The h Bar - 2023-04-03 (page 1 of 2)

« first day (4533 days earlier) ← previous day next day → last day (395 days later) »

2:28 AM

say i have an infinite square well potential, and some state $\psi = \sqrt{\frac{1}{3}}\psi_1 +\sqrt{\frac{2}{3}}\psi_2$

if i want to calculate the expectation values $\langle\hat{p}^2\rangle$ and $\langle\hat{x}\rangle$, are there any shortcuts besides the standard integral?

for the former, i'm using the trick described in physics.stackexchange.com/questions/100390/…, and since $V=0$ i'm getting that $\langle \hat{p}^2\rangle = 2m\langle\hat{H}\rangle$, which is easier to calculate, but i'm not sure this is right

and then for the latter i'm really not sure if there's a simpler method or some symmetry in the integral or something but i feel like there is one

5 hours later…

7:15 AM

@imbAF The ergodic hypothesis is supposed to be a statement about the accessible region of the phase space, i.e. "for any region which the system can access at all, the time it spends there is proportional to the volume". This is exactly the statement that the probability density is uniform on that region.

7:28 AM

And the ergodic theorems don't exactly imply my statement about equiprobability but they do imply that the usual approach of statistical mechanics works. However, this is a subtle issue and you can find a lot of discussion about the (non-)importance of the ergodic hypothesis here.

However, I'm not sure such foundational debates are very useful to you - I think at some point you need to just accept that one of the assumptions of thermodynamics as it is usually taught is that the microcanonical ensemble and its equiprobable distribution works, and it doesn't matter all that much when using it why you think it works

2 hours later…

9:31 AM

0

Q: I dont know how to solve this problem

I have a question about my Physics Stack Exchange post: A drop of water falling down

discussion specific-question

3 hours later…

12:18 PM

Is dualism a compromise between computationalism and solipsism?

Hi

I hav a very good argument for why collections exist in nature and are not born in the mind. This wud b in favor of computationalism

But I also believe qualia are the most sure-fire thing that exist

So to combine both views, we're looking at some compromise, like dualism

@RyderRude "dualism", "computationalism" and "solipsism" are three different viewpoints in three entirely different categories

the question doesn't really make sense

do computers have souls

Dualism is just the position that mental processes are "not of the same kind" as physical processes, with a large spectrum of what "not of the same kind" means across individual dualists

Solipsism can mean different things, but usually it means either "I'm the only thing known to exist" or "I think I'm the only conscious being"

Lol @ACuriousMind . Here's my thought process : 1. Solipsism says only your perceptions exist 2. Computationalis says only computable math exists and subjective stuff is an illusion. 3. Dualism says BOTH these things exist and are equally fundamental

that's not directly a contradiction to either dualism or computationalism, although I have trouble imagining a computationalist dualist

12:32 PM

@Slereah i think so. Give it a hug :P

@RyderRude I don't think you've characterized either of these three viewpoints correctly, I'm afraid

@ACuriousMind Do the processes of the mechanisms of a brain have an ontological existence separate from the material substrate

@ACuriousMind is it not even close enough?

Computationalism is not "only computable math exists", computationalism is not about epistemology. It's just the claim that our minds - and hence, consciousness - are a form of computation

Oh

12:33 PM

although I feel like once you start talking about souls that aren't a magic substance, dualism starts feeling like hairsplitting

but philosophers have never been put off by hairsplitting

this is somewhat counter to a dualist viewpoint, since the next step is usually that computationalism wants to claim that this computation is carried out by the brain as the physical substrate of the computation

So it's just a claim about the mind. And it still allows for non-math things to exist. But i have trouble imagining what non-math things cud exist in this viewpoint if they deny qualia, i.e. the only non-math thing we know to exist @ACuriousMind

@RyderRude again, it's not a claim about existence

@Slereah define magic. I just call it undescribable stuff in the way that qualia are

