Do you agree with him? Why or why not?

Do you agree with him? Why or why not?

CRIME Shirt $21.68

Unattended Children Pitbull Club Shirt $21.68

CRIME Shirt $21.68

  1. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    Okay, let's see how far he gets without medicine.
    Of course, he was born before biology became as good as it is now.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      >let's see how far he gets without medicine
      further than you, vaxxie. take your meds

    • 6 days ago
      Anonymous

      That was true until biology became a serious science, i.e. with molecular biology and major advances in imaging (due to physics, yes). Before that, biology was content to observe and classify, without understanding how cells and organs functioned.

      >seething biogays
      Last time shit hit the fan physicists came through and delivered The Bomb. Controversial, but a working product and stands to this day as the literal testament and symbol of the power of science.
      This time shit hit the fan again and it was biogays time to shine. Instead a slam dunk we get this

      https://i.imgur.com/lI84gU2.png

      >let's see how far he gets without medicine
      further than you, vaxxie. take your meds

      .
      After all that mask and jab rubbish you lot really shouldn't be talking shit.

      • 6 days ago
        Anonymous

        The ineptitude of science in full display as they promptly handed it over to israelite overlords.

  2. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    No, mostly because physics is an axiomatic applied mathematics discipline trying to disguise itself as an empirical science. Theoretical physics is built on a set of fundamentally intractable metaphysical assumptions (linear causality, material determinism, the existence of homogenous media and thermodynamic equilibria and closed systems) etc. which are fine enough as strong approximations which are good enough to work, but are not some "source code of the universe" as so many people seem to believe nowadays. Hell, even something simple like the conservation of momentum is built upon assumptions about the variational that not only cannot be known, but cannot possibly be verified because Hamilton's principle of least action is exactly that, a modeling principle. There's no actual reason to believe in material reality that the "least costly path" is always taken, it's a "rational metaphysics" argument with no relationship at all to material reality where we can never even properly define what the "state" is referring to except in a heuristic sense.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      all this word salad and you forgot experimental physics and "observational physics" (aka astrophysics) are a thing? not everything in the field is math autism and string theory

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        the models essentially pre-define how experimental and "observational" results are interpreted.

        physicists by-and-large culturally despise epistemology, because they want their models to be the territory itself rather than mutable, replaceable maps. they're desperate to hold on to the mythology that physicists are "looking directly at base truth." philosophy and pure mathematics are both much closer to it than physics, as essentially natural philosophy alone, can ever actually get... and have been for fricking centuries. any GUT will be written in the language of mathematics, which is itself a codification of ideas derived from philosophy regarding modeling, theory, internal consistency, logic, etc.

        IMO string theory is the culmination of that unmooring from epistemology - a map with almost no explorable territory, and very likely mappable to EVERY possible territory, making it epistemologically useless except where it intersects with unexplored maps/territory of pure mathematics.

        >partisan about one's chosen discipline
        I noticed that it's mostly bickering between math and physics or physicists saying all other science disciplines are second-reate. It's never a chemist saying bad stuff about physics or biology, it's always physicists starting fights with other fields.

        The more fundamental and theoretical a discipline of science becomes, the more smug and elitist the subscribers of it become as well

        this is a complex fairly unique to physicists and certain (usually also materialist, interestingly) philosophers. mathematicians and most philosophers, more fundamental and theoretical alike, aren't nearly as stuck-up as physicists.

        why? nukes, rockets, and satellites, IMO. physicists got consistent and well-protected funding via defense interests from the 1940s on, via nuclear research for particle physicists and spaceflight/satellite research plus nuclear research for astrophysicists/cosmologists. uniquely insulated funding means they are uniquely insulated from losing their models to contradiction, especially if the model is just good enough for practical use. it's not a coincidence both these fields use "standard models" and forget the meaning of the second word.

        well, that and the fact that the map cosmologists have constructed is, epistemologically... a creation myth, and unfortunately always will be. cosmologists can get VERY god-complex-y.

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          out of curiosity: are you in any way inspired by Eric Weinstein (maybe it's you lol) - I doubt it since you (righfully so) critisise modern physics disconnection with epistemology, but this "maps instead of territory" bit is something he uses in almost every talk he participates in. I know where this metaphor is from, but in context of physics he seems to be using it almost exclusively.

