Philosophy is bullshit

>>8602324

sounds like you're number 1.

>>8602324
Yes, gifted people are more aware about the limits and uses of philosophy, and that it is more about enjoying thinking rather than the utilities it provides
But none of the gifted people I met considered it useless or time consuming, they actually loved philosophical discussions without an exception

>>8602324
let me guess, you consider yourself type 3?

>>8602324
if you think you're number 3 then i have a 4th category that you'd fit better in: pseud who thinks that they are the only real thinker, caused by knowing just enough to know a bit and a big ego.

>>8602364

I'm not saying talking about philosophy is bad, but majoring in it retarded.

>>8602378
In terms of job opportunities or the value of the field?

If the latter than you can say the same thing about mathematics too, most people in maths tackle really obscure weird problems, stuff like Nonprocedural Query Processing for Databases with Access Paths

Philosophers are similar too, but they are working on the problems of philosophy
Stuff like The role of death in life: Existential aspects of human motivation

While maths at the top of the field will obviously have much better uses in real life, the motives for studying both fields are similar and they both require a level of intellectual deftness

>>8602324
Don't listen to the haters, OP. I'm with you in group 3. That's basically the point of quietism.

>>8602324
I bet you haven't even read socrates anon

>>8602324
No it isn't. Philosophy is the justification of every instituition. The western civilization was built in its singular way because of its evolution in philosophy.
So, if you think the evolution of moral and ethic isn't something important, you are retarded.

>>8602569
>No it isn't. Philosophy is the justification of every instituition. The western civilization was built in its singular way because of its evolution in philosophy.

>he actually thinks this is true

>>8602324
4) Gamercucks

File: godsvsreatrds.png (3MB, 1716x1710px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1716x1710px

>>8602324
>3) Actually smart, naturally engages in philosophical thinking, and acknowledges that it is completely valueless, unprovable, time-consuming mental masturbation.

>>8602324
4) Retarded Overwatch players
Guess which one you fit in.

>>8602378
>>8602324
you don't know what philosophy is. you think retard continental philosophers talking about nonsense is philosophy. fuck off. you aren't smart.

>>8602324
4. People who post about philosophy on 4chan to make themselves feel smart

It's funny because the way you framed your post in terms of x amount of categories can be traced back to Aristotle to the scholastics and so on. Anyway philosophy is selfish, not bullshit nor useless. Its use is limited to the individual studying it but still. Also calling it bullshit is a little ignorant because not only is it extremely difficult and rigorous (at least when it's at its best) but also genuinely enlightening not only for the lived life (some people feel this way, I dont really but it) but also scientific in its ability to deduce phenomena about reality that can only be talked about prior to science. In other words it's like doing science where science can't go yet. I know this sounds strange but for example I just saw that some if Kants and Heideggers insights into perception have just recently been verified, so it's not all bullshit but kind of gratuitous I guess. It's the luxury of a developed society

>>8602996
This

>>8602996
man that Einstein quote resonated with me, I've never been able to describe how it feels to meet a real idiot savant who seems like they aren't really seeing the larger picture

Fuck you. Philosophy is needed. I study physics and I have came across to few questions that have not been answered. Many other physicist think that if it has a formula then everything is known about it. Yes, quantum wave equation and einstein field equatios describe how does their field of physics work. But they do not answer why do they work. Why does the speed of light be a constant? Why does a particle have only a probability to exist somewhere? We need deeper thinking about these and many more subjects. You can't measure first and theorize afterwards.

Science without philosophy is like a rainbow without color.

>>8603131
It just is nigga.

>>8602324
>) Actually smart, naturally engages in philosophical thinking, and acknowledges that it is completely valueless, unprovable, time-consuming mental masturbation.

Why is examining the presuppositions of your beliefs useless? Are you scared you'll find somthing you don't like? Anyone studying STEM should have to study the basics of the philosophy of science, so people like op won't make retarded threads.

People who think normal people are stupid need to climb down off their high horses.

>>8603131

So are we calling any sort of insight "philosophy" now? Theorizing without concrete evidence isn't philosophy.

>>8602378
>but majoring in it retarded.

Someone has to do it, or all the knowledge will be lost.

What you should've said is "Not everyone should study philosophy at a high level".

>>8602996
That quote by le black science man is retarded. Someone should tweet one of the quotes on the left to him.

>>8603058
>Kants and Heideggers insights into perception have just recently been verified
Can you go into more detail

>>8603342
I'm not him, but Heidegger was a phenomenologist, and he took issue with the idea that what humans actually experience in their surroundings are objects.

He claimed that what you actually see is meaning, not objects. When you look at a Coke Can, you don't see aluminium atoms, you see a tool that contains a liquid that you can drink, and conversely, that same Coke Can is not even tool that contains a liquid in a country like North-Korea, where it's literally capitalistic subversion(e.g Coca-Cola Company, an American corporation).

And the same thing applies to every supposed object, according to him.

