It has come to pass. Gravitational waves detected
Today they officially announced the discovery of gravitational waves. Einstein predicted them 100 years ago. What do you think about this?As a child, in the sky, I saw a UFO, something like swirling blue and red lights. I've never seen anything like it.
A.Soldier of Light
Or the physicist is sitting, what's the difference? )) The main thing is that not a bum from the street, but a scientist.
So you can instruct the dentist to remove the appendix. Well, what, after all, not a bum from the street, but a medic.
Why not a scientist? Why is there a distrust of such broadcasts, where an alternative point is expressed?
Very simple. Alternative points do not hold water. That's all.
For example, the main worldview of the Runet is atheism and materialism, as well as agreement with the official picture of the world (a person is one hundred thousand years old, descended from a monkey, there is no engine on the water, pure water is delirium, a person lives once (there is no soul), etc.). Personal observations)
Interestingly, I have the opposite impression. Mass scientific illiteracy is very often striking. Why so - the question, probably, mainly to school education ... In general, there is something, but we somehow do not have enough materialism, even judging by this forum.
What else do I observe in the world: when someone tells something that does not fit with the official ideas of the Universe and the picture of the world, with official science, many try to come up with what is wrong with this person, instead of just taking note and assume that he can still speak the truth ...
Well, for example, if I say that I saw a winged unicorn, would you be able to admit that I am telling the truth?
By the way, many people are absolutely sincere about what they have experienced. For them, their "supernatural" experience is as real as anything else. For example, those very "inner meetings with God." Or someone "saw" or "heard" their deceased relative. Or even the aliens have kidnapped someone. I can very much even admit that a person who tells a similar experience is not lying. Another thing is that these people simply misinterpreted the source of their unusual experiences. They believe that the source was reality, when in fact everything arose in the "virtuality" of their consciousness. This always turns out on closer skepticism, whether we like it or not.
I like your pseudo-scientific arguments. Please continue further. And more out-of-context inferences like "Mass scientific illiteracy is very often striking. Why so - the question, probably, mainly to school education ... In general, really something, but materialism in our country is somehow not very and enough, even judging by this forum. " - they please me beyond measure.
Gauguin
Give me the ultimate indivisible matter of
Quarka? It would seem that what does materialism have to do with it.
Wing42
Please continue further. And more out-of-context inferences like "Mass scientific illiteracy is very often striking.
I also noticed massive scientific illiteracy, so what?"
Gauguin
Give me the ultimate indivisible matter. Please.
I don’t think I’m better at elementary particle physics than you. So I'm sorry, but I didn't get the hint.
Wing42
"I also noticed massive scientific illiteracy, so what?"
But you were smart enough not to talk about it with the air of a three-hundred-year-old academician, part-time the creator of the philosopher's stone and perpetual motion machine.
Why can't you say it?
I watched Katyuschik's video about this. What a man's Dunning Kruger, just fucking ...
JetRanger
So sorry, but I didn't get the hint.
In order to assert the truth of materialism, you need to know the ultimate matter. We don't know.
Gauguin
In order to assert the truth of materialism, one must know finite matter.
Why then. It is enough just not to admit anything supernatural.
We don't know.
And we’ll hardly ever find out. Of course, theor. physics and cosmology will develop further, and most likely, sooner or later, it will still be possible to derive this so-called Theory of Everything and get to the origins of space-time itself. But there is still a limit to knowledge, because our brain, in theory, is not designed to comprehend the nature of the Universe - it evolved in order to survive in the savannah, and not pore over the structure of an atom or a black hole. So, in any case, we are destined to someday run into the fundamentally unknowable. It is only incomprehensible why many people so want to see their god as the God of Gaps.
JetRanger
It's enough just not to admit anything supernatural.
And why on earth should materialism be recognized if we do not know what kind of matter everything consists of?
So, in any case, we are destined to someday run into the fundamentally unknowable.
And what, haven't they already rested?
Gauguin
And why on earth should materialism be recognized if we do not know what kind of matter everything is made of?
You misunderstand the essence of materialism.
https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9C%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%B0%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0 % B7% D0% BC
And what, haven't you already rested?
Not yet.
Gauguin
And why on earth should materialism be recognized if we do not know what kind of matter everything is made of?
Because everything is made of matter. What is its exact structure is already a separate question, not particularly related to the worldview.
And what, haven't they already rested?
May be. But this, of course, is not a reason for scientists to give up. The future will show what new horizons await us.
The same discovery for me, what kind of waves are not there, and gravity is an exception?
Gauguin
"Why on earth should materialism be recognized if we do not know what kind of matter everything is made of?"
There is a philosophical trend based on the assertion that the world around a person cannot be fully cognized, to the end, and one hundred percent. This direction is called, if I remember correctly, agnosticism. But agnostics - people who adhere to this idea - are not at all guided by the side of it that says: "There is no point in trying to know everything." They are guided by the one that says "But this is not a reason not to try."
You say that there is no point in recognizing materialism without knowing what kind of matter everything consists of. This seems strange to me, because you, most likely, recognize the achievements of science and technology, use the water supply system, electricity, the Internet, drive a car (or in transport as a passenger), fly on an airplane, call by phone and watch films on TV in distant times free from the internet. However, I do not presume to assert, but it is possible that it is so, that you are familiar with the device and the principle of operation of all of the above superficially, at the everyday level. Problems of aerodynamics, electromagnetic phenomena, internal combustion engines, methods of transmitting color and black-and-white images through the movement of waves or particles are completely uninteresting to you.
It seemed to me that if you take your reasoning for truth, then you can deny in general everything in which your knowledge gives weakness.
However, all this will exist regardless of whether you acknowledge this existence or not. And this will be used by billions of people, including you.
Wing42
You say that there is no point in recognizing materialism. I am
just criticizing its shortcomings - the absence of finite indivisible matter and, as a result, ignorance of what matter is in general. It's just that a lot of people in modern times present materialism as the only truth, which is doubtful. And who said that there is no idea, for example? And who said that it is not primary?
you most likely recognize the achievements of science and technology, use the water supply system, electricity, the Internet, drive a car (or transport as a passenger), fly on an airplane, call on the phone and watch movies on TV in the distant days, free from the Internet.
I tell you about the foundation, and you tell me about the weathercocks.
JetRanger
Because everything is made of matter
What is it?
Gauguin
"... the absence of finite indivisible matter"
Most likely you meant the initial indivisible matter, as a common structural unit for the structure of all substances in the universe, both organic and inorganic. Although the universe is too bold, we will limit ourselves to planet Earth. However, materialism is not really about that.
In my eyes, the materialistic worldview promotes the idea of ​​the predominance of the material and the material over the spiritual and the imaginary in importance, and the reasoning about the existence or non-existence of common matter can be attributed to materialism with a very big stretch and only as very special cases.
"I tell you about the foundation, and you tell me about the weathercocks."
It is not necessary to look at weathercocks, not at the structure itself, and not at the foundation. You have to look at the ground on which it is built. And very hard to dig, dig, dig.
Gauguin
lack of finite indivisible matter
She is. These are quarks.
And who said that there is no idea, for example? And who said that it is not primary?
In the beginning there was a big bang. What idea are you talking about?
as a consequence, ignorance of what matter is in general.
And who told you that we do not know what matter is? https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9C%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B8%D1%8F_(%D1%84%D0%B8% D0% B7% D0% B8% D0% BA% D0% B0)