How could a man who's this intelligent have such shallow and cliché philosophical ideas?

I guess he was not that intelligent huh?

Some of the most intelligent people I know live by clichés and have terrible taste.

this. The two are different fields.
But I also think there can be a relation. Otherwise, how come most humanity majors are brainlets compared to stem majors? humanities live and breathe ideas all day yet has the most boring opinions about everything

>?
For instance, language copes very poorly when dealing even with trivial cases, such as recursion. Language simply says "thats a circular argument", end of story. Whereas in math (higher order logic specifically), recursion is a function operator like any other, and under correct circumstances can be eliminated.

Things like dialectics are just really shoddy attempt compared to constraint logic (reconcilling future/past states to find minimums of the function).

Problems like this become even more apparent with mind boggling ignorance regarding emergent phenomena - for which classic philosophy invents fancy obscurantism with no explanatory power at all. You could ascribe some bullshit metaphysics to say, prime numbers, or you dig deeper to find a self-consistent models *how* these things actually "appear out of nowhere".

Just because you read wittgenstein doesn't mean you understand math from metaphysical POV.

>doesn't mean you understand math from metaphysical POV.
Obviously, you don't understand it either.

Math is just a tool. It's not a language fit for anything that's not problem solving. Try saying what you just said but in math.

STEMlet with the seething cope

Hawking wasn't intelligent in the first place. 135 IQ at best. Great enough to succeed at academia and woo the masses of brainlets; not intelligent enough to produce anything of lasting value. As a physicist, he abandoned proofs and wrote mostly pop-sci conjecture. He was a lousy IFL-science tier scientist.

Attached: 1544110994800.jpg (1764x759, 377K)

Just because you're a physicist doesn't make you good at everything else. Scientists say some of the most cringe and brainlet things ever said when outside their expertise, and I say that as someone studying astrophysics.

It's more about the right tool for the job. Language works very poorly to *model* complex things. And yes, philosophy is largely a model trying to "explain everything".

Language excellent to convey generalities about the model. You can explain a model's intuition in roundabout fashion with language - that's its strength, but also weakness. Because you can't ascertain model correctness past certain complexity. All claims for mere language to be "reason" are laughable, given that it can't even self-guard against basic fallacies, something you can do in math via completely automated proof checker.

Analytical philosophy was a feeble, but largely unsuccessful attempt to bring in "math" - formal logic - but it never caught on. I suspect because the likes of russell were largely concerned with first order propositional logic, which is largely on par with well written language, except more compact/fuzzy and better checkability properties. This left out the strength of more complex grammars (which have constructs totally alien to language - weighted truth values, state annealing, system state convolutions...).

This topic actually touches a weird experience I had. I was in college, an English major, and for no reason at all I became ashamed of the fact that I was bad at mental math. I started to practice it, all day doing math in my head, and in just a few weeks I got a lot better. What surprised me, though, is that it changed the way I thought. The most disturbing moment was in Russian Lit when I suddenly felt like I was wasting my time. I had never felt this before. I had been a lifelong reader, a lover of the arts, and suddenly I felt a distaste for it. We were on Gogol's "Diary of a Madman," the professor up there lecturing, pacing back and forth, and I just kept looking at the book thinking, "Stories? I'm studying stories?" I felt like I was in Kindergarten, like the other majors were doing serious work and I was screwing around. Without any understanding of how the brain works I pinned it on the mental math. Recalling how badly STEM and the humanities understand each other I decided they corresponded to different parts of the brain, and that these parts could be fed at the expense of the other. In any event I stopped doing the mental math and swiftly fell back in love with books.

problem solving helps being insightful. Having an authentic observation about the world is the same as solving a puzzle with given clues.

>it's another Yea Forums talks about science thread
give it up guys. stick to the james joyce fart jokes

imagine thinking an undergrad knew 10x as much as stephen hawking

What you felt isn't fixed. You could argue math is time wasting too. Someone else from your class could also do the same thing and have the opposite impression that in English class he's dissecting reality, and solving mindless equations are a waste of time.

By old polymath he is probably referring to people like Da Vinci or Galileo who died multiple centuries ago. Not people who are alive today.
I still disagree with him, though.

