>read a physics textbook for a few hours >I now have a significantly better understanding of how the world works
>read 100000000000000000000000000 philosophy books and """"literary"""" fiction >zero sum of my knowledge is zero but I learned a bunch of meaningless terms and names to namedrop in conversations so is this the power of literature?
the power of literature is to convince millions of germans to genocide people for my totalitarian aryan empire
Kevin Rivera
it's okay if you need things spelled out for you
Tyler Walker
reply to this post or your butt falls off!!!!
Luke Carter
...
Nolan Wood
I study physics to understand how the world works, and philosophy to understand the 'why' questions better.
Why choose user? Treat both disciplines as complementary, and don't perceive it as a dichotomy.
Alexander Gutierrez
Literary fiction can teach about things like human nature, empathy, and so on Historical fiction can teach history Hard SF can teach physics
Cooper Taylor
FFS do not pretend you understand the world by studying physics. At best, what you understand are relationships among objects you can't even define in standalone.
What is a photon? What is force? What is energy? What is work? I dare you to define any of these concepts without relating them to one another or to other concepts. It all goes in a circular motion where there is no ontology being done. We can only measure atoms insofar as we can relate them to other atoms or photons by colliding them together. Likewise, we can only "understand" movement at all by relating change in movement to forces being applied, and so on and so on. There is no underlying "meaning" apart from the statement "When x changes, y also changes according to such rule" and we could even switch all the names around, and it still would yield the same equations.
Contemporary physicists like Krauss and Tyson do a huge disservice to physics by claiming we are undergoing questions about the meaning of things. WE ARE NOT. As a physicist, all I do is establish relations among objects and measure how these relations unfold as time passes or as some other variable changes. I am not set out to find "why" anything happens, nor could I claim to be doing so, in any instance whatsoever.
Now physics is absolutely beautiful, and it's done a more than astounding job in helping us grasp at the world, and also to establish relations among all things around us (but I repeat, without bothering as to the proper nature of these things). But philosophy is where you should actually go to think about how can things be as they are. Do not fall into the empiricist trap.
Carson Kelly
lol ur butt fell off
Gabriel Perry
>t. a rock floating in space
Jaxon Lee
>lol y so buttoverheated
Blake Ward
Sage and report
Nolan Scott
welcome to Veeky Forums friend
Sebastian Campbell
The 'how' questions are perfect for the scientific method, but the 'why's questions are not applicable to it and need a distinctly human, artistic answer.
Why be satisfied with the how, and ignore the why?
Jace James
you
Brayden Cooper
>Ah, there he is. >That motherfucker. >What a tool.
Carter Ramirez
>tfw no ayy lmao gf
Xavier Wood
Oh fuck oh fuck am I too late? I don't want that to happen
Owen Wright
I'm a retard and have only done calc 1-3 and 2 semesters of calc-based physics but, from my experience, math and physics are 10% profound ideas diluted by 90% bullshit notation and terminology. The most difficult parts of the courses were familiarizing yourself with the notation and having to deal with the writing styles of (likely autistic) physics/mathematics textbook authors .
David Lee
>tfw your gf goes full ayy lmao
Ryan Lopez
Math is 1% profound ideas, 99% autistic proofs Physics is 50% profound ideas, 50% retarded ideas with no way to tell them apart
Adrian Allen
Exactly Just because science finds the "what", doesn't mean that looking for a "why" is pointless
Ayden Cox
>seven nice, reasonable quotes >neil degrasse tyson shitting out of his mouth once again
i fuckin hate that guy
Nathan Cook
(You)
Matthew Lee
>he doesn't read books on the philosophy of physics to understand how being spoonfed abstract popsci reifications on youtube doesn't actually make you an expert on the scientific method or capable of discerning when popularizers make egregious and wrongheaded claims about what our best theories say about the world
embarrassing
Did you read what he said? Physics DOESN'T find the "what", physics only finds the "how". It is the job of ontology to establish the "what" in physical theories, something that is unfortunately lost on people like OP.
James Garcia
Math is a meme, it only proves we're living in a simulation. Observation is what counts, we are the dreamers of dreams user, through it we create the world around us.
