/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.11404062]

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2011/oct/31/steve-jobs-last-words

mhmm
Let's face it - there's likely some sort of afterlife

[Anonymous No.11404072]

Afterlife is only for smart and rich people.

[Anonymous No.11404101]

>>11404062
Even in death Jobs is a genius at marketing to normies.

[Anonymous No.11404124]

>Ow. Ow.
>Ow. Ow.
>Ow. Ow.

Oof

[Anonymous No.11404131]

>>11404062
OK. Tallulah Bankhead's last words were "codeine... bourbon" and Archimedes' last words were "don't disturb my circles." It's kind of like people just say random shit while they're dying sometimes.

[Anonymous No.11404172]

>>11404131
>Archimedes' last words were "don't disturb my circles.

Realm of forms confirmed real, how will materialists reductionist redditors ever recover?

[Anonymous No.11404188]

>>11404131
>don't disturb my circles
We didn't listen, and now look at us.

[Anonymous No.11404202]

>>11404172
The Forms are pretty reductionist. It's basically the worldview where you believe everything works like object oriented programming. I loved it back when I first learned about it in school decades ago, but it's as autistic as it gets to be honest with you senpai.

[Anonymous No.11404220]

>>11404172
>at one side nobel price winners
>at the other some television guys, who try to make science understandable for retards like op

[Anonymous No.11404753]

>>11404062
Steve "alternative medicine vegan hippie" Jobs isn't the best source about afterlife
>>11404131
Archimedes' last words were top quality if you ask me

[Anonymous No.11404772]

>>11404062
I love how we live in this age of absolute personalty cult bullshit fucking literally everywhere where some no-talent scammer hack like this says random shit while dying (as many do) and his various diviners are trying to interpret his words as though he were a prophet delivering the messages of the gods.

[Anonymous No.11404774]

>>11404220
I think this just helps to reinforce how corrosive an effect pop science has had on actual science.

[Anonymous No.11404830]

>>11404220
Yes, I believe that's exactly the point of the image. Congratulations, you have pointed out the obvious.

[Anonymous No.11404836]

People say the same shit when they get high lmao. If half your brain dies from a stroke, half your body doesn't work. If all your brain doesn't work (when you die), you think you'll be launched into a video game paradise? Lmfao. It'll be the same as before you were born, nothing to worry about.

[Anonymous No.11405076]

>>11404172
>>11404220
>>11404774
>>11404830
Philosophy graduate here, and I can tell you that the people on the left in the image are saying things that are fucking stupid, while the people on the right are saying things that are good sense.

Philosophy is a fucking waste of time. I learnt that from experience.

Neil deGrasse Tyson is correct in the image. If you want to discover what nature is like, you need science. Philosophy can't answer those questions, instead it is just pointless intellectual masturbation.

Most of philosophy is just a language game. "Hurr durr what do we call knowledge?" And then a bunch of intellectual masturbators try and come up with a watertight definition of "knowledge". But definitions AREN'T watertight - our language is always evolving and changing over time, and it doesn't have strict definitions. What's the difference between a mound and a hill? A hill is bigger, but where do you draw the line? Is there a set height at which a mound becomes a hill? No. No there isn't.

I'm not saying the people on the left in that image are all useless (they're obviously not, especially in the case of Einstein), and I'm definitely not saying the people on the right in the image are perfect (they're not).

But those particular quotes you've chosen on the left are pointless, intellectually masturbating waffle. Just because an academic is from the olden days doesn't mean they were immune to spouting some real crap. And the quotes you've chosen on the right are good sense. Philosophy IS a fucking waste of time - at least on questions about the nature of our reality. Only science can answer those questions. Mental inquiry, without the measurements that are carried about by science, is pointless.

Also, science has advanced a lot since the people on the left were alive. The demonstrated competence of modern science is what has led so many people (myself included) to realise that science really is the only thing that can explain the nature of our reality.

