Science is a few things:1. Knowledge (this is where the word comes from) to be acquired and information that can be applied (technology, chemistry, cooking, etc, are all applied sciences)2. The method of “fuck around and find out” (causality/repeatability as it is - with the additional nuances of the reproducibility crisis - each stroke of a paint brush won’t be exactly the same - things like the big bang already happened - etc) which is the bare minimum of science - “remember kids, the only real difference between proper science and fucking around is writing is down”3. The scientific community and overall consensus, peer review, scientific dogma (consider that half of the scientific community can’t even tell you what a woman is - it is perhaps a borderline cult at present), etc, that ostracizes dissent and divergent thinking 4. Physics, nature, reality, as it is - Einstein himself did not see science as merely something to apply in the one sided sense; he saw it as a background symphony, playing its cosmic tune independently of our ability to listen in; it lies in wait for all time; “the music of the spheres”; he directly compared it to Mozart “locating” already existent beauty, or harmony, while people like Beethoven merely constructed their music Any questions?
>>16935316Why isn't the fundamental theorem of calculus an ontological principle, with the dialectic of cumulative and instantaneous change present in every aspect of reality?Given that modern physics began with calculus, and it is still essential for modern physics, would it be that surprising to find out that the heart of calculus describes the nature of reality itself?
>>16935321Math describes everything. It might even be reality itself. You cannot remove math (quantification) from reality.
>>16935324Math cannot describe the endless subjective flavors of experience or "vibes" we experience, among other things.Math is th study of precise relationships, but not all relationships are precise; the vast majority are not. Living relationships, for example. Every organism is situated within a vast web of interdependent relationships with nonliving and other living entities. Chaotic mutual influence and not linear cause and effect is the rule for the universe, not the exception. Math can describe such systems at best in part and probabilistically.To imagine calculus ontologically requires thinking about it imprecisely, in terms of analogy.
>>16935327>Math cannot describe the endless subjective flavors of experience or "vibes" we experience, among other thingsOf course it can. It’s just so finely tuned we’ll never be able to assess it. In some hypothetical existence where everything everywhere every-when existed all at once, there’d be mathematical odds to literally everything.
>>16935327>Living relationships, for example. The odds of you having sex or not having sex are very real anon … I’m sorry …
>>16935316Scoence is a natural philosophy under which unobserved phenomena are extrapolated from observed phenomena. It is not the knowledge itself.It is not the way you aquire knowledge.It is absolutely not a collection of institutions.It is a world view through which one can attempt to understand the natural world "as it is." At its core is the concept of uniformitarianism. That is "the fundamental nature of reality does not vary with space and time." If you do the same thing in two places at two different times, the same outcome will occur. Otherwise, there is something different about what you did.Any questions?
>>16935316>Rhetorical question>Answers:>1. Etymological fallacy>2. Boomer meme>3. Tranny derangement syndrome>4. Einstein9/11 made me reply
>>16935466>Etymological fallacyCope more retard
I love how simple science is at its basest and yet people are pretentious enough to pretend that it’s not
>>16935316Cool.
>>16935409So it is not random?
I like wheels Vroooom
>>16937550Define "random."
>>16939887Family Guy
>>16935316>Einstein music analogywhat the fuck is that supposed to mean?musical pleasure is based on a mixture of learned cultural schemata and evolutionary response to cycles of consonance and dissonance in auditory stimulus as an analogy for tension and release in other expressions of consciousness, such as storytelling or sex. There is nothing more objectively true about this for Mozart's music than Beethoven's. It's just a matter of personal preferencethe rest of the shit you typed out was even dumber than that. go sit in a corner and think about your life
>>16935316Good to know.
>>16935316/board
.
ok
>>16935321Math is still an abstraction. You need abstractions up until you reach hypothesis and experiment then all abstractions go out the window. Thats why math isnt physics
>>16958246>Thats why math isnt physicsGod you sound retarded. Snowflakes have SIX sides you FAGGOT.
>>16935316I used the scientific method and AI to produce original novel results for quantum information theory. at least 1 original paper.Don't believe me? All u have to do is show this image to ur smartest AI and ask what it means.
>>16935316k
>>16935324Lmfao
I need to know the first step in science experiment or I have lost faith in this board95% of you cannot answer
Bump
>>16935316Indeed.
>>16935316Nikols, is that you? Can you go back to crying on discord about not being a woman or something this whole smart thing isn't going well for you
>>16935316Science is incredibly simple. Pretending it isn't is disrespectful. Not that science can't become overbearingly complex, it's just overbearingly simple at its most basest.
It’s just so shrimple.
Nah it’s magic
Fuck off
No
>>16935316
>>16935316What IS a woman? Certainly not something that will sleep with me! *sobs*
>>16974564lol
>>16935316Real neato
>>16935316techmology, what is that all about?
>>16935316Science, not S0iance.
>>16979604Such a huge difference.
Science is threading of gauge.
>>16935784>Fallacy fallacyIt's ogre
>>16935316Thanks…
>>16935316Science is about asking the right questions. Science isn’t about answers it’s about making hypotheticals and then testing them. It’s about rigorous testing of ideas and drawing conclusions from them. Science has its roots in describing the physical world around us.
>>16935324The idea that math describes everything is a philosophical hypothesis. Personally as an amateur mathematician I don’t believe that maths can describe everything.
>>16986933>The idea that math describes everything is a philosophical hypothesisExplain snowflakes
>>16986933If there is something math can't describe, the problem is on the math side. We're missing something that can correctly model whatever it is. Because everything is mathematical in nature. Nothing apart from math exists.