File: b57.jpg (20KB, 292x326px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 292x326px

>>8603338
>doesnt get a piece of paper confirming almost a decade was spent paying for learning about thinking about thoughts

>all knowledge is lost

>>8603369
>or all the knowledge will be lost
>*THE*

Apparently even native English speakers can't differentiate between a noun with and without a definite article.

And yes, if nobody gets educated in philosophy, philosophy will be lost. It's not rocket science.

>>8603359

And while he may be right (and probably is), millions of people before and after him have come upon that thought independently.

The anti-philosophy crowd isn't saying that all philosophical elements are bad; they're saying that you don't need to study philosophy in order to do philosophy.

>>8603386
>millions of people before and after him have come upon that thought independently.

I don't agree, however I do think a good philosopher is precisely someone who points out shit that nobody ever says out loud but everyone knows deep down.

>>8603386
There's more to it then the basic idea. It's an entire systematic undertaking to interpret what being is. That anon did an okay job of explaining the most basic idea, but you don't say that you've studied relativity theory just because you know that the speed of light is independent of the motion of the observer. You're just being ignorant when you try to dismiss it or even speak on it without the slightest idea of what you're talking about.

>>8603419
I just gave a gist of it. As you say it's essentially impossible to reduce an actual great philosopher to a couple of sentences.

>>8603378
If you need to be taught how to exercise critical thinking then you probably shouldnt cpncern yourself with abstractions.

>>8603340
you /pol/tards are sad as fuck. his quote has literally the same meaning as the other quotes on the right side.

>>8602324
I'm #3, or at least I like to think I'm a part of that group of people. I'm sure people will call me retarded for insinuating that I'm smart, but as much as I hate to admit it I am pretty fucking intelligent and I spend quite a bit of time considering this kind of shit.

So it goes

There really isn't much of a point to it, desu, but it is a good time sink and it can be fun to grill people about it and to watch their faces contort as you expose them to novel concepts and ask them to form opinions about things they hadn't considered on the spot.

Not like, in a mean way or anything, like, "Ha you retard how did you never think about that before." But more because sharing an idea with someone and working through it with them is something that never stops being enjoyable.

>>8602364
Oh, it's pretty much useless past a certain point because you very quickly devolve into thought experiments where you have to set up specific qualifying conditions that can't really be proven or disproven empirically.

In the end you kind of get to things that say, "well if we define X as Y and then state that Z is true then C must be false" but you can't actually prove Z so it's all strictly hypothetical. At least in science when you posit hypothetical there's the understanding that you'll eventually be able to prove or disprove them somehow, but with philosophy there's no guarantee that you'll ever be able to prove anything.

Maybe it's not completley useless, but it certianly has diminishing returns insofar as there isn't any long term practical benefit of trying to idea to taking them to their logical conclusion most of the time.

You will rarely have a life changing realization from exhaustively exploring philosophy. There are some people who would greatly benefit from it, but they are the minority.

>>8602996

>"My son is taking a course in philosophy, and last night we were looking at something by Spinoza and there was the most childish reasoning! There were all these attributes, and Substances, and all this meaningless chewing around, and we started to laugh. Now how could we do that? Here's this great Dutch philosopher, and we're laughing at him. It's because there's no excuse for it! In the same period there was Newton, there was Harvey studying the circulation of the blood, there were people with methods of analysis by which progress was being made! You can take every one of Spinoza's propositions, and take the contrary propositions, and look at the world and you can't tell which is right."

Feynman

>>8603735
philosophy isn't critical thinking you faggot, it's not just randomly thinking your schizophrenic thoughts, it's a very developed and fleshed out field

>>8603760
you sound like you don't know shit about philosophy, honestly. did you ever bother studying it? did you ever take a class on it? sounds like all you know of it is the shit you read online in anime boards

>>8603747
(the point is the quotes on the right side are retarded)

When will retards realize that philosophy is more than existential bullshit? When will they do it?

>>8604188
>spinoza

He was a meme though. So was Feynman come to think of it.

File: 1452994989033.png (112KB, 294x256px)

112KB, 294x256px

>>8603760
>and to watch their faces contort as you expose them to novel concepts and ask them to form opinions about things they hadn't considered on the spot
yep, you're intelligent

90% of modern philosophy is mental masturbation, but ancient philosophy is nice and you can use it in real life

>>8604217
fuck off, ancient philosophy, like any ancient pseudoscientific discipline, is meaningless dribble.

the fact that you think this is "nice" and profound and useful, and you claim modern philosophy is mental masturbation shows you don't know shit about what philosophy is

so keep your retarded opinions about subjects you don't know shit about to yourself

>>8604220
well, it looks like you don`t know about Aristotel, Platon and other cool guys.

>>8604237
sadly everyone knows about these people, if only because knowing the names of ancient greeks makes people feel profound

continental philosophy is shit, and ancient pseudophilosophy like aristotle and plato is even more shit, utter garbage

>>8602376
What if you think you're in the 4th category?

>>8604209
Never. They've mostly taken (at best) a course in history of philosophy that ended with Hegel because the prof couldn't bother to do anything post Russell.