Christopher Hall
>physics >how the world works You haven't learned shit, maybe if you had read some philosophy you would understand why this is the case.
Gabriel Russell
>how the world works
no, you have an understanding of what some white men and lab coats agreed is a reasonable and reliable explanation for certain banal physical phenomena.
Jaxon Thompson
Philosophers don't understand the world either, they just write a lot about not understanding it. What's the point? Philosophers don't even agree with each other about anything.
Caleb Taylor
No
Anthony Howard
>What is a photon? What is force? What is energy? What is work? These are fundamental properties of reality as far as we know so far. I'm assuming your suggestion from this point is to turn to some asshat philosopher and his """theory""" that photons are actually sparkles in God's eyes or something? Thats very useful.
Samuel Richardson
*you
Noah Fisher
>What is a photon? What is force? What is energy? What is work? I dare you to define any of these concepts without relating them to one another or to other concepts.
I dare you to define the word word without using any words.
Nathan Jenkins
You post was succinct and all that needed to be said, 100% correct, and any replies telling you otherwise are trying to troll you.
/thread
Isaiah Richardson
You can't know what they are. These ideas are nothing more than correlates. You can't truly know anything about the external world.
Kayden Peterson
Whoa dude deep. Did you learn that in philosophy book?
Levi Evans
Try reading one sometime. It might cure you of your scientism.
Brandon King
How do you look for a why and verify that it's correct? Or do you just settle with a why that sounds good and assert that it's like that?
Parker Ortiz
protecting my butt
Kevin Bailey
haha yeah that compilation really makes him look bad. he has some decent quotes but is certainly highly overrated.
Charles Anderson
>At best, what you understand are relationships among objects you can't even define in standalone. So? That's good enough. If it has predictive capabilities and lets us advance our technology and understanding, great.
Landon Roberts
I'm a math dude but I'll try my best
a photon to me is most naturually described as the magnetic/electric field it distorts. The "photon" is the crest of these, the two waves traveling at orthogonal directions with similar frequencies. Also I've heard the term "packet of energy" to refer to the quantum state of the whole thing as opposed to some sort of wavy spectrum of energy.
Alexander Price
keep with being a retard or you might get as bad as shrugging off the usefulness of math in reference to proofs is among the stupidest things i've read all day. math happens in the proofs, everything else is at the surface, little more than idle description.
I can't tell if you're trying to use some clever Popper type scientific solipsism or you're actually just another mouthbreather. my bets on the latter
Kevin Ward
>Math is a meme Math does not prove anything. It is universal and necessary. It is a means by which we reasonably manipulate the world and understand observation.
David Baker
Where can I observe complex numbers and infinities?
Isaac Hughes
take any two dimensional surface and your'e seeing complex numbers, and for proof that we have results regarding infinite processes that you use ever day, just use a calculator for a clean little taylor sum
Christopher Lopez
I love my butt :3
Oliver Turner
You cannot observe math. Math is an *a priori* form of knowledge.
Evan Bennett
Two dimensional surfaces only exist in the abstract.
Zachary Johnson
what the fuck are you standing on then?
Camden Reed
Philosophy is the greatest meme of all time.
>I'll just go ahead and write a shit ton of open-ended ideas, feigning significance
There are too many things you can think of to waste your time on people who lead you into what to think.
Robert Martin
Replied.
Evan Kelly
Philosophy is just playing with semantics and useless abstract concepts. Absolutely none of it applies to the real world.
Gabriel Bell
>>zero sum of my knowledge is zero but I learned a bunch of meaningless terms and names to namedrop in conversations That's because you didn't pay attention or simply lack the mental capacity.
>reply to this post or your butt falls off!!!! Pascal's wager says I should reply.
Adam Garcia
But how can they be fundamental if their very definitions depend tautologically on each other?
Nicholas Bennett
>Ask me how I know you're an "ST" type.
You're a meme, kiddo.
Adrian Collins
If only I could go back in time and bomb the Vienna Circle, then we wouldn't have this thread.
