Why is the far-right generally highly enamored with classical newtonian systems and Bohmian mechanics as opposed to quantum mechanics?
philosophy of science
Why is the far-right generally highly enamored with classical newtonian systems and Bohmian mechanics as opposed to quantum mechanics?
the actual redpilled philosophy of science is recognising that science is nothing but analogies that are practically useful for their time. they aren’t a coherent metaphysical reality but a set of interpretative tools that don’t strive for “truth” but for whatever human beings need in a given era. ptolemy was true when we needed him to sail, and that’s all there is to it. the “scientific” worldview is an enlightenment scam
Yes but without the scientific literature or even the method, you're grasping at straws when trying to understand reality completely. The scientist is good at rejecting at what he's unsure about, but you shouldn't trust him since he's so sure of very little.
this but it applies to all human knowledge and not just science
in any given era humans need truth. science gives humans what they need ergo science gives humans truth.
you're a pseud moron who thinks attacking science puts you above redditors.
>science gives humans truth
you’re too dumb to post here. science is parasitic on truth which it presupposes but absolutely cannot define or establish itself.
Nta, but you're unqualified to talk about philosophy. Plato would have beaten the shit out of you for this disgustingly anti-intellectual post.
Plato would agree with me, stop digging the hole deeper moron. Plato’s entire thing is that empiricism is a terrible foundation for knowledge, he literally rooted truth in essentialist metaphysics because he didn’t think observation could reveal truth, only signify it in part. Plato is the most hilarious example you could use because he is 100% against the sort of empiricism you’re suggesting
>le science is just le empiricism
Tell me more about you being a highschool dipshit who never engaged with the philosophy and history of science.
Lol don’t try and backpedal you little b***h. If science is a basis for knowledge, you do have an empirical worldview, as all positivists do, because your fundamental stance is that observation = truth value. Plato called this kind of thinking fricking stupid because in order to even say “only empirically observable things are verifiable” you need to employ 20 different unprovable axioms which rely on transcendental logic. That’s why he didn’t say material things contained truth value, but that immaterial, absolute truth informed what they are. It’s a stance utterly antithetical to a scientific view of reality- plato uses deductive reasoning and not inductive. Ie, we have an innate sense of more or less true, which we judge material events on, therfore material events don’t embody truth but are judged by a super existent absolute Truth. No science worshiping redditor thinks like that. It’s okay to admit you name dropped someone you never read
Stop seething. He got you and you're crying about it. Take the loss like a man and use this as a lesson to learn and grow as a person.
You realise me demonstrating actual coherent knowledge of platonism while you make b***hy little comments trying to avoid the argument makes me look a lot more credible than you? Actually explain to me how platonism at all correlates with a modern positivist view of reality. You can’t because you don’t know what you’re talking about
>le positivism strawtransperson
You really are gonna pull the full arsenal of redditarded cringe pseudery, aren't you? People like you are to philosophy exactly what your positivist scientismist strawtroony is to actual science. Plato even invented a word to describe you: philodox.
Everyone can tell when you post a wall of insults that contains absolutely no argument whatsoever, especially when you samegay while doing it.
>everyone who disagrees with me must be le samegay
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fregoli_delusion
>I DON’T ACTUALLY NEED TO EXPLAIN PLATO, LOOK, A REDDIT FALLACY! I WIN!
lmao
you’re arguing the doctrine of a guy who said the material world was an illusion and needed to be looked beyond for any actual truth to be discerned somehow correlates to a view that science (empirical observation) is the foundation of truth.
>you’re arguing the doctrine of a guy who said the material world was an illusion
Plato never said that. Perhaps try reading more than an illustrated children book version of the cave analogy?
Black person read the timaeus (I won’t say re read because you’ve embarrassed yourself enough here). The forms are true reality, ie, immateriality is true reality. The sensory world is a corrupted, imperfect embodiment emanated by the forms, only useful in that it can intuit things to us about what exists beyond it. If you argue this you don’t understand plato at all. A material thing is useful for plato in that it tells us things beyond it which are not material, ie, a beautiful thing in some disrupted and false way reflects an element of Beauty the immaterial form, and so contemplating the material thing is only valuable in that it raises our mind beyond it. The material world is inherently worthless for plato which is why redditors like bertrand russel hate him.