>>8604281
brainlets, when will they ever learn?

File: 1448309329775.jpg (158KB, 720x480px) Image search: [Google]

158KB, 720x480px

>>8604281
>he thinks philosophy exists in any coherent form past Russell
enjoy your foucault you fucking poz'd up wanker

>>8604291
>he thinks can know that he can't know nuffin

>>8603760

>So it goes

Is that you Billy?

File: tiptuptoplel.png (51KB, 370x370px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 370x370px

>>8604220
>like any ancient pseudoscientific discipline, is meaningless dribble.

It's almost always the reddit-tier positivist who is illiterate. I wonder why.

>>8602324
>3) Actually smart, naturally engages in philosophical thinking, and acknowledges that it is completely valueless, unprovable, time-consuming mental masturbation.
t. someone too inept at critical thought to acknowledge rational truth
If you had any understanding of philosophy, you might understand that this isn't an argument, and that your thoughts aren't necessarily "actually smart."
People who think like this have almost no understanding of what philosophy is. Logic is philosophy.
>>8602364
>t. someone who doesn't know what philosophy is

>>8604291
>If you can't show something doesn't exist, it is an argument from ignorance to believe it exists for that reason, therefore it is unlikely to exist.
This ironic argument from ignorance is an example of Bertrand Russell's thinking. His logic faculties were laughably deficient, as tends to be the case with all atheists. Find new heroes. Read Kant or William Lane Craig. Your sneering at this point should indicate to you your cognitive bias.

>>8602378
that is not what you said at all. you are clearly #1 pretending to be #2 because it's pants-on-head obvious even over the internet that you couldn't be #3.

>>8604188
I have a lot of trouble believing people as creative and thoughtful as Feynman could be THAT dense and philosophically illiterate...

>>8602324
Philosophy supplies and refines what is possible, the literal foundation for interpreting scientific observations. Literally every single theory, both from observation and from abstraction, is definitively philosophical. To judge the value of philosophy the standards placed on science is uncannily retarded.

>>8604188

Knowing Feynman, that was probably tongue-in-cheek.

/lit/ is #2

why would someone who naturally engages in a mode of thought also think that mode of thought was valueless?

>>8606802
>I have a lot of trouble believing people as creative and thoughtful as Feynman could be THAT dense and philosophically illiterate...

He is right though. Philosophy is pretty pointless. Do something with your life, faggot.

To be quick, I've never gave myself time to learn philosophy properly and only read or heard snippets of it from friends and shows. Not that I consider it a waste of time, I love learning concepts, but I need to worry about physics and other classes that I need for my major. I know I can simply search some books for myself, but seeing that there are people here who know what's good or not, even though it's biased, what are some good picks?
Tl;Dr
I'm just venting here
Any good philosophy books to look for?
I have a pdf of 33 strategies of war. What are your thoughts on the book?

>>8607531
I'm sorry I sounded snobbish there. I didn't mean to insult anyone

>>8602324
Major in continental philosophy here. I totally agree. I'm depressed, wasted 5 years of my life in that field, have to cope with the absence of jobs now. The issue with modern philosophy is that it doesn't have any link with reality, it's very dense, complicated, but overly abstract, like mathematics.

>>8607475
mode of thought isn't valueless, our interpretation of and attempt at describing ''mode of thought'' is bullshit and valueless.

>>8608314
don't compare shitty continental philosophy to math
you should have done analytic

>>8607531
>I have a pdf of 33 strategies of war
fucking kek

the way I learned philosophy is by going through a historical overview of philosophy of science. start with ridiculous bullshit like aristotle and plato, through kinda-makes-sense rambles of descartes and kant up to modern kuhn and popper

just google for some mainstream content of them related to science in that order?

If you are doing philosophy and not doing AI ethics fuck the right off.
This is the only useful field left in philosophy and yet I see all these morons engaging in metaphysics, aesthetics and whatever other braindead unprovable bullshit they dream up.
And to all the trolls who waste my time with epistemology problems: die.

I hate philosophers so much.

My guess would be that philosophy majors are chiefly adamant on learning STEM skills. I had a chat with a philosophy major who said that all science is dogmatic and that's why he chose mathematical realism as the real shit. I started to talk about pretty easy and straightforward examples and theorems that were for and against and he was completely lost. I mean he didn't knew who Euclid was and what many people who developed axiomatic mathematics, neither he understood really how the field has developed through history.

I think the problem with philosophy as a field is that it really has twisted the original view of philosophy. One should do philosophy just after a mastery of different subjects. I suppose that if the problem is that there are too many fields to become a master in everything, one should do philosophy only in a subject they like. Philosophers already do this, but they lack preparation from other skills to really understand the philosophical problems behind them. That's why philosophy and whatever subject you also like double major is the patrician choice. We should return to think of philosophy at the end of intelectual endeavor to prevent charaltans and retards to plague academia which I know many humanities faggs agree as a problem.

