cause nuclear reactions.

somewhat related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LWO93G-zLZ0

>> No.6210623

>>6210598
Different strokes for different folks.

They were both incredible thinkers. Just because one thought of things more aligned to your personal tastes does not make the other inferior.

>> No.6210631

>>6210598
>While he was very good at physics his horizon was very limited.

You are a colossal fool. He recognized exactly the limitations of considering and speculating on unscientific models. "Deeper questions about life" are impossible to answer. You simply can't get anywhere musing about this kind of juvenile tripe. That's what you do not realize at all. It's really disgusting that you would consider Feynman someone with limited horizons. You really have a staggering amount of hubris for someone who knows so little what he speaks about.

>Schrodinger would write books on how entropy and thermodynamics could effect the origin of life and what metaphysical ramifications this could have on consciousness, etc.

And he probably didn't know what he was talking about. That he proposed "Schrodinger's Cat" at all represents to me a serious flaw in the man's thinking process.

>Like Oppenheimer and others during his time he read both eastern and western philosophy very carefully.

That may have been a part of the person he was, but it did not cloud his judgment or at all negatively influence his scientific pursuits.

>> No.6210646

Are cats really an inbreed of owls.

>> No.6210694

>>6210631
>"Deeper questions about life" are impossible to answer.

And a fool says "we can't go further than Newtonian Mechanics, lets stop!"

reminds me of mysterians who think consciousness is inherently mysterious and unexplainable, beyond human understanding.

Give me a break

>> No.6210704
File: 112 KB, 600x400, One-of-Two-Most-Elusive-Things-in-the-Universe-Found_27087-l.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6210704

>>6209956

>> No.6210717

how many bitches can nate dog get

>> No.6210736

>>6210694

Newtonian mechanics have been left in the dust. You're clearly not with the times at all. No wonder you're so misguided. Do you know anything about relativity or quantum mechanics?

>reminds me of mysterians who think consciousness is inherently mysterious and unexplainable, beyond human understanding.

It's not at all. Feynman would have been of the philosophy (I use that in the colloquial sense) that consciousness arises as a property of underlying physical mechanics, which hopefully you'll agree with. He was very much _against_ the notion that any spiritual, metaphysical, or supernatural explanations account for these kinds of processes.

Consciousness is a very worthwhile subject of research. "The meaning of life" is not. "Why humans exist" is not. These questions are pointless, distracting noise that don't have determinable responses.

>> No.6210742

>>6209956
Why cant OP stop receiving dicks in all his orifices?

>> No.6210750

>>6210221
Is that top image a current product on the market? I was thinking about getting into Biomedical Engineering for prosthetic and shit

>> No.6210753

>>6210736
>Newtonian mechanics have been left in the dust.

And a fool says "we can't go further than Newtonian Mechanics, lets stop!"

A fool says "we can't answer deep questions about life, lets stop!"

>> No.6210755

>>6210736

you're setting a limit on human understand.
this limit is baseless and irrational.

Why do you do this

>> No.6210774

How long can I survive without having to do real work?

>> No.6210783

>>6210753

You're assuming these questions have answers to begin with.

You're assuming your life has a larger significant meaning, and that human beings are special.

That's pretty arrogant, frankly.

>>6210755

Not at all. I'm setting a limit on trying to explain things for which there is no basis to explain them. Where do you even begin for a question like "What is the purpose of life?" Who's to say there has to BE a purpose? Why can't you just indulge in the wonders of the natural world instead of constantly searching for a justification to your own existence?

>> No.6210793
File: 81 KB, 380x288, 1386485362303.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6210793

>>6209956
cuz I like finding physical meaning in equations

>> No.6210807

>>6210783

Every scientist and thinker assumes there is an answer to the questions or hypothesis they pose...otherwise nothing would ever progress.

>Im setting a limit on trying to explain things for which there is no basis to explain them.

You're assuming they are unanswerable, this is very close minded and irrational.

>> No.6210817

How much wood would a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood

>> No.6210826

>>6210807

There is no evidence to suggest that life has "meaning" (whatever that even means) - this is your assumption. If you want to seek out experimental evidence to support this claim, do so by all means. Just make sure the evidence can be reproduced under experimental conditions identical those you used to find it.

As Feynman said, science isn't about always trying to guess at what's possible or impossible, but only more likely or less likely. That's a wise stance to take, and I honestly think the subtlety is lost on you.

>> No.6210839

>>6210826

>There is no evidence to suggest that life has "meaning"

There was no evidence of genes or higgs-bosons in the 15th century, for various reasons. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

>If you want to seek out experimental evidence to support this claim, do so by all means. Just make sure the evidence can be reproduced under experimental

There are other ways to derive knowledge than by controlled empirical experiments.

Mathematics and logic have their own method.


>science isn't about always trying to guess at what's possible or impossible, but only more likely or less likely

Science is successful and yet limited by its method. Most of the day to day questions that are important to humans are untouchable by science.

>> No.6210844

>>6210839
Except asking if life has meaning is a question we've been asking since we've been asking questions.
It's not mathematics, logic or science. It's philosophy.
I don't think it's gonna be found anytime soon either. Call me a pessimist, but 5000 years has been a long ass time and thinking we are more capable of answering that question than they...well that's assuming too much imo

isn't /phil/ much better on /lit/?

