/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.7740279]

ITT: Post the scientist that you look up to.

[Anonymous No.7740281]

[Anonymous No.7740288]

[Anonymous No.7740289]

>>7740279
Here's a madman

[Anonymous No.7740292]

[Anonymous No.7740293]

I like how the scientists so far, destroyed the world in one way or the other

[Anonymous No.7740295]

I don't care if I'm generic as fuck. I respect this man.

[Anonymous No.7740296]

>>7740295
>Mr Atomic Weapons are bad

[Anonymous No.7740300]

Someone's gonna post Heisenberg any time now.

[Anonymous No.7740303]

>>7740296
Someone already posted Oppenheimer though, and both were strong proponents that people don't need to fear scientific discovery just because Fat Man and Little Boy were used to kill people.

[Anonymous No.7740311]

[Anonymous No.7740312]

[Anonymous No.7740318]

Not really b/c he is a great physicist, he just seems like a cool guy.

[Anonymous No.7740326]

>>7740312
Kill yourself

[Anonymous No.7740331]

>>7740326
That really ticks me off

[Anonymous No.7740355]

>>7740281
good choice anon

heres mine

[Anonymous No.7740362]

Why couldn't any of these "good" scientists afford a colored picture

[Anonymous No.7740365]

>>7740326
how do people actually get baited that easily?
Or is it a reverse bait?

I don't think anyone can be that stupid

[Anonymous No.7740368]

>>7740365
Why do all jokes have to be bait?

[Anonymous No.7740373]

>>7740279

[Anonymous No.7740374]

>>7740279
>you look up to
I'm not religious.

[Anonymous No.7740408]

>>7740365
It's a double layered bait
You just fell for it.

[Anonymous No.7740410]

>>7740373
Nice bait

[Anonymous No.7740415]

>>7740373
Zhe j00s did nazi dat one comings, mufufu

[Anonymous No.7740418]

[Anonymous No.7740443]

>>7740365
obviously you do think that, otherwise you would spot it as a joke instantly.

but indeed, your first reaction was to ridicule those imaginary idiots around you.
good on ya faggot

[Anonymous No.7740525]

>>7740279
Alfred Russel Wallace

[Anonymous No.7740530]

>>7740279
I don't look up to any scientist. I stand on their shoulders and look towards discovery.

[Anonymous No.7740542]

>>7740530

Holy shit that was gay

[Anonymous No.7740558]

[Anonymous No.7740571]

>>7740373

[Anonymous No.7740575]

>>7740279

[Anonymous No.7740613]

>>7740288
Not sure if this is bait...

>>7740281
Literally the definition of based, dude is a fucking hero. Nice one

[Anonymous No.7741880]

>>7740279

[Anonymous No.7741948]

>>7740279

[Anonymous No.7741952]

>>7740279
My PI

[Anonymous No.7741972]

>>7740279
Do mathematicians count?

[Anonymous No.7742113]

[Anonymous No.7742121]

[Anonymous No.7742290]

[Anonymous No.7742378]

>>7742121

It said "post the scientist," not "post the meme."

[Anonymous No.7742379]

[Anonymous No.7742470]

[Anonymous No.7742485]

>>7742470
Thank you, Mr. Godking.

[Anonymous No.7742492]

>>7742379
>google images: circuit board

[Anonymous No.7742575]

>>7740318
I like his personality. Brash, irreverent, and brutally honest. Also humorous

[Anonymous No.7742610]

>>7740288
Big balla Hauber

[Anonymous No.7742626]

>>7742470
Thank you, Mr. Godking.

[Anonymous No.7742662]

>>7742290
My nigga

[Anonymous No.7742709]

>>7740279

[Anonymous No.7742720]

>>7740279
Only man that keeps me going...in these strange times

[Anonymous No.7742740]

>>7740418
fuck yeah anon
I'm surprised anyone actually posted motherfucking woodward
>His lectures frequently lasted for three or four hours. His longest known lecture defined the unit of time known as the "Woodward", after which his other lectures were deemed to be so many "milli-Woodwards" long. In many of these, he eschewed the use of slides and drew structures by using multicolored chalk. Typically, to begin a lecture, Woodward would arrive and lay out two large white handkerchiefs on the countertop. Upon one would be four or five colors of chalk (new pieces), neatly sorted by color, in a long row. Upon the other handkerchief would be placed an equally impressive row of cigarettes. The previous cigarette would be used to light the next one. His Thursday seminars at Harvard often lasted well into the night.

