Zizek attempts to tackle quantum mechanics

I'm about a tenth of the way through and it's already confusing different experiments in physics. Philosophers should just not write about scientific subjects they've never studied, it makes people assume they are just bullshitting.

can you read, nigger?

this was a mistake.

what experiments is he confusing and where?

"the EPR double slit experiment"
These are two different experiments. He at least got guy who did the EPR experiment right. The EPR experiment has to do with quantum entanglement, and the double slit experiment has to do with the wave properties of light/matter and the fundamentally probabilistic character of QM.

that's not even in the text

What are you talking about?

oh, I thought when you used the quotation mark you used it to… you know… quote

Zizek's wrong because he's relying on le Oprah cognition nonsense. Waveforms don't collapse because of cognition, but "observation" which is meant differently in physics.

A light sensor "observes" by interacting with the electron through collision with photons.

The quantum cognition shit has to be the biggest mistake made by physicists and popularizers of physics in recent history. The general public is considerably less informed about physics because of this shit.

Sadly, I think Mr. Obesity is right. Also why the argument that quantum physics proves God is so absurd.

...

can someone explain what this means?

Nope. But it looks too perfect, like its a parody of how Zizek actually writes.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Broglie–Bohm_theory

Into the trash it goes.

...

No argument needed

...

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afshar_experiment

>The Big O
Patrician taste, broheim.

...

I bet you're voting Sea Hag 2016.

It's the hidden variable part that is bad. Local hidden variable theories are known to be untenable. Bohmian mechanics is a nonlocal hidden variable theory, but hidden variables are still shit.

I mean I don't think they're necessarily the answer either, but just because you think they're shit doesn't mean they're not correct

a better justification would be the results of delayed choice experiments

I don't have time to read it all right now, but this interpretation also makes the most sense to me. In fact, I'd more or less reached the same hypothesis independently, although without the same grounding in proper philosophy.

since we got some quantum theory experiments here maybe someone can provide a missing puzzle piece in my understanding.

the problem with quantum theory is that when you entangle photons via polarization and then rotate your detector the classical prediction is that the detection rate will decrease linearly,
but quantum theory says that it decreases following a sine wave pattern.
experiments confirm that it does move in a sine pattern.

can you link to a source or explain why classical theory says that it must happen linearly, and why quantum theory says that it must follow a sine wave?
why can't classical physics also predict a sine wave pattern?

quantum theory experts*

To be fair, cognitively perceiving something necessarily involves many quantum observations. It's just that you can have quantum observations (and hence propagation of entanglement) without conscious perception.

Also there's a deