ITT we thank Einstein for BTFOing Henri Bergson and nuking the credibility and prestige of philosophy forever.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein%E2%80%93Bergson_debate/lit/ still seethe about it to this day.
Bergson's essay on laughter is very insighrful
>>17049685>insighrfulSAAAR.
>>17049630AI is stealing STEM jobs and academic prestige first. I'll make sure to tip you when I go for my daily caramel macchiato before grabbing my huge university paycheck for researching Feminist Marxism under the lens of Max Horkheimer's dialectics.
>>17049753Lol, AI will be a tool for us STEMchads. It won't steal our jobs.
>>17049773
>>17049630Einstein used philosophy very much himself, like when he invoked occams razor. While then forbitting others to use philosophy when it doesnt fit him. He killed modern physics.
>>17049630>>17049911Its even more funny when he argued "physics time wins over philosophers time" when lorentz HAD an absolute physical time philosophers agree on, but Einstein used philosophy against him. What a fraud.
>>17049685Surprise defines laughterAnyways. How do brain computer interfaces function and how do I get one myself? I always wanted to be able to control my own head.
>>17049630AI doesn't exist. You're the only one getting replaced by token slop.
>>17049630>physicist BTFOs a wordy pseud, more pseuds rush in and proclaim victory with more ramblingthat is just the average /sci/ interaction, philosophy is a perfectly valid field. Kant was wrong about time and space, and *assertions* about measurable traits of empirical reality are no longer in the domain of philosophy. Interpretations of what our quantitative findings mean surely. Bergson is the embodiment of a regressive, intellectually incestuous and stagnant approach to philosophy that is content with wallowing in the gut feelings based approach of antiquity. The main difference is that the Greeks and Romans didn't know better, and had very little to work with. People like him (and a good chunk of ramblers on this board) would not hesitate to send all of humanity back into the stone age if it meant they could return to true ignorance of centuries of philosophical and scientific progress, rather than just feigning it.Up next: a rambler will accuse me of schizophrenia or seething because that is about the only thing they can actually bring to a conversation beyond diatribe about the nature of things they do not understand.
>>17049959>Kant was wrong about time and spaceNo, he wasn't. You just got filtered.
>>17049960If you told Kant about Lorenz invariance he would have been surprised and would have made it work within his appropriately amended frameworks. You and your subhuman ilk would rather call it fake and gay or LARP about it either not mattering or contrive theories you treat like scripture to mean the same.
>>17049962>nonwhite loses his mind with rageWhat does Lorenz invariance have to do with time as an organizing principle of the mind?
>>17049965>time as an organizing principle of the mindThat is a perfectly valid but very limited reading, it is not like Kant was only talking metaphysics. Please revisit the basics: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-spacetime/>nonwhiteDu kannst Kant nicht einmal in der Originalsprache lesen, du schwafelndes Hurenkind.I won't bother replying to more of your nonsense unless you have something other than shit to fling to bring to the table. Here is a question for you: can Kant's view of time and space (as physical entities) be reconciled with Mach's principle?
>>17049959Off topic but I want your thoughts onKierkegaard Heidegger Nietzsche.
>>17049979>zero arguments presentedNonwhite confirmed.
>>17049992>ignores argument, claims victorytypical debate spic, please get vented like your role model. >Can't refute Kant made claims about physical realityI accept your concession.
>>17049996See>>17049988. Just want your opinions on them
>>17049996>nonwhite doesn't know what an argument even isQuote the "argument" in your post.Protip #1: a wikipedia page is not an argument.Protip #2: vague claim is not an argument, either.Feel free to present an argument in your next brown insect post.
>>17049999>>17049988Yes, I just didn't want to reply to you in the same post as the debate spic. I missed out on Kierkegaard, Nietzsche I always found a bit.. destructive, or at least disruptive in his approach to ethics. As in, his works leave you in a very "now what?" sort of position if you humor him, in the same way that epistemological musings tend to. Heidegger I remember mostly for his interpretations of Kant, and I believe he did valuable work there that was in parts perhaps too transformative. I remember him to express himself more clearly than Kant ever did though. All rather cold takes I'm afraid, I have stopped reading the past 10 years and it shows.
>>17050006Ah, Thanks regardless.
>>17050000>Protip #2: vague claim is not an argument, either.That is what philosophers specialise in. Using vague language to pretend they have something to say lol.
>>17050011No problem. It's a beautiful field, and I hope to get back into it eventually.
>>17050000I simply stated that Kant's view on space and time as a physical thing are necessarily incomplete. You interpreted Kant's definition of time in a myopic way stripped of physicality and challenged me on those terms. I dismissed your very easily falsifiable premise and referred you to a source. You claimed there was no argument, as that was the only recourse a sad naziboo that can't even speak German has to offer. Your commitment to ignorance is apparent and you can fuck off with your spic discourse back to pol or wherever else you came from. Shift+click.
>>17050021>I simply stated that Kant's view on space and time as a physical thing are necessarily incomplete.Show me what part of the wiki article you posted talks about Kant's views on time as a physical thing. Also post hand.
