/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.9935815]

I finally get what he meant by this.
Even if we invented a mathematical formula that could describe the entire development of the physical universe from the most fundamental level, that would tell us nothing about what it all means or what existence is all about.
The physicists' "theory of everything" is a sham--it doesn't even try to answer "the question of life, the universe, and everything."

[Anonymous No.9935821]

>>9935815
No shit you fucking retard. Physics is not a metaphysical philosophy.

Why the fuck do you think there's an entire discipline called metaphysics in the first place?

[Anonymous No.9935826]

>>9935815
But there's no reason for the universe existing in the first place. It wasnt, then it was, and will be for several trillion more years until it sputters back into cold nothingness.

[Anonymous No.9935831]

>>9935826
>there's no reason for the universe existing in the first place
how do you know?

[Anonymous No.9936082]

>>9935815
>Even if we invented a mathematical formula that could describe the entire development of the physical universe from the most fundamental level, that would tell us nothing about what it all means or what existence is all about.
Woah, really? Well no fucking shit. See >>9935821

[Anonymous No.9936216]

>>9935821
>>9936082
>refusing the false song of scientism
they were wrong about you /sci/

[Anonymous No.9936223]

The answer to the question of life is that life isn't special at all. It's an arrangement of matter, the same as any other arrangement of matter. The value of a human over say, a rock, doesn't exist objectively.

Why matter exists at all is a more interesting question. Life isn't a mystery though. It only seems like one because we are life, and we're biased in favor of it.

[Anonymous No.9936224]

>>9935815
>it doesn't even try to answer "the question of life, the universe, and everything."
Good thing that's not the fucking point of physics

[Anonymous No.9936228]

>>9936223

[Anonymous No.9936230]

>>9936228
>not smart enough to grasp a simple concept
>"this is exactly why i saved all these fat people in hats!"
back to pol

[Anonymous No.9936234]

> physics doesn’t try to do this thing that it never intended to do

ok

[Anonymous No.9936239]

>>9935815
>if we invented a mathematical formula
What do you mean by "we", Peasant?

[Anonymous No.9936805]

>>9935821
>>9935821
Meta physics is junk science.

[Anonymous No.9936815]

>>9935821
OP's "question" more relates to existentialism, with meaning in existence and all that shit, but other than that, pretty much hit the nail on the head
>>9936805
Metaphysics isn't meant to be science in the first place, did you look at the physics part of the word and jump to that conclusion?

[Anonymous No.9936908]

Have you read Tractatus? I have. You literally can't quote things without context. It is all numbered in a highly rational, if linear, way. Every statement is related to other statements by this system. Stop butchering a smart, if troubled, guy's thoughts.

[Anonymous No.9936955]

>>9936908
The context doesn't change it. He's saying the meaning of life can't be addressed by science because it's ineffable and mystical, instead it "shows itself."
>6.5 For an answer which cannot be expressed the question too cannot be expressed. The riddle does not exist. If a question can be put at all, then it can also be answered.
>6.52 We feel that even if all possible scientific questions be answered, the problems of life have still not been touched at all. Of course there is then no question left, and just this is the answer.
>6.521 The solution of the problem of life is seen in the vanishing of this problem. (Is not this the reason why men to whom after long doubting the sense of life became clear, could not then say wherein this sense consisted?)
>6.522 There is indeed the inexpressible. This shows itself; it is the mystical.

[Anonymous No.9936956]

>>9936223
do you have an argument for that view?

[Anonymous No.9936959]

>>9936224
why is it called "the theory of everything" then?

[Anonymous No.9936960]

>>9936216
But nobody smart enough to do science is dumb enough to claim that scientific theories are anything other than mathematical models of the world that predict its behaviour accurately. Whether or not something is "really true" in a philosophical way is a fuzzy intuitive notion that is not testable empirically in any way, so science is not concerned with it.

[Anonymous No.9936963]

>>9936959
Because it can accurately predict how the universe works down to the last detail. But that has fuck all to do with metaphysical notions of existence and whatnot, shit that's basically monkey brains trying to navigate the mess of vague and fuzzy semantics they creates to make sense of their environment.