We already have an example of one undescribale stuff like sentience and qualia

the computationalist already holds some form of epistemology in which some form of objective reality exists. There are brains in that reality, and computationalism is an explanation (or a non-explanation, depending on who you ask :P) for why/how these brains keep producing content that claims they have qualia

12:36 PM

This doesnt mean we believe in superstition woodoo

Question is, if you have some description of a neural network on paper, and someone works out those networks with a pen, is that process sentience

@ACuriousMind i was taking conputationalism to mean that nature exists a computation, not just mind :P

@RyderRude no, it is specifically a position about how consciousness works

@Slereah no, sentience is incommunicable. U can never describe the color red to someone using wavelengths

Are you sure though

also being incommunicable doesn't mean it's not true!

12:38 PM

@Slereah Yeah. 100%. Qualia are not math

@RyderRude Slereah is implicitly referencing the Searle's room argument, a famous thought experiment intended to lead the computationalist viewpoint ad absurdum

Bit bold to claim the lack of sentience just because it is not communicated

@ACuriousMind ok then what would be that philosophical position which says reality IS math and Nothing else?

@ACuriousMind Am I though

I think that guy is sentient

@Slereah you're referencing the argument, I didn't say you agree with Searle!

12:40 PM

I think if two rocks are accidentally disposed in a way that somewhat mirror a neural network, that is also sentience

@Slereah But u just get philosophical zombies! Your subjective experience isnt present in that math

What if sentience is distributed randomly and some rocks have it and some humans do not

aaaa

@RyderRude Is subjective experience present in the meat of your brain

@Slereah math is something u know thru ur subjective experience. So subjective experience cannot be derived from something that was derived using subjective experience

@RyderRude The only modern incarnation of that idea I know of is Tegmark's mathematical universe hypothesis and I don't think this is a particularly popular viewpoint

@RyderRude The math doesn't have to be worked out by someone else

It could be done automatically

also I don't buy that argument

12:42 PM

Subjective experience is the only sure-fire thing that exists. It's what gives meaning to the word "existence"

(in fact I think it's a classic example of a physicist trying to do philosophy without knowing any philosophy)

The other things are "inferred existence". You may believe or may not believe in an objective universe

@ACuriousMind Socrates didn't know anything and that never stopped him

But u cant deny subjective experience. Cuz denying requires subjective experience

@ACuriousMind Ok then I mean that dualism is a compromise between this math universe thing and solipsism

@RyderRude what do you think dualism is

12:44 PM

Becuz i have a very good argument for math universe

again, usually we mean by that the position that there fundamentally two distinct "kinds of stuff", and our body is made of one kind and our mind of the other

@ACuriousMind it's that mind stuff and physics stuff are equally fundamental. Neither reduces to the other

Solipsism isn't the opposite here: it's just saying "Only I exist"

Dualism is the belief in ghosts

it's perfectly possible to be a dualist solipsist: I just happen to be the only body that also has a soul

12:46 PM

Technically dualism just refers to two different fundamental substances, not necessarily mind and matter

But it's usually mind and matter in modern parlance

@ACuriousMind this contradicts solipsism cuz body objectively exists here

Solipsism says only perceptions exist

no it doesn't

And math universe says only math exist

It is one of the more popular pluralism, where there are many such substances

as opposed to monism, where there is only one

epistemic solipsism might say that my perceptions are the only thing I can be certain of

12:47 PM

Oh yeah. It depends on the version of solipsism

but I'm not really aware of anyone seriously arguing that only sensations exist

@ACuriousMind I have seen the claim before

Usually under neutral monism

Then i should say that dualism is a combination of solipsism and math universe

even the most radical skeptics usually arrive at the point where the assumption of an external world that exists is useful even if it is uncertain

Ok so I am finding this dualist view extremely good. Becuz sentience is the most undeniable thing to exist. And collections in naturr are almost undeniable according to an argument i have