>> No.6210857

Given the perfect earth-like planet with infinite time, I would like to know how advanced can nature become.

Or if evolution will stop at some point when everything's already perfect..
Guess I'm missing something big here.

>> No.6210860

>>6210857

what do you use to measure "advancement" ?

>> No.6210861

>>6210839
>Most of the day to day questions that are important to humans are untouchable by science.

Most of the day to day questions that are important to humans are too trivial for me to care about, frankly. The universe is so vast and complex, and physical laws so elaborate and multifaceted, that bothering myself about "Why" I'm here seems an utter waste of time. In short: I don't care about myself nearly as much as I care about nature.

I admire Feynman perhaps more than any scientist I know, so I'll do the predictable thing and post yet another quote from him:

"It doesn't seem to me that this fantastically marvelous universe, this tremendous range of time and space and different kinds of animals, and all the different planets, and all these atoms with all their motions, and so on, all this complicated thing can merely be a stage so that God can watch human beings struggle for good and evil — which is the view that religion has. The stage is too big for the drama."

I understand you don't necessarily adopt the view that questioning life or existence should be about God or ethical quandaries, but I consider metaphysical inquiry of the same category.

Say I flip a coin ten times and write down the value of each flip in a sequence. It is not worthwhile to occupy myself with "Why" I got the sequence I did - it just happened that way. Laboring over an answer to this question will get you nowhere.

>> No.6210862

>>6210860
Something advanced enough that can realize that there are things way more advanced than itself? Our brain can do this.

>> No.6210871

>>6209956

That's pretty easy. Many come to mind.

1) What caused the big bang?

2) What are the conditions inside a black hole?

3) Just how many dimensions are there really?

4) What is an energy wave?

5) Why does light travel at the speed we observe?

6) Exactly how did self replicating organisms evolve (or: how did DNA evolve?)

7) What are the physical parameters of consciousness?

I will think of some more.

>> No.6210873

>>6210871
>7) What are the physical parameters of consciousness?

what's this supposed to mean?

>> No.6210876

Not everyone is sensitive to the same questions. Some people are interested in bad questions, some in good, depends on their conditioning.


"In the novel 'Metamorphosis' a poor fellow wakes up and finds that he has been turned into a beetle —so what?

There is no rational answer to "so what." We can take the story apart, we can find out how the bits work, how one part of the pattern responds to the other; but you have to have in you some cell, some gene, some germ that will vibrate in answer to sensations that you can neither define, nor dismiss." - Nabokov

>> No.6210877

>>6210873
he means "what changes you from being a collection of electrical charges and chemical signals to a single, conscious being. What makes us more than a collection of atoms?"

I would like to point out that I believe that no scientific answer exists and that this question is the most valid evidence for an afterlife that I see.

>> No.6210880

>>6210877

even if an answer exists, I don't think it would ever be satisfactory.

Every phenomena seems to be reducible forever

>> No.6210879

I suppose that for me the question is "why does anything exist as opposed to nothing?"

however, I don't allow this question to dictate my actions, rather, my goal in life is to push the exploration abilities of humanity. And if there is something out there in the void that answers that question then so much the better

>> No.6210882

>>6210877
>I would like to point out that I believe that no scientific answer exists and that this question is the most valid evidence for an afterlife that I see.

The lack of an explanation for something is not evidence for anything. What planet are you living on?

>> No.6210883

>>6210873

As in explain the physical nature of consciousness (beyond "its neurons firing"). How does it work? What are its physics? How do electro-chemical impulses get translated into thoughts, emotions and memories? What are the physical relationship

>> No.6210888

>>6210882
you misunderstand what I was trying to say. Also before I continue I would like to say that this is personal philosophy and I'm not asking you to agree in any way. That being said, what I mean is the following:

That the human consciousness transcends the physical and that there is a "spark" for lack of a better term, inside of us that gives us the ability of self awareness. The logical leap for me is that since this spark transcends the physical, it wouldn't be destroyed by the destruction of the body but would rather... I don't know, be distributed into new consciousnesses or something. Regardless that's all useless philosophic speculation but you get the point.

>> No.6210889

>>6210883

How does consciousness give rise to the appearance of matter?

>> No.6210894

>>6210888
>Regardless that's all useless philosophic speculation but you get the point.

I'm glad you recognize this frailty inherent in your model.

You can feel that way if it's what you prefer. I really don't mind. I would mind if you (or any other person) expected me to seriously entertain your idea as a scientific explanation, however. Since you're appropriately modest about it, I have nothing to hold against you.

>> No.6210897

the boundaries here are becoming clear, for example science cannot and never will be able to handle issues of aesthetics, ethics, metaphysics, or meaning. However there are some areas where the answer is unclear: it is unresolved, for example, whether science will or will not succeed in solving the hard problem of consciousness.