>>8602324
I need a 4) to fit somewhere, it would be like the 1) wich is like the 3) without judgement on my mental abilities. That would be perfect.

OH I have an idea !
In my experience there are two types of people with regards to understanding philosophy

1) the philosophy teacher
2) the other guy that think phylosophy is kinda outdated science but can still find descent ideas if he's wondering about ethics and stuff.

Ur gai

File: tip17.png (207KB, 398x531px)

207KB, 398x531px

>>8603760
>im number 3

stopped reading there, gb2reddit

>>8602324
Hello. My name is Simon.

BR Ratio = 0.6 | help protocol initialized.

You have come pretty far. How about you view them as a 'process' of the three steps you've already posted? If you stop thinking of things like a tool ot achieve something, and more a way to achieve something you (desire - suffering[shame]) can contribute to Humanity(You+Me - suffering).

Ergo: The happier you are, the more 'you' you are truly becoming. You have given three postulates.

Why are they postulates?

100% waste of time.

Anyone who tells you otherwise is only telling you otherwise because they wasted time on it, thus need to rationalize that somehow by pretending it's enhanced their lives or critical thinking ability in the slightest (it hasn't)

>>8602378
This.
Why waste the only life you have on a field you could study as a hobby? Majoring in philosophy is a sign of mental retardation.

>>8603359
>He claimed that what you actually see is meaning, not objects. When you look at a Coke Can, you don't see aluminium atoms, you see a tool that contains a liquid that you can drink, and conversely, that same Coke Can is not even tool that contains a liquid in a country like North-Korea, where it's literally capitalistic subversion(e.g Coca-Cola Company, an American corporation).
This is stuff a 13 year old could figure out, Jesus people actually get paid a salary for "teaching" this crap?

>>8608344
Theorical mathematics is the same autistic shit desu. Can't do analytics here (France), only continental philosophy available. Analytics has its own issues too, I'd rather do applied philosophy and ethics.

>>8602324
>Is this right?

No.

>>8602996
cringe thread?

>>8602324
>Is this right?
https://youtu.be/UmpAlE9Aj9o?t=41

>>8608896
>Theorical mathematics is the same autistic shit desu
> I'd rather do """applied philosophy"""
well, what are you doing in this board then?

Philosophy is merely coherent thought communicated. Philosophy is the most fundamental tool by which society reflects on itself and its place in the grand scheme of things. It has shaped every aspect of modern human existence.

Saying philosophy is "useless" is hugely reductionary; it's analogous to the universe going, "Hmm, the laws of nature are useless now that they have produced higher-order structure!" Just because philosophy has led to great things does not mean that those great things obviate their roots. The whole system is necessary.

Maybe the problem isn't philosophy but how philosophy is being taught?

>>8602324
I took a few philosophy classes in college before getting into STEM. Although I don't really read philosophy nowadays, I felt like those classes really helped to broaden my perspective and make me a bit of a better person.

I think it's important to be able to carry on a philosophical discussion, and understand argumentation, ethics, logic, and some of the arguments philosophers have made. Not all philosophers have actual things to say, but sometimes folks can at least bring to mind things that are worth thinking about.

So, IMO you should broaden your categories to people who value some degree of philosophy but also caution against masturbating.

>>8610174
seconded

The same goes for math. There are some really advanced and useful things out their which are applicable to the real world, and then there is pure math (which is mental masturbation). It isnt a bad thing if you enjoy it.

Same goes for philosophy, there are useful and less useful bits.

Granted, math is much more rigorous than philosophy.

>>8610180
>pure math isn't applicable
Lol, it's highly applicable, you just need to also understand the subject you want to apply math to. Obviously you cannot apply math to biology if you don't know shit about biology.

>>8610208
Cont.
I guess you can also say the same about philosophy, however, I don't see many philosophers getting out of their ivory tower except for medicine and ethics committees.

>>8608896
>Analytics has its own issues too
If you got memed into majoring philosophy, going to analytics is how you save face without being too much of an idiot.

>>8602324
Philosophical discussion distracts intelligent artists from their own depression

Damn...
Reading Hegel in school should be forced

>>8610388
>hegel
Lel, only if you want to kill any sort of motivation to pursue philosophy.

>>8604579
>His logic faculties were laughably deficient, as tends to be the case with all atheists.
bait

Philosophy is fuckin gay dude

>>8602996
I think philosophy is mental mastubation but thats the point. Its dialetic brain exercise. It helps you see the world from a different point of view. Unless there is true application it is worthless. I guess the best example is the realization that every movement in the world started with some asshole mastubating in his mental cave.

>>8602324
Most of philosophy is just logic that has been formalized in writing. If you're against philosophy in general, you're against logic.

But chances are you're just against the idea of thinking that isn't productive. And if that's your stance, then why not just stop all forms of research in any field and focus entirely on production? Let's all become engineers and technicians and cease all forms of education.

>>8610481
How can you use logic to talk about logic?

