Prove youre not a blind follower of trendy materialism and admit

File: 1491420168106.jpg (105KB, 425x476px) Image search: [Google]

105KB, 425x476px

>>9032832
>300x168

>>9032832
i would argue that either math or reality are the foundation of physics.


i mean, its definittely related to physics

but ts related to physics in the same way the bible is related to the lord of the rings

category theory is the foundations of physics

>>9032835
The scientific method is pure philosophical development

materialism BTFO esse est percipi

>>9032848
i would argue that its more of a logical consequence of attempting to develop a system that would have as minimal impact as possible from human errors.

>>9032852
How is the development of such a system not a philosophical project?

>>9032855
it definitely is if you consider any sort of structured approach to developing a method to solve problems as philosophical. Which fits my bible/LoTR analogy nicely.

>>9032832
Sure, and a pile of shit is the foundation of a rose.

>>9032852
>>9032862
you have to understand that the scientific method only works, and the logical conclusion of attempting a system, only works because our reality is ordered and seems to repeat. Its a fundamental nature of reality that can't be proved by science, its the foundation that props it up.

>>9032862
I'm not quite convinced by that analogy, but to be fair you haven't gone into its gory detail, so I'm not quite clear on what the point you're trying to make is.
I find the history of physics makes apparent how important philosophical assumptions were in the development of that science. As an example, the materialist ontology that developed in the 16th century was very important to the development of classical mechanics.

>>9032872
i dont really understand what youre trying to articulate here.

>>9032884
Simply think about the fundamental nature of existence. Things act orderly, not chaotically. This philosophical realization is literally what started the scientific method.

>>9032898
What about chaos theory?

in fact, What would you call a state of maximum entropy if not chaos?

the pre big bang energy soup was pure chaos.


on some level the fundemental nature of reality IS chaos.


Also i think its worth mentioning that the scientific method was not a huge labor of philosophy, it was a naturally evolved structural methodology within scientific institutions.

its beurocracy, and i dont think it really has as much value as say. a team of researchers building a 12 km long machine that crashes atoms together at nearly the speed of light.

>>9032916
By definition you cannot test hypothesis, conduct experiments and work with chaos. A chaotic experiment is outside the domain of science

Yea, philosophy is really the only thing that can help us investigate the foundational aspects of physics and science in general. That's why we have a subset of philosophy called philosophy of science. This area deals primarily with epistemological aspects of science and tries to put forward what scientific knowledge actually is or if it even exists. But you can analyze any aspect of it including the moral and ethical concerns. HOWEVER (I can't stress enough the however), the subject is a tiny branch of this whole behemoth we call science. Science is a grand subject on its own, and mastering the philosophical aspects of it doesn't make you an expert on SCIENCE as a whole. Heck, you will probably never master the whole philosophical aspects and you will need to specialize (though I'm not that familiar with the subject). It's ignorant and egocentrical to think that because you have a degree in philosophy and decided to specialize in PS, that means you will be prepared, in any form, to tackle a proper theoretical physics PhD, which is something I've seen many retarded philosophy majors try to purse. Knowing about foundational aspects means jack shit when solving most problems, even theoretical ones. This is as retarded as thinking that because you have a good grasp in first and second order logic + set theory, you are consequently a master in analysis, or topology. Kys ignoramus.

>>9032930
1. not all of science is purely experimental

2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randomness

3. i disagree.

>>9032848
>he still believes in MUH SCIENTIFIC METHOD
when you grow up you'll know the truth. the """scientific method"""" that Bill Nye and others spout is nothing but a fiction.
All we have is epistemic anarchism.

>>9032832
Science used to be called natural philosophy for a reason.

Yeah i know it sound a lot like an "argumentum ad antiquitatem" but it's a fact that science was then used to extend philosophy to more "practical" questions such as physics, biology, etc... before these fields became topics of their own.

File: 1499586999710.jpg (123KB, 1000x600px) Image search: [Google]

123KB, 1000x600px

Philosophy is to physics what alchemy is to chemistry

>>9033038
physics is to philosophy

to what psychology is to existentialism

>>9032832
>/sci/ - Science & Math
You seem lost >>>/trash/

>>9032839

>Just... why?

Just... why?

File: 1490417621209.jpg (22KB, 370x323px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 370x323px

In the early days, philosophers where just people who questioned everything. These people went on to become the first scientists. Now, even with how far science has come, we still have people asking the same questions as before. Thoes people are philosophers.

