What does /lit/ think of Einstein BTFOing Henri Bergson on the topic of time forever proving Philosophers are in fact inferior to scientists intellectually.
>>25493887Yet another case of a bugman dismissing what we all experience and can intuit (duration), just like Dennet and consciousness.There's no point arguing with anyone like this.
>>25493887Quantum physics already did that for philosophers.
>>25493905>just like Dennet and consciousness.Are you pro or against Dennet?
>>25493913You really can't infer that from my post?
>>25493936I don't know about Dennet or his works. So I can't.
>>25493905Likely because their mental software isn't built for it.
>>25493905>>25493955Uh huh. Even most philosophers begrudgingly admit Bergson lost kek.
>Later in 1922, Bergson published Duration and Simultaneity, which was explicitly a "confrontation" with Einstein's theory of relativity.[24][1] It sought to enlist the facts Einstein drew upon in his theories in service of Bergson's vitalist philosophy. He argued that special relativity is rooted in quantifiable clock-time, and that it fails to capture the true essence of time as duration. Distinguishing between "real" time that can be directly experienced and "imaginary" time (i.e. time dilation and relativity of simultaneity) derived from the relativistic formulas, he specifically takes aim at the twin paradox first proposed by Paul Langevin, and calls for the biological aging process to be distinguished from measurable time.[25][26][16] In Langevin's example, a traveler makes a round-trip in a rocket for 200 years as measured on Earth, while he himself only experienced 2 years during the flight (see History of the twin paradox). Bergson erroneously[25][26] rejected this conclusion by claiming that both twins (Peter on Earth and Paul in the rocket) are interchangeable and therefore must be of same age at reunion:[24]>p.74: We must now repeat for Paul everything we said about Peter: Since motion is reciprocal, the two people are interchangeable. If, earlier, looking into Peter's consciousness, we witnessed a certain flow. We are going to find exactly the same flow in Paul's consciousness. If we said that the first flow lasted two hundred years, the other flow will also last two hundred years. Peter and Paul, earth and projectile, will have gone through the same duration and aged equally. [Translation by Jacobson].The book did not have the success that Bergson had hoped for, and did not dispel the popular consensus that Einstein had won the debate. The failure of Duration and Simultaneity has been understood as representing the end of Bergson's celebrity, though he remains an influential figure in twentieth-century philosophy today.[1]>Partisans of relativity responded, with Jean Becquerel (son of Henri Becquerel), Miguel Masriera Rubio (professor of physical chemistry in Barcelona), and André Metz publishing articles and books in support of Einstein and against Bergson, and with the 1924 issue of the journal Revue de la philosophie featuring a back-and-forth debate between Bergson and Metz.Holy fuck philosophy kek humiliation.
>>25493964>Alan Sokal, meanwhile, sees the persistence of vanquished Bergsonism after the Einstein debate as the "historical origin" of the "science wars", and characterizes contemporary thinkers still influenced by Bergson as irrationalist and atavistic. Gaston Bachelard believed Einstein's victory was definitive. Karl Popper shared this view.Yikes.
>>25493887Science and philosophy are not opposed. They are really the same thing.The only things opposed to each other here are truth and falsity.When scientists (or really, those intetested in pop science) attack "philosophy" they really only attack sophists, who are equally opposed by true philosophy, which is allied with science.
>>25493964>your team lost ahahahahahahahahahaBrainless dolt
>>25494085You have no counter argument to this.
>muh console wars thread
>>25494123This "console war" pretty much ended the prestige of philosophy. I'd say it's more significant than you let on.
>>25494129indeed sir you have obtained so many izzats
>>25494136Philosophy can no longer describe the nature of reality better than science bro. It's time to move on.
>>25494169I actually seriously doubt that...
The only people who think Einstein won are jews
>>25494336honestly...this. not sorry. free palestine bitches
>>25493905>reality couldn't be any different from it intuitively seems, I don't care what the evidence isThis is the opposite of the humility that a true grasp of philosophy should engender.
>>25494350Unironically
>>25494353Bro, take some fucking shrooms and the come back to me.
