Is it possible to merge the fields of quantum reality and philosophy

>>8728535
You can philosophize about anything, but it'll never itself be science.

>>8728540

Analytical philosophy.

File: 1425005660212.png (63KB, 242x240px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 242x240px

>>8728539
>inventing a magical sky fairy to justify your existence

>>8728543
Ah yes, a "philosophy" largely defined by stepping away from everything philosophies are normally concerned with and functioning out of pure rationality. I feel that proves my point more than the reverse.

File: 1358099620324.jpg (215KB, 750x574px) Image search: [Google]

215KB, 750x574px

>>8728546

>>8728552
hurr durr this isnt what other philosophy is

>>8728552

No, not really. Consider attending some public lectures to better inform yourself.

>>8728535
Already done.

>>8728563
We scientifically discovered those other wavelengths with tools. No tool has ever proven the existence of God.

If God exists, why doesn't he tell us?

>>8728736
>he

>>8728535
Indians did this a long time ago
Look up Indian Logic

>>8728754
>has

>>8728552
I'm genuinely curious: aren't all philosophies equally rational? Don't they use logic to structure their arguments?
If there are philosophies that are more rational than others, why not adopt them over the others? One can only understand reality through reason, so the more rational you are, the better is your understanding of everything.

>>8728841
There has been some divide between two philosophical schools in the 20th century, namely analytic philosophy and continental philosophy. Many members on each side dislike the ideas of the other and deem it pseudo-philosophy. Others are more open and see the divide as wholly artificial. Whatever the case may be, it's not the opinion of every philosopher that all philosophies are equally rational.

>>8728841
Logic is a subfield of philosophy. There is no one logic that is used everywhere.

>>8728543
"Analytic philosophy" is just abusing the word "logic" as a buzzword. It has nothing to do with actual logical inference. They are just autists pretending their own subjective views were axiomatic truth.

>>8728841
>Don't they use logic to structure their arguments?
Some do, others don't. Most of them are just appealing to emotions or to some vague intuition.

>>8728736
Let me put it this way.

If God was on the D&D alignment chart I would rate my play through with this DM as chaotic neutral.

>>8728869
I'd say logic as a field of philosophy has failed miserably. While classical logic has been formalized pretty well by mathematicians, it is insufficient to describe any kind of argument done in philosophy. Hence you need to take a step into non-classical logic. There however you'll find a lot of competing kinds of logic, with no consensus on which one to use in which context, how to formalize them correctly or how to intepret the formal inferences. Once you leave the purely formal frameworks used in math or CS, and want to apply "logic" to the real world, to natural language arguments or to metaphysics, inevitably a shitload of counterexamples will pop up invalidating your interpretation of logic.

>>8728736
For what reason does an almighty being have to show them self to its creation, a being that is inferior to it in every way?

For what reason would an almighty being have the same reasoning/thoughts as a human and gender?

If something can create existence and non-existence. That thing isn't human.

>>8728736
I have a theory.

Black holes + Big bang = God