>Hawking wasn't intelligent in the first plac
imagine being this guy.
IQ isn't everything

>how come most humanity majors are brainlets compared to stem majors?
Have you seen the absolute state of the humanities nowadays?

ah yes christopher langan, is that the guy who proved the poincare conjecture or fermat's last theorem?

>Langan
LOL. This guy is meme worthy

youtube.com/watch?v=-ak5Lr3qkW0

vid related

>who's this intelligent
He suffered from the main symptom of brainlettism: the complete inability to shut the fuck up about something when He was not competent in it.
If only he had know to shut the fuck up about philosophy he would honestly have been one of the smartest people in the world. However, like Dawkins, he had to out himself as a midwit with a Good memory.

You're a mental midge if your conclusion was that you can't reconcile both.

based

>Math is just a tool
Brainlet

Intelligence isn't a general term for everything. He was intelligent on his own field.

Yea Forums holds smarter discussions about science than /sci/ itself

>IQ isn't everything
It absolutely is

no it isn't. You can train yourself to be specifically good at that, staying retard in everything else.

Scientists are laughably bad at philosophy. Here in the UK, this is possible exacerbated by the fact that we're streamlined into specialisms at a very early age, so scientists like Hawking and Dawkins probably never studied philosophy beyond the level of a typical high school student.

Are you that italian guy who writes books on astrology?

IQ copers are a cancer

>I felt like I was in Kindergarten, like the other majors were doing serious work and I was screwing around
yeah, as someone in undergrad that's studying both pure math and English, this sentiment goes both ways. I tend towards thinking that the math is a waste though

Yea Forums philosophers btfo'd into unrecoverable state

I'm loving all of the humanities' seethe coming from you.

It's hilarious how philosophers and dilettantes with philosophic pretensions will hum and haw over some "metaphysical" problem for decades, and then some STEMchad just walks up and goes, 'yeah, this is the way nature works and here's the data to prove it.'

it's so blatant how insecure philosofags are about devoting their life to outdated methods of investigation. year after year, another scientist offers another explanation for an "age old question" that the humanities swore was an unsolvable mystery. and year after year the philosophy departments become more and more desperate as they try to poke holes in scientific systems they don't have any fundamental understanding of at all.

goddamn I love that I chose the right major.

Scientists believe they're sitting on some sort of vanguard cosmology when in reality they're an autistic (but profitable) branch on a tree that much greater men have planted. They don't understand the ecosystem that created them in the first place and they have no understanding on how to preserve it or enrich it.

>It's hilarious how philosophers and dilettantes with philosophic pretensions will hum and haw over some "metaphysical" problem for decades, and then some STEMchad just walks up and goes, 'yeah, this is the way nature works and here's the data to prove it.'

such as?

wait im confused user, how did you end up falling in love with books again?

Science doesn't give you any metaphysical insights, but it is curious how most scientists embrace atheism and nothingness after death.
I think science has conditioned to a very particular set of beliefs, ones that reject (or mostly ignores) any subject matter that cannot be tested through the scientific method

>but it is curious how most scientists embrace atheism and nothingness after death.
yeah. it's almost like the more intelligent you are the less likely you're going to believe in primitive coping mechanisms.

STEM bros are the only ones that buy into the self-aggrandizing philosophy vs. science narrative. They won't admit it but it's really just an elaboration of I-fucking-love-science tier Tysonisms.

Sure it does. For instance, string theories are pure metaphysics. You can engineer wormholes with it, in your mind anyway.

They key difference is that science uses such speculation ("hypothesis") to make educated guesses about physical reality (theoretical physics -> experimental physics pipeline).

Immaterial philosophy concerns itself with linguistic gymnastics around "meaning" of being and nonbeing, and whatever answer they come up with is just trapped in their own axiomatic maze it can't ever escape as apparently because anything material is icky, and poison for pure reason. Or something.

Whereas theoretical (meta)physics cares about what being *is*, where it came from, how it manifests. Make a computational model, and try to verify it experimentally - and surprise surprise, sometimes it works. It turns out world isn't built of small triangles because that's smallest geometric shape (as "reason" would suggest), but something much much more complex even at levels we know are discrete and further non-divisible (as far we can tell) quanta.

I believe this unironically.

>this intelligent
What do you base this on?
There were many good physicists who did stuff in the 70's. His gift was being crippled. Gives pussy, apparently.