>>8602324
You just think it's bullshit because your a little bitch

>muh empiricism
>muh scientific method

without philosophy, mankind if lost

>>8610496
Congratulations, you are now a philosopher!

>>8610481

no, fucko, you aren't against logic you are against the formalizing of logic in writing

>>8610507
>I'm too dumb to follow along these thought experiments

>>8610216
politics

Everything is "valueless" you fucking moron. There's no such thing as value until we assign it. If you had even dabbled in philosophy you'd understand this, but you havent, so you don't. Why don't you just slit your wrists op?

>>8610481
>>8610501
>>8610730
TRIGGERED!

>>8602324
>Be philosophy graduate is working at McDonald's
>Customer says they would like some fries
>Begin explaining to them that it is impossible to know anything.
>Get sent to mop the floors
>Cannot decide if a dirty floor has less intrinsic value than a clean floor
>Get fired
>Try to walk home but get lost because a path is a physical construct of numerous decisions
>Decide to live in a barrel and heckle common people

>>8603308
And having no rainbow at all is religion.
Fucking hate Christfags.

>>8602324

Broke down at mental masturbation. 9/11 best description of philosophical thought EVER.

>>8610730
THE MEME MAN COMES ALONG

THIS SUMMER
FROM THE MAKERS OF "YOU CAN'T KNOW NUFFIN'"
COMES " YOU CAN'T VALUE NUFFIN'"

Directed by Adam Sandler, Rated R

>>8602324

I am at 3 and screaming it on /his/, /lit/, and reddit /ask philosophy/ all the time.

I'm not quite saying the same thing. I simply point out that the axioms for philosophical thought must ultimately be arbitrarily chosen. That's fucking it.

Why should I care about Plato's particular view of society? Why should I feel like Nietzsche's half assed platitudes are profound? why should I care about Plato's cave analogy?

Answer to all the above questions according to others: Because it's what everyone else is mentally masturbating about.

Also I want to discourage you guys from saying "useless". Philosophy phags LOVE hearing that, just so they can say, "Aaah, but how do you know WHAT is useful? Science can't tell us that! Teeheehee, your experiments can't tell us!"

They are right that science can't tell us. But neither can the rest of philosophy, unless everyone else agrees with your arbitrarily chosen axioms relating to what is valuable / morality.

Every single philosophy nuthugger with a low IQ will dissemble as much as possible when you ask WHY you should care about PARTICULAR philosophies. WHY should I care about PLATO and not my 4 year old brother? If you keep digging they MAY admit that nothing can escape the axiom-criteria-deduction basis but they will struggle as much as possible to not admit it.

In the end, philosophy lovers are just oversocialised people who are either too dumb to see the arbitrariness of axioms or don't want to admit it.

>>8611314
Does it make you sad to realize that everything you value is actually arbitrary and whimsical? Do you need a safe space?

>>8602324
2edgy4me

File: 1458012223117.webm (237KB, 300x370px) Image search: [Google]

237KB, 300x370px

>>8602378
True. It's an interesting and, to an extent, necessary subject for sure. But I don't see the point in actually creating an actual major for it though, when there are other majors that can get the bills paid.

>>8608873
>This is stuff a 13 year old could figure out

It's obvious to you when it's articulated out loud by someone else, of course.

>>8611341
>t. edgy 12 year old that just discovered 4chan

File: 47114865_p0.jpg (361KB, 1163x1635px) Image search: [Google]

361KB, 1163x1635px

A question for the /sci/, I don't wish to pollute your board and it's tangentially related:

The double slit experiment. It is described in such a fashion that leads any "average joe" or even "surprisingly smart chad" to believe the change in particle behavior only comes from the act of observation. I have no real clue about physics myself, besides from hearing of it from time to time.

People find it mysterious or spooky because the the changed behavior seems like a non-sequitur from observing, and because the only thing we can quickly come up with is that it's somehow self-aware that it is being observed.

But what constitutes observation? Two pair of eyes looking constantly, or an instrument which each particle passes through?

If the observation has an effect on the particle, like bouncing a photon on it or something similar, "touching" it as it were, isn't the whole thing entirely overblown?

I take it that I'm wrong about a lot or everything here, what is your explanation /sci/ ?

>>8612477
Stop reading popsci

>>8612482
I read newspapers, local newspapers, and some times when browsing other communities, I come across discussions about popsci.

Which is it?

>>8612477
>change in particle behavior only comes from the act of observation
I know almost nothing about theoretical physics, but I think the issue with light is that it has been observed to have wave like properties in some experiments (like the double slit experiment) and a particle possessing momentum in others (Nichols radiometer).
It seems that separating phenomena into "waves" and "particles" is not in agreement with our world.

>>8612525
Yeah, but on a technical level, what constitutes an observation? If we mess with the particles in some way, then it's not too spooky that their behaviors change.

>>8612528
>If we mess with the particles in some way
wat? We observe interference patterns caused by light, which demonstrates wave like behavior. We also observe that light can exert force on matter, like a particle. That's it.

