Forums | MacLife

As retarded as this may sound, those who think these movies embody poor philosophy aren't really smartest folks.  No doubt, these movies have a thick layer of cheese rubbed all over them. However they seemingly touch upon some really cool physics theories that most folks won't understand unless they've already learned about them.

As a philosophy of physics major I can assure you that you, and they, are full of smurf.

String theory is pretty meaningless from an ontological standpoint.  For one, it is beyond empirical verification.  More fundimentally, it assumes a universal background spacetime geometry, which is absurd.  Space time is dynamic and relational and spacetime geometry is a local phenomenon.  While these things are still the case string theory will never be able to say anything useful about the physical universe; much less will it be able to unify anything.

Considering string theory is an entirely unempirical endevour, anything linking it with everyday experience without a physical basis is pseudophilosophical trip of the worst sort.

uh-huh.  and that is ALSO why you cannot assure us of anything.

all philosphy is untestable.... THAT'S WHY IT IS PHILOSOPHY. so only as a THEORY, can you say it sucks.

as an attempt to unify theory and philosophy... i find it fascinating despite it's potential failure.

which explains the matrix rather well.  a reference is only a reference, the meaning is for you to choose.... which is the WHOLE FREAKING POINT of the movies.

quite symmetrical.  so the fact that you hate them and the theories only makes sense to me.

heh, you are a scientific fundamentalist.

As retarded as this may sound, those who think these movies embody poor philosophy aren't really smartest folks.  No doubt, these movies have a thick layer of cheese rubbed all over them. However they seemingly touch upon some really cool physics theories that most folks won't understand unless they've already learned about them.

As a philosophy of physics major I can assure you that you, and they, are full of smurf.

String theory is pretty meaningless from an ontological standpoint.  For one, it is beyond empirical verification.  More fundimentally, it assumes a universal background spacetime geometry, which is absurd.  Space time is dynamic and relational and spacetime geometry is a local phenomenon.  While these things are still the case string theory will never be able to say anything useful about the physical universe; much less will it be able to unify anything.

Considering string theory is an entirely unempirical endevour, anything linking it with everyday experience without a physical basis is pseudophilosophical trip of the worst sort.

uh-huh.  and that is ALSO why you cannot assure us of anything.

all philosphy is untestable.... THAT'S WHY IT IS PHILOSOPHY. so only as a THEORY, can you say it sucks.

as an attempt to unify theory and philosophy... i find it fascinating despite it's potential failure.

which explains the matrix rather well.  a reference is only a reference, the meaning is for you to choose.... which is the WHOLE FREAKING POINT of the movies.

quite symmetrical.  so the fact that you hate them and the theories only makes sense to me.

heh, you are a scientific fundamentalist.

String theory is not meant to be philsophy, that is why it needs to be proven scientifically if ever to be accepted.  Which I believe will be possible in the future.

who said that string theory had intent?  if a hypothesis cannot be tested or is not based on fact; it is philosophy.

I also don't know where you get this idea that philosophy is unstable.

considering i said untestable, i can understand your confusion.

That's just some weird conclusion you reached.  Much of philosophy has worked to remove every instability by refusing every assumption.

philosophy is the attempt to explain instability / absurdity and is based on assumptions.  at most, a basic theory about things which are not emperical in nature.  i perhaps should not have said "all" - but i was assuming a limit to references in the matrix.

Regardless of any of this, whether string theory is science or philsophy, or whether it is wrong or right, we are missing the point: THERE WAS NO REFERENCE TO IT.  "balancing the equation" is not a reference to string theory ok?

this was my "scientific fundamentalist" quip.  the movie ain't literal.  did neo say "hey guys, i am a christ like figue and will die.  sorta"

did you not see the "golden equation" in the intro?  is not the presence of math and "the equation" a reference to a universal theory.  is not the movie about the universal nature man.  it's allegory.

It's something you do in every proof.  Anamolies are also no reference, they exist in every theory until the theory has matured.  Anamolies are not inherent to string theory, if they were then it wouldn't be taken seriously, which was a problem it faced early on.

yeah, the graviton is just a "problem."  what do the strings look like?  hey, what are the strings MADE OF?  where do they start or end?  do they have a life span?  who made them?  what made them?

He is also not a scientific fundamentalist, in philsophy as well there is a rejection of "safe" questions, those that cannot be proven right or wrong.

bullsmurf.  i am thinking of a paper knife...  what is it's essence?

"There is a troll on your shoulder", "but I can't see him", "that is a property of trolls", "but I can't feel him", "this too is a property of trolls".

you seem to think all philosphy is about the absolutes... another scientist.

This question is one many philsophers will reject to comment on, it cannot be proven right or wrong.

what?  have you never heard of the phenomalogical theories?  hell, most philosophy is about the very truth of knowledge itself?  i suppose you think existentialism isn't philosophy either...

That's just some weird conclusion you reached.  Much of philosophy has worked to remove every instability by refusing every assumption.

philosophy is the attempt to explain instability / absurdity and is based on assumptions.  at most, a basic theory about things which are not emperical in nature.  i perhaps should not have said "all" - but i was assuming a limit to references in the matrix.

Why is it you take one philsophy and say that that is what all philsophy is?  You do know that there is religious philsophy which does not consider absurdity don't you? 

Again, much of the work of philsophy has been to refuse assumptions, that's the point, to step back and try to find truth, not assume it.  This is what "I think therefore I am" is all about, he said the very first thing I can know with proof is of my own existance because I can think.  But then there was criticism even on this, the question was asked, why do you assume an I?  Couldn't the I in "I think" be analogous to the "it" in "it rains".  And so forth, it is a struggle to understand the world around us, to not accept what is simply assumed.  To say "why are we here?" "is there a god", not to just accept what the church says.