>you will never get to have woodward teach you goddamn alchemy

[Anonymous No.7742775]

>>7742575
Yes, like a less drunk, science-hitchens.

[Anonymous No.7742779]

>>7742470

ah the days when i was an athiest, how utterly foolish i was...but i was right about emotional bias you faggots...

[Anonymous No.7742809]

>>7740279

[Anonymous No.7742827]

>>7740279

[Anonymous No.7742831]

>>7742290
See:>>7742378

[Anonymous No.7743127]

>>7742720
>>>/lit/

[Anonymous No.7743129]

>>7742113
Nice gay boy

[Anonymous No.7744854]

>>7742809
Choose one you idiot

[Anonymous No.7744865]

>>7740326
I don't think I have the time to do that.

[Anonymous No.7744894]

Jack Parsons
Alexander Shulgin
Raphael Mechoulam

[socko No.7745025]

>>7740279
Hard to choose between Pascal and Einstein. I admire them equally for different reasons.

[Anonymous No.7745029]

>>7742470
Thank you, mr. Godking

[Anonymous No.7745121]

>>7740312

[Anonymous No.7745562]

>>7740289
literally the worst person ever to live

[Anonymous No.7745570]

>>7740575

[Anonymous No.7745607]

>>7745562
It's strange that the police would do this, knowing full well their cars have cameras.
Why not just pull over such that the camera is aimed just slightly off scene?
Are they really this thick? Yes they are.

[Anonymous No.7745617]

>>7740312
Is that plugged in?

[Anonymous No.7745653]

Hey guise is anyone else taking Calc 101 this semseter? x)

Chemistry majors are le stupid haha XD.

This is my favourite scientist, he's kinda obscure I only heard about him the other day.

[Anonymous No.7745664]

>>7745607

Well he wasn't charged and they're saying it was "accidental". So maybe he's just aware that you can plainly shoot someone down and then not render aid and still nothing will come of it.

[Anonymous No.7745686]

>>7740293
Nice over simplification faggot.

[Anonymous No.7745717]

>>7742720
Professor Farnsworth go2bed

[Anonymous No.7745721]

>>7740279
Not exactly a scientist but this man was pretty great.

>pour out massive amounts of work in a few decades, fundamentally building and rebuilding algebraic geometry
>move up into the mountains and tell all your former colleagues to go fuck themselves

[Anonymous No.7745734]

GOAT mathematician, Gauss Fags, Euler Fags BTFO

[Anonymous No.7745751]

[Anonymous No.7745790]

[Anonymous No.7745793]

>>7740318
my fav as well

[Anonymous No.7745794]

>>7745653
Blasphemy kill ur self.

[Anonymous No.7745795]

>>7740279

[Anonymous No.7745797]

>>7745562
my hero! there is only one way to purge the earth of scum. have the enforcers shoot them.

[Anonymous No.7745813]

>>7740279
I forgot his name but the one that made the anti-nuclear weapon.

[Anonymous No.7745815]

please elaborate

[Anonymous No.7745839]

>>7740279
>ITT: Post the scientist that you look up to.

You recognize the irony in glorifying Oppenheimer by putting him in front of a mushroom cloud, right? He died regretting what he built.

Pic related, Feynbro. Might be the most generic scientific idol, but who cares.

[Anonymous No.7745915]

>>7742470
Thank you, Mr. Godking

[Anonymous No.7745920]

This guy

[Anonymous No.7745925]

1/2

[Anonymous No.7745927]

>>7745925
2/2
Also Tony Stark if he counts :^)

[Anonymous No.7745960]

>>7740362
It's weird that they were working on all this complicated shit but couldn't come up with an easy way to put color in their pictures.

[Anonymous No.7745972]

[Anonymous No.7745984]

>>7745925
Hell yes.

Noyce is one of those people you just think..... I wish I had his genes.
Attractive, athletic, ingenious, sociable.

[Anonymous No.7746190]

>>7740279
Muh contingencies of reinforcement.

[Anonymous No.7746198]

>>7740279

Feynman.