>>16993052Kek
>>16935316a miserable little pile of secrets
Science is whatever I say it is.
>>16935316Science means prompting AI now. Get on with the times granpa.
>>16935324>It might even be reality itselfOkay Pythagoras
>>16935316Geez
>>16935316What is man?
>>16935316science used to be the knowledge derived from repeatable observation and experiment. now it's a politicala weapon and a way to get rich quick through quackery.https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=IaEgcRgE__M&ra=m
>>17001577A miserable pile of secrets.
>>16935316>Knowledge (this is where the word comes from)Science used to just mean why field or base of knowledge but for some reason this has been utterly forgotten. But now people see it as something opposed to things like magic and religion, even when mad science is at times indistinguishable from hocus pocus (by any other form), and the scientific community (as you say) is a fucking cult, a religion, and atheists are some of the most zealous and religious people I’ve ever met. South Park really had a great episode on that. “Oh my science…”. “Science save us!”.
Science is gay
Science is happy
>>17001577A featherless biped
Now that the dust has settled, was Faraday a scientist?
>>17007177Jesus Christ. I had someone argue to me that Leonardo DaVinci wasn’t a scientist either, because he didn’t share in his work and esoterically confined his notes. “Reee a real scientist shares with others”. Lmao.
>>16935316>3/25/26Holy FUCK this board died what happened? They tried botting and all the organic engagement evaporated?
>>17008683>Organic engagement.......
>>16935316>knowledge and applied informationNope, that's all technology not science>scientific methodNope that's not science; that is the method scientists use to do science>RealityNope not science eitherScience is what scientists do in universities. More universities = more science. The side effects of increased productivity and living standards are legitimizers of science, not a direct result of it.Science is an institution the same way the Catholic Church is. The cultic scientific community and overall consensus, peer review, and scientific dogma are the pillars of this institution. It is an autonomous gear of the system where it is only kept autonomous because it generates legitimacy for the authority.Anything else is romantic rhetoric.
>>17008683you would NOT like 4chan from 2006.
>>17010139the scientific method isnt peer review or consensusthe scientific method is objective and peer review + consensus is subjective unless the peer review is helping validate the sciencecongrats you failed 2nd grade science
>>17007177Yeah I wouldn’t see why he’s not.
Huh
>>16935316>bringing up trans shit out of nowhere >>>/pol/
>>17014329triggered much?
>>17014329/sci/ is already a /pol/ colony
Is it possible to have sex with science?
tell people that science isn’t a human invention and their brain will break, either because of hubris, or because they hate how ambient science is
>>16935316Ok.
>>16935316Uhm no knowledge is knowledge, also known as gnosis in greek. Or epistemic: of the nature/system. Or sophia: wisdom.So you're wrong about that.>The method of “fuck around and find out”That's called experimentation which you could argue is a method of so called science. Though as an action it is its own thing not constricted to science.>The scientific community and overall consensusThere you go, Science is scientific (the cult of) consensus aka scientism which is a relgiion.>Physics, nature, reality, as it is Uh no, those are what they are. They do not require men to perceive them or meditate on them to exist or persist.
>>17026079"sciences" when it comes to the original historical context basically means knowlege of nature.Thats what the bible describes it as alsosince the development of the 1500-1800s it was finally agreed upon that experimentation is the prerequisite to all science. Everything else is text-book pseudoscience>They do not require men to perceive them or meditate on them to exist or persistthat would be claiming a mind-independent realitythat was thrown out the window completely with quantum mechanics double slit experiment. Reality is mind dependent
>>17026100Low IQ retard
>>17026102ok Im a low IQ retard. Do you have the paper and citation that refutes mind-dependent reality? Or is it pure just-so-story?
>>17026079>That's called experimentation which you could argue is a method of so called sciencethere is no "could argue" because were talking about objectivity here. arguing is for the subjective. Category error
And?
How is it possible for you to not do what you consciously have decided is best for you to do? It makes no sense unless you consider that one has not fully consciously resolved to act. As a result a whole lot of competing desires and habits creep in, and quickly impose their own justifications (maybe later... just this time...) To prevent this requires cultivating disciplined intentional thought and decision-making.Fortunately there is a way to do this that practically writes its own victory: writing. By questioning, reasoning, and arguing with yourself in writing you make your thoughts concrete to reflect and build upon, instead of being in a haze of pseudo-formed concepts in your mind. Reading and writing is the most powerful cognitive tool ever invented; when you apply it to your own thoughts and behavior you leverage this power.A general format you can use is question -> choice -> action. Start by asking a question about your situation: "what should I do now?" "How am I feeling?" or "What should I plan for the future?" Then write a list of possible options. Include ones you _want_ to do such as play video games or use your phone. Inspect each option and make a cost/benefit analysis. When you are finished you will have totally convinced yourself to enact the choice you have decided on. So you stop writing and go do it.When you have completed the task, go back to your journal and write your experimental results: you have acted according to your reason and will 100%, so you should feel good about yourself. Use this as momentum to initiate another round of question -> choice -> action and another in an unbroken chain (save for necessary breaks and blocks of unorganized free time) day after day. In a few week you will have burned this into your mind so completely that you won't need to use your journal except at the beginning or start of each day. You'll just be able to naturally think in the way you've trained yourself to.
Heckin’ s0iance
I hate the people who think science is an invention when it’s literally just motion to be taken advantage of
