/lit/ - Literature

Just ask them about is ought gap and laugh

>get a glowing-brain idea about time
>get on /sci/ cuz I gotta tell someone
>use the word creation
>entire thread is exclusively making fun of creationism and god and whatever
>no one comments on my idea
>I'm not even religious

Fools professing themselves to be wise. Pay them no mind, my son. Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men. Now go in peace and remember, /sci/ has the highest percentage of reddit users of any board.

>>13415518
That distinction is dumb and illusory. Haven't you read Scam Harris book "The moral landscape". You probaly believe in ancient fairy tales lol

>>13415510
They don’t even have any idea what “metaphysics” means; they think it just means nonphysical things and “sky fairies” when it’s actually largely about down-to-earth propositions like “every effect has a cause.”

>>13415531
what is your idea?

>>13415676
that time is not linear, it's a dot.
it's all happening at the same time.
I know, I know- not very new or innovative, but I get these "mind-blown sudden insights" and I get really excited.

>>13415737
>that time is not linear, it's a dot.
Contradicted by all available evidence.
That's why /sci/ laughs at you.

>attempting to engage STEM fags on a dialectical level about anything immaterial
>ever

>>13415510
It's nothing more than a diversion. One that brings joy and enlightens the mind. But one that is as important as fiction books are to a pragmatic.

>>13415747
>Contradicted by all available evidence.
>thinking what we perceive as humans has any bearing on how things really are
we only think that because we can only perceive time as one event after another. that's not evidence dipshit, that's how we perceive reality.

>>13415768
Sadly, this.

>>13415747
What >>13415737 really wants to say is that time is a block, which is the preferred interpretation of the relativity of simultaneity among those physicist-philosophers who opine on such matters. Of course, it is not anywhere near a new idea, so he should be ashamed.

>>13415806
>so he should be ashamed.
rude

>>13415806
It sounds pretty compatible with metaphysical solipsism to me honestly, though I might be misinterpreting it.

>>13415783
By definition all evidence is made up of things we experience, thus all available evidence points to time being continuous and one dimensional.

"We nuh nuffin" is simply a retarded argument.

>>13415827
You're probably misinterpreting it. So far as possible ontologies of time are concerned, presentism is more compatible with solipsism than eternalism.

>>13415833
sure, if you have an egocentric view of the universe

>>13415806
>time is a block
Every single physical equation that I know of treats time as Continuos one dimensional variable.
Neither am I aware of "2D times" nor time being constrained "in a block".

>>13415833
>thus all available evidence points to time being continuous and one dimensional.
Not really because you are not experiencing what happened in the past anymore. The memory of things past is not proof of the past. Plus, there's no way for you to deny that all your memories may be false since you're always in the present and have no way of going back in time to confirm they are there. Same thing with the existence of other minds. Consciousness and mind manifest themselves as a point, as an inescapable solipsism. Everything else in the world is always constantly being tested, and it could always fail tomorrow.

>>13415844
>if you have an egocentric view of the universe
No, if you want to have a view of the universe based upon evidence, the only view of the universe that can make meaningful predictions about things from which we can gather evidence.

>>13415846
The map isn't the territory pal. I'm talking interpretations of the math, not the math itself. Nor am I saying that this particular interpretation is even correct, just that it is preferred by those who see 4D minkowski spacetime as a useful guide to the way the world might actually be and not just a utilitarian visualization of the mathematics.

>>13415854
An idiotic post.
"Everything you perceive could be false, therefore there is no evidence" is simply a retarded claim, and ENTIRELY missing the point.

>>13415864
>I'm talking interpretations of the math, not the math itself
Why would you do that?
How can you disconnect the math from its interpretation, if the mathematical forumals tell you that time is continuous and one dimensional, why would your interpretation say otherwise?