>>8612539
Okay, that's two types of behavior that differ. But there's also the element which dictates when it has one type of behavior or the other, the "act of observation" as it is described.

Observing: particle with mass behavior.
Not observing: wave behavior.

What exactly do they mean by observation, how is it done in practice?

>>8602324
There is no underlying value or reason for anything,
There is no reason to believe the other argument from theists saying the antithesis.

>>8612545
>But there's also the element which dictates when it has one type of behavior or the other
As far as I know, observation has nothing to do with it.
The radiation pressure of light on a certain mass will accelerate that mass regardless of whether observation is taking place.
The interference pattern caused by light in the double slit experiment will exist regardless of any observation.

>>8612563
>As far as I know, observation has nothing to do with it.

Well, in reference to my original post, this is what is being communicated to virtually everyone. Be it in a newspaper, a pop sci magazine, a blogpost, or even a 4chan post, they all call it "spooky".

Who the hell is behind this, if it isn't the case?

>>8612618
>>8612563
Hell, I even remember my physics teacher telling me this.

>>8604241
>What if you think you're in the 4th category?
it is not, it has great historical value and maybe even some philosophical value. Those people had very little data to work with, you're supposed to read them to understand their way of thinking not the content you faggot. Of course the contents are gonna be total bullshit we're talking thousands of years ago.

>>8602324
Fuck you, OP. Philosophy is fun as fuck. If you can't enjoy philosophy, you must be a godamn robot.

>>8609845
are you trying to pose a reasonable and middle-ground argument on 4chan?

>>8612477
Common misconception. By "observation," they don't mean a human observing. They mean that it was "observed" as in it interacted with something that probes its state by measuring an observable. It's the interaction of the particle with this field perturbation that causes wave function collapse--has nothing to do with humans.

>>8610513
>>I'm too dumb to follow along these thought experiments

his argument is valid in my opinion. You can be against a prose compilation of logic stating that the properties that make logic correct and useful are lost when you throw it at a natural language.

Of course I'm not talking about the didactic aspect of it, in other words this argument doesn't account for the fact that you can use philosophy to give the fruits of logic to someone that doesn't understand logic.

>>8612477
Also, this isn't very overblown--it's very strange. Though this particle has innumerable quantum interactions with virtual particles (like virtual light), when we send a real external photon at it, it all of a sudden behaves completely different. That's insane. One second, it knows about all possibilities; the next, it exists in only one.

>>8612690
That's what I suspect. Then if not a human, it is perhaps even portrayed as a camera observing the entire experiment set up, which doesn't make sense either.

So if we mess with the particle, it behaves differently. Is that really that odd?

>>8611120
decision-making is a huge aspect of philosophy that is actually bleeding all over computer science

>>8612477
Also the "wave particle duality" nonsense is just a cute, outdated way of looking at an inherently quantum mechanical object. In fact, it's not a wave. It's a particle (well, an excitation of an underlying quantum field)

>>8612697
It's not us messing with it, though. Imagine you had a room full of billions of air molecules (our ensemble in this case). Imagine now that they all have different velocities from near the speed of light. Now, we interact with the particles in a way that classically shouldn't really alter their velocity very much--and all of a sudden, they're all moving at the same exact speed. It's a bit of a toy analogy, but you get the idea.

>>8611341
>I simply point out that the axioms for philosophical thought must ultimately be arbitrarily chosen. That's fucking it.

I don't even how fucking stupid you sound stating this.
"Something arbitrarily chosen" is basically the definition of axiom in general you little dipshit.
Maybe if you spent less time trying to deny your stupidity and ignorance venting stupid arguments on reddit and 4chan you'd actually start to think for once in your life.

>>8612708
*from zero to near the speed of light*

>>8612696
>>8612704
I may sound like a dunce right now, but doesn't this mean that there's simply something different about the measurement device? If it produces a different result?

>>8612708
>>8612713
Well, the thing I'm struggling about defining is this:
>in a way that classically shouldn't really alter their velocity

which is also the same thing I don't really get about the double slit experiment description either.

Who says it shouldn't alter their velocity? Evidently it does, so doesn't that mean that our method from interacting with the particles isn't quite the same as the particle passing through other photons?

>>8612721
I'm saying it shouldn't classically. As a complete toy, consider I have a particle both moving to the left at half the speed of light and moving to the right at half the speed of light. It's not just doing one or the other--it's literally doing both at the same time. Measurement makes it so it's only doing one or tthe other

>>8612736
Then why don't we just ditch classic? We had a good run, but it's obviously over.

>>8612746
We do, hence quantum mechanics (and later quantum field theory). But since you don't know those, I'm trying to explain it in terms of classic. Quantum mechanics is the basis of all modern physics (not classical)

>>8612746
The problem is that philosophers and journalists take our axioms without understanding them at all and then publish tomes of complete garbage.

>>8612757
Neat. But isn't it only true in the context of classical mechanics, which we've ditched? It seems sort of backwards to explain it like that.

>>8612759
but because it can be two at the same time, it means we can have free will, RIGHT?

