>IN my previous lecture I criticised the concept of matter as the substance whose attributes we perceive. This way of thinking of matter is, I think, the historical reason for its introduction into science, and is still the vague view of it at the background of our thoughts which makes the current scientific doctrine appear so obvious. Namely we conceive ourselves as perceiving attributes of things, and bits of matter are the things whose attributes we perceive.>In the seventeenth century the sweet simplicity of this aspect of matter received a rude shock. The transmission doctrines of science were then in process of elaboration and by the end of the century were unquestioned, though their particular forms have since been modified. The establishment of these transmission theories marks a turning point in the relation between science and philosophy. The doctrines to which I am especially alluding are the theories of light and sound. I have no doubt that the theories had been vaguely floating about before as obvious suggestions of common sense; for nothing in thought is ever completely new. But at that epoch they were systematised and made exact, and their complete consequences were ruthlessly deduced. It is the establishment of this procedure of taking the consequences seriously which marks the real discovery of a theory. Systematic doctrines of light and sound as being something proceeding from the emitting bodies were definitely established, and in particular the connexion of light with colour was laid bare by Newton.Why do they still cling to erroneous Cartesian concepts?
https://brocku.ca/MeadProject/Whitehead/Whitehead_1920/White1_02.html
Modern science has rendered Philosophy obsolete, ineffective, and reduced it to a reactionary ideology that has no relevance to modern scientific thought. Philosophy therefore belongs on pol, x, or lit, not on sci.
>>16145859>Modern science has rendered Philosophy obsoleteYeah, but that is the problem. Picrel shows real scientists' opinion of the matter vs the faulty popsci opinion.
>>16145917uh... /sci/sisters, our response?
>>16144800Mass, as in particles with mass, exist mathematically in the sense that particles with mass exist as solutions of the Lorentz algebra. By solutions i mean representations.Imagine if no particles had mass and everything was like photons. Would there even be reference frames? Relativistic length contraction at light speed means the universe is just a point and that time freezes.