[Anonymous No.9936966]

>>9936955
>ineffable
And this is why Tractatus failed and we got Later Wittgenstein, who is interesting to read, but far inferior to people like Donald Davidson and Quine. You take an epistemological problem and term it into a ontological problem. And this is just because Wittgenstein's earlier work was flawed, irreparably, but linear thinking. People like Donald Davidson, in particular, who never read Wittgenstein, give a coherent, non-linear worldview that eschews these language problems, and disallows nonsense like the OP.

[Anonymous No.9936972]

>>9936963
so it's not a theory of everything
it literally doesn't try to explain the whole of reality
>>9936960
>right back to logical positivism
nvm then lol

[Anonymous No.9936974]

>>9936966
>meaning is a nonsense language problem
>gets angry
hmmmmmmmmmm

alternatively:
>meaning is a nonsense language problem
>early wittgenstein was wrong
hmmmmmmmmmm

[Anonymous No.9936989]

>>9936974
>early wittgenstein was wrong
Yeah, he was, which he admitted. Maybe you should read more than Wittgenstein? He is a very interesting thinker that should be studied, but he really isn't that useful: other logical positivists were more coherent, he wasn't the first to come up with meaning holism, and anglo meaning holists like Donald Davidson are both more deep in their thinking and more profound. I encourage people to read Wittgenstein if they are philosophy students, but he isn't this grand thinker many make him out to be. He is smart and important, but read other people and you will find they have smart and important things to say too.

[Anonymous No.9936994]

>>9936974
>>9936989
Oh, and Donald Davidson is great on everything but Action. He didn't get a chance to re-do his work on Action after his work on Triangulation, which is really what I think will be seen as quintessential 20th century thought from here on out.

[Anonymous No.9936997]

>>9936972
Your problem is that you attach your own meanings to things others say. It's a theory of everything when it can (theoretically) predict the result of every empirical experiment you can conduct. If the question you are interested in cannot be tested by some empirical experiment you can cook up, it's not part of what scientists would consider "everything" because it falls outside the scope of things you could ever put into a theory. That's literally it you dumb cuck.

[Anonymous No.9936999]

>>9936972
>it literally doesn't try to explain the whole of reality
But nobody ever claimed it does. Science is a method of cooking up mental models that will predict the results of structured experiments before they happen. That's all it is. If your question is some gay ass shit like "what is existence?" then it's not science. It's like telling a car mechanic he's retarded because he can't fix your dead cat.

[Anonymous No.9937002]

>>9936989
what?
i implied you're contradicting yourself, not that wittgenstein is my lord and savior

[Anonymous No.9937004]

>>9936997
>>9936999
>the "theory of everything" isn't really about everything, because it's only about "everything" in the scientific sense, which is the only valid sense anyway
okay i see thanks

[Anonymous No.9937009]

>>9937002
You implied nothing because you are a big brained faggot. You tried to create an argument and failed so you resorted to green text. You have not read these texts, even Tractatus, which you quoted, in depth. You aren't annoying, you are dangerously stupid. The problem in the OP is a figment of your imagination, which is just a bad reading of early Wittgenstein.

[Anonymous No.9937013]

>>9936960
>if you're smart enough to do science you're smart enough to be a bugman like me
nah son

[Anonymous No.9937018]

>>9937009
>actual mindreading
ok ok how many fingers am i thinking of right now?

[Anonymous No.9937031]

>>9935815
This >>9935821
But obviously if you 'could describe the entire development of the physical universe from the most fundamental level', it would greatly inform the 'question of life'. More so than just blindly grasping, though I think its more of a sociological question, so, perhaps physics is useless to this end. Such a description would be amazing yet is impossible. Although, a 'theory of everything' might actually end up being metaphysical and/or existential anyway. Something like the physical containing implicit purpose or meaning, though I doubt it and you could never be sure of it anyway. And whatever it is would never be on the level of the human mind, it would basically be nonsense tricks of physics as far as it concerns our emotions and satisfaction.

My take: the 'question of life, the universe, and everything' is nonsensical on a universal stage. We should look to our psychology for discerning, understanding, and creating meaning that satisfies the inherent existential and maybe metaphysical grasping that is part of our nature. 'Truth', let alone of the fundamental or absolute or ultimate variety, has no relevancy to what makes us satisfied, and what gives a good grounding to our existence and experience. Truth is merely a purity of nihilism that we are incapable of.