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            The anon from

            No, mostly because physics is an axiomatic applied mathematics discipline trying to disguise itself as an empirical science. Theoretical physics is built on a set of fundamentally intractable metaphysical assumptions (linear causality, material determinism, the existence of homogenous media and thermodynamic equilibria and closed systems) etc. which are fine enough as strong approximations which are good enough to work, but are not some "source code of the universe" as so many people seem to believe nowadays. Hell, even something simple like the conservation of momentum is built upon assumptions about the variational that not only cannot be known, but cannot possibly be verified because Hamilton's principle of least action is exactly that, a modeling principle. There's no actual reason to believe in material reality that the "least costly path" is always taken, it's a "rational metaphysics" argument with no relationship at all to material reality where we can never even properly define what the "state" is referring to except in a heuristic sense.

            here (

            the models essentially pre-define how experimental and "observational" results are interpreted.

            physicists by-and-large culturally despise epistemology, because they want their models to be the territory itself rather than mutable, replaceable maps. they're desperate to hold on to the mythology that physicists are "looking directly at base truth." philosophy and pure mathematics are both much closer to it than physics, as essentially natural philosophy alone, can ever actually get... and have been for fricking centuries. any GUT will be written in the language of mathematics, which is itself a codification of ideas derived from philosophy regarding modeling, theory, internal consistency, logic, etc.

            IMO string theory is the culmination of that unmooring from epistemology - a map with almost no explorable territory, and very likely mappable to EVERY possible territory, making it epistemologically useless except where it intersects with unexplored maps/territory of pure mathematics.

            [...]
            [...]
            this is a complex fairly unique to physicists and certain (usually also materialist, interestingly) philosophers. mathematicians and most philosophers, more fundamental and theoretical alike, aren't nearly as stuck-up as physicists.

            why? nukes, rockets, and satellites, IMO. physicists got consistent and well-protected funding via defense interests from the 1940s on, via nuclear research for particle physicists and spaceflight/satellite research plus nuclear research for astrophysicists/cosmologists. uniquely insulated funding means they are uniquely insulated from losing their models to contradiction, especially if the model is just good enough for practical use. it's not a coincidence both these fields use "standard models" and forget the meaning of the second word.

            well, that and the fact that the map cosmologists have constructed is, epistemologically... a creation myth, and unfortunately always will be. cosmologists can get VERY god-complex-y.

            was a different person).

            I am not particularly inspired by Eric Weinstein. I think he's a great speaker, and every once and a while he'll have a kind of neat idea (I'd say the idea of an EGO within an economic institution is an interesting one, as an example) but I know absolutely nothing about his physics.

            The reason I am skeptical about theoretical physics is that I am a systems engineer that works on sensor technology and signal processing. The "experimental verification" that occurs in experimental physics occurs using stochastic measurements based on sensors which were designed assuming the particular theoretical models in mind. It becomes very circular very quickly when you are using the theoretical models to decide what you are looking for in the material world, and then use the experimental results which assumed the theoretical models to verify the theoretical models. It becomes an infinite regress very quickly with turtles and stochastic uncertainties all the way down.

            And then these physicists have the hubris to assert material determinism as if there isn't an absolutely massive amount of averaging and error correction at every level in the signal chain in order to artificially produce this determinism.

          • 7 days ago
            Anonymous

            it's just a useful shorthand for something theoretical physics actually used to understand (op's quote is from an experimentalist, ironically): that their models concern what they can say (as well as the language in which and perspective from which they say it) about nature, and are not nature itself rendered onto paper.

            Yet it's physics that forces philosophy to retreat and reform, never the other way around. The case for materialism has only ever grown stronger. Makes you wonder how valuable any of their a priori reasoning is before it's empirically tested.

            >forces philosophy to retreat and reform
            a common lack of understanding of basic tenets of philosophy - there is no "standard model" to "retreat" from or "reform." the discussions by individual philosophers are, where they aren't highly varied and/or inherently flexible positions being taken, merely considerations and explorations of ideas completely independent of belief.

            evolution of philosophy is driven by philosophers, and mostly describes changes in the subject and structure of discussion. there's not some external force from physics defining which ideas can be discussed in philosophy, just as there isn't such a force on mathematics.

            certain physicists give undue importance to their own ideas, and to popularity of ideas. this influences certain 'philosophers' who BELIEVE, rather than philosophically explore, the idea that natural philosophy, in isolation, is not just a path towards 'complete knowledge,' but the ONLY path (a legitimately untenable position from an epistemological standpoint). that may be why they frequently proselytize to anyone who eschews their "standard model of knowledge," forgetting philosophy entirely and largely existing as hangers-on to the convictions of some physicists' egos.

            this also happens to be where popsci orbiters find themselves, and they largely drive the uncritical popularity of quotes like

            https://i.imgur.com/dFHHadf.jpeg

            Do you agree with him? Why or why not?