12:50 PM

what's this "nature" you keep talking about

I mean that the outside world is objective and has collections in it. Collections dont arise in our mind

How do u know that conscience is separate from other things

Im saying that the ontology of the outside world has collections

@Slereah becuz thats where u start. The existence of every other thing relies on it

Consciousness is the only sure-fire thing that exists. The other things r "inferred existence" that u MAY choose to deny

Now I dont deny objective world out there. Im just saying u MAY deny it

But then how are you sure that everything else is separate from consciousness

@Slereah I'm not sure about that. The only thing i'm sure of is that consciousness is primitive. It is VALID to say that everything else is subsumed in consciousness

But I believe that the outside world is also primitive

As primitive as consciousness

I believe this becuz of how my perceptions behave!

This is my argument @Slereah @ACuriousMind . A person studies how their perception behaves and infers the existence of an outside world. Even a solipsist will be drawn toward this inference

It is extremely natural to me to believe this based on how my perceptions behave

12:56 PM

Yes, that's the conventional way how radical skeptics arrive at the usefulness of scientific reasoning

I think we should all embrace madness instead

It is not inherently monist or dualist: You can believe that, based on what you know about the outside world, you're just a part of it, or you can believe your mind is special and of a different stuff than the outside world

It is also not inherently computationalist or not, either

user image

and it's also not inherently solipsist or not!

@ACuriousMind i believe this is not computationalist becuz i start by saying consciousness is primitive

It is the only sure-fire primitive thing

1:00 PM

All the ideas you mention are pretty obviously unrelated to computationalism since most of them are from millenias before even the notion of computation

But I also believe that the partial ontology of nature is computationalist, based on what i infer about the outside world

Nobody had a theory of the mind even close to computationalism until at least the enlightenment

and even then I would argue not that much until the 20th century

People still put forward stuff like vitalism in the 20th century

aka magic

Sorry i shudnt have said computationalist. I again used that word

Hell people had pretty different notions of souls

What I mean is a "math universe". I believe the partial ontology of the nature is a math universe, based on my inferences from my perceptions @ACuriousMind @Slereah

The other part is what is consciousness which is primitive

This is y i say i am dualist

1:03 PM

@RyderRude There is a difference between primitive epistemology (what you're doing) and a theory of the mind (what computationalism is doing)

Computationalism operates on top of whatever framework you're using to have realized the existence of an external world

Falling for the typical trap of thinking that philosophical positions come as a bundle

The only two philosophical positions are catholocism and communism

Either you believe in ghosts and magic or we are all meat automaton and morality is fake

@ACuriousMind the i should be more explicit : Sentience is primitive and it is not a computation becuz qualia are not math

Given a strong belief in the scientific method etc., computationalism says: Our minds are computations running in our brains, and there is no conceptual difference between such a computation running on a meat sack like a homo sapiens or a silicon wafer

In particular, the silicon wafer running the same computation is in every precise sense of the word as "conscious" as a human

@Slereah magic is pseudo science. In my view, the other side of the dual is undescribable

I dont claim u can do black magic with the other side of this dualism

That wud b pseudo science

unfortunately magic doesn't have a solid definition

Unlike science people haven't really been working on the demarcation problem of magic

I mean I guess they have, but it's a pretty wide field

sometimes things get called magic even if they're essentially scientific ideas that happen to just not work

1:09 PM

i wudnt say magic is a derogatory term if its just used to refer to incommunicable ideas like sentience or qualia

Incommunicable ideas are real

They r part of nature

who is calling qualia magic?

What if ur wrong and all ideas are communicable

Magic is mostly that claim of "alternative physics"

You are just poor at it

@Slereah i guess they cud be..

But idk.. how wud u even begin to communicate that

1:11 PM

@Slereah Reverse Wittgenstein? Of which we cannot speak, does not exist?

mb we are doing it right now and you're not seeing it

Beaming thoughts into each other's mind

user image

what if you are the only non-conscious being in fact

Then i wudnt b able to wonder about that

that's exactly what a p-zombie would say!

That wasnt for u guys to believe!

U can sure believe im a zombie

But since i know im wondering about this, i am sentient

I've been in unity with the universal mind all this time while chatting no biggie

1:15 PM

quick, ask it what the hell is up with spin

Ok i shall have to find a proof that sentience is incommunicable, even in principle

I think the proof will go smthing like : " The existence of language is inferred from sentience"

So u cant use language to derive sentience back

This is the vague idea i have

This idea is y i hate the math universe

@Slereah Bohm's Implicate order :)

Not all things that are sentient can speak, and not all things that speak are sentient

@ACuriousMind That explains politics

Lol

Im starting to believe computationalists r indeed not sentient

That wud explain a lot about their view

Just a joke :P. No insulting computationalists

1:19 PM

I think you should perhaps first figure out what you think about determinism

Like what r the interesting questions about that? @ACuriousMind

because while computationalism - the specific idea of the mind as computation - is new (remember "computation" is only about a century old as a concept!), the idea that everything might be determined is rather old

@RyderRude A very similar kind of discrepancy between how it feels to be a human and what determinism thinks about the world

Computationalism is slightly related to mechanism theory for animal behaviour I think

we feel as if we make decisions

Oh

1:20 PM

Which was popular in the... 16th century?

but determinism says there aren't really any decisions, what our body does is a complete product of physical laws

I've thought about determinism before

I came across very interesting stuff

Thought experiments

If u assume a pre-destined time travel

Here goes

I do think that the computationalist position on "denying qualia" is very similar to the way in which determinists have to "deny free will"

So if determinism is real, ur time travel wont change anything thats already happened

but it's more straightforward to talk about because determinism isn't load with some specific theory of how the mind works

1:22 PM

So the problm: do u stil choose to time travel?

17th century apparently

Man a Machine (French: L'homme Machine) is a work of materialist philosophy by the 18th-century French physician and philosopher Julien Offray de La Mettrie, first published in 1747. In this work, de La Mettrie extends Descartes' argument that animals are mere automatons, or machines, to human beings. He denies dualism and existence of the soul as a substance separate from matter. Karl Popper discusses de La Mettrie's claim in relation to evolution and quantum mechanics. "Yet the doctrine that man is a machine was argued most forcefully in 1751, long before the theory of evolution became generally...

The answer ive found is : yes

apparently even for MAN

"time travel" is not really relevant to determinism since as far as we know physical laws don't really allow for it

@RyderRude Maybe an infinite number of changes to a timeline can also be deterministic. Like an infinite series, it's infinite but each term can be predicted by a simple formula

1:23 PM

@ACuriousMind trust me. U come across a goldmine of intetesting stuff if u do deterministic time travel thought experiments

As a sci-fi fan I've come across a lot of time travel and I think a lot of the time the stuff would be better if it didn't have time travel :P

@ACuriousMind ok lemme ask. U know time travel wont chnage anything cuz u r already living in the future. Do u still choose to time travel to save the world

@ACuriousMind They just have a very pessimistic attitude to changing history

This is a VERY interesting experiment

Pls share ur thoughts @ACuriousMind @Slereah @Amit

I think this experiment has VERY high philosophical utility to the world

Why is it of utility? I'm curious

1:27 PM

Cuz it reveals to u the importance of the illusion of choice in determinism

Trust mee. Try to choose the answer

This is very mindblowing when i thought about this

@RyderRude does it not change anything because the world is a deterministic block universe or because there's a time police?