>>13415866
> therefore there is no evidence
There's evidence that an event happened, which is memory, but it's not proof that it happened. Evidence points to a certain truth. Certainly I am more certain that I ate food yesterday than I am of moving to another city, as I have memory of eating food. But this memory is just a pointer to an experience, not the experience in itself. If you can't go back to that experience, then you rely on memory to ensure it exists. You concluded from a logical argument that because evidence exists, then we know for sure we are in a linear time. I am casting doubt upon your certainty and saying that it's useful for us to believe so, but it's never certain.

>>13415887
>but it's not proof that it happened
Missing the point ENTIRELY:

Of course literally everything we know about the universe could be pure chance, and tomorrow every single law of nature could be radically different, BUT THAT ISN'T THE POINT.

>You concluded from a logical argument that because evidence exists, then we know for sure we are in a linear time.
No, I am saying that if we want to have a view on the universe based upon REALITY AS WE CAN MEASURE IT, we have to accept that time is linear.

"You nuh nuffin" is not an argument, it is retarded and misses the point of any of this.
If you want a model of the universe that has ANY predictive power, you need to accept that you HAVE to draw upon evidence and ALL evidence tells you that time is linear.
Of course that isn't "proof" but "proof" is for drunks and mathematicians, there can be no such thing as "proof" or "absolute certainty" outside of that, so drop your fucking strawman, this is why /sci/ is laughing at you.

>>13415874
For one thing, most use Minkowski's fusion of three-dimensional space with the one dimensional temporal manifold to describe the world according to special relativity. Though this is only one common way it is done, and not the only, which immediately raises the problem of underdetermination. There are multiple ways of mathematically describing and reproducing the same experimental results, but how to discern which one is the "true" story? Mathematics is not ontology, though it can be a useful guide provided we put on our philosopher's caps and engage in conceptual analysis. It's really the same issue with quantum mechanics. You've got copenhagen, bohmian, transactional, everettian, etc etc approaches, all with different mathematical apparatuses that net the same results, but each tell a different story about what is going on behind the scenes.

So far as relativity is concerned, the world described is either a fatalistic block or a pluralistic solipsism à la Howard Stein.

ask those clowns to explain how a 'wave' is its own entity and it will shut them up

>>13415911
A wave is a solution to the wave equation, Moron.

>>13415903
You really didn't answer the question, of course the mathematics isn't "actually whats going on", but that is pretty meaningless as your interpretation should't contradict the mathematics.

>>13415768
>>13415785
>W-why big nerd won't talk down to my level

>go to /sci/
>tell people god is real
>provide evidence of my claim, namely historical Jesus
>get called a prophet
>convert everyone to Christianity
>stem fags lift me on their shoulders and chant "anon, anon, anon!"
>wake up in piss drenched bed sheets
>still in my trailer in south Louisiana
one day tho

>am I not as smart as I think?
>No, it's the STEMchads who are wrong

>go to sci
>"industrial society must be destroyed"
>be met with even more vitriol than the average theist would
>Kaczynski proven right once more
destroy industrial society

>go on /sci/
>tell them nukes are fake
>100+ replies every time
bunch of worthless retards desu

>>13415925

Alas, I have been defeated

>>13415510
Laugh back at them. They're cavemen positivists and naturalists. Maybe they don't even know formal logic.

>>13415954
They still believe in nukes?
I though /sci/ was an intelligent board

>>13415937
A physical theory is comprised of two components: a mathematical formalism (a set of equations and a set of calculational rules for making predictions that can be compared with experiment) and a physical interpretation (what the theory tells us about the underlying structure of phenomena, that is to say, an ontology). The mathematics is silent on whether to accept the existence of a four-dimensional reality in which time does not pass, and it is silent on whether it is better to explain that theory in terms of metaphysically separated "here-now" light-cones in which anything outside of those light cones are rendered nonexistent from its own reference frame.

>>13415954
how are nukes fake?

Very interesting

>how are nukes fake

>>13415969
But mathematics isn't silent on what kind of variable time is...

>>13415963
I had to take logic in college and I majored in business, in fact the only textbook I kept was Introduction to Logic and I still have it on my desk, and metaphysics is a joke

>>13415971
It's a dumb Boomer conspiracy theory.