>"My son is taking a course in philosophy, and last night we were looking at something by Spinoza and there was the most childish reasoning! There were all these attributes, and Substances, and all this meaningless chewing around, and we started to laugh. Now how could we do that? Here's this great Dutch philosopher, and we're laughing at him. It's because there's no excuse for it! In the same period there was Newton, there was Harvey studying the circulation of the blood, there were people with methods of analysis by which progress was being made! You can take every one of Spinoza's propositions, and take the contrary propositions, and look at the world and you can't tell which is right."

[Anonymous No.7746210]

>>7746198
I think Feynman is pretty alright as well, but hopefully you don't seriously look up to him for that.

Who am I kidding, this is a thread primarily for 16-19 year olds. Of course you're going to latch on because "lol, he's bashing philosophy and that speaks to my viewpoint. He sees pragmatically and discard's the world bullshit. Muh progress, something or other, etc."

There is a lot of value in philosophy. Feynman himself could be called a philosopher, for fuck's sake. If you'd actually read any of his work's, or watched any of his lecture's with a clear head, you'd readily see that. He didn't so bluntly discard it all as you seem to be implying.

[Anonymous No.7746213]

>>7746210

That you had to reduce me to the straw man of a child to to even begin to defend the vacuous sophistry of philosophy shows how little it truly has to stand on.

Be a man.

[Anonymous No.7746240]

>>7746213
You do realize that philosophy at its core is the basis for all science and math? It seems to describe the human condition that allows the reasoning and axioms of math and physics.

Philosophy is not limited to ethics and mortality. It is based in logic and reason. These are the building blocks for the models that we as humans have developed over the millennia.

To cast it aside calling it useless is childish in the sense that it is immature and short sighted.

[Anonymous No.7746249]

>>7746240
It's called thinking. We don't speak greek, so philosophy is not synonymous with thinking. It's it's own thing. The discarded chrysalis that spawned Science.

Whatever it once was, whatever it's capable of, you must by now realize that it is just a thin veil of solipsism. Redness? Subjectivity? These are for people dissatisfied with reality, and i am not.

Should i make a bow and string to construct my fire as well?

[Anonymous No.7746253]

>>7746213
I did nothing of the sort. Your entire framing of my post just says more about you.

Anyway. Unfortunately, someone, something, somewhere, wronged you. And you got off on the wrong foot as a result. You don't really understand what philosophy is, nor what it encompasses, and you don't actually want to udnerstand. You see philosophy as some sort of old world relic that science has either replaced, or proven to be mystic garbage.

Philosophy forms the underpinnings of almost everything you do and believe. It describes the processes of logic and reason. It won't be me, but hopefully eventually, someone, somewhere, will give you the proper lens to look at yourself and the world.

[Anonymous No.7746260]

>>7746253

We speak english. The word you are looking for is "thinking". Philosophy is something else, a waste of time.

[Anonymous No.7746263]

>>7746260
Why?

[Anonymous No.7746265]

>>7746249
What you have done is decided that your model of universe inside your head is as you perceive it and that is what matters.

That is a very practical approach to life. One that will no doubt allow for you to accomplish many things. Probably more things than we together could comprehend.

But entertain this idea. What if the universe isn't exactly as we perceive it? What if it were completely different and if we perceived it differently it would allow us to accomplish even more?

Pragmatism would probably dictate that we could never know any other perception, but it is the case that philosophy allows us to mold our perception of the universe, to change our reality.

[Anonymous No.7746271]

>>7746265
>But entertain this idea. What if the universe isn't exactly as we perceive it? What if it were completely different and if we perceived it differently it would allow us to accomplish even more?

No, because that would mean that there is no way to understand the universe and no progress could ever be made. It does me no more good than assuming the cars on the freeway aren't real and walking across a road.

>>7746263
Look up qualia.

[Anonymous No.7746272]

>>7746271
>Look up qualia.
I don't think the idea of "qualia" is very meaningful. And I want to hear it from you.

[Anonymous No.7746273]

>>7746249
>>7746213
Philosophy is pretty based, to bash old philosophers is like calling newton a retard because he didn't even know space and time were relative. To judge it by the standards of engineering, that it produced no useful technology, is misguided and foolish.

That said there are a lot of useless philosophers, but a lot of hacks call themselves scientists too.

[Anonymous No.7746278]

>>7746272
It's subjectivity. It's refuging in the notion that we can't know things for the convenience of always having some nonsense to talk about. I would go father and say that some people treat it as a rebellion against the known, because what we know is unsatisfying to them.