The world is deterministic. U r already living in the outcome of whatever happened in the past

@RyderRude mb all of this is very mindblowing to you because you just found out about it

The thing is, when you say "You know time travel won't change anything" is it an indisputable kind of knowledge? You know, even the sun rising tomorrow is disputable after all... this nuclear thingy can blow any day lol

@Slereah noo i thought about this years ago

1:30 PM

It is not rly new ground, is what I'm saying

@Amit no, assume fictional physics works so that past is unchangeable

It has been pretty old ideas since uuuuuh Oedipus Rex, I guess

Regardless of time travel

Oh yeah. Its not a hard idea

@RyderRude then obviously if the time travel is already part of the past I'm not actually deciding anything - either I will travel back because anything else would be inconsistent, and whatever subjective reason I come up with is entirely irrelevant, or I won't travel back because my time travel is not part of the past

Yeah, but u have the illusion of choice @ACuriousMind

1:31 PM

@RyderRude If it's an irrefutable fact to you then yeah you won't try to save the future (you may go back to the past to throw an apple at Newton or something, that's something else). But I see it is related to free choice, we don't take action where we feel powerless

Do u choose to time travel

@Amit This is y i say it's mind blowing!

The answer i've arrived at is "yes"

U shud choose to do it

Plss think about saving the world

Ok i shud give one last piece of info

@RyderRude It's true that what we do is constrained by our belief of what we can do. That's basically what all the mentors and coaches harp on about lol. "YES WE ARE CAN" er sorry grammar

U dont know the past

@RyderRude I don't think this is a meaningful question: It depends on the very specific information I have at the time of decision about the nature of time travel and the past.

This is crucial info : "u dont know the past"

@ACuriousMind assume time travel cant change anything thats alreadt happened. And u dont know wht exactly happened in the past

I mean u dont know the outcome of the thing u r trying to change

But the outcome is fixed

1:36 PM

@RyderRude The one thing I can see from such a dilemma that's useful but there are many other ways to see it, is something quite Feynman'esque in fact: just 'cause you may not achieve anything isn't a reason not to go and have an adventure

@Amit i think ur answer is it

I just phrase my answer differently

Ok heres my answer which makes clear the role of ur illusion of choice

Should i reveal my answer

Pls make more attempts

But I can't preach anyone to be adventurous on the other hand... everyone has a red line about this stuff, some people's red line is reached the first time they get "sand in their shoes" lol, I don't wanna be responsible for such misfortunes ^_^

@Amit no, my answer is not a matter of opinion

Well ok sir, go on sir, please sir

"U shud do it" is the objectively true choice

1:39 PM

I'm not gonna argue (probably)

@ACuriousMind @Slereah pls also share ur thoughts on the solution

Ok i will share my solution aftr 15 mins :)

Ofc it may not b correct

@RyderRude If I know that time travel cannot change the past, then I have trouble imagining a scenario in which I would have have to decide this. What is the situation here where I could reasonably hope to improve my future if I cannot change anything I know about the past?

@RyderRude So we know the future!!

Yes, u cud hope to improve it. This is y u must do it!

This is the crucial part of my argument

Ok but i think wut im saying doesnt make sense

If ur present is fixed, it doesnt make sense to improve it

But regardless, i will share my solution

Gimme time to phrase it

I think an organism is not programmed to believe that the present is fixed. That's why it fights to the last when there is a threat...

1:47 PM

"Suppose a supervillain may Or may not have escaped with nuclear codes yesterday. And the security of the area is weak. U know this and u have a time travel portal that u can choose to use and shoot the supervillain. But u also know that nothing that u will do will change the present

By choosing not to do it, u will guarantee that u r living in the present where he did escape with the nucleae codes

So the purpose of choosing to do it is to ensure that u r living in the good present

Cuz a "good present" and "u not using the portal" CANNOT simultaneously be true

@ACuriousMind @Amit @Slereah Pls share ur thoughts on this solution

like, you can't send me back with a task like "kill Hitler" because Hitler wasn't killed by a time traveler, so why would I ever decide to try that

Nah I'm good

@ACuriousMind but in this case, u know the outcome. In my example, i said the supervillain may nor may not have