[Anonymous No.11405081]

>>11404172
>>11405076
Here's a TLDR version of my too-long post:

1. Philosophy cannot answer questions about the nature of reality
2. Materialism is real
3. Suck my big fat dick if you don't like it

[Anonymous No.11405117]

>>11405076
>Philosophy is a fucking waste of time. I learnt that from experience.
No, you heard a bunch of bad philosophy. I've seen philosophy texts. They're dogshit.

[Anonymous No.11405131]

>>11405117
What?
>No, you heard a bunch of bad philosophy.
Here you seem to be saying philosophy is actually valuable
>I've seen philosophy texts. They're dogshit.
But here you're saying the complete opposite, that you think philosophy actually is "dogshit"

Unless you meant to say that only SOME philosophy texts are "dogshit"?

Bottom fucking line: for questions about the nature of our reality, philosophy is fucking useless.

[Anonymous No.11405140]

>>11405131
>Here you seem to be saying philosophy is actually valuable
Philosophy, like art or science is in everything.

>But here you're saying the complete opposite
No. I'm saying the philosophy that is taught in American schools is dogshit. Mostly from a few token famous people with a fuckton of terrible nobodies with absolute shit ideas.

[Anonymous No.11405144]

>>11405081
Here fuck you

1. Philosophy can answer questions about the nature of reality
2. Materialism does not even real
3. Suck my big fat dick if you don't like it

[Anonymous No.11405145]

>>11405131
>for questions about the nature of our reality, philosophy is fucking useless.
And this is 100% false. I don't believe anything you're saying.

[Anonymous No.11405187]

>>11405140
I'm British but I would bet that top American universities probably teach the same breadth of philosophy that I encountered at university.

But it's still all completely useless for answering questions about the nature of reality.

>>11405144
>Philosophy can answer questions about the nature of reality
No it can't, for the reason I gave before: mental inquiry, without the measurements that are carried about by science, is pointless.

To find out what reality is like, you have to test it. And that's called science. The philosophical branches of metaphysics and ontology are completely redundant, because all they involve is SPECULATION about what reality is like. But science TESTS what reality is like. Science arrives at truth, and philosophy, at least for these questions, is fucking useless.

>Materialism does not even real
Science has indicated that we can explain everything with material explanations.

>>11405145
Philosophy can't answer those questions, for the reason I gave before: mental inquiry, without the measurements that are carried about by science, is pointless.

To find out what reality is like, you have to test it. And that's called science. The philosophical branches of metaphysics and ontology are completely redundant, because all they involve is SPECULATION about what reality is like. But science TESTS what reality is like. Science arrives at truth, and philosophy, at least for these questions, is fucking useless.

[Anonymous No.11405192]

>>11405187
>But it's still all completely useless for answering questions about the nature of reality.
You don't understand the nature of reality, and modern science sure as fuck doesn't. The current standard model believes 96% of the universe for all intents and purposes doesn't even exist, and that's just due to math errors from false a priori assumptions, so spare us this "nature of reality" bullshit. Humans can't even be honest about the nature of their own fucking economic systems ffs.

[Anonymous No.11405228]

>>11405192
>The current standard model believes 96% of the universe for all intents and purposes doesn't even exist
If you're referring to shit like dark matter, we will discover more of the truth in time.

100 years ago, did we know that Pluto existed? No we didn't. Clyde Tombaugh discovered it in 1930. Also we didn't even know what it looked like until 2015, when pic related was taken. And it was taken by a spacecraft that spent nearly TEN YEARS (9.5 to be more accurate) flying through space, at tens of thousands of miles per hour.

>nature of reality
My point is that science has proven that it CAN discover the nature of reality - that doesn't mean our current science is perfect, because it definitely ISN'T. But it has clearly improved with time, and will continue to improve.

Philosophy can't discover fucking anything about the nature of reality. I think it was John Locke who talked about substance having properties. And properties can't exist on their own, blah blah blah. He was trying to classify the nature of reality, the nature of existing things. But it's all pointless intellectual masturbation bollocks. It's not scientific. He hasn't tested anything to see what reality is like. He's just coming up with a stupid fucking language game of how we should think about reality. It's intellectual masturbation bollocks and serves NO PURPOSE WHATSOEVER. Science is the only useful methodology when trying to answer questions about the nature of reality.