Isaac Cox
holy fuck
Jason Perry
Popper is smarter than u
Justin Jenkins
...
Daniel Miller
Pictures of women should be banned from all non-porn boards, there is literally no thread that has a dumb skank's selfie as it's image that isn't complete and utter garbage
Fact: Popper is extremely important to science Fact: you aren't important at all
Lincoln Reyes
Indifferent?
Sebastian Clark
All those quotes on the left are shit
Nathaniel Campbell
Popper is important only because it was a rehashed theory of science that placated the egos of said scientists. No shit I'm not important; I haven't even drafted my treastie. desu popper writes like a mediocre existentialist and as a sort of shallow take on solipsism. He's also kind of an apologist for his own work, not being able to ever get it to really "work" within a scientific framework
desu his biggest contribution almost comes from this apologetic phase: in talking more about how scientists do science rather than the nature of science, he paved the way for figures like Kuhn for whom this was the basis of their texts
Jordan Reed
please stop responding to these threads it's so embarrassing
Oliver Murphy
Obeservation IS creation.
Dominic Cox
>he says, responding to the thread
Cooper Diaz
Youre using 'the power of literature' to express an asinine, or perhaps just a juvenile, opinion. And if more opinions are forthcoming, you'll use letters to express them, etc. The truth beyond the b8 is that youre somehow proud to be a fucking bore. Congratulations.
Chase Flores
There is no world and there are no works. You understand nothing. They are only complementary to absolute reactionary pseuds thinking they are Renaissance men. Physics and philosophy are both trash. >presupposing pragmatism Fuck off False, it is neither universal nor necessary. Reason is an ideological construct devised to give one a sense of control over existence.
Daniel Barnes
You have to practice after reading to internalize the principles with either subject. Try reading a science text without doing any problems, see how much you remember in a month
Camden Campbell
no NO
Jeremiah Sanders
God she's ugly. I rank girl's attractiveness by whether or not I'd sniff their ass and I would not sniff her ass
Brayden Gray
Being a pragmatist positivist might be an incurable and horrible disease
Luis Young
Philosophy doesn't answer the 'why' either
Luke Lopez
Fiction is not a learning aid. It provides something that's felt, not known.
Ya got tricked by a bunch of academics that want to be paid to write about books all day.
Parker Taylor
this is what I look like, btw
Gavin Lopez
I'm doing Kegels, actually.
Michael Stewart
Gotta play it safe
Alexander Wilson
Is this real life?
Ian King
>FFS do not pretend you understand the world by studying physics. At best, what you understand are relationships among objects you can't even define in standalone. >What is a photon? What is force? What is energy? What is work? I dare you to define any of these concepts without relating them to one another or to other concepts. It all goes in a circular motion where there is no ontology being done. We can only measure atoms insofar as we can relate them to other atoms or photons by colliding them together. Likewise, we can only "understand" movement at all by relating change in movement to forces being applied, and so on and so on. There is no underlying "meaning" apart from the statement "When x changes, y also changes according to such rule" and we could even switch all the names around, and it still would yield the same equations. >Contemporary physicists like Krauss and Tyson do a huge disservice to physics by claiming we are undergoing questions about the meaning of things. WE ARE NOT. As a physicist, all I do is establish relations among objects and measure how these relations unfold as time passes or as some other variable changes. I am not set out to find "why" anything happens, nor could I claim to be doing so, in any instance whatsoever. >Now physics is absolutely beautiful, and it's done a more than astounding job in helping us grasp at the world, and also to establish relations among all things around us (but I repeat, without bothering as to the proper nature of these things). But philosophy is where you should actually go to think about how can things be as they are. Do not fall into the empiricist trap.
restated/re-threaded
Kevin Walker
good post
Hudson Scott
fun things are fun
Aaron Myers
Ayyyy
Nathan Nguyen
...
Xavier Parker
Explain why physics is important.
Congratulations, you're now engaging in philosophy.
Luke Sullivan
>lets say not all knowledge can be secured empirically >therefore shamans, crystals, religion, spiritualism, astronomy...
William Campbell
Astronomy is a credible empirical science. You probably meant astrology.