U know hitler wasnt killed

The supervillain may or may not have, to ur knowledge. But whatever the outcome was is fixed

In that case I don't see how time travel is relevant

@ACuriousMind its becuz u deduce that a "good present" and "u choosing not to time travel" cannot simultaneously be true

So to ensure a good present, u cant let the latter be true

1:57 PM

I mean this is not operationally different from me deciding to use some other sci-fi device to kill the villian in the present

you're just asking me if I'd use a sci-fi device to try to save the world

to which the answer is "yes" but reveals nothing to me I didn't already know :P

Yeah, but the outcome is pre-determined here

So it's a twist

the outcome is predetermined either way if you believe in determinism

Hence why I brought up Oedipus Rex

You cannot cheat fate etc

Yeah, exactly! So this is y i said this experiment has extreme philosophical utility

the time travel is completely irrelevant!

1:59 PM

Becuz u dont need time travel for the implications to be true

Or if you want the one where you can cheat fate, Peter Damian had some arguments about it

and time travel

The crucial thing this reveals is the importance of the illusion of free will in a deterministic world @ACuriousMind @Slereah

This is y this is mindblowing!

It has utility to the real world, if u believe the world is deterministic

I'm not sure why this reveals any importance of "free will". I'm "deciding" to the save the world because I'm predetermined to decide that

@ACuriousMind u cud also argue that, since the future is fixed, u shud choose not to do anything

I know about hidden variable theories, but this is a hidden logic theory! ^_^

2:01 PM

This argument is a refutal of that!

I'm afraid that "Does philosophy have any utility to the real world" is one of those unsolved philosophical problem

@RyderRude what does "should choose" mean here if everything is determined?

@ACuriousMind exercising ur illusion of free will!

No one is choosing anything, it's just physical laws running their course

@ACuriousMind like suppose u know the world is deterministic. U still choose things in practice, dont u?

Like u cud choose to drink water right now

2:03 PM

I see that I was spot-on when I said you should first figure out what you think about determinism because trying to argue about computationalism :P

This argument reveals the importance of exercising the illusion of free will!!

As I said before I also think just reading some basic intro philosophy may help

The illusion of free will indisputably exists

Or at least learn about it from dinosaurs

user image

Do u guys deny that the illusion of free will exists in a deterministic world?

2:05 PM

I certainly feel as if I choose things

what's your point

@ACuriousMind u cud argue that, since the future is fixed, u shud choose not to save the world!

the determinist/computationalist just says that that's how the algorithm that determines my actions from my sensory input feels "from the inside"

I mean u shud choose not to do anything about it

what the heck does "shud" mean

should :P

2:06 PM

@RyderRude I think all it shows is that if you take certain ideas which are questionable as unquestionable you'll end up taking nonsensical actions

and what does "should" mean here

Exercising ur illusion of free will!

you're just saying the same few phrases all over again

but I don't see how "the future is already fixed" leads to "I should not do anything"

do u have free will if your mom is making you do something, though

Sartre would say so, but is he right

@ACuriousMind some people argue that!!

Some people argue that it leads to that!

2:08 PM

@RyderRude calm down my dude

This is y i came up with this supervillain story!

@Slereah sorry:P

is that the same kind of people who think atheism leads to not getting out of bed in the morning?

Idk i thought this was a mainstream argument in the determinism discussion :P

Maybe i just invested time on a strawman:P

I don't even understand what the logic here is supposed to be

I don't even think what people call free will is something you really feel

2:10 PM

It's like the kind of absurdity you get from taking utilitarianism to its ultimate conclusion: if the human race will be gone, the net suffering will be zero which is better than the human race existing lol

People will feel that their choice is free when their choices aren't constrained by specific factors

I personally think it FEELS like their logic works in a deterministic world

Nobody feels free from determinism

But it needs close inspection

determinists generally just argue that morality/any other "decisions" people think they make are deterministic products of the past just like everything else