>>7746273
>To judge it by the standards of engineering, that it produced no useful technology, is misguided and foolish.

No, it's pragmatism. It is useless to me, and by in large, to society. Call me when an ethicist can veto congress.

[Anonymous No.7746281]

>>7746271
That's not true. The implications are just the same as frame of reference. Sure an object may look stationary next to you on earth but go into space and you will see hurtling along with the earth.

You can still learn everything about the object, just perhaps a different reference still give different, or perhaps, more information.

It's all about reference and perception and that is the purpose of philosophy. It allows for a baseline, the construction of an axiom.

[Anonymous No.7746282]

>>7746273
Newton figured things out. Spinoza just asserted them.

There is a great deal of difference. Newton is still mostly right, things like F=MA will always be true.

[Anonymous No.7746287]

>>7746278
How do you know that you know something? How do you know something is "true". What is it, to be "true"?

Ah, do you see? You don't know. And you don't like that, you want it to just be. You want the senses to afford access to objective and absolute truth, but they don't. Ironically, it seems your standpoint is a rebellion against the ever more obvious nature of your existence.

Why? Just think about how things work. Approach is mechanistically, and approach it abstractly. Each relies on the other for substance.

[Anonymous No.7746288]

>>7746281
>That's not true. The implications are just the same as frame of reference. Sure an object may look stationary next to you on earth but go into space and you will see hurtling along with the earth.
I don't think you know what you're talking about there.

>You can still learn everything about the object, just perhaps a different reference still give different, or perhaps, more information.
Not really.

>It's all about reference and perception and that is the purpose of philosophy. It allows for a baseline, the construction of an axiom.
Call me when it saves lives like Salk did.

[Anonymous No.7746290]

>>7746287
>How do you know that you know something? How do you know something is "true". What is it, to be "true"?

Why are you arguing with yourself if you're truly solipsistic? I am just a figment of your imperfect senses. oogy boogy boo!

[Anonymous No.7746292]

>>7746288
Are you going to explain why I am wrong? Or are you going to just state that I am?

As the good scientist you are, prove your hypothesis.

[Anonymous No.7746295]

>>7746290
I never mentioned solipsism (and you don't seem to understand what it is). Don't change the subject.

[Anonymous No.7746297]

>>7746287

Prove it. Go to the fake store, buy a fake gun. Load the fake gun, put it to your fake head, and pull the fake trigger. When the sound dies off, if you are still here, i will concede the possibility that reality is not what we make of it.

I await your experiment.

[Anonymous No.7746299]

>>7746292
If i am wrong then you are arguing with yourself.

>>7746295
How do you know i am real and not just a figment of your imagination? Do you routinely argue with yourself? Did you eat today? Why? Do you breathe? Why?

[Anonymous No.7746300]

>>7746299
Why am I arguing with myself? I never mentioned solipsism either

[Anonymous No.7746303]

>>7746300
You asked how can i know that i know something.

Is it not fair to ask you the same when you are clearly arguing with someone who you cannot prove exists? It shows that you don't even believe what you're saying.

Solipsism and phenomenology are the beliefs that you cannot prove anything exists outside of your own mind, which is what you are arguing.

[I am not a solipsist No.7746307]

>>7746299

Furthermore, that is not a valid logical proof.

It would imply that I am you, and you are me and while there is no way to disprove solipsism, there is a 'philosophical' razor that allows me to rule that option out

[Anonymous No.7746308]

>>7746282
Nah

Feynman was probably just confronted with some jargon he didn't care for and so deemed it nonsense, much as a layperson would if they had to pick up some of Feynman's work and try understand it.

[Anonymous No.7746310]

>>7746307

No there isn't. Not if you cannot prove otherwise. I am nothing more than a sensory error. A hallucination.

[Anonymous No.7746311]

>>7746297
Read what I said again. It's not about real vs unreal, it's about the degree with which you can ascribe certainty to any given element in your logical framework. It's about your awareness of error, and your ability to control for it.

You don't have access to actuality, you only have your own reality. Which is a heavily quantized, distorted, skewed, and incomplete version of the whole. Many of the ideas you use don't even have objective equivalents of any real utility.

[Anonymous No.7746314]

>>7746308
Except from his "nonsense" we can and have made useful predictions.

Like the computer you're using. It retains it's memory of the time and date by use of a semiconductor which operates on quantum mechanics that he helped develop.