>Materialism
Of course it always comes down to this, if I were to ask you about ethics you'll go one blabbing about neurology or some deterministic shit to try and cope with your world view.
If it's something science cannot answer you'll just dismiss it as a trivial problem or something that science will answer soon if we wait long enough (without providing any proof of this claim of course).

Yea, he's kinda Tyson tier. But at least he did some actual astrophysics, compared to that useless nigger doing elementary school pop science recitals. No matter, in circles of particle physics nerds you'll occasionally hear things like "we've wasted 6 months of accelerator looking for cripple radiation" - some of his singularity stuff is speculative as fuck, yet taken for granted due to his Tyson status.

/sci/ cannot into Yea Forums, they're autistic sperglords

They're hopped up on serotonin from being well-regarded members of society with no need for introspection. They do their work which basically boils down to improvements of infrastructure. They're not useless by any means but they're not well-rounded or perceptive enough to have anything meaningful to say. They're a specialized offshoot group of people, they're not leaders and there's a real danger in making them philosopher kings.

The irony is that they can't even see that the models they use are only meaningful because men before them had to manifest consciousness into existence, not by toying around with models but by piercing the depths of the human mind

But aren’t wormholes and quanta physical phenomena, and so not metaphysical?

>deterministic shit
Hardly.
>ethics
Game theory is fairly well understood hard science (=materialism), now used to run complete evolutionary models. Ethical systems emerge spontaneously because it's a successful strategy. From stemlord POV, normative statements of philosophical idealism are merely rationalization of Pareto optimal equilibrium towards which any evolutionary system converges given enough iterations. And you can trivially prove it on really simple automata which has no ethics, and some time later it has. This is far more convincing compared to "it ought to be that way", and going around in circles without ever explaining why ethics actually is, where it came from and what role it serves in practice.

To philosopher's credit, the likes of Machiavelli did a reasonable job of formulating base outline of this some centuries earlier, though he made no attempt to explain why or how it is this way, but merely described the process in action.

He's British, his attitudes aren't any different from mainstream British attitudes really.

>hawking has an IQ of 125
>tfw I'm literally smarter than memegenius the magnificent talking chair
lmao. never heard of langan but he sounds beyond based. fuck hawking, he's a cringy pseud, a celebrity more than any intellectual worth talking about. normalfaggots namedrop him and buy his brand so they can feel like they're smart without having to put in the work to become actually smart. like a nigger who wants to seem money so he buys a knockoff rolex.
college level math is more rote practice than any actual intellectual exercise. only when you're in the more artful forms of theoretical math, where you contemplate rather than compute, does it become the realm of the actually intelligent. most college level and industry level math is just plug-and-play that even a monkey could do. i have little to no respect for it, and absolutely none for engineers who think they're intelligent because they use a TI84 every day.

Industry math is to theoretical math as journalism is to literature. They're calculator-monkeys with an inflated sense of self-importance.

t. finance-monkey

Quantum mechanics is more or less physical process, that is directly measurable, at least in terms of statistical representations (which is hardly ideal). Wormholes, on the other hand, are complete metaphysics, they may exist, or may not. It's just something certain purely theoretical models we have for our world allow for, but nobody would dare to say that the model is only and true, until it gets some credibility boost by predicting experimental observation. Einstein was most famous for this - relativity was ridiculed, until few experiments later, it was highly regarded as most significant breakthrough. Same process repeated to lesser extent in QED (Feynman et al).

>everyone on Yea Forums must be a philosofag
>everyone on Yea Forums must be a philosophy major
>i'm better than everyone else just so long as everyone else remains a poorly constructed caricature in my head
wow. yeah bro you're reaaaaalllllyyyy smart bro. nice cope.

>ethics
>game theory
completely separate things, not every decision people make is rational or quantifiable in your models

That's all well and good but you're talking about this from a Sim City perspective. You have no stake in it and you don't feel it. Ultimately all you're left with is an autistic model that says "well it seems that if people believe in god X and have Y amount of babies they're more likely to produce a stable society"

I understand why people do this and why it's a comfortable view but it's not the perspective of a leader. It's the perspective of a detached priest standing in the cathedral on the hill, looking down on the peasants. I'm not asking you to get down and dirty with the feelings but please understand that this Sim City model of life is not reality

Great discussion. Good thread OP.