What makes /sci/ mad is that, even with how far science has come, we still don't have the answers.

>>9032967
here's your fucking "you"

>>9032839
I'm looking for a scheme like this, but about math

>>9033196
There's a huge difference between questions we haven't answered yet, and questions with no answer. The latter are stupid questions that philosophers ask and then pretend like they're "solving" or "progressing."

File: 124435656.jpg (382KB, 1907x1075px) Image search: [Google]

382KB, 1907x1075px

>>9033300

>>9033320
But we already answered so many unasnwerable questions. Years ago, we thought the world was just flat. Then we discovered gravity. We thought space was just another ocean filled with water. Then we went there.

There's no reason we can't do everything in the world.

>>9032832
Science: Acquires the data.
Philosophy: Interprets the data.
Engineering: Uses the interpretation of the data.

See how physics isn't listed, but it is a part of all 3.

File: 1499288268544.jpg (32KB, 400x382px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 400x382px

>>9032832 >>9032839
Where is String Theory on this chart?

File: Grothendieckportra_3107171c.jpg (23KB, 460x536px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 460x536px

>>9033338
Where is Algebraic Geometry on this chart?

>>9033413
A part of science is interpreting the data to come to conclusions of the world. Philosophy is considering hypotheticals, and so if anything is the interpretation of the interpretation of results.

>>9033426
the future section

Scientific thought is a branch of philosophy and is rooted in the particular "scientific" philosophy. This is a simple and bare fact.

>>9032832
Philosophy is the foundation for physics but it's also the foundation for Communism and Genderqueer theory and radical feminism so I think when you weigh it all together philosophers are lame, and also unemployable and lazy (I mean, scientists generally have to learn math and how to code, why don't philosophy majors learn anything that takes effort?)

>>9033446
Your interpretation is always a philosophical one that has nothing to do with actual science. People confuse hard science with the philosophical parts of the abstract section of papers.

>>9033435
the charts aren't very complete, they don't indicate how interconnected everything is or all areas, it's like a rough overview.

>>9032839
>Engineering is about classical physics
>Only Thermodynamics left to learn

I'm excited

>>9032832
Physics (math), philosophy, art, and religion are all born of reality filtering through the facets of human perception. They are all attempts at making sense of life. This in itself is not philosophical, is the by product of being critically thinking beings that experience shit. Calm. Your. Tits.

>>9033038
Epistemology is the base of science, read Kuhn. You can't form a paradigm based purely on data

>>9034236
>People confuse the data collection of normal science with the useful part, the paradigm articulation
FTFY

>>9034232
>when you weigh it all together philosophers are lame, and also unemployable and lazy

The best philosophy majors from top college get into Law School & become Lawyers. Some get MBAs & become managers.

But I agree when you say that most Philosophy majors are Shit. Those who failed to get into any kind of Graduate School.

Specially those Marxist, Feminist, Gender Queers & Hippies are shit who say just shitty opinions everyday & don't work.

>>9032832
>trendy materialism
Varieties of materialism are literally the best, most vindicated and most defensible philosophies known to man, though.

>>9033413
Nah
Philosophy: providing "data" with a well-defined meaning and the epistemological framework for actually dealing with "data" which it presupposes

>>9034782
This, but don't actually read Kuhn

>>9034232
>write off all philosophy because social theorists I don't like "use philosophy"
>write off all math because an economic school I dislike "uses math"
That's not how it works, you dank memer
Also
>he hasn't taken the Marx pill yet

File: reality.png (801KB, 1340x1456px) Image search: [Google]

801KB, 1340x1456px

>>9032839
Fixed it.

>>9034950
Goo?

File: stalin hair goals.jpg (520KB, 897x1206px) Image search: [Google]

520KB, 897x1206px

math is the foundation of philosophy

any question can be boiled down to an application of either math or philosophy. a problem that cannot be solved using one can be handled using the other.

>>9035195
I agree with this

I'm always the first at math competions in my state and I get decent scores at national competitions, yet my girlfriend left me for a limp asymmetric piece of shit that wants to study philosophy at Oxford.

I do. The mathematical equations are worthless without thinking out why do the work, rather than thinking 'these work, so I do physics like an engineer!'

>>9034950
600? 600 what?

>>9035195
>or philosophy. a problem that cannot be solved using one can be handled using the other.

agreed

>>9032973

In the same vein, Marc and Adam Smith were philosophers, and made eco a thing.

Modern Physics have roots in Mathematics, Empiricalism, Naturalism and Mataphysics