Analytic 'scient'-ism just got demolished by a German

File: markus-gabriel.jpg (7KB, 368x207px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 368x207px

>>9105993
Absolute madman!

>a humanitard discovers probability density functions and criticizes simplified pop-science abstractions
W E W
E
W

>>9106034
>minimalization
Typical defense process. Sorry that he just made your 'scientific ontology' obsolete.

>>9106044
>no actual argument
>y-you got btfo so hard ecks dee
Kill yourself, my mang.

>>9105993
>I asked various physicists the metaphysical composition question about tables and not a single one ever told me that it even made sense to base such a claim on actual physics.
"Believe me, folks, I've talked to some of the smartest physicists--the smartest, okay? Just tremendously, tremendously smart people, right?--and they all told me that tables aren't made out of atoms.

>folk metaphysicians come out of the woodwork
>>9106034
>>9106058
>>9106101

>>9106106
Nobody is arguing with OP, you dense fuck. This "revelation" is obvious to absolutely everyone familiar with modern particle physics even on a pop-science level.

>>9106034
>>9106122
He's talking about the philosophers who don't know anything about science, not the scientists themselves.

>>9106101
I mean...there still exist tons of people who believe in "essences" and other such nonsense.

>>9105993
i don't understand what he's even trying to argue

> This model tells us that mesoscopic ordinary objects are composed of elementary particles in metaphysically the same way as a Lego house is composed of smaller bricks.
I don't know about metaphysically, but mesoscopic objects are certainly made up of particles.

But particles are neither bricks nor building blocks. This is why it is so hard for contemporary metaphysicians to take physics at face value when they are told that particles are more like smeared probabilities than like tiny indivisible chunks of stuff.
physicists are so bad at trying to explain quantum mechanics to non-experts

It is mere superstition to believe that structures which are bigger relative to a certain scale must be composed of smaller objects relative to the same scale.
what

>>9106178
That's right.

>>9106229
He's way beyond you bud, he's not saying that if you break a chair up you don't get smaller pieces, but that a chair isn't these smaller pieces.

>>9105993
Who are the "contemporary metaphysicians" that he's referring to? I don't know of any philosophers, certainly not analytic, that put forth answers to metaphysical questions without taking into account any physics relevant to the problem, one need only look at recent work in the philosophy of time, persistence, and mind to see this (also questions of "grounding" in the philosophy of science). It's not even clear what he's arguing, veering between calling metaphysicians "positivists" (which is absurd) and then accusing them of searching for empirical answers to conceptual problems (more absurdity, especially for a metaphysician seeking to work something out a priori). What contemporary metaphysicians can't "take at face value" the rejection of counterfactual definiteness at the quantum level? Historically, it's the physicists who went to great lengths to avoid this conclusion (and many still do, see ensemble, bayesian, many worlds, and bohmian interpretations of quantum mechanics).

Not Hegel's revenge. Just more continental nonsense.

>>9106236
I know, I'm not smart enough for Continental philosophy, that's why I'm trying to understand what he's trying to argue. Theoretical physics is easy enough, but these guys are just on another level of intelligence.

>>9106271
>Continental nonsense
>He's not even a 'continental', his was raised on Kant and Frege

JUST

>>9106288
He clearly enjoys skirting the boundary, but a speculative realist who flirts with the more inane speculations of Whitehead is a continental.

>>9106303
He's got nothing to do with Whitehead.

>>9106364
Have you even read his dumb shit? Whitehead is a big influence on the entire movement he's working within. Even worse, his own retarded philosophy, which tries to present itself as somehow above the rest of the discipline, completely ignores developments in physics and the philosophy of physics and insightful schools of thought in those areas like structural realism and somehow thinks he's making some novel approach to natural philosophy. His constant reference to particles is annoying considering field theory dominates the scientific literature and his attack on analytic metaphysicians for their supposed reluctance to engage with physics is even worse when you realize that physics neither has nor concerns itself with ontology.

>>9106437
1. He's not working to any movement's party line, he's not 'within' a movement, he was just published in that series.

>>9106437
>structural realism

Now I see who you are.

File: lol.jpg (64KB, 340x371px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 340x371px

>>9105993
>particles are more like smeared probabilities than like tiny indivisible chunks of stuff

>>9106497
It is true though.

>>9106526
I think he's laughing at that guy in OP because he just realized that fact

>>9106535
Everybody is ignoring the point that this guy has founded an ontology which is compatible with modern science, where the world isn't the entity of all entities, not even spacetime, and so non-metaphysical....

he badly mischaracterizes the humean conception of laws. thinking that laws are "abstract structures" is close to the polar opposite of humeanism, which holds that laws are just patterns (or succinct yet predictively powerful descriptions of patterns) in the events that make up the world.

and his supposed debunking of analytic metaphysics is very shallow. for example, arguments for compositional nihilism are rarely, if ever, based on physical claims about tables being composed of particles; they are more usually based on conceptual considerations like the sorites paradox. it's true that philosophers use the phrase "particles arranged tablewise" but this is understood to be shorthand for something like "whatever fundamental physical stuff there is at the microscopic level, arranged in a way that elicits the use of "table" to describe those arrangements." these philosophers do not actually think that tables are made up of particles like lego.

furthermore, there are plenty of analytic metaphysicians who are extremely well-versed in physics (like tim maudlin), many of whom have degrees in physics

i don't think he really knows what he is talking about. ironically, his ignorance of analytic philosophy is quite a bit more severe than the ignorance he attributes to analytic philosophers regarding physics