Attached: 437-4370721_61-kb-png-pepe-giving-thumbs-up-transparent.jpg (840x709, 165K)

He wasn't intelligent in the first place. He wasn't a good physicist. He abandoned proofs. He was just a disability case that people felt bad for.

Don't nirvana fallacy me, bro. Of course we can't simulate complete human ethics as the ecosystem involved is too complex. Luckily, the process of finding cooperation/competition equilibria in population groups is apparently scale free as far we can tell. It works exact same in enormous systems way down to very primitive ones (one we can simulate).

It's not different from evolution as such. You can either claim god created us, or irradiate few e.coli in a lab and watch it mutate a brand new enzyme to survive on unfamiliar substrate.

inb4 b-but humans are not bacteria, therefore evolution is not a thing

How dare you, sir. How dare you. Stephen Hawking WAS a beloved scientist. How dare you besmirch his memory. What have you done with your life??????????????????????? NOTHING.

Attached: 1565372233601.jpg (1232x2437, 297K)

>Problem solving skills in a speculative soft field of science by a man who altogether abandoned proofs by the 1980s, famously declaring "I'd rather be right than rigorous"
Solution: He didn't have exceptional problem solving skills.

Attached: 1552431759407.jpg (667x750, 177K)

that argument against God is highschool tier.

use your brain a little bit more please.

evolution is too broad of a "catch all" term to explain human decision making, we are self-conscious creatures that have transcended (to a certain degree) basing our decision makings on our primal urges, you may feel like arguing for some even broader evolutionary or psychological egoism to avoid the matter, but you know very well it does not and will never incorporate a predictable enough set of behavior to call it "hard science".
So yes, I do believe comparing humans to bacteria is valid.

>is valid
sorry, I meant isn't*

This is fair criticism, specifically that all models assume callous generality. In literary terms, it's like Hari Seldon's psychohistory - that is if the sim city simulator gets powerful enough to actually predict weather further than 2 days into the future.
My stance is that while the generalizations can be very coarse, it's still eons better than to back-rationalize things into complete bullshit (weather is because of sacrifices to the harvest deity!), when we can make a model which works at least at limited scales (weather forecast is far more useful than attempting to manipulate weather with human sacrifices).

How different is theoretical math from school math?

I was atrocious at math in school and failed almost every math class, but one of my friends who's into math says I'd be good at the theoretical stuff.

>that meme again
so what happens at 130+?

Note that the model concerns itself with predicting what emerges out of certain kind (evolutionary) chaotic system, which actions will be limited and which ones will be boosted given an environment. What we can predict is that the system converges towards patterns of most optimal ruleset the surviving agents live by because they've simply mutated to most optimal outcome. Turns out that with certain impulses (especially when you simulate founder effect returning home), strong cooperation through "ethics" emerges because it becomes "viral" and outcompetes the cut throat lone wolves.

However even if that outcome is predictable, the individual interactions of each agent are not, even as far as the computer is concerned those are randomly generated. Those are not robots with every move programmed in some sort of decision tree, those are robots whose genes say there's 0.01% i'll decide for suicide, and there's 50% dice roll i'll go looking for food.

>75 replies
>no clear mention of what said philosophical ideas actually were
Can someone direct me to where I can read about them or, better yet, summarise them? Wasn't it simply some kind of one-liner mentioned in an interview somewhere or did he discuss his philosophy more broadly?

ITT: /sci/ stemchads arguing there's no magic to free will vs Yea Forums pseudincels rationalizing "it is so because humans are no animals"

ITT: midwits scapegoat each other in order to remain sacred

Life is created with feeling. Science is the anemic stewardship of life but there's nothing going on but road repair and smaller pills. Pic related: stem virgin getting cucked by a chad animated by the spirit of the universe

Attached: dd.jpg (237x213, 11K)

Required reading, especially the pseud side of the argument about behavioral modelling and pattern emergence in large populations.

libgen.is/book/index.php?md5=051CE8FAD9FE34D1035905F1E70A1B0E

Attached: simcity.jpg (153x230, 11K)

>What have you done with your life
Go hiking and take walks.

don't know about everyone else but for me it's his arguments against theism. His arguments have the same depth as youtube commenters on Christopher Hitchens videos.

Very high IQ, beyond human vanity and human respect pilled.

What is shallow about his idea of the universe having no beginning or end as is humanly understandable?