Nothing of spinoza's is of any use to anyone.

[Anonymous No.7746317]

>>7746311
>You don't have access to actuality, you only have your own reality.

Then i am just a figment of your reality and you don't have to worry about what i think.

Will you ever cease to exist?

[Anonymous No.7746323]

>>7746299
>How do you know i am real and not just a figment of your imagination?
I don't. Nor do I know what you actually are. You could be an AI.

Eventually you just take the path of least resistance because there is little use in questioning the most likely explanation. This does not translate to telling yourself you know what you do not know. Likewise, you don't know any of your memories are representative of something that happened. But unless there is something to spur you to think there might be something wrong, it isn't worth questioning.

>Did you eat today? Why?
Yes. Because I was hungry, and I'm a machine that knows how to augment its functioning towards states I deem more useful or more valuable. Though that doesn't change that I've been in extreme pain for days and can do nothing about it. The machine's spectrum of affordances it may tap to control its experience and functioning, is clearly finite.

>Do you breathe? Why?
Feel shitty otherwise. If I forget, my brainstem takes care of it on its own.

[Anonymous No.7746325]

>>7746323
How do you know any of that?

[I am not a solipsist No.7746329]

>>7746310
A hallucination capable of posting on 4chan? Highly unlikely.

This is the realm of philosophy, deciding what perceptions are likely and unlikely. Which require the fewest conditions to exist.

I delude myself that what I sense is reality, as do you. But at the end of the day we have to make rely that what we sense is valid. But it is only a delusion because what we sense of just a recreation inside our mind.

It could be incredibly accurate. It could not be. In everyday life it's worth our time to believe it is accurate and for the most part it keeps us existing.

But I suppose you could be a sensory error, but it is unlikely therefore I discard that option.

[Anonymous No.7746332]

>>7746314
>hurr knowledge isn't useful unless it helps us make some toy or gizmo
Motherfucking engineers.

[Anonymous No.7746334]

>>7746317
>Then i am just a figment of your reality
Not quite. Figment implies you don't exist, but you do exist. You exist in my head. My idea of you is an arrangement of particles within a given system. That's how I judge you, predict your behavior, remember that you exist, use theory of mind to try to figure your train of thought, etc. Seriously, what else could it be? Man, that's all we have, and the same goes for you.

>Will you ever cease to exist?
Well I don't know, but I've been told. "You'll never die, you'll never grow old."

I'd have to know what it is to exist first, and I really don't. I don't know what consciousness actually is. You don't either.

[Anonymous No.7746335]

>>7746329
>A hallucination capable of posting on 4chan? Highly unlikely.

How do you know 4chan isn't a hallucination? Your computer, your room, your life?

This is what philosophy does. It opens your mind, and out falls your brain.

[Anonymous No.7746336]

>>7746334
Particles? You don't know they exist.

See what a dead end this all is? You have the same world view as a schizophreniac.

[Anonymous No.7746342]

>>7746325
I already answered this question. You don't truly "know", or as Feynman, "understand" anything. You just have something that seems like it works, and something you judge as good enough.

Your senses and mind are the axiomatic baseline that you cannot resolve further, scientific explanation or none (as to explain scientifically uses the mind and senses, making it a self referential truth.). You just have to accept that the only thing supporting it is faith, ie, belief without proof.

Then get on with your life. A less delusional human being with fewer irrational hangups, that can make better decisions and be fooled less easily.

[Anonymous No.7746349]

>>7746342

Sounds like you have everything figure out.

Good luck with that.

[Anonymous No.7746351]

>>7746336
Well, I tried. I'm going to go get kind of drunk.

Re-read what I posted. Every "point" you try to make, has already been addressed. Hopefully another anon less physically broken than me can come along and show you that there is something worth seeing.

[I am not a solipsist No.7746352]

>>7746335
I mean to some extent, my reality is a delusion. I only know what I perceive, what I sense. I don't know what actually is.

Just because I don't know what actually is doesn't mean I can't do anything with my reality. Take turbulent flow as an example. We don't know direction the velocity vectors will actually go, but we don't need to. We have good enough simulations that we can make pretty good predictions with them. We can design with them. But they are not actuality.

This is similar with our brain and our perception of actuality, which we call reality. We don't know what actually is but we can still do things with the model we have.

[I am not a solipsist No.7746354]

>>7746351
Hey man, I got this!