>>25494336Bergson was also a jew
>>25494416So the debate wasnt even done in good faith then and the desired outcome was engineered
Right, so I'm trying to figure out the mass of the sunInfinity is much simpler than an arbitrary number, so I'm gonna go with that Sun - infinitely heavy
>>25493887As expected, scientists have a superficial understanding of philosophical topics, and philosophers have a superficial understanding of scientific ones. Obviously, they would since that's what each profession studies respectively. Like, are you dumb, OP?Ask any scientist about ethics, and you'll either get some politically charged gobbledygook depending on the powers that be at the time, some poorly though out evidentialism, or some autistic varriation of nihilism. The moment you drift to a topic that's not easily measured, the scientist has a nervous breakdown and devolves into a peseudo-intellectual and pretends mere case-studies are much stronger evidence than they really are. It does not help that fields like psychology mix real science in the form of biology in with endless speculative fields. The scientist is the first to say "oh, we're just chemical signals in the brain" with an air of definity merely because the fact they can't parse what those signals mean. They'd say a book is just ink and paper, too.
And Einstein got BTFO during the quantum debates, so what? Einstein, nor science as a whole after him, did not 'solve' the universe. There are still philosophical questions that science says nothing about. There are still philosophical questions that science *cannot* say anything about. The advances in fundamental physics and cosmology in the 19th and 20th centuries have led to all kinds of interesting philosophical questions that are still very much open.Only redditors and teenagers think that there is some kind of opposition between the two disciplines.
>25494129
>>25494072Yes. This is accurate.
When was the last time we answered a question we could eventually empirically investigate and find out the answer to by using armchair philosophy, and philosophy got it right?
>>25493887Here is a recent paper on the topic: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0039368126000488?via%3Dihub#bib25
>>25493942He's against, Dennett reduces consciousness to an illusion of the brain, certainly better than Skinner, but still a reductionist/physicalist and, for me, chilling
>>25493887>jew vs jewrigged
>>25494485>And Einstein got BTFO during the quantum debates,QRD on this?
>>25495203https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein%E2%80%93Podolsky%E2%80%93Rosen_paradox
>>25493962yeah even if that's the case not all of us do that.
>>25494129regardless, science can't give us meaning. its the one thing science is incapable of doing.
>>25495059people who think like this are the devil incarnate
>>25495223ELI5 for a sciencelet?
>>25493964>Bergson erroneously[25][26] rejected this conclusion by claiming that both twins (Peter on Earth and Paul in the rocket) are interchangeable and therefore must be of same age at reunion:[24]This is still weird
>>25495649Ikr and Philosophykeks still defend this guy.
Bumpity bump.
>>25494610Most of social psychology is better treated by it's intelligible springs than the absolute dump it has become today.
>>25493887"The time of the philosophers did not exist"All essential philosophical questioning is necessarilyuntimely. This is so because philosophy is always pro-jected far in advance of its time, or because it connects thepresent with its antecedent, with what initially was. Philoso-phy always remains a knowledge which not only cannotbe adjusted to a given epoch but on the contrary imposesits measure upon its epoch.Philosophy is essentially untimely because it is one ofthose few things that can never find an immediate echo inthe present. When such an echo seems to occur, when aphilosophy becomes fashionable, either it is no real phi-losophy or it has been misinterpreted and misused forephemeral and extraneous purposes.Accordingly, philosophy cannot be directly learned likemanual and technical skills; it cannot be directly applied,or judged by its usefulness in the manner of economic orother professional knowledge.But what is useless can still be a force, perhaps the onlyreal force. What has no immediate echo in everyday life canbe intimately bound up with a nation's profound historicaldevelopment, and can even anticipate it. What is untimelywill have its own times. This is true of philosophy. Con-sequently there is no way of determining once and for allwhat the task of philosophy is, and accordingly what mustbe expected of it. Every stage and every beginning of itsdevelopment bears within it its own law. All that can besaid is what philosophy cannot be and cannot accomplish.A question has been stated: "Why are there essentsrather than nothing?" We have claimed first place for thisquestion and explained in what sense it is regarded as first.