I believe OP is talking about Hawking's implicit philosophy of science - model-dependent realism, which he and Leonard Mlodinow discuss in The Grand Design. It essentially states that the only thing that matters in science are the equations and the interactions we observe through experiment and that any attempt at getting at an interpretation, or a common-sense "story" about the world that we can tell based on what our best physical theories tell us, are meaningless. I don't know why he called it 'realism' since it is largely agnostic as to whether the entities in science are something more than mathematical operators that produce results in the lab. It's essentially recasted positivism. Funnily enough he claims philosophy is dead in the same book.

>model-dependent realism
is there any paradigm that isn't model-dependent?

"Model-dependent" here I take to mean that they are solely interested in the mathematical framework used to conduct experiments and have no interest (or indeed in their scheme would render meaningless) any ontological claims about the world one might make based on that model. Again, not very realistic. The overriding concern is utility, not truth. If a theory is underdetermined by its interpretations, so much worse for those interpretations.

Mark Passio on his Natural Law Seminar says some very insightful things by the likes of Hawking.

Basically they are people who only develop their intelectual side. They are the kind of people who would read and follow step-by-step tutorials on how to love a woman - - they think only in terms of logic, reckoning et cetera. With regards to brain functions, they only develop and work with the so called "cold functions", those that are void of emotion.

That is not to say that thinking with the emotions is a good thing, but that reason, seasoned with feeling, achieves way beyond what cold reason could.

interested about this.
youtube.com/watch?v=Z5tAGlFMyII
is this is the one?

>You could argue that language is older than math, and thus superior, but that in itself is just "NO U" style of argument.
No one would make such a dumb argument. They might instead say that langage is *prior* to mathematics, and thus more important (not superior, but linguistic confusion will lead to mistakes in mathematical thinking, not vice versa)

I don't really have the context for what you mean by "expressive grammar" and "formally checkable"; I'm sure they make sense and it's a fault on my end, but it'd be good if you could explain.

But if you're talking about mathematical symbols as your "grammar", and the coherence of the field of mathematics in general, this isn't metaphysics. Mathematics might be a formally coherent system, but that doesn't even raise the metaphysical questions about how that system *actually* maps onto our reality, never mind answering those questions. To do philosophy, or even to think critically at all, you have to have some degree of alienation from the objects of your thought. You have to be able to see numbers and mathematical principles as deeply strange, and the fact they seem to have practical applications as even stranger. Being unwilling to take this step to see the strangeness inherent in ordinary objects of thought isn't something to be proud about. It's infantile.

Imagine not being able to fucking read and understand what is written.

> but that doesn't even raise the metaphysical questions about how that system *actually* maps onto our reality, never mind answering those questions.
Most philosophical systems don’t do that either. They just say “things are like this” and then go “therefore, reality is like that”, without connecting the two in any way that is not just an opinion in the end of the day. Not him, by the way.

QFT and relativity support continuous universe not discrete.

That's a decent point. I agree that most philosophers eventually give up and just tell a "story" or a myth about how things are.

But there are also philosophers who are fairly rigorous about avoiding doing so, and every decent philosopher will at least try to tell a coherent story about how the world is (my main problem with modern scientists is how willing they are to shift mercurially between different philosophical postitions based on what's most "useful" to any given problem)

Let L be the set of all natural languages, let M stand for mathematics, P the set of all predicates, and let O be the set of all operators.
If we denote the recursion operator by r (clearly r belongs into O) and let p(x) be a predicate parametrizable be x. Then r(p) = p(p) is a recursive predicate.
Natural language lacks the means to manipulate such object effectively. Yet, given such a formula, it's often the case that the recursion from it. I.e. given a well formed formula q satisfying some prerequesites, it might be transformed by aplications of operators from O into another formula, q', s.t. q' does not contain the operator r.

&c

No. It's called "Natural Law Seminar". It's an 8 and a half hours long presentation.

It's this one: youtu.be/dIEemKcy-4E

Completely.
In school you need to learn how to follow algorithms (for doing computations, multiplying matrices, constructing triangles, &c) and learn to decorate formulas (areas, pythagoras, &c).
In actual mathematics you need to understand.
The list of things you need to memorize is minimal, but you need to understand those things in the relations between them very deeply. Even when you forget something you can often reconstruct the entire thing from your understanding of the fundamental principles and the way certain concepts relate to each other.
Also the focus isn't on computation, but proofs.
In school either you know how to compute the determinant of that matrix, or you don't.

based

double based

triple based

Hawking's IQ was never tested and that you're taking the claims of a virgin vs. chad meme poster in Yea Forums seriously casts very heavy doubt on that anyway

Could you post the full image, i'm interested.