>>13415980
Hey retard, what is a 4D minkowski space?

>>13415991
3D space 1D time, 4D R^n with a degenerate bilinear form.
At least that is what Wikipedia is telling me...

>>13415997
And guess what kind of interpretation that mathematical fusion suggests?

>>13416002
A 3D space with 1D time, according to Wikipedia.

>>13416006
Correct. And philosophically, the argument commonly associated with a block universe interpretation derived from this unification goes something like this:

P1: I am now real
P2: At least another observer (you-now) is real and can be in motion in respect to me-now.
P3: If all things in relation R with me-now are real and you-now are real, all things in the relation R with you-now are real.
P4: R = relativity of simultaneity
P5: Special Relativity
Conclusion: All past, present, and future events are ontologically real. Hence the invocation of a "block" universe. Whether the world is actually shaped as a block I couldn't tell you and neither will the mathematics of special relativity, because you can do a lot with a 1D time manifold beyond simply fusing it with 3D Euclidean space, as classical mechanics makes apparent.

>>13415900
I'm not that guy and I misunderstood you, sorry. I thought you were arguing for a position of absolute certainty. I don't reject functionalist, reasonable accounts, it's not sensible in any way to do that. I'm just too pessimistic.

They are just as low IQ as here, it doesn’t matter

>>13415737
>time
>and time only
anon you know that space is linked to it right? matter?

you meant to say that all is one and many

>shitpost on how I didn't like the answer to Fermat"s Last Theorem for being too short
>get BTFO by mathfags who know their stuff

>>13415768
>immaterial
>anything

>>13415510
Just talk to them about language philosophy, the history of objectivity, pragmatism, and math and you'll be fine. Might find a Jesus freak or too in there, friend.

>>13415783
>we can only perceive time as one event after another
Not true by the way

>>13415986
I've taught logic to students, I can safely assume I know more formal logic than you. Metaphysics is not a joke, and science is built upon unquestioned metaphysical assumptions anyway, unless you have non-correspondence views on truth, in which case your worldview is even worse than naive scientific naturalism.

>go to /his/
>expect discussion about history
>only find discussion about how certain haplotypes are genetically superior to others

>>13416383
Did you know Napoleon liked stinky pussy?

Will agreeing about liking stinky pussy make me god emperor?

>>13416534
Yup.

>>13415952
>anti-capitalism
>good ideology
pick one

/sci/ is very cringe, it's like a breeding ground for the materialist mindset. I bet they believe in "sub-atomic particles".

>>13416305
This goes against current science lmao, dumbass

>>13416606
>Kazynski
>anti-capitalist

>>13415768
This.

>>13415510
Stop linking your shit thread on /sci/. My Math general is bad enough with all the /pol/tards.

/lit/ is beneath us.

>>13416198
/mg/ is smarter than the entirety of /lit/.

Actually, Yukariposter is smarter than everyone on /lit/. He's legitimately 160+ IQ.

This lit board is even worse than ive heard people say lol. Yeah im sticking with sci for now.

Materialism makes me revolt with disgust.

>>13416623
If anything the people here are more inclined towards a naive view of scientific ontology than the people on /sci/ whose field of expertise necessitates at least a cursory understanding of the difference between an instrumentalist and realist view of entities along with the way theories are underdetermined by their interpretations. /lit/ has a bit of an inferiority complex that isn't even warranted by the situation. They don't even know enough to articulate the substantive distinction between physics and metaphysics, even if they instinctively believe there to be one.

>>13416911
pfffft there is no substantive distinction between physics and metaphysics. that is brainlet dualism. there is a perfect correspondence.

Why are some of you so angry at STEMlords? What have we done?

We genuinely don't even think about you.

>>13416929
I have never seen a physicist concern himself with the problem of universals, the mind-body problem or the metaphysics of modality. Even in issues where there is some overlap, like with problems concerning freedom/determinism and space/time, there is a pretty clear divide where it is easy to see what issues the physicist is concerned with (mostly experimentation and the physical reproduction of results expected from the mathematical framework, cataloging the manifold aspects of experience) and the philosopher (interpretation, what the theory says about the world, conceptual foundations).