[Anonymous No.9937035]

>>9937018
Actually do it.

[Anonymous No.9937043]

>>9937004
Funny that you would read Wittgenstein and still not understand that your problem is that you are insisting on perceiving only your own vague definition of a term rather than paying attention when others explicitly define it in their use.

You're dumb.

[Anonymous No.9937045]

>>9937013
If you don't understand what the scientific method is for you are not smart enough to do science, buddy.

[Anonymous No.9937050]

>>9937035
4

[Anonymous No.9937057]

>>9935815
>mathematical formula that could describe the entire development of the physical universe
only retards manage to imagine a connection between their concepts and their retardation of ''physical universe''

[Anonymous No.9937082]

>>9937043
notice i wasn't insisting on any definition of the term "everything," only pointing out an inconsistency in the argument i was presented with
nobody is going to demand your comprehensive theory of reality accommodate leprechauns and the pineapple on the bottom of the sea, only the stuff that isn't nonsense
if you think the physical "theory of everything" is about everything except metaphysics/ethics, but you think metaphysics/ethics is nothing anyway, then you DO think the physical "theory of everything" is about everything

[Anonymous No.9937532]

>>9936805
Metaphysics literally isn't supposed to be science you faglord

[Anonymous No.9937764]

>>9936959
Because of the naive view that reductionism can predict everything. It can't because emergent behavior is a thing.

But the real reason is to drum up hype from the layfolk.

[Anonymous No.9937793]

>>9936234
then why are people always trying to explain consciousness as materialistic through science then?

[Anonymous No.9937804]

>>9936966
davidson recommendations?

[Anonymous No.9937808]

>>9937793
There's this materialistic dogma in the sciences that's why. Everything in the universe can be explained by natural processes that don't need any supernatural origin.

[Anonymous No.9937986]

>>9935821

Wow, what a rude way to reply.

[Anonymous No.9938107]

>>9937532
Theoretical physics is very similar to metaphysics, but instead of formal logic it uses axioms and mathematics to construct its metaphysical models, and therefore doesn't need to be logically valid.

For example "space" and "time" are metaphysical constructs, and therefore lack any physical properties (they are not made of matter), therefore it logically follows that they cannot interact with physical matter, nor can physical matter interact with them.

Relativity ignores this logical fact, creating "space-time", giving it the physical property of curvature, which is created by matter interacting with it, and then the curved space-time then interacts with the matter curving it, by making it follow its curved path.

Essentially mathematics has allowed metaphysical concepts to become physical, because as long as the numbers work, you can assign all sorts of weird and wonderful metaphysical concepts to whatever phenomena it is you're describing and call it physics.

[Anonymous No.9938171]

>>9937804
His Subjective, Intersubjective, Objective collection of academic papers are, in my opinion, the pinnacle of 20th century philosophy.

[Anonymous No.9938868]

>>9937764
but the problem isn't just that reductionism fails
even if you could derive everything, including consciousness, from physical fundamentals, you still wouldn't understand the whole--what it means that there is a universe, what it is to be, what existence is about, etc.

>6.44 Not how the world is, is the mystical, but that it is.
>6.45 The contemplation of the world sub specie aeterni is its contemplation as a limited whole. The feeling that the world is a limited whole is the mystical feeling.

[Anonymous No.9938888]

>>9936223
The fact that it is easily able to be distinguished from a rock by virtue of being, you know, alive, blows a hole in your argument so large you could drive an 18-wheeler carrying every man who's ever fucked your mother through it. You say life has no objective worth, but even if that were the case, it's definitely special. It has a structure that's fairly goddamn unique among other types of chemical structures, putting aside the other qualities it might have, like the emergent properties of sentience and sapience.
You retard.
>You only pretend it's special
What's the point of using a word you're going to do mental gymnastics into having no meaning whatsoever? If life isn't special, what is?

[Anonymous No.9938898]

>>9936966
Any tips on how to start with analytic philosophy? Asking for a friend

[Anonymous No.9938905]

>>9938898
I like Donald Davidson. The only real influence on him is Quine, and maybe Rorty (who is interesting, but allies with basedboys). But there is a whole other side to this equation. I think most analytic philosophy sucks, but they dominate academia right now. I am always honest. And you held up 4.