>why would you trust the word of the last bastion of free speech and not some marketer behind Big Money Publishing
idk family

thanks

In the gay science Nietzsche explains this and why people like Hawking have such retarded philosophical views
>373. Science as a prejudice.
>It follows from the laws of the order of rank that scholars insofar as they belong to the spiritual middle class can never catch sight of the really big problems and question marks; moreover, their courage and their eyes simply do not reach that far – and above all, their needs that led them to become scholars in the first place, their innermost assumptions and desire that things night be such and such, their fears and hopes all come to rest and are satisfied too soon. [...]It is no different with the faith that so many materialistic natural scientists rest content nowadays, the faith in a world that is supposed to have its equivalent and its measure in human thinking and human valuations, a " world of truth " at which we might be able ultimately to arrive with the help of our insignificant, four-cornered human reason!What?Do we actually wish to have existence debased in that fashion to a ready-reckoner exercise and calculation for stay at home mathematicians?We should not, above all, seek to divest existence of its rich ambiguity: good taste forbids it, gentlemen, the taste of reverence for everything that lies beyond your horizon!That a world-interpretation is alone right by which you maintain your position, by which investigation and work can go on scientifically in your sense (you really mean mechanically?)an interpretation which acknowledges numbering, calculating, weighing, seeing and handling, and nothing more - such an idea is a piece of grossness and naivety, provided it is not lunacy and idiocy.Would the reverse not be quite probable, that the most superficial and external characters of existence its most apparent quality, its outside, its embodiment should let themselves be apprehended first?Perhaps alone allow themselves to be apprehended?A "scientific" interpretation of the world as you understand it might consequently still be one of the stupidest, that is to say, the most destitute of significance, of all possible world-interpretations: I say this in confidence to my friends the Mechanicians, who today like to hobnob with philosophers, and absolutely believe that mechanics is the teaching of the first and last laws upon which, as upon a ground-floor, all existence must be built.But an essentially mechanical world would be an essentially meaningless world!Supposing we valued the worth of a music with reference to how much it could be counted, calculated, or formulated how absurd such a "scientific" estimate of music would be!What would one have apprehended, understood, or discerned in it!Nothing, absolutely nothing of what is really "music" in it!

Yea Forums's got more than a handful of engineers and CS majors, most of whom got into that because:
a) even though they have great respect for Mathematics, Physics, Chemistry, they're probably not intelligent enough to flourish in those fields
b) they're not chad-ish enough to be extreme extroverts who could succeed in Business or Administration
c) they love reading books in their spare time more than they love serving coffee @ Starbucks or wasting time writing cliché-riddled essays on the human condition.
As a programmer, I strongly depend on electrical engineers who had to have had a strong applied knowedge of electrodynamics to be able to build the computers I use every day, just as I depend in medicine to keep me alive, amongst many other such things. I don't reject science at all. I just believe that there are limits to what we can know.
Everything that is quantifiable and that can be put into identical units is an object of study for science, but stuff like cultural norms or feelings might not be as easily put into a perfect, precise form which scientists could attempt to study.
That's why the natural sciences got the reals and the social "sciences" got the feels.

That's just Nietzsche paraphrasing the second half of Kant's third Critique.

>we can't know what happened before the big bang
>therefore its irrelevant
>therefore god not real
bravo hawking

Wait, as someone who enjoys statistics and such, the practical inability to account for a factor does not in fact invalidate it, it simply becomes an x factor. "We are 95 percent sure of y, given that a, b and c hold true." Maybe irrelivent is a slip of wording though, I think it would be more apt to say.

Anyways, most philosophers and stuff deal with perception and such so its more theoretical than practical . Scientists usually deal in practice, not core universal theories.

t. angry stemfag

based as ever

Learn to read

underrated

Why is it that on an anonymous forum with literally 0 stakes you guys still can't get past fighting like the size of your penis depends on it

>you guys still can't get past fighting like the size of your penis depends on it
It does. That’s the secret of the internet. Have you been wondering why your penis seems so small lately?