[Anonymous No.7746357]

>>7746354
>>7746352
>>7746351

No, no. You've got it all figured out. No need to argue with a ghost. I don't exist.

[Anonymous No.7746365]

>>7746282
>thinks F=ma is always true
>what is relativistic dynamics

[I am not a solipsist No.7746372]

>>7746357
I don't understand why you keep coming back to this point?

What is so wrong with contemplating the ideas of actuality versus reality.

Is it because it's not practical? Well neither is the universe. It's a massive waste of energy that doesn't do anything. It produces heat, information sinks, and many other things that don't seem to have any purpose other than to exist (or at least appear to exist :P ).

Not everything has to be practical but the idea that what we perceive may not be actuality, could (not will) allow for a better understanding of the universe.

I don't know if it will. I don't have any theories that it could. I don't know many things.

What I do know is this: keeping an open mind allows for my curiosity to flourish. By setting a practical standard can only limit. I'm there is a need for practicality but it is a finite set in the human condition.
Contemplating perception increases the set size allowing for more options and opportunities to be explored, proven and revoked.

[Anonymous No.7746828]

>>7742740
*highfives* I am a filthy undergrad, but I have developed a strong liking towards organic synthesis. To me its like playing with legos or making a yugioh deck, stuff I used to do back in my youth. I love the idea of taking large and complex natural products and breaking them down into simpler pieces which can be rebuilt using elementary reactions.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ph19KFpllDU

Despite not having NMR, he was still a god. Imagine if he was around today.

[Anonymous No.7746974]

>>7740312
I kek'd

[Anonymous No.7746982]

[Anonymous No.7747235]

[Anonymous No.7747335]

>>7744854
Okabe. He's essentially Isaac Newton whereas Kurisu is Galileo.

[Anonymous No.7747435]

>>7740318
>>7742575

Always reminded me of rick sanchez

[Anonymous No.7748099]

>>7745653
Fucking die

[Anonymous No.7748347]

90% of the people posted (and posting) definitely have autism.

[Anonymous No.7748353]

>>7742470
The fuck is that, VenomFangX?

[Anonymous No.7748368]

>>7748347
Maybe the world could do well with a little more autism.

[Anonymous No.7748558]

>>7741880
>>>7740279 (OP)
I look up to Feynman as well. I respect the fuck out of him.

[Anonymous No.7748563]

>>7742470
Thank you, Mr. Godking.

[Anonymous No.7748850]

[Anonymous No.7749439]

Before you guys go Boo Sagan kek kek kek. He contributed more to science than any of you fucks. He got generations into science, vastly helped scientific funding. Was a major part of many NASA missions from seventies onwards. And fucked many bitches in his life. Your move /sci/

[Anonymous No.7750570]

>>7740292
:D

him and Mac lane

[Anonymous No.7750573]

>>7745790
he looked like a vapid douchebag and then I looked him up and whaddya know

[Anonymous No.7750577]

Cavendish
Faraday
Maxwell

[Anonymous No.7750606]

>>7745721
Guy is a legend
>Invited to teach homological algebra in communist Vietnam during the war and actually goes
>Has to lecture in the jungle outside Hanoi since the city was being bombed

[Anonymous No.7750611]

>>7740373

so many better nazis to choose though

pic related

[Anonymous No.7750633]

>>7740279
>Looking up to famous scientists

I'm too busy standing on their shoulders to be honest

[Anonymous No.7752137]

>>7746198
Certainly you wouldn't be trying to shove Feynman out in front of you to justify your distaste for philosophy, would you?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VeYIJ5w5e9I
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NM-zWTU7X-k

What you're seeing above is a subject people who know anything about philosophy might be able to know as "epistemology", with a tad bit of "ontology". These are words people made up to categorically define certain subjects and make them easier to communicate and expand, though it isn't necessary to do so. Philosophy is as much (or more) personal as it is a formalized field.

Your response tells me you don't actually know what you're talking about, because you don't know what philosophy is. Watch any lecture of Feynman's that has ever been recorded. Read anything he's written. He is very philosophically inclined, and could easily be called a philosopher. It's all semantics, but the facts remain.

[Anonymous No.7752149]

>>7740279
Tesla.

[Anonymous No.7753000]

>>7740318
choice

[Anonymous No.7753128]

[Anonymous No.7753289]