[Anonymous No.9938913]

>>9938898
Intro book on a topic you're already interested in.
E.g. if you're interested in science, get an introduction to philosophy of science. (Or maybe even an anthology, but a "guide" type with introductions to each section.)
There'll be lots of references to big names and papers, which you can look up when they pique your interest, on the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy or philpapers.org. (Philpapers is also just great for browsing the branches and subfields of analytic phil and getting an overview, and it often recommends classic works and intro books.)

[Anonymous No.9938918]

>>9938888
>destroy neo-positivist, check
>get quads, check
looks like your work is done for the day my man

[Anonymous No.9938921]

I'm 90% Davidson, 10% Rorty.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EjWTuF35GtY watch them all

But that is just me. The reason I have a new found glory for Davidson is my other maths based on mobius strips. I think his theories of meanings are abstracted literally ontology. Which is radical, and I will explain more in depth, but I actually always liked Davidson. When I was 17 I literally wanted nothing more than to go to Berkeley and study with Davidson. Why didn't this happen?

....
...
This time.

[Anonymous No.9939133]

>>9936955
good post

guess what, as a physicist, when it comes to philosophy, the best line is:
>That's just like, your opinion, man
so my opinion is that Tractatus was right and if you talk about other stuff besides empirical facts, you're just talking nonsense. if you think there's a problem of life beyond empirical facts, then you just haven't realized you're trapped in a word game

don't give me this "later wittgenstein disagreed" shit, he didn't. he just explained why doing nonsense philosophy is a "spiel" that has some value just as an activity, but no real meaning

[Anonymous No.9939187]

>>9939133
everyone knows Wittgenstein could never be pigeonholed into logical positivism, and he was not a sophomoric "anything goes" relativist about philosophy.
>the Vienna Circle interpreted Wittgenstein’s early work as the charter document for their movement, until they prevailed on him to come speak to their group and explain some of the more difficult points in his theory of representation. When he finally came, instead of answering their questions about his book, he sat facing away from them reading Tagore, the Indian poet, for over an hour and then got up and silently left the room. Afterward Carnap remarked to Schlick, “I guess he is not one of us.”
http://www.arisbe.com/detached/?p=847
from his lecture on ethics:
>"My whole tendency and, I believe, the tendency of all men who ever tried to write or talk Ethics or Religion was to run against the boundaries of language. ... But it is a document of a tendency in the human mind which I personally cannot help respecting deeply and I would not for my life ridicule it."

anyway i guess your whole post is nonsense though since everything you said was metaphilosophy

[Anonymous No.9939722]

>>9935815
>underage just read his first book about philosophy the thread
Think before you post kids.

[Anonymous No.9939731]

>>9935815
>it doesn't even try to answer "the question of life, the universe, and everything."
The theory of everything would describe, in totality, the four forces and spacetime. Given that the universe, life, and everything are all a product of that it does indeed. Your point is metaphysical.

[Anonymous No.9939740]

>>9939731
You think a more fully developed physics would bridge the is/ought gap? A bold prediction famalam

[Anonymous No.9939746]

>>9939731

[Anonymous No.9939748]

>>9938888
You have very low intelligence. Life is a complex arrangement of matter, but still only an arrangement of matter. That's all it is.

[Anonymous No.9939753]

>>9937986
It really is. This site is a joke for actual discussion.

[Anonymous No.9939763]

>>9939753
Lmao just put your big boy pants on, remove all the fucks and respond accordingly, or have your sensibilities been offended to the point where you can't compose a response?

[Anonymous No.9939769]

>>9939763
You're right

[Anonymous No.9939770]

>>9939740
it's not just about the is/ought gap though
how would even a fundamental physical theory which comprehended all facts in the universe (including conscious & moral facts) explain why there is anything at all or what it means? how could any theory like that give us a vision of the whole and its significance?

[Anonymous No.9939772]

>>9939748
if God existed, would He be alive?

[Anonymous No.9939777]

>>9939748
>Life is a complex arrangement of matter, but still only an arrangement of matter
So what senpai? I say it's special. You say it's not. What's so special about your opinion that makes it more true than mine?