2:11 PM

@Amit lol. What r the arguments agains this one

@RyderRude That it's idiotic! lol

your mind's an algorithm that given the input "the supervillain exists and will destroy the world" outputs "I kill the supervillain"

I personally felt itd b a serious discussion :P

Some things are not even worth criticism

@ACuriousMind yeah

I just thought that their logic naively worked in a deterministic world

2:12 PM

@Amit it's called anti-natalism and an actual, if fringe, position

user image

But yeah, it's a strawman. Most determinists r not discussinf this stuff

they were very wise dinosaurs indeed

Sorry for wasting ur time with the pseudo mindblowing stuff :P

@ACuriousMind Oh thanks. Then @RyderRude take a look at it if you want to :) I just don't feel like going into that because for me it's too absurd

2:13 PM

I knew this wud b a serious discussion lol

oh, personally I'm not gonna debate this :P

I don't think time exists so such issues are immaterial imo

So y r the believers of this philosophy even alive

Maybe they fear pain idk

I guess this philosophy's believers wud choose to delete themselves if its painless

sigh...they don't necessarily think it's better to be dead than alive, they think it's better to not have existed at all

you're very good at building strawpeople

Does anyone know anything about physical and non physical sheets when talking about the S matrix?

2:30 PM

@RyderRude c.f. youtube.com/… , Feynman goes Zen monk a bit

2:44 PM

@Amit this guy always makes fun of philosophers :P

@DIRAC1930 what do sheets mean in this context

@RyderRude The best philosophers always do, don't they

Ummm... Yeah

@Amit Occasionally they will say that only philosophers should rule society

But Feynman didnt like the field

It's the degree of minimum arrogance a philosopher needs to believe he has something new to say :)

2:46 PM

@RyderRude I don't know any specifics for the S-matrix, but generally "sheets" for functions in physics refers to the sheets of a branch cut

@Slereah That's Plato, the first fascist right? :)

@ACuriousMind thanks

Feynman has a huge rant about how the philosophy chair problem was uselesss

But i think he gave a strawman. I dont remember it exactly

@Slereah I'm sure they're just arguing we should all become philosophers ;)

He started talking about atoms of the chair

@ACuriousMind greeeat point

ah, classic solution to the problem: everything that's made out of chair molecules is a chair

2:52 PM

I think philosophy complements physics a lot

In my limited experience

@RyderRude I think that the mere fact that he even paid attention meant he took interest in philosophy. I rather think that he didn't like how philosophy is taught (and probably some of the people in the faculties he saw) rather than having a problem with philosophy itself...

@ACuriousMind Why not use the Anaxagoras method instead

Where everything is made of every molecule in the universe

that way you can explain how things can transform

There's a little bit of chair molecules in us, so that we could perhaps become a chair

"In everything there is a share of everything"

@RyderRude BTW, if you ever seen his lectures titled "The character of physical law"... if you would rename the series to "On the philosophy of science", I think hardly anyone would raise an eyebrow

He was the opposite of a monist

There is probably a little bit of garbage in your soul

Lemme google monist

2:57 PM

It helps to fertilize da love man

@Amit i hadnt seen it yet. I just thought the only interest of Feynman in philosophy was to own philosophers in arguments

"An intriguing account (Marmodoro 2015, 2017) suggests that Anaxagorean ingredients are not material; rather they are primitive physical qualitative powers or dispositions (in the parlance of contemporary metaphysics, they are “gunky”). "

Gross

@RyderRude It was more than that as far as one can tell, but that too lol

@Slereah oh there's a lot of garbage in my soul, I've been around the internet

« first day (4533 days earlier) ← previous day next day → last day (395 days later) »

Transcript for

Apr '233

The h Bar

General chat for Physics SE (physics.stackexchange.com). For M...

join this room
about this room

00:00

06:00

12:00

18:00

all times are UTC

site design / logo © 2024 Stack Exchange Inc; legal

mobile