Thread replies: 14
Thread images: 4
Thread images: 4
File: 1430261432945.png (255KB, 523x808px) Image search:
[Google]
255KB, 523x808px
>Hawking and Mlodinow, in the chapter of their book called “The Theory of Everything,” quote Albert Einstein: “The most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it is comprehensible.” In response, Hawking and Mlodinow offer this crashing banality: “The universe is comprehensible because it is governed by scientific laws; that is to say, its behavior can be modeled.” Later, the authors invite us to give ourselves a collective pat on the back: “The fact that we human beings — who are ourselves mere collections of fundamental particles of nature — have been able to come this close to an understanding of the laws governing us and our universe is a great triumph.” Great triumph or no, none of this addresses Einstein’s paradox, because no explanation is offered as to why our universe is “governed by scientific laws.”
http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/the-folly-of-scientism
E. is right indeed. The gap has widened in a century. hawking is just like the dawkins of physics
people think that the foremost questions in science is what is space, time, temperature, quarks and so on. No, the sole crucial and urgent question is why the humanity is able to predict [more or less] through induction , itself formalized via the rules of inferences.
[and also, why the humanity believes that to offer some mechanical model is knowledge about the world]
>muh philosophy does not give us computers
>>
Without them rules there would just be chaos, therefore no humans. Anthropic principle I'd say.
>>
>>7741838
bold
>>
>>7741834
>>muh philosophy does not give us computers
just because you mock it doesn't make it any less true
>>
>>7741834
The obvious explanation is that math is more fundamental than reality.
>>
>>7741834
Fun fact: prior to the 20th century, professional atheists used to attack scientists for modeling the universe with simple mathematical laws because they viewed such perfection as implicitly assuming a creator. After the technical revolution proved without a doubt that science works bitches™, the professional atheists quickly revised history to make it seem like it was all thanks to them and their opinions on religion the broke the way to science completely neglecting and if not erasing the importance of mathematics and their own impedance of scientific progress.
>>
File: images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRKOvj_dDw8KpfsQrLZUMQBP6rwGTOTq7voyrMijfZgM7W82gWB.jpg (14KB, 265x400px) Image search:
[Google]
14KB, 265x400px
>>7741856
>just because you mock it doesn't make it any less true
But philosophy [math] \bf DID [/math] give us computers
>>
We, as thinking humans capable of understand can only exist in a universe where the dynamics of said universe are model-able. Intelligence only makes sense where there are some predictable dynamics which can be exploited by the intelligent being.
If our universe was not modelable, we simply could not exist as we are.
The anthropic princple essentially.
>>
File: circuspnts51700.jpg (99KB, 458x315px) Image search:
[Google]
99KB, 458x315px
REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
GO FUCK OFF WITH YOUR TAU NONSENSE, NOBODY GIVES A FUCK.
>>
>>7741893
that is a mathematical text
>inb4 philosophyfags claim they encompass mathematics
because so many philosophy grads are producing works that get published in mathematics journals
>>
File: 1450972085111.png (88KB, 523x808px) Image search:
[Google]
88KB, 523x808px
>>7741834
I could not help but notice your png was not optimized anon.
I have optimized your png.
Your png is now optimized.
>>
>>7741834
What exactly is your point? We should try to figure out why we can figure things out? We've been doing that. We've found weather is predictable because the wind and water vapor and heat differentials and so on have predictable effects, for starters-- and we still have difficulty predicting it.
>>
>>7741834
Whenever I see this kind of thing, it always reminds me of the creationists that try to say that evolution is false because it's a tautology.
If the universe weren't governed by physical laws, then science would be impossible. In my experience the people who make the argument that we need to explain why "the universe is governed by scientific laws" before we can make any assumptions based off of that fact are either
A) arguing some form of extreme post-modernism
or
B) trying to smuggle an argument for god/karma/[insert spiritual bullshit here] into the conversation
I hate to be that guy, but science works because the process of empirical verification of outcomes produces answers to hypotheses. If it didn't then we would use something that did.
This whole "science is just a meme!" argument is getting really goddamn old guys.
>>
>>7741887
>[citation needed]
Thread posts: 14
Thread images: 4
Thread images: 4