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.