That said, there is certainly overlap. But it is far from a one-to-one correspondence.

>>13416999
based trips destroying /lit/ undergrad pseud

>>13416999
vocaroo.com/i/s0tlJ41k6Hxl

>>13417039
This is :3 btw

Anyone with a 135 IQ and higher who still believes in materialism should be rounded up into camps and burned alive. They are literally dangerous to society.

>>13417096
Rent-free.

>>13415510
stop spamming this on /sci/ and stop trying to force a sister thread on there, too.
i don't talk to humanities retards

I support capitalism.
I am a Christian, reborn through my faith in God and his son Jesus christ, who came as a wholly a man and lived a perfect life.
I also believe industrial society must be destroyed.

Ted was right about almost everything

>>13416803
>Yukariposter
Legitimately the smartest 4chan poster.

>>13417153
He probably is, honestly. Does anyone know how old he is and where he went to uni?

>>13415768
>attempting philosophy while not a STEMfag
Yikes

>>13416455
>how certain haplotypes are genetically superior to others
That is the general lesson of history isn’t it

>>13417161
No clue, but most likely he has a PhD, or is close to one.

>>13416694
>capitalism
>pro-Kazynski
???

>>13415737
Time is an everflowing river. We do not know what lies head, we are only along for the ride. The future and past are reflections of what is now, distorted like the water's surface.

>>13415846
>Objective brainlet
Hurr numbers and concepts that are tangible

>>13415510
>get laughed at
Not an argument.

>math
>science
sorry I'm not a nerd

>>13416911
You are grossly exaggerated the expertise of the average /sci/ poster here. There are a few smart ones yes, but most are as midwit as anyone here

just show them this image and watch the entire board implode

>>13415518
based

>>13415510
All philosophers should know more about science than your average peasant (i have known philosophers not even able to grasp the simplest concepts of Biology and Physics. Its really cringy), also, only the most retard scientists despise philosophy. A philosophical understanding of what they are doing is what separates good scientists from trained monkeys following cooking recipes. If you are really interested in reality and explaining wtf it IS, you cant escape both branches of knowledge.

>>13415988
>>13415971
>>13415954
why are there so many conspiracy theories now?
its almost as if they're disinformation...

>>13419528

>>13417096
anyone above 135 IQ who still believes in idealism is psychologically frail and coping

>>13416803
>/mg/ is smarter than the entirety of /lit/.
Sure but they're still on 4chan so you get people yelling about anime and avatarfags for an entire thread. Do something about the guy that just redirects to here and other boards and it'll be fine.
>Yukariposter
I remember someone mentioning that he's a postdoc. He certainly seems to know what he's talking about though.

>>13415510
To be a good philosopher first you need to be big brained scientist who transcends his paradigmatic conditionings and concentration camps and then maybe MAYBE you get a chance to be the big brain sophia /ss/ material. Until the mommy /ss/ (you) there is little hope for your shrivelled cord to grow into big brain, lusty for ideas.

>>13415518
>>13415531
>>13415569
>>13415574
>>13415657
>>13415676
>>13415737
>>13415747
>>13415768
>>13415769
>>13415783
>>13415785
>>13415806
>>13415824
ya'll need to google up 'the late sean f kay'

>>13415737
you should read Jerusalem

/sci/ is just full of mutually masturbating autists who are insecure about their inability to grasp concepts that aren't related to maths.

Proper pleb tier. You can't have a philosophical discussion with them because the majority of them are dull engineers or 16 year olds who want to be the next Neil Degrasse Tyson.

Shit board it has been totally infiltrated by retards. There are genuinely smarter people on /g/ nowadays.

>>13415833
Cringe and read kant

>>13417229
Are you fucking kidding me, I know tons of people with phds who are complete retards

>>13416999
Leibniz vs. Newton

>>13420009
>I know tons of people with phds who are complete retards
A PhD in mathematics?