The only places in which philosophy might be useful might be something like political philosophy. That's something that philosophy can arguably say something interesting about... normative questions of how we should organise society, rather than descriptive questions (which are best answered by science).

But even then, every political position is just a subjective opinion - one position isn't more correct than another.

[Anonymous No.11405234]

holy shit this whole thread

[Anonymous No.11405310]

>>11405228
>If you're referring to shit like dark matter, we will discover more of the truth in time.
This is a statement of faith. This is not in ANY way a scientific statement. I'm not reading the rest of your long ass comment.

[Anonymous No.11405328]

>>11405234
I gave you the TLDR version here, dumbfuck: >>11405081

>>11405310
>This is a statement of faith.
No it isn't. Science has proven that a) it discovers truth and b) it improves with time.

Glad I could defeat you.

[Anonymous No.11405336]

>>11405328
>Glad I could defeat you.
locking yourself inside a narcissistic bubble does not = victory

[Anonymous No.11405343]

>>11405187
I don’t care and you’re wrong. Go back to your coffin, mentally old man

[Anonymous No.11405345]

>>11405328
>No it isn't.
It ABSOLUTELY fucking is.

>We will discover more of the truth in time
This is an absolutely bald-faced statement of faith. This claim literally can not be substantiated scientifically.

[Anonymous No.11405351]

>>11405228
>phd philosophy
>can’t properly use the word philosophy
Clearly a stupid larper who watched Wittgenstein’s play on YouTube and read some of Feyer “Failed Sociologist” Abend’s text and thinks himself a world class philosopher — how novel in this board

[Anonymous No.11405359]

>>11405351
.>can’t properly use the word ‘subjective’***
Forgive my mistake, correcting a LARPer while underslept can be overwhelming

[Anonymous No.11405373]

>>11405336
>>11405343
>no arguments
Thanks for admitting I won.

>>11405345
By your logic science can't predict anything then. Because you're saying that patterns we've observed in the past can't predict anything about the future.

[Anonymous No.11405378]

>>11405351
>>11405359
1. I never said I was a PhD, you're clearly illiterate
2. You've presented no arguments, just ad hominem

Thanks for admitting you're too stupid to argue against me.

[Anonymous No.11405384]

>>11405373
>Thanks for admitting I won.
You're a faggot.

[Anonymous No.11405407]

>>11405076
>Philosophy graduate here
shut up, faggot

[Anonymous No.11405410]

>>11405378
Congratulations, you’ve displayed no grasp of logic whatsoever. Go ahead and grasp at straws, you know you’re wrong at the end, sorry miniwit

[Anonymous No.11405418]

>>11405076
>>11405228
Philosophy is the primer of science. Philosophical ideas are the creative intuitive free flowing sorts of ideas, that are seeds for rigorous examination decades, centuries or milennia in advance.

Socrates thought thousands of years ahead of his time, and we haven't even caught up. For example, on wether a god can transform two humans into birds, essentially transferring human consciousness into a new lifeform that is smaller and freer. We can't do this yet. Maybe in a thousand years. Dreaming precedes doing.

[Anonymous No.11405432]

>>11404101
oh top wow kek

[Anonymous No.11405435]

>>11405384
>>11405407
>all they can do is seethe and throw tantrums
Thanks for admitting I won, faggots.

>>11405410
>arguments: none
Thanks for admitting I won, faggot.

[Anonymous No.11405440]

>>11405418
>Philosophy is the primer of science
No. You don't need to know what John Locke's metaphysics were (they were fucking stupid) in order to start doing science.

[Anonymous No.11405446]

>>11404172
3/4 guys on the left are materialists by religious standards
Over 90% of physicists are

[Anonymous No.11405461]

>>11405440
Philosophers laid foundations for scientists (whose work you've learned from) to investigate the right questions.