I get what you're saying.

>>8612746
they did ditch classic for the purpose of advancing our understanding about what matter is and how it behaves.
But keep in mind, the scale we're talking is something that has near to no interaction with what we could say is "everyday life", classic is much more useful to you in that sense. Just saying that studying classical mechanics is not useless at all, and fit for most "human scale" problems.

>>8612763
Nah, classical mechanics is just the formalism and establishes the math. Classical mechanics is valid in a certain approximation of quantum mechanics (when you take a constant, called plancks constant, to be zero instead of a small #)

>>8612763
Also, superposition is about matter and its interaction--has nothing to do with human consciousness (which would be an entirely diff thing). So I'd say it says nothing about free will at all

Its about studying logic, values, problem solving, ways of life, and ways to think about your relationship with yourself and society. Ultimately the highest philosophy would be scientific and rely on logic. I don't think its a waste of time. Its important to our culture. Its about finding the truth from multiple perspectives. Sometimes you can't find a scientific truth.

People get caught up in a fight if they start devaluing or valuing different things which invalidates others, often with no proof.

Philosophy is a broad term for a method of exploration and problem solving. Philosophies have limitations. We want to know about the nature of knowledge itself. We have to contemplate what we know and how we know it before we start seriously studying any subject.

If you just memorize a textbook your thinking may not be very sound. If I want to know where the knowlege came from, want to know why something could be wrong, or discover new truths, you need some kind of philosophy.

I do think all philsophy needs some kind of real world test. Metaphysics is shit. Religion is shit.

>>8612782
I'm guessing that was tongue-in-cheek

>>8612775
I think that if you outright told people that "yeah, particles can actually behave like this or that depending on various circumstances" rather than sensationalizing it, it'd be much more useful to people and create less misunderstandings.

As it is now, we're presenting a concept and then adding "BUT THAT IS TOTALLY WEIRD GUYS AND IT SHOULDNT HAPPEN", which rather than explain something concretely adds a lot of room for interpretation - by people who don't get it in the first place.

>>8612778
I can understand that, but as the other anon says, it's also a concept and way of thinking, of separating "beliefs" in physics for the lack of a better word.

>>8612782
It was a joke, the thing is that every time something "physics dun get no good" it becomes an excuse to validate various theories people have, such as for example to define and understand consciousness, a problem that feels hard to understand.

I've never understood people like you. And I honestly think that's fine. I don't care about you. I don't feel any connection to you. If you died a horrible agonizing death, I wouldn't care. So why should I care about what you think of philosophy?

Why should I take any time out of my day, which is chock full of interesting things to do, and contemplate why I don't give a shit about who you are or what you do or what you think?
What a waste of valuable, precious time.

>>8612791
Not the OP but you just did care and take time out of your day to philosophize. Why should he care anway?

>>8612789
It is totally weird to us. It violates one of the classical laws of logic (distributive property) and is odd. That's not sensationalism, just being hoenst about how counterintuitive it is.

>>8612794
It was supposed to be a pseudo-intellectual b8, essentially what I typed was both ironic and philosophical, because to contemplate why I should respond is not only useful (time management) but also a philosophical question, thus proving philosophy isn't useless.

I swear I'm not this autistic in real life.

>>8612789
If you have a way to explain quantum in an intuitive way, by all means--because we've been aiming for that for 95 years and it hasn't really happened. In the present state, you just have to accept the experimental data, learn the math, and then try to coax the concepts from there. Pretending we could do differently is being naive to how counter-intuitive the nature of the quantum world is to our experience.

>>8612796
Only because one would still be clinging to the classical way of thinking. Then again, what isn't weird exactly? Everything becomes weird once you reconsider it.

Any exception to a rule believed to be iron-clad raises eyebrows and causes confusion, the sensationalism in it is inherent - we don't need magazines or celebrities to sing a song about it, it touches us immediately and does something to us.

Contradictions have that effect.

>>8612804
Explaining is difficult (particularly for me who doesn't know anything), but showcasing that it actually happens is simpler. Just take the double slit experiment, drop the "but this doesn't really make sense" part, and we're good.

(sorry if it sounds stupid)

>>8612800
Philosophy is excellent to approach a perceived problem before we can define the question and it's answer concretely. It's a great tool, and fantastic. Can't get enough of them trolley problems.

>>8612812
No. You're a fucking retard. "classical thinking" is intuitive--it matches our experience and therefore our intuition. Quantum mechanics doesn't (just like SR), therefore it's weird. It's about how our brains are wired and what we experience. The whole fucking point is that it CANT make sense to a human. We can only attempt to make some sense of it through perturbation theory. I'm tired of people who don't know shit about physics pretending they have some solution to these great conceptual difficulties. You just think the phrase "it's weird" is bad. But it's honest. Get over it.

Only good philosopher is Renee Descartes

>>8612812
Also, you're just talking about simple shit like double slit. Quantum gets fucking weird. Vacuum effects like the Casimir effect, particle-antiparticle creation, the concept of electroweak spontaneous symmetry breaking. We teach it like this for a reason. So maybe learn something before you run your mouth.