>>13415518
this is such dumb cope, it's a philosophical cope just a step above solipsism

>>13415806
>really wants to say is that time is a block, which is the preferred interpretation of the relativity of simultaneity among those physicist-philosophers who opine on such matters.
those people are also grifters, the Charlie Kirks of science if you will. Ideas without the context of evidence and the actual details of the ir theoretical framework

>>13415569
Romans 1:22
very based

>>13415510
The only reason to go to /sci/ is to post troll threads because the humorless bugman robots there will flip the fuck out every time.

>>13415510
I know exactly why you mean bro. But i don't cry about it i get mad at these robots.

Some of them ( the more normie science types) love to brag about the ultimacy of science.

I tried to explain the "is" "ought" gap and it was rain off a rain coat.

Science can answer trivial truth claims but science can never tell you what to do with the said information

>>13415510

>science class in high school
>learning about space stuff
>girl raises her hand unironically asks were Heaven is

>>13415510
>go back to /lit/ and cry about it
Do you expect to be validated, my child?

>>13415951
Or they're both retarded.

>Go to /sci/
>Ask about a scientific topic
>Get plenty of help and reading recommendations

>Go on /lit/
>Ask for help
>Hurrr the ego and it's own hurrrr my diary desu durrrr the bible

>>13415737
now you got bullied on both /sci/ and /lit/

>>13420818

Ph.D in aerospace engineering here.

You all seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of what time is defined by. The only real "evidence" we have for the existence of time is the second law of thermodynamics.

For every moment of time that passes by, and according to statistical mechanics, the entropy of a system must increase.

And because the entropy of a single moment of time can be calculated, you can know for certain using the statistical thermal probabilites of that moment in time that time must move forward.

And that is why time is a dimension and not a point.

>>13422607
>you can know for certain using the statistical thermal probabilites

>>13415737
Pre-determinism is something like that. Tense is only perception, in actuality the only tense we can know is the present.
Think of time, as in the history of all things or the universe if you like, as a chemical reaction. Everything that is going to happen will inevitably happen, free will is still apparent and is basically whatever your intentions are. You can act against your will, you can commit the same act but with different intention for commiting it.
The universe has already ended, it's inevitable and there's nothing can be done about it.

>>13420072
Maths, physics, you name it. There are idiots literally everywhere

>>13415510
What do I say anons

>>13415510
They and they as in /sci/ show their inability of greater knowledge and ingenuity by their constriction to the subjective logic of the unique and its own ability to self contained duality. As example they know nothing of necessity and a "beyond" of time. By meaning that I say intuition plays the factor of truth to man by necessity and necessity incarnate as the truth by means of intuition, have they not the slightest understanding of truths relation to necessity? For they are of the same form.

>>13415531
>>13415676
>>13415737
>>13415747
Time isn't a being you fucking morons, it's neither a dot nor a line though the prior admittedly makes more sense objectively - subjectively the latter does more so for man.

>>13422845
Is this a woman or a friend?

Just let them be and move on anon. Stop being a sperg.

>>13416935
You robots don't think about anything

>>13415510
Good. Listen to your betters.

You are making appeals to outdated techniques inquiry. Physics alone has expanded to include almost all of what used to concern philosophy due to the fact that we now have the technology to carry out complete causal reduction -> ontological reductions, all of which reduce to chemistry/something physical and thus definable by physics.

Evolutionary biology/psychology have mopped up the other more relational "observer-dependent" aspects of being.

>>13422919
>They were too busy asking if they could, to ask if they should

Should is no longer the question, my friends. Technology has advanced at such a magnificent pace that we need only assist in its growth. No longer should morals play into steel and wire, for the steel and wire does not ask us ontological questions in return.

>>13422626
You can use something in calculus called infinite series. Even though a probability at a single point in time is not 100 percent, the convergent sum of all of the probabilities heading to infinity is 100 percent .

>>13422928
*tips fedora*