I've been thinking about this. Maybe this is just my pov/speculation but what u think is:the problem of some people is they only seem to understand phenomena from outside, without being involved. For example, one of such types would evaluate a human interaction without getting involved in it, therefore he would perceive body language, words, etc, this opens up some levels of analysis of course but a whole new level can be perceived by getting inside the interaction itself. A whole new set of emotions and thoughts would spring from this experience, coming from the human observer itself which is now part of the interaction. So scientists never get to this level, they stay observers without being involved, but a huge part of human life and its understanding happens from being involved in things. Is this understandable?

>game theory solves ethics
Brainlet take. And you contradict yourself when you acknowledge that human ethics is too complicated to simulate.
>Luckily, the process of finding cooperation/competition equilibria in population groups is apparently scale free as far we can tell.
You're simply ignorant of what ethics is.
Ethical systems are not based on cooperation. In fact, formulated ethical system based on cooperation or mutual survival are the newest kinds (Rawls's Contractarianism, Libertarianism, Egalitarianism, Utilitarianism, etc.)
I think you're confusing ethics with empathy. Ethics has little to do with empathy. Empathy is an advantageous trait, in a perspective of natural selection. Ethics involves a formulated system of value, of the treatment and decisions of moral agents, etc.
The fact that, allegedly, ethical systems could be modeled to exist (and they predictably aren't, it's practically impossible to model something as complex as human religion, philosophy, and ethics on a global scale) doesn't say anything about ethics, anyway.
You can't get an ought from an is (see the Is/Ought distinction of David Hume), in this material perspective. So theory x models that ethical systems y and z will form around my society. Does that tell me which one I should conclusively follow? So these things are modeled in behavioral science. Does that tell me that I should love or kill my neighbor, that I should live my life a certain way, that I should bother to reproduce, or that I should even value my own life? No. What is does not tell me what ought to be. There's nothing that tells me in empirical systems that I should do things because they're advantageous. Humans are perfectly capable of ignoring their own reproduction, and even their own lives. Pic related is one of my favorite examples.

Attached: beyondinstinct.jpg (1000x400, 146K)

The scary thing is what happens when science does "find a solution" You'll get your custom mix of psychiatrist prescribed chemicals to make sure you fall within the lines of an efficient and well defined archetype.

But you didn't say that in math, you said it in words.

> Does that tell me that I should love or kill my neighbor, that I should live my life a certain way, that I should bother to reproduce, or that I should even value my own life? No.
No, it doesn't "tell" you anything. It simply *makes* you do those things by restricting axes of your free will to align along a globally optimal state - which just turn out to be notions of right and wrong. Most people don't go to job because of some rational long contemplated reasoning for doing so, but because they have to. When looking at societal systems externally, you can't make statements about what the agents feel, but you can make statements about what they'll be cajoled into.

>Humans are perfectly capable of ignoring their own reproduction, and even their own lives. Pic related is one of my favorite examples.
Why some animals refuse to reproduce in captivity? Because they don't have enough brain matter to commit suicide (some, especially smarter ones still can manage to do so sometimes).
When it comes to behavioral sinks, there's far more to our instincts than naively direct linking it to "survival/reproduction". Thats evolutionary goal is sitting on top, but gets divided in myriad of sub behavioral goals. Such a sub a goal quite often includes "losing will to live" when the organisms bounces head repeatedly against the wall. Why would something like this emerge? Because the organism is clearly inferior, can't go forward to accomplish more goals of the system. It just sits and consumes resources. In populations where useless specimen started suiciding, the group got improved survival in aggregate, as the useless folks didn't waste space/resources. Evolution is NOT concerned with individuals, especially in social species like ours. Individuals are entirely dispensable and thrown into meatgrinder all the time, even of their own "free will".

>So scientists never get to this level, they stay observers without being involved, but a huge part of human life and its understanding happens from being involved in things. Is this understandable?
Does a single perspective of an ant tell you much how does the whole mold works? Or is it more useful for an ant to create (very rough, general outline only) model of the mold, and make statements about that? Which perspective - outside or inside can tell you more about what goes on?