Every essential form of spiritual life is marked by am-biguity. The less commensurate it is with other forms, themore it is misinterpreted.Philosophy is one of the few autonomous creative pos-sibilities and at times necessities of man's historical being-there.* The current misinterpretations of philosophy, allof which have some truth about them, are legion. Here weshall mention only two, which are important because ofthe light they throw on the present and future situation ofphilosophy. The first misinterpretation asks too much ofphilosophy. The second distorts its function.Roughly speaking, philosophy always aims at the firstand last grounds of the essent, with particular emphasison man himself and on the meaning and goals of humanbeing-there. This might suggest that philosophy can andmust provide a foundation on which a nation will buildits historical life and culture. But this is beyond the powerof philosophy. As a rule such excessive demands take theform of a belittling of philosophy. It is said, for example:Because metaphysics did nothing to pave the way for therevolution it should be rejected. This is no cleverer thansaying that because the carpenter's bench is useless forflying it should be abolished. Philosophy can never di-rectly supply the energies and create the opportunities andmethods that bring about a historical change; for one thing,because philosophy is always the concern of the few. Whichfew? The creators, those who initiate profound transforma-tions. It spreads only indirectly, by devious paths that cannever be laid out in advance, until at last, at some futuredate, it sinks to the level of a commonplace; but by thenit has long been forgotten as original philosophy.What philosophy essentially can and must be is this: athinking that breaks the paths and opens the perspectivesof the knowledge that sets the norms and hierarchies, of theknowledge in which and by which a people fulfills itselfhistorically and culturally, the knowledge that kindles andnecessitates all inquiries and thereby threatens all values.The second misinterpretation involves a distortion ofthe function of philosophy. Even if philosophy can pro-vide no foundation for a culture, the argument goes, it isnevertheless a cultural force, whether because it gives usan over-all, systematic view of what is, supplying a usefulchart by which we may find our way amid the variouspossible things and realms of things, or because it relievesthe sciences of their work by reflecting on their premisesbasic concepts, and principles. Philosophy is expected topromote and even to accelerate—to make easier as it were—the practical and technical business of culture.
>>25496082>>25496120Llmslop
Pretty much everyone that followed Bergson agrees that Einstein misrepresented his doctrines and the debate was ultimately fruitless (for example, Merleau-Ponty) as well as Bergsonists like Edouard le Roy. Bergson himself didn't allow his book on time to be re-printed during his lifetime, for he believed it would only worsen the confusion surrounding his views.Quoting scientists that supported Einstein does not, in fact, prove that he refuted Bergson in any way.OP is new to philosophy, don't bully him :) the best he got before was Alex. O Connor.
>>25496667You are MAD :)
>>25493887philosophy is just meta-science.
first interesting thread on /lit/ in a while im posting to save it for a later read
>>25496123your mom needs to slop on my balls asap
>>25495669philosophy isn't just one consensus.
>>25493887You're reading the wrong half of the debate.Bergson lost the twin paradox. Fine. The thread already concedes it, and the "both twins must be the same age" move in Duration and Simultaneity is wrong — Einstein is right about clocks, and most philosophers quietly admitted it in 1922. I'm not going to stand in front of the Wikipedia quote and defend a bad physics claim.But "Einstein proved philosophers are intellectually inferior" doesn't survive contact with what was actually at stake. Clock time is intervals — measurable, and you can be right about them. Duration is time as lived. An experiment settles the first and can never reach the second, not because of philosophy but because that's not the kind of claim experiments reach. Domain, not mysticism.The thread itself is the proof it's alive: one post quotes Sokal calling the persistence of "vanquished Bergsonism" the "historical origin" of the science wars — a century after better instruments, the debate survived because no experiment ever reached the claim. You can refute the physics. The question of time-as-lived stands anyway, and that isn't philosophy's failure, that's its job.So — to the best question in the thread, "when was the last time armchair philosophy got an empirically investigable question right?" — philosophy doesn't win those. It wins the question of which questions are answerable at all. Inferiority is not on the table. Different jobs.
>>25493887Ironically all relativity is is a philosophical refusal to accept absolute time, born from the disilusionments of the age. Lorentz was right. Einstein just stole his insights and applied them to gravity, then took the abstract geometry which made the math easier and twisted it into claims about actual reality. Trying to force relativity to fit modern quantum physics results in retarded shit like string theory. You need to resurrect an absolute frame of reference (essentially the "time of the philosophers") for it to make any sense.