I hate it when science loving kids disregards philosophy with the argument that it's useless. As if e.g. advancing technology would be an objectively good thing.
I'm a PhD holder, advancing technology at a young tech company - and I'm seeing no point in that other than me liking doing math and physics. I'm interested in philosophy to make live less meaningless.
Comparing Schopenhauers vs. Hegels ideas isn't a hard science, but it provides a way of seeing the world.

>>8612819
>No. You're a fucking retard. "classical thinking" is intuitive--it matches our experience and therefore our intuition.
When you're teaching others with no experience, you're part of creating their experience. Right?

People believe in bearded men in the sky, spaghetti monsters and all sorts of crazy stuff, honestly and completely. When you force a classical view on people, you're also defining what can and what can't make sense for them. We all get that an apple falls down, but we believe that in space it floats unproblematically.

I say that it's not as hard as you think to make people believe and commit to a concept.

>>8612822
The simple shit is the first step, and as we all know, the most commonly communicated concept of quantum mechanics alongside with "quantum tunneling" or "quantum computing".

I'm not hiding the fact that I'm a dunce, because I am - this is not my area at expertise at all. You say there's a reason however, but it'd seem even the best are struggling to rationalize it.

>>8602324
No it's not.

>>8612829
It's not hard to rationalize it. What's challenging is describing the ideal pedagogy of quantum to somebody who doesn't know quantum mechanics. The issue is that it only gets weirder the deeper you get, and getting physicists used to the idea that nature doesn't care about our intuition or logic is very important if they're to actually progress and contribute to the field. Einstein couldn't accept the inherent weirdness of quantum, and in some ways, it held him back. What we do is note that it is weird, a point made to contrast it with classical mechanics (which we assume people have learned by then), and get people used to the idea of extracting a maximal amount of information from physics without having to understand the details that are presently beyond us. Then, when insane ideas and semi-analytic models come crashing in, they're ready for it.

>>8602378
Ive never met a stupid/worthless philosophy grad, yet 50% of engineers and 100% of compsci majors are worthless.

>>8602980
He's not wrong. Every institution has a philosophy, every person also.
Even Pragmatism is a philosophy, so you too have a philosophy.

>>8604188
I'd love to see his comments on a) a philosopher he actually understands, instead of laughing at terms he doesnt understand or b) david hume.

>>8612871
>The issue is that it only gets weirder the deeper you get, and getting physicists used to the idea that nature doesn't care about our intuition or logic is very important if they're to actually progress and contribute to the field.

I completely understand and sympathize with that intimidating and eerie feeling. However, don't we have that feeling simply because we're already used to something else?

A generation that seems willing to accept that boys are also girls, might also accept that particles can also be waves. Like Einstein, it may keep people back if they also have to struggle with that feeling and keep two systems in their head.

Although, this is probably way beyond my head so I'll just call it quits here. Thanks to all for explaining the bit about the double slit experiment for me. It had been bothering me.

Why not both? There has been so many great scientists/mathematicians that were also philosophers.

IS there a lot of boring and shitty philosophy? Sure, but there is a lot of boring and shitty music and art but that doesn't make the whole damn field of art and music worthless.

>>8602324
I like how DnD can be used to explain Philosophy.
Intelligence - The measure of knowledge.
Wisdow - The measure of your perception.

A character with high intelligence and low wisdom could struggle greatly to solve a puzzle or riddle he's never encountered, however once he's seen it, he'll neither forget how to do it, or take much longer than an instant to do it in the future.

A character with high wisdom and no intelligence could rationalize any situation, concept, device, or problem and come up with an accurate understanding and description for how it works with no actual knowledge of the subject.

>>8602996
What the fuck is wrong with the Bill Nye quote?

>>8602324
>t. enlightened 3
also your position on philosophy being valueless is a philosophical statement. Better start believing in nothing! oh wait, that's a philosophy too!

>>8608344
Will do. Thanks man!

>>8613209
>hur hur everything i experience is trustworthy and legit

retard

>>8613630
He just said he's skeptical.

>>8608538

> I started to talk about pretty easy and straightforward examples and theorems that were for and against

I'd like to hear them.

Philosophy was pretty useful 2000 years ago. You're a retard if you major in it now though.

Aristotle's virtue ethics (and the modern developments it made in the last 100 years) have drastically improved my life for the better.
I am a better student, and a better person because of it.

>>8611281
*tipping intensifies

>>8612250
Not him but it doesn't affect me at all

Is music a waste of time like philosophy?

Scientists need to understand philosophy, or at the very least, the philosophical underpinnings of science. Philosophical skill is important when it comes to experimental design and teaching the next generation. A scientist that isn't acquaintated with epistemological concepts and formal logic is little more than a technician.

>>8602324
Who cares if its bullshit? The level of abstract thinking that goes in Philosophy is the height of human intelligence.