>>17049959Hey you retard, it was Einstein attacking absolute time based on philosophy>>17049962>>17049965>>17049979Lorentz invariance is just lenght contraction and slowing of processes, not much to do with time and especially not with space.Ach dann lies doch mal Einsteins originale Paper, und Kant du Zipfelklatscher. Das ist beides voller Philosophie.
>>17049959Also you completely ignored the main mechanism Einstein did >>17049913
>>17050096Did you mean to reply to this?>>17050035
>>17050014Math without words is even more useless then words without math.
>>17050098No im not one of these two guys discussing. God this board needs IDs (not flags tho)>>17050021>I simply stated that Kant's view on space and time as a physical thing are necessarily incomplete.Not necessary, only if relativity is correct.
>>17050105>it's another episode of retards thinking Kant was a science writerHow can you be this filtered?
>>17050117>filtered! filtered! you are all filtered!>[fails calc I]you're the same kinda fraud that posts in aether threads aren't you? Here's your (You), now run off
>>17050118>i'm mentally ill and buckbroken by reddit dramaDon't know. Don't care. Kant was concerned with the necessary structure of experience, not with time as a scientific-mathematical abstraction.
>>17050122Which is why he never opined on Newton and Lorentz in both physical and metaphysical terms, suuure.Hidden and ignored.
>>17050117My point is its not even necessary to say Kant was incomplete.
>>17050125>brown and seethingWhy don't you show me specifically what you're referring to and in what context. Protip: because you're a dumb animal regurgitating something it heard on a 90 IQ YT channel. You don't actually know what you mean.
>>17050096>Ah yes, eine der am besten experimentell bestätigten fundamentalen Symmetrien ist unwichtig, die Tasache dass Raum und Zeit beobachterabhängig sind und eigentlich die gleiche einheit haben sollten ist unerheblichu-huh. >. Das ist beides voller PhilosophieI never said anything about philosophy being bad. I called bergson regressive, which he is, and that isn't even a hot take.
>Kant was incomplete
>>17050129you already were linked to the appropriate page of the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, mr picrel. Not gonna read it to you.
>>17049630Philosophers are worthless morons who've drowned in their own rotting brainslop. Reminder that Kant said that the law of conservation of matter was true a priori.
>>17050132>y-y-you were l-linked to a pageYeah. Have you tried actually reading it? No wonder you can't provide any relevant quotes because the whole thing just keeps reinforcing my point.
>>17050134>can't readfiltered, I guess.
>>17050132P.S. Americanized "countries" are essentially nonwhite. First and foremost Germany.
>>17050136Notice how your mental illness forces you to keep replying even though you know you can't provide any relevant quotes from your source and your responses only highlight it over and over again.
>absolute time and spacemodern day geocentrism, Mach's principle rendered all this shit obsolete
>>17050130Thats per Definition subjective and you can have that opinion. I dont.
>>17050130>>Ah yes, eine der am besten experimentell bestätigten fundamentalen Symmetrien ist unwichtig, die Tasache dass Raum und Zeit beobachterabhängig sind und eigentlich die gleiche einheit haben sollten ist unerheblichOh missed that. A lorentzian aether theory explains SR with absolute time and space. Just not gravity.
Why doesn't philosophy have something like mathematics' Millenium Prize problems?
>>17050140Not at all. CMB is exactly the reference frame for newtons bucket and Machs principle. It fits perfectly.
>>17050143First, you have to define what you mean by 'problem'. But even before that, you first need to define 'define'.
>>17050147Thanks. That answered my question.
>>17050143>>17050147>>17050148Kek
>>17050141the existence of an absolute reference frame is only in agreement with Mach's principle if you assume the universe's total angular and linear momentum are exactly zero, in other words in such a way that it drops out of all observable quantities.
>>17050155wrong link >>17050145
>>17050155>if you assume the universe's total angular and linear momentum are exactly zeroWell in that reference frame yes. Thats how you can define it.
>>17049959>Bergson is the embodiment of a regressive, intellectually incestuous and stagnant approach to philosophy that is content with wallowing in the gut feelings based approach of antiquity. okay so he's based, thanks for telling me.
>>17050168>/sci/ - Feels over Realsah yes, home of the Lorenz aether and Bohmian mechanics faggots, it checks out.
>>17050133>Reminder that Kant said that the law of conservation of matter was true a priori.Huh? This isn't even wrong, though.
>>17050169Physics is a spook and all of you may as well be playing legos.
>>17050173>Physics is a spookYet you wouldn't let me drop a cinderblock on your skull from a considerable height for purely empirically founded reasons. Curious.
>>17050169>>/sci/ - Feels over Reals>ah yes, home of the Lorenz aether and Bohmian mechanics faggots, it checks out.Very based, /sci/ has founs its purpose.
>>17050179I would probably just rape you instead desu.
>>17050183Your twink ass ain't doing shit.
>>17050171it really isn't. See Banach Tarski, atomism is NOT a priori
Bump.
>>17050097>conflating Bergson's schizobabble with the "are absolute coordinates real" debateare you the aetherfag shitting up every QM discussion?
