The edge of the universe

.

 

Fat_tony

You Bet

Occam

 

M&M

'Why philosophy sucks in the realm of the universe'

Which is rather strange, as science IS a PHILOSOPHY.
Think of it this way, who invented science?
And cannot inventions be patented as ideas?

Science began as and idea.
And thinking about ideas, is philosophy.
Science should Be hailed as a result of philosophy.
For that is what it is.

Every time you think about why you do or think something
Thats philosophy.
Those that do not think about why they do/think something.
Are not self aware beings.


Occam

 

shaggie

Yah.. increase or decrease leads to alteration in shape of event horison.
'spinning' [operative] holes have variable effects in his reality.

[went from db, think site supports]

Occam

 

Can we stop the about philosophy and science. Mostly because I do not consider science and philosophy the same thing. I guess they both require a degree of imagination butthe application has very little in common. In my opinion I know im going to get flamed for this but hey the beauty of philosophy is you cant be wrong. Notice how they stopped calling it natural philosophy when it became a rigorous discipline.

 

Moonlight

So
A scientist cannot be a philosopher.
A scientist can only ask questions about specifics.
Not about generalities?

A scientist cannot claim any abillity to integrate his work into general reality and the impact such may cause to humanity and reality.

If that is YOUR BREED.
One that produces fact yet cannot think of such fact applied to reality generally.
[philosophy]

Then you will walk the path of oppenheimer
"for i am become death, destroyer of worlds"

Occam

 

.

 

.

 

Shaggie

Philosophy makes things like science.
Science is a tool of human philosophical thought.
Made by human reason for a purpose.
To find accurate descriptions of reality.

Occam

 

A scientiist can be a philosopher and a philosopher can be a scientist. Though scientists can also be rock legends and world recording breaking triple jumpers, doesnt make those disciplines part of science.

There are some conservation laws that are pretty much integral such as conservation of energy and conservation of momentum but it dont see any reason for baryon number to be so important. There are a whole range of quantum numbers some of which are conserved some of which arent. Quite possibly some of which we may think are conserved may not be, im not sure how many definitive predictions the standard model makes on this. Perhaps we should ask the philosophers.

 

.

 

.

 

bet it created the pretentious over reaching dumbass.......

 

.

 

Fat tony

Yet is not science the child of rational philosophy?
This is a valid question my friend.
No jokes here.

The method 'science'
Came to be becuase we thought about reality philosophically.
How can we gain more accurate understanding, asked thinking beings.
About that which we can never percieve directly with mind?

Hey..lets use a method. Impartial and cross-refferenced.
And lets call it science.

Occam

 

I really cant be bothered with this anymore. As far as im concerened philosophy has nothing to do with answering questions. Occasionally it asks a poinient one but still someone else hs to address it. This will be my last post on this.

 

Fat_tony

How sad.

Tell spinoza that he thought nothing valid.
Tell kant
And Popper
And Aristotle.
Your anger resolves nothing.

Your desire to see science as a final arbitrator of knowledge is a load of crap. A personal position of power.
And you know it.. As does occam.

See ya.

Occam

 

.

 

Shaggie

Are you saying science sprang into being 'ex nihilo'
That it simply came to be without an underpinning base of human thought and philosophy? That it did not evolve?

That makes you a creationist.

Occam

 

.