The way that complexity can arise through physics, and alternatives to reductionist viewpoints that demean humankind. It is true that physics and chemistry underlie our existence and functioning as human beings, but that does not mean we are "nothing but" atoms, molecules, chemicals, or whatever. That phrase always hides an attempt to deny the true complexity and autonomous existence of vibrant living beings. We are much, much more than implied by hard reductionists and their favorite phrase "nothing but."

>> No.6210898

>>6210894
I appreciate the acceptance, I guess in a subject untouched by science, I believe what is most comforting to me.

>> No.6210907

>>6209956
"What the fuck is that?"

>> No.6210905

>>6210894

But science is impotent to answer most questions we have. Saying something isn't 'scientifically viable' is fine, but also trivial and not a criticism at all.

It's like a mathematician telling a physicist empiricism suffers from problem of induction and are not rigorous by his standards.

>> No.6210909

>>6210880

That is the fundamental constraint of science.

There will always be the potential for a "better" theory to come along and replace those that we currently accept. Sometimes they will be "mere" refinements much as the theory of evolution undergoes slow but steady minor changes as more and more evidence is discovered. Sometimes they will be major changes such as the theory of relativity overturned Newtonian physics.

There is nothing to suggest that Humanities understanding of science in the istant future will be radically different from what we believe today. Indeed, I would suspect, given Scientific history, that few of the precious concepts that we hold about the laws of nature today will endure more than a few centuries into the future. I am certain that many things we hold today as scientific laws will seem childishly naive in the future.

Some of the discoveries to come may well turn our understanding of the reality of the Universe upside down in ways incomprehensible to us today. I can imagine a classroom in the future:

"Well class, back in the 21st century they actually thought that measurements like height and length and width were separate dimensions! No! Don't laugh! Its true! It totally messed up their physics and maths at the time! But then in the 23rd century a guy called blah blah blah discovered that blah blah blah..."

Good scientists understand that no scientific "fact" is a dogma. Although I would admit that there are many bad scientists out there who somehow, despite their training, lose sight of this fundamental principle and become little better than religious zealots in the manner of their thinking. Clever still, but fundamentally blinkered. You will recognize some of them who have already posted on this thread, as you also recognize those who may reply to this post. Its usually their desire to belittle others that reveals who they are.

>> No.6210915

>>6210909

10/10 post here

>> No.6210923

>>6210897
>We are much, much more than implied by hard reductionists and their favorite phrase "nothing but."

I would hardly say scientists are invariably reductionists. While I wholeheartedly believe it is folly to assume biological processes (and consciousness in particular) have a metaphysical component to them, I think any scientist deeply appreciates and admires the craftsmanship of nature, so to speak. Cellular interactions are ENORMOUSLY complex - chemical interactions are ENORMOUSLY complex - atomic interactions ... and so on.

It does not demean the value of these things to describe them as they are. It humbles and enlightens.

>> No.6210927

>>6210909

I agree wholeheartedly with the last paragraph, but I'm tired of all of this bullshit about the impending obsolescence of modern math and science. I hope that the way in which we approach, teach, and study these subjects will develop in future centuries, and I know that we are destined to discover a great deal yet before our time is done, but the notion that our current ideas will be "replaced" is ludicrous. We have already accrued a vast wealth of scientific knowledge, and I think that from hereon the vast majority of scientific advancements will be dependent on the current framework to some extent. Even Isaac Newton would have told you back in the day that he was standing on the shoulders of giants.

>> No.6210931

>>6210923
>>6210897

And further, while you surely didn't intend this, your expression "demean humankind" reveals a lot about your thought process in this context.

I'm very much reminded of the early attitude toward the heliocentric model of the solar system. Religious icons and the church feared this model would "degrade" the earth's status as the "Center Of The Heavens". They did not see how fearless explication of nature's fundamental mechanisms could do anything but strip humanity and earth of their sacred privilege within the universe.

It's very important to discard your notions about how special you think humankind or conscious experience may be. Otherwise you'll be stuck seeking answers you'll never find.

>> No.6210932

>>6210909
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wronger_than_wrong

"
"When people thought the earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the earth was spherical, they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."

>> No.6210946

>>6209956
Is unraveling the mysteries of the mind the key to immortality?

>> No.6210948

>>6210877
>afterlife
>>>/out/

>> No.6210950

>Schrödinger's world view, derived from the Indian writings of the Vedanta, is that there is only a single consciousness of which we are all different aspects. He admits that this view is mystical and metaphysical and incapable of logical deduction. But he also insists that this is true of the belief in an external world capable of influencing the mind and of being influenced by it.

Holy shit mind blown, twice.

>> No.6210956

>>6209956
which trades should I make on the stock market

>> No.6210960

>>6210956
Bitcoin.

>> No.6210972

>>6210950

He should have stuck to Physics.

>> No.6210989

How fast can I advance telepathy

>> No.6211022

>>6210304
talking about what science can do is philosophy

>> No.6211315

Why are their still monkeys?

>> No.6211355

> rabbit
>rabbit

>> No.6212485

>>6210355
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/0.999......

I don't think /sci/ knows how to read...

>> No.6212492

I study Mathematics because I want to answer the question, "what are birds?"

>> No.6212498

How come moot made a fucking tumblr board but refuses to create /phi/ or /$/?