Regardless of any of this, whether string theory is science or philsophy, or whether it is wrong or right, we are missing the point: THERE WAS NO REFERENCE TO IT.  "balancing the equation" is not a reference to string theory ok?

this was my "scientific fundamentalist" quip.  the movie ain't literal.  did neo say "hey guys, i am a christ like figue and will die.  sorta"

did you not see the "golden equation" in the intro?  is not the presence of math and "the equation" a reference to a universal theory.  is not the movie about the universal nature man.  it's allegory.

I don't see how you go from golden equation to string theory.  It's a pretty big leap.  Even if it was about the unversal theory, that also does not connect it to string theory, which is *a*, not *the*, possibility for a unviersal theory.

It's something you do in every proof.  Anamolies are also no reference, they exist in every theory until the theory has matured.  Anamolies are not inherent to string theory, if they were then it wouldn't be taken seriously, which was a problem it faced early on.

yeah, the graviton is just a "problem."  what do the strings look like?  hey, what are the strings MADE OF?  where do they start or end?  do they have a life span?  who made them?  what made them?

I don't really understand what you're trying to say here.  Basically you have given me a bunch of unanswered questions.  Those are not anamolies.  Anamolies are inconsistencies.  This is what happens when people learn a new word and think they're cool, look, here is an anomaly:

x+5=10
x+2=10
x+5=x+2
5=2

See, that is an inconsistency.  Sometimes you get nonsense like that in equations because there is a problem.  This is when you go back and try to figure out where you messed up.

I also don't know what a gravitron has to do with this.  It is simply something that is proposed by string theory, there is work trying to imperically find out if it really exists.

He is also not a scientific fundamentalist, in philsophy as well there is a rejection of "safe" questions, those that cannot be proven right or wrong.

bullsmurf.  i am thinking of a paper knife...  what is it's essence?

"There is a troll on your shoulder", "but I can't see him", "that is a property of trolls", "but I can't feel him", "this too is a property of trolls".

you seem to think all philosphy is about the absolutes... another scientist.

No, you simply seem to not understand what I'm talking about.  I was not referring to absolutes, I was referring to what is called a non-question.  Look at my troll example, it can't be argued, I've set up a situation where it is impossible to tell whether it is or not.  Philosophers refer to these as non-questions, those which philosophy does not approach since they are unarguable.

This question is one many philsophers will reject to comment on, it cannot be proven right or wrong.

what?  have you never heard of the phenomalogical theories?  hell, most philosophy is about the very truth of knowledge itself?  i suppose you think existentialism isn't philosophy either...

Lol, you sound like some high school kid who just heard of this stuff and thinks he's awesome.

What you say doesn't approach what I was referring to at all, in part since you completely missed the point.  What does existentialism have to do with non-questions.  Existentialism is an interpretation of our existence, the idea that we have no purpose and that we thus instill purpose in our existence through choices.  This has nothing to do with "birds have souls, but you will never find them since they can not be perceived".  See, that's a non-question.  Basically its "this is true but cannot be proven thus and the fact it cant is more proof that it is true".  Lol you even have existentialism in your signature, you must really think you know your stuff.

heh,

i sure know how to push the buttons of tense people though.  you are lost.

I'd call you out for being out of your depth, but iopossum has already done it quite cleanly.

The very fact that you assume all philosophy to be unempircal speaks volumes.

except, of course i didn't say that.

if it cannot be tested, it is merely speculation.  that is the basic definition of philosophy.

Fool.

illiterate jack-hole.  i don't see an "all" in there..

and, my name is a clue for your dumb ass.  everything is more or less - nothing is absolute.

perhaps you didn't pick up on the nihilism?

i suppose next you'll argue about the fact the matix trilogy as a story is NOT an epic metaphorical existential crisis about what it means to be an individual in a absurd world where life seems to have no purpose...

you are a suffusion, alright.

a) You do not know what philosophy is.
b) You are trying to draw philosophical significance from the Matrix.
c) Despite claiming to be a proponent, you do not understand existentialism.
d) You are still trying to draw philosophical significance from the Matrix.*

You can spout ill-informed pseudo-solipsist pap like "there are no absolutes" all you like; it doesn't change the fact that you have no smurfing idea what you're talking about.





* The smurfing Matrix.  You pathetic clown.

Seriously More or Less, tone down the emotions.

Try to learn from other people, rather than trying to annoy them or whatever. It's neat what you can find out if you listen.

You are inevitably cuaght in your own jargon.  Instead of staying on subject you keep on tripping yourself in all these different examples that don't have anything to do with the subject at hand.  This generally happens when someone learns a number of buzz words and doesn't really know what they're talking about.

Regardless, I think we've established that Matrix did not allude to string theory at all, which was what we were discussing.

Oh, and one more thing:

i said a reference, an allegory - an allusion to... you are not a mod, you are a fraud.

and certainly no god.

is that supposed to be clever?

Sounds to me everyone here needs to get off their high horse.
It was just a stupid movie, and maybe, just maybe there was no hidden meaning in the end. I didn't see any hidden meanings in the first 2. Everything seamed clear

Maybe we should set about ranting on the movie Mindwalk... there should be no argument that it explores science.

The Matrix and its exploration of all the wonderful and fascinating things in the world should not be a surprise...

Though I don't seek to equally compare movies to literature... indulge me when I say it can be like a leap into the pages of Foucault's Pendulum.

indulge me when I say it can be like a leap into the pages of Foucault's Pendulum.

Intolerably pretentious?

Grotesquely plebeian.

Grotesquely plebeian.

The leap or the pages?

The questions.

Pedantry is not an effective method of argument.

Is this the "who can be the most pretentious while accusing the other people of being pretentious" thread?

What are you, some kind of intellectual?