/sci/ - Science & Math

>>15673911
Oh no no no. It's not even particles. Once you go deeper, it's not even that. It's nothing but abstractions.

>>15645952
The greeks were always right brother. The more advancements that we make in Physics, the more we realize how correct they were. The fact that many were able to intuit such fundamental scientific conecepts simply through thought is an amazing phenomenon that holds a lot of significance. But I won't mention why, so as to not alter the course of this discussion.

>>15191018
>Mathematicians and physicists that wrote philosophical pieces?
Many of the founding fathers of QM wrote philosophically themed works. For instance My View of the World
Book by Erwin Schrödinger
>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.
Physics used to be called natural philosophy. Eddington wrote on philosophy. Gödel, cantor, frege, heisenberg wrote Physics And Philosophy: The Revolution In Modern Science. Penrose has written on philosophy. Wigner, stapp, on and on.

>>15186705
>Wtf were photons?
They are render on demand (upon measurement) data, just as everything in the physical world is. When not being rendered, you can use wave equations to make predictions about there future behavior. That doesn't mean they are floating around as either waves OR discrete chunks when not being measured and even WHEN being measured, you only have to render the EFFECTS of either a wave or a photon to the observer.

>>15157201
>The concept of "deeply conscious" only makes sense in a non-materialist worldview
Right. It only makes sense if you have the correct worldview of idealism. Materialism can't account for consciousness. Materialism can't account for the physical (virtual) world either, and this is why you have physicists postulating kooky things like the many worlds interpretation, which was partially devised to attempt to paper over the role of the observer and the idealism which QM implied.

>>15157111
>are real numbers real?
Yes. They are prior to the physical though. They are metaphysical. Things like infinity and continuousness don't exist in the physical world. They can be APPLIED to the physical. They, numbers, transcend space and time though. They are universal and invariant and not in flux or change as the material world is. They are ideal and are grounded in minds and ultimately the platonic realm nested in the god mind. The physical world is VIRTUAL and not fundamental. Get rid of the idea that only that which is physical is 'real' and it all makes sense. This is backwards. So yes, they are real, but if you want to have a coherent world view, you had better become an idealist and platonist as opposed to a materialist. Idealism comfy by the way.

>>14596251
The exceptional physics masters were alway the ones who knew both physics and philosophy. Really there wouldn't have been a single great minded educated man who was not well versed in philosophy as well, ever, in history. These is what made the founding fathers of QM so excellent. Most of them were immersed in philosophy as well. Even back to plato and aristotle. Descartes, leibniz, always there was this confluence. Really this applies to mathmatics as well.And astronomy. Engineering. Vitruvius.