If I wanted to learn about materialism and idealism, etc., what should I read? Should I look for articles or books? And what should I look for?
>>8076416
At first I felt aroused, but now I don't know what I feel.
Marx
>>8076416
I don't think /lit/, for all of its handwringing about truth and wisdom, addresses propriety enough, especially within the domestic sphere. Creating a welcoming environoment is so important and there are so few sources on it that arent essentially clickbait, or some victorian source.
Like I am throwing a house party in a few weeks and am planning Italian. Is that a faux pas, especially in summer? And I was considering inviting some people from a significantly lower socio-economic grouping. Is that an error as well?
Idealism in a nutshell
>>8076665
Do you recommend this book?
>>8076731
isn't the cat an observer herself
In what sense? All of philosophical idealism vs. all of philosophical materialism? Or are you mostly looking to understand German idealism? Or mostly historical materialism, and materialism in the economic/historical sense?
>>8076731
Superposition just means the probability space contains both events
>>8076738
The detector is the observer. That.s what translates the effects of the probabilistic phenomenon into a deterministic one.
Transport dynamics are also probabilistic phenomena on the molecular scale, but the large and frequent interactions force a certain statistical certainty, which is how we know the air concentration of poison vapors and where the liquid will be at a given time from just the initial conditions. These interactions are each observations.
"Observation" does not in this context mean "something perceived by a conscious being." Like fuck, we don't even know what consciousness is in the first place. What kind of sense would that make?
>>8077173
i can ensure you that it's largely assumed that cats don't have self-consciousness (there are tests to prove it) but they can detect the effects of poison vapours
either way your interpretation of quantum mechanics it's just your interpretation with no solid proof behind it
>>8077185
>either way your interpretation of quantum mechanics it's just your interpretation
No, that's the technical meaning of the term "observation" in the actual theory.
Literally <Ѱ|A|Ѱ> for the operator A corresponding to the classical observable a on wavefunction Ѱ
Like hahahahaha just read the postulates nigga hahahahaha
>>8077173
>The fundamental problem of Quantum Mechanics is a problem of the same sort. It is a mistaking of the math for the reality. The current theory of QM starts with the assumption that the probability wave is the reality. But the probability wave is the math. The math cannot be the reality. The math represents the reality. But it is not logically equivalent to the reality.
>>8076416
This guy is a fucking genius
>>8077423
Thats true about absolutely all science. Everything is just a falsifiable model with predictive capability. No physical model can be said to be "absolutely true."
"Observation" is still technical jargon within the model that has a specific meaning. It doesn't raise the question of what is "qualified to observe." That's just a mistake pseuds make.
The theory would not be well defined if it was build on the notion of consciousness, which is not itself consistent and well-defined. Or should I start shitposting about qualia?
>anything I can say about the physics of very small things is as good as what you say cause it's just like your opinion man
>>8077173
>Superposition just means the probability space contains both events
False.
>>8076416
That picture. Oh boy, that picture.
>>8078043
>Thats true about absolutely all science.
Every scientific theory other than Quantum Mechanics admits of a clear realistic interpretation.
>Everything is just a falsifiable model with predictive capability. No physical model can be said to be "absolutely true."
Nonsense. The moon still exists when nobody is looking at it. The distinction between 'model' and 'prediction' is not as clear as you think.
>"Observation" is still technical jargon within the model that has a specific meaning. It doesn't raise the question of what is "qualified to observe." That's just a mistake pseuds make.
That makes no sense at all. On that view, every theory could be made to be self-validated by redefining what "observation" means.
>The theory would not be well defined if it was build on the notion of consciousness, which is not itself consistent and well-defined. Or should I start shitposting about qualia?
What? Realistic theories are not built on a notion of consciousness. Only your instrumentalist view is.
>anything I can say about the physics of very small things is as good as what you say cause it's just like your opinion man
WTF? That's precisely your view. Realism requires an objectively true interpretation.
>>8078071
>The moon still exists when nobody is looking at it.
Lmao. Being this spooked
>>8078071
"I don't know shit about philosophy of science, but I will reply nonetheless :)"