>A material thing is useful for plato in that it tells us things beyond it which are not material
You mean like the mathematical laws of nature discovered by science?
Which plato said we know innately and remember from our times as immaterial souls, not which we learn through observation? Again, what is science to you? Plato doesn’t think mathematics is learned from the “science” or observation, it’s built into our minds and organises the world around us
No law of physics has been discovered through observation. As the other anon already said, you are ignorant of the history of science. Newton didn't discover his laws empirically. Neither did Maxwell, nor Einstein. You will read this post but you will not understand it.
nta but you fricking moron... Newton created his laws to describe kepler's empirical laws. Maxwell used faraday's and gauss's empirical laws. Einstein used lorentz transforms and michelson-morley experiment. You fricking monkey. Science is the only field of human endeavor where the most fundamental philosophical questions are being tackled such as time , determinism , computability , consciousness , reducibility , emergence , our origins (even the idea of an origin) , truth and proof (goedel's incompletenes theorem). Dont you have an urge , a true longing for the quest of truth and if you do do you really think you'll find in 200 year old philosophical treaties ? If the ancient greeks were alive today they'd be physicists.
What an immature kneejerk reaction. You already agree with me on the importance of mathematical (or non-empirical) a priori reasoning in science or else you wouldn't have mentioned Gödel, consciousness and Lorentz transforms. What even is the point of the verbal diarrhea you posted? A midwitted strawman?
Source? anything more than "I pulled it out of my ass"?
The Left is about as anti-science and anti-rationality as one can get. As the sacred cows in their worldview get disproven, one by one, by actual experience and evidence, they resort to waging war against the concept of evidence. Left-run cities are bankrupt hellholes, they believe in walls around Congress but not at our border, they believe gender can change but not race, and they believe in checking IDs at their events but not when voting. I could go on.
simple-minded ad hominem attacks
There was no ad hom, my dear reddit kid. An insult is not the same as an ad hom.
You didn't address the argument, you simply attacked the one making the argument. That is an ad hominem attack. And trying to call it an insult just makes you look worse.
There was no argument worthy of being addressed. That poster merely presented asinine redditardation and consequently only deserved mockery. The obvious falsehood of his puerile drivel has already been pointed out by other posters.
That's merely your opinion. Just because a majority is wrong doesn't make them right.
>your facts are just le opinion
Oh look, we got an epistemological anarchist over here.
So your petty insults are facts now?
The history of science and philosophy is factual. You will not address this.
Unverifiable pseudo-scientific claim. All you have is evidence that at some point somebody wrote something down. "History" is an epistemological black hole unless you decide to trust a whole lot of externa. Couldn't be me.
>u cannot know nuffin
And this is why you will never be a philosopher.
>u can only know what others tell you
You are a worm burrowing through Tiamat's carcass, gorging yourself on the excrement of those who came before you. And the whole centipede is still just eating hyle, because the muse kisses from the inside.
>if I drop antique memes I'll appear all educated
Cringe chatgptesque cacophony of a pseud post, and the "argument" boils down to a shitty strawman. Unlike you I'm actually creating new knowledge all the time.
>Unlike you I'm actually creating new knowledge all the time
Only to yourself, for everyone else there is only yet another uninspired perspective in the 'cacophony' of a fragmented zeitgeist that doesn't know it's harmony from individuation. Your critics will discard you, your bubble will clap, and nobody wins.
We are all strawmen, and this is a joust.
Nice alliterations.
For someone fixated on regurgitating dated 'knowledge' you should be more reverent of 'antique memes', in your straw is written that all writing is true. Rock on Golem
>fixated on regurgitating dead 'knowledge'
>history is factual
En garde, scarecrow.
>le history le is le factual
>le engarde le scarecrow le strawman
moronic thread. You are all a disgrace to the study of philosophy and I will not elaborate
Fair. I concede that I don't know a solution to the problem of intrinsically divergent ontologies and the resulting science wars either and there's no point to shoving people's nose into the fact that not everyone who disagrees with them must also be wrong - as proven empirically, anecdotally, or assumed a priori.
[Studierzimmer: Mephistopheles, lying to a student on theology]
Ich wünschte nicht, Euch irre zu führen.
Was diese Wissenschaft betrifft,
Es ist so schwer, den falschen Weg zu meiden,
Es liegt in ihr so viel verborgnes Gift,
Und von der Arzenei ist's kaum zu unterscheiden.
Am besten ist's auch hier, wenn Ihr nur einen hört,
Und auf des Meisters Worte schwört.
Im ganzen- haltet Euch an Worte!
Dann geht Ihr durch die sichre Pforte
Zum Tempel der Gewißheit ein.
Where you? There?
>le randomly quoting Goethe's Fist
Du gleichst dem Geist, den du begreifst. Nicht mir!
>Where you? There?
Wigner's friend was there. I collapsed his wave function.
>randomly
At least that leaves room for free will in your ontology. How improbabilistically lucky you are, given how much has been written about that.
>collapsing poor Wigner's friend's wave's function
Does that make you a right- or left-wing extremist?
>Du gleichst dem Geist, den du begreifst. Nicht mir!
Adequate, but don't forget who called who.
MEPHISTOPHELES:
Gesteh ich's nur! daß ich hinausspaziere,
Verbietet mir ein kleines Hindernis,
Der Drudenfuß auf Eurer Schwelle-
[...]
MEPHISTOPHELES:
Beschaut es recht! es ist nicht gut gezogen:
Der eine Winkel, der nach außen zu,
Ist, wie du siehst, ein wenig offen.
FAUST:
Das hat der Zufall gut getroffen!
Und mein Gefangner wärst denn du?
Das ist von ungefähr gelungen!
MEPHISTOPHELES:
Der Pudel merkte nichts, als er hereingesprungen,
Die Sache sieht jetzt anders aus:
Der Teufel kann nicht aus dem Haus.
>At least that leaves room for free will in your ontology
Go summarize "my" ontology please. You seem to have a very detailed strawman set up in your mind already.
>le left vs le right extremism
My intellectual superiority is feared by both equally.
>You seem to have a very detailed strawman set up in your mind already.
Not quite, it was actually just a reference to the "q-quantum mechanics can save us from mechanistic determinism" bit of discourse. I was quite wildly and aimlessly arguing against a bunch of positions that were fashionable to take or antagonize throughout the last few decades while engaging in some form of almost-intellectual masturbation. I feel very relieved now.
In a rough order, the ontological positions I projected onto you were:
>Historical dogmatic (thus it was written, thus it shalt be. Me of course playing the homosexual constructivist in a dress)
>Shoulder-of-giants cultist (Me, of course, playing the transcendental idealist drenched in prophetiscist dogmatism) (Reddit vs dollar store Nietzsche)
>This post was my genuine opinion and not much directed at anyone in particular
>A rerun of #1
>A rerun of #1
>a shitpost
I wasn't kidding about the strawman joust. Though in retrospect I should have fitted a few more. The next Faust quote is the Walpurgisnachtstraum, with Goethe strawmanning half of the city.
>My intellectual superiority is feared by both equally.
As it should be. Abraxas crows, or quoths, or whatever a raven ought to do. In resume, OP is a homosexual and I am going to go read.
>"q-quantum mechanics can save us from mechanistic determinism"
It's always cringe how npcs see determinism as an absolute given law. As if it was a threat to free will and we desperately needed to find an excuse to reintroduce free will via loopholes. The opposite is the case. Free will is funda-mental. Determinism on the other hand is of very limited usefulness, literally the most primitive explanatory abstraction appealing only to the simplest minds. Not only is it not a law of nature, it even turns out to be inconsistent and epistemologically extremely shakey as soon as you investigate the meaning of causality. Determinism is destroyed as soon as you look at anything but the simplest toy models. Free will however is an inescapable introspective fact that cannot be argued away. Any reasonable ontology necessarily needs to accept free will. Quantum mechanics in this context is by far not as necessary as free will, but merely serves as a nice way to unify free will with the illusionary determinism of the physical world.
>Newton published his principia mathematica in 1687
Tell me how much you need to cope in order to deny that this is an undeniable fact.
>As the sacred cows in their worldview get disproven, one by one
Name one with evidence, you fricking moron. All of the claims you put at the back end of your seethepost are categorically false.
>inb4 this spastic retreats to a Motte, the way all 70IQ anti-intellectuals do
Baileys Irish Cream like a psychoanalytic interpretation of Dunsany
because their minds are as simple as newton's model of the world
hitler
Because Newtonian systems are generally taught in schools in physics and math classes, while quantum mechanics is a specialized field.
Interested people can learn about quantum physics any time they like.
>Steel Reserve
My God this reminds me of my college Fridays in 2007, that syrupy alcoholic slurry of... whatever it is.
>far-right is generally highly enamored with classical newtonian systems and Bohmian mechanics as opposed to quantum mechanics
First time hearing such nonsensical divide and conquer talking point.
"Right-wing" NPContrarians are still NPCs. In general, anyone who embraces the false "left vs right" dichotomy should not be allowed to hold opinions.
See how many scientists are platonists what it comes to math lmao, they’re descriptivists. They don’t believe mathematics is a transcendent organising truth but a language humans invented to describe things. So it collapses right back into empiricism
which is why modern science is going through a crisis. it works better under rationalist assumptions.
that entails admitting that materialism is false, which they won’t do
To every honest quantum physicist it is obvious that materialism is wrong. I don't expect you to know quantum physics though. And I don't expect you to be honest either.
Right-wing is inherently immunological and negative. It's concerned about creating a defensive position around an identified Other perceived as a hostile entity. This makes it antithetical to quantum science, which requires abandoning immunological thinking.
Left perceives the right as an other albeit. And the left is highly allergic to anything right-wing.
This is genuinely the funniest shit ever. Not quite limited to the left but certainly to the majority of anything. I love little chains of: "complex group x is perceived wrongly by atomic/simple/wrong group y". Like "muslims are mischaracterized by THE (monolithic) right". This cuts every way but it's particularly funny when someone proclaims a nuanced view just to immediately throw it out of the window when it comes to their chosen enemy.
>I love little chains of: "complex group x is perceived wrongly by atomic/simple/wrong group y"
You love it? I hate it. I really, really, really, hate it. It drives me up the wall. It's like these people are genuinely incapable of self-awareness. Makes me want to get out of here, somehow.
>Out of here
Not sure whether you are channeling your gnostic space-optimism or mean the website. In either case my answer to
>You love it?
is that I have made my peace with the humor in it. When titled Professor Doctors say it to full halls and get applauded by the presumable intellectual elite of today and tomorrow, there's little else you can do. The pattern is so ubiquitous and well explored (the same people will utterly drown you in learned word diarrhea about dialectics) that there's little else to do.
>It's like these people
Oh frick you got me you bastard
>Not sure whether you are channeling your gnostic space-optimism
It makes me want to die
>is that I have made my peace with the humor in it.
I get it.
>Oh frick you got me you bastard
I don't get it.
>It makes me want to die
Literature is evidence there are higher fruits to aspire to!
>I get it.
There's enough for everyone.
>I don't get it.
We are making our own friend-foe category. It's others all the way down, probably symbiotic with the fricking turtles.
Then again at least it wasn't prescriptive.
>in any given era humans need truth. science gives humans what they need ergo science gives humans truth
unbounded middle fallacy
Who genuinely thinks this?
How many far right quantum scientists are there?
Lubos Motl is a recent example. He's a Czech string theorist who used to publish a far right blog about quantum physics, anti-immigration politics and climate change denial.
What counts as "far right" in your opinion? Do you think people in academic positions are seriously going to be peddling illegal opinions?
rightoids are anti-intellectual, due in large part to the fact that rightoids are necessarily cognitively defective.
>circular reasoning
>seething
>projection
you're a real piece of work
>emotionally fragile spastic gets triggered by a simple empirical truth
>"y-y-y-you are j-just s-s-s-seething"
cope harder you fricking ape. show us just how smooth your brain really is.