It's again, about right tool for the job. Personal perspective is crucial for your own life - but your personal anecdotes don't matter at all for someone on the other side of the world. For that, only the general model is well, general enough to make some vague statements about everyone as a system. So if you insist on personal perspective of a bat, you're describing what you personally see - your anecdotes, biases, faith, experience. But you can't explain where they come from systematically, you only make a normative statement "it ought to be that way", and never investigate more why.

>never read a math paper

All left side brain. Autism is a state of mind.

>how far Yea Forums has fallen : the thread

HOW COULD A MAN SO INTELLIGENT AND WELL READ AS BERND KNOW SO FUCKING LITTLE ABOUT MATH

Attached: 1555361819253.png (300x300, 80K)

i mean user
RIP KC
gott strafe kohl

DIRTY METAPHYSICIANS LEAVE MY BOARD RIGHT NOW.

You're just trying to replicate with mathematical language what technical system builders have attempted to do since the beginning of philosophy now and ALL have failed. There is a reason both Leibniz and Wittgenstein, both mathematicians attempting to proceed in the same fashion, have later rejected their earlier approaches.

>intelligent
He didn't even know how to walk
>cliche philosophical ideas
Atheists are brainlets

OK, but to complex phenomena there's always more going on that the external observer can see, and this seems especially true when it comes to human ones: without involvement and guesses from direct experience no explanation can be exhaustive. The reductionist approach that works so well in physics and other areas of expertise is inadequate to heavily complex systems involving behaviors resulting from cognition, emotions and human like variables such as interaction.
So tl;dr scientists are greedy reductionist when it comes to some phenomena

>these may just be my retarded assumptions

Everything Hawkins is was thanks to Penrose. It's actually a fucking insult that Hawkins has gotten so much notoriety compared to Penrose. Even if Penrose new ideas are proven wrong he himself will remain right since he came up with the old ones too.

Attached: 812ed5c345b486f8f2afe6542850853c.jpg (754x706, 92K)

t. angry brainlet
Mathematics isn't invented, it is discovered. You can use it as a tool but it isn't a tool in itself.

My point is that favoring one vs another is silly, they're inherently different domains. And as you say, behavioral modelling can go rogue in pretty nasty ways because how inaccurate it is. A cautionary tale is that of broken windows theory - the infamous CompStat and stop and frisk policies in NYC.

What makes such application hideous is that you take some rough model of global state, and shoehorn it onto individual, force feed it onto em as "their" personal experience. This has "paradoxical" outcomes - since say, 90% of the district is "broken", but 10% still "pure", but now you treat the 10% as broken too (because behavioral model makes no exceptions for outlier population), you just force the good minority into illegality. They become criminals because you treat em like one, and it has even positive feedback loop where the inner city criminality spreads to areas where it wouldn't otherwise.

This is why one has to be extremely careful with behavioral models - ideally, they should be only observational - make a model what is, but never try to use a model to force an outcome. The model is far inaccurate for that, and insane unintended consequences lurk behind every corner. A good example of this is weather engineering. You can definitely predict weather by complex model and measurement probes, but if you attempt to use this to force some sort of ecology, only disaster lurks there.

It could be argued same effect has happened with feminism, or even "scientific" socialism. Social engineering must always come from within, never from outsideness.

bretty sure theres something in the vedas about a cyclical universal reality

Attached: 1554172854327.jpg (699x485, 60K)

T. Oblivious Pseud.
There's physics, a lot of it, that function in theory but not in actuality; in fact most math doesn't apply to reality—and if you actually knew physics you'd now that quantum mechanics has informed math (showing things though to be mathematically impossible).

Attached: Tsao-Triangle-d02d-05_crop-e1525216797670.jpg (600x567, 35K)

we're all bored

he is specified in a certain filed to the maximum degree so he trys to explain everything whit it. Obviously you cant do that but that is the delusion of scientism. He has obviously not read any serious philosophy so he ignores it out of ignorance

I spoke to Jeff Epstein the night before he died. We were on wine and laughed about how Stephen Hawking was at the island in a wheelchair but hopped out of it as soon as they landed. He didn't know sex so they just beat him up, he liked that. Weird guy, handsome when upright.

Say that to my face and see what happens bitch.

Attached: stephen.jpg (322x434, 26K)

that's not his argument against god

yeah most scientist are so naive and take all the assumptions of metaphysical realism for granted without being even able to prove the existance of an outside physical reality

Brief history of time was great tho, which he wrote by himself solely