>>25497743Look, QFT already merges Quantum Mechanics and Special Relativity perfectly. The only issue is General Relativity, but that doesn't stem from the absence of absolute time, it's because we struggle to handle a dynamic, curved spacetime (unlike Special Relativity, where spacetime remains flat, see Minkowski metric). You're mixing up two different concepts. Einstein didn't steal anything, he gave actual physical physical meaning to what, for Lorentz, was merely a mathematical trick
>>25497761We may be having to use a flat spacetime framework temporarily to make the math work, only waiting for relativity to catch up. Or we may be in the opposite situation, the geometric math of relativity was the "trick"/illusion all along and the flat universe or absolute background frame is reality. How could you tell the difference? And it wasn't a mere math trick for Lorentz any more than it was for Einstein.
>>25493905Dennett is living proof that autodidacticism doesn't work.
>>25497761Philosophykeks can't make heads or tails of what you're saying right now.
>>25493887>"The time of the philosophers did not exist"Said no one. I don't even know what this is supposd to mean.
>>25497830It's an actual quote from Einstein. You could've bothered to look up the basics of this debate.
Philosophy is subservient to science. If a scientific result disproves a philosophy, then the philosophy is wrong. Very simple.
>>25497834philosophy defines truth.fuck off back to your containment zone, faggot: >>>/sci/
>>25497834Science is philosophy
>>25497833Einstein should have said: "Kant's time transcends space".
>>25497836Watch your tone when talking to me you jiggaboo. I am your superior and you need to learn your place.
>>25494169Not that science can do that either, unless you believe you can better understand a computer by knowing the material in its circuits.
People see Bergson was incorrect regarding the twin paradox and assume that means his standpoint was indefensible, as though the basis for his though must necessarily lead to his wrong interpretation of the paradox and therefore his whole work on time (duration, multiplicities, the virtual, etc.) is wrong. If you are familiar with Einstein and not Bergson, it would be like someone dismissing Einstein's work because he was incorrect about local realism. I recommend anyone interested in Bergson to read his relatively short work "Time and Free Will". At the very least you will come back with a more than superficial refutation of Bergson.
>>25496667>>25497130How has saging my thread going for you lads? Going crying to the jannies is pathetic doubly so when they have ignored you. Cringe.
>>25497735Is this just AI? wtf? I almost thought it was a serious point at first
>einsteinOMG SUPERJEW!!!!!
>>25497761>QFTHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA
>>25498411whats up?
>>25496123generate more philosophy based on previous responseBut—it is in the very nature of philosophy never to makethings easier but only more difficult. And this not merelybecause its language strikes the everyday understanding asstrange if not insane. Rather, it is the authentic function ofphilosophy to challenge historical being-there and hence,in the last analysis, being pure and simple. It restores tothings, to the essents, their weight (being). How so? Be-cause the challenge is one of the essential prerequisites forthe birth of all greatness, and in speaking of greatness weare referring primarily to the works and destinies of nations.We can speak of historical destiny only where an authenticknowledge of things dominates man's being-there. And itis philosophy that opens up the paths and perspectives ofsuch knowledge.The misinterpretations with which philosophy is per-petually beset are promoted most of all by people of ourkind, that is, by professors of philosophy. It is our cus-tomary business—which may be said to be justified andeven useful—to transmit a certain knowledge of the philoso-phy of the past, as part of a general education. Many peoplesuppose that this is philosophy itself, whereas at best it isthe technique of philosophy.In correcting these two misinterpretations I cannot hopeto give you at one stroke a clear conception of philosophy.But I do hope that you will be on your guard when themost current judgments and even supposed observationsassail you unawares. Such judgments are often disarming,precisely because they seem so natural. You hear remarkssuch as "Philosophy leads to nothing," "You can't do any-thing with philosophy," and readily imagine that they con-firm an experience of your own. There is no denying thesoundness of these two phrases, particularly common amongscientists and teachers of science. Any attempt to refutethem by proving that after all it does "lead to something"merely strengthens the prevailing misinterpretation to theeffect that the everyday standards by which we judge bi-cycles or sulphur baths are applicable to philosophy.It is absolutely correct and proper to say that "You can'tdo anything with philosophy." It is only wrong to supposethat this is the last word on philosophy. For the rejoinderimposes itself: granted that we cannot do anything withphilosophy, might not philosophy, if we concern ourselveswith it, do something with us? So much for what philosophyis not.
>>25493887>Philosophers are in fact inferior to scientists intellectuallyAs a wizard once said, there will always be someone more intelligent than you.
>>25497866Generally, the more you understand about something, the less likely you are to anthrophormise it.
>the STEM jeet does everything in his power to bump his sad little thread