            , believing themselves lionized by rote agreement with the loudest, proudest, and least flexible practitioners of a science for which they understand neither context nor content. in fairness to them, said practitioners often don't understand their science's context, either.

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          Yet it's physics that forces philosophy to retreat and reform, never the other way around. The case for materialism has only ever grown stronger. Makes you wonder how valuable any of their a priori reasoning is before it's empirically tested.

  3. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    All of science is either a successful approximation or failed schizo raving.
    Predict or bust. Physgays talks a lot of shit about grand unifying this and that. But if your models can't predict results in other fields and essentially replace them wholesale then you are in actuality unifying jack shit.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      Mouf. homosexual.

      You talk nonsense.

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        >t. undergrad brainlet
        What do you think a real grand unifying theory actually entails, conceptually? It would mean every facet of reality can be plugged into your equation and predictions comes out the other end of exactly what's going to happen next. It would mean you have solved creation itself.
        This is actually what physgays imply their field could do though they hide behind jargons like "unifying four forces"..etc.
        The god complex has ever been palpable. There's a reason why physics has been hailed as the king of sciences and it's manifest destiny has always been seen as the one science to replace all sciences, in time.

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          "unifying" physics just means coming up with a mathematical model that encompasses all known physics, it probably wouldn't get used by anyone besides physicists or people working with technology that exploits future physics, like no one uses relativity if they are finding the trajectory of a bullet or something

          • 7 days ago
            Anonymous

            >it probably wouldn't get used by anyone besides physicists
            Wrong.
            Or maybe you are right, as physicists will become the only people deemed qualified enough to operate the truly unified model.

            Physical reductionism aka materialism is the de facto sanctified religion of the present day. If you don't believe any and all facet of the observable reality is but a combination of fundemental physical forces known in physics why then you are a schizo and is to be exiled to the metaphoric /x/ as soon as possible.
            And if indeed every aspects of reality can be reduced to known physical forces, then it stands to reason the correct unified physics model can and should be able to describe and predict all facet of reality, all the way down the epistemological food chain from Physics to Chemistry to Biology to Psychology and finally, to Sociology, to replace and unify the imperfect traditional models of all these fields with one of perfection stemmed from the very fundamental constituents of reality.
            The only roadblock then is just one of computation, of which once solved the very mind of man can be described and predicted.

            Indeed, this blantly evident ideology culmulates into position such as "there is no free will", a claim in the realm of biology/psychology/sociology but come ultimately from physics.
            If the very consciousness, and by extension, society of man, is but a determined outcome of physical forces, which scientific field in between can be exemplified?
            The answer is none.

  4. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    >Do you agree with him?
    Yes and no. Yes, it's good to be partisan about one's chosen discipline. No, whirling lumps of rock in space are not as interesting as the molecular basis of life itself.
    >Why or why not?
    Just banter, innit.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      >partisan about one's chosen discipline
      I noticed that it's mostly bickering between math and physics or physicists saying all other science disciplines are second-reate. It's never a chemist saying bad stuff about physics or biology, it's always physicists starting fights with other fields.

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        The more fundamental and theoretical a discipline of science becomes, the more smug and elitist the subscribers of it become as well

  5. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    Modern physics is stamp collecting

  6. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    lolno

    physicists collect particles
    chemists collect molecules
    biologists collect cells and animals
    etc.

  7. 7 days ago
    sage

    That was true until biology became a serious science, i.e. with molecular biology and major advances in imaging (due to physics, yes). Before that, biology was content to observe and classify, without understanding how cells and organs functioned.

  8. 6 days ago
    Anonymous

    All science is either CSgays who have never even seen a differential equation or stamp collecting.

  9. 6 days ago
    Anonymous

    I used to but I grew up

  10. 6 days ago
    Anonymous

    all science is either gender studies, Trump university or stamp collecting and stamp collecting is the most intellectually stimulating

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *