Are there any philosophical implications to be learned from modern

>>2449032
Consciousness creates reality *smokes weed*

File: 1465708190822.jpg (126KB, 1012x786px) Image search: [Google]

126KB, 1012x786px

>>2449032
>Are there any philosophical implications to be learned from modern physics?
that rationalist fail to prove [since they cling to the word proof] that physicists talk about truth and proof and ''objective reality'', and that somehow all their institutions are not a religion, while claiming they deserve to be paid each month.

>>2449032

Bumble Bees are impossible but their optimism allows them to do the impossible see the invisible (specifically ultra violet colors that flowers use to identify themselves to insects), buzz buzz, pollinate a flower.

>>2449174
>Bumble Bees are impossible
This triggers me as an aerospace major. When will people stop learning science from memes and shitty Buzzfeed stories?

Nothing is seperate from anything else
Everything is made of fundamentally the same thing
Difference comes from arrangement only
Everything is empty
Space and time aren't real

let me tell you something about a little known thing called quantum mechanics...

>>2449032
>Are there any philosophical implications to be learned from modern physics?
Yes, Reductionism works.

Everything else is just ungrateful armchair Sokalism.
Pretentious garble by pretentious nitwits who aren’t even smart enough to recognize the enormous advancements the enjoy every day.

like >>2449154 and >>2449174

>It seems as though we must use sometimes the one theory and sometimes the other, while at times we may use either.
>We are faced with a new kind of difficulty. We have two contradictory pictures of reality;
>separately neither of them fully explains the phenomena of light, but together they do.

Einstein on wave-particle duality.

I think the implication with regards to the conundrum of wave-particle duality goes further than saying something like "to a hammer everything is a nail," or that in other words, our picture of reality depends on the instrumentation and tools we use to construct it.
The real implication is that there is ultimately no way to take our own hand out of the picture and furthermore there is no way of knowing whether pieces are missing from the picture.To pose the question is to constrain the answer received, without knowing what the constraints are.

No. Philosophy is a quaint absurdity from when humans didn't know any better. We have science now.

>>2450979
*tips fedora*
Science is a product of Philosophy kiddo

Why do you think there's a philosophy of science? Ultimately Philosophy is the tool that allows us to know our universe.

>>2449032
Jesus Christ OP of course there are. I'll just list a few but there are many.

General relativity changing the western world by introducing the idea that we all experience things in a relative rather than universal manner, open people's minds up to the possibility of alternate experiences and ways of living. Led directly to the counter-culture movement of the 1960s and more widespread free-thinking.

Copernicus said the sun and not the earth was the center of the universe. Even though that's astronomy it still had a profound effect that the church prosecuted it.

Pick an ancient Greek person, such as Plato or Aristotle who decided how the world worked and was believed for hundreds of years.

LHC and the Higgs Boson or "God Particle", etc.

Nuclear power, not to mention nuclear weapons, permanently changed how the world works. The list goes on.

>>2451101
You could say nuclear weapons led to a kind of existentialism, not just for philosophers but for large swaths of people. When an entire nation thinks it's possible that they might not exist in a moment, that's pretty profound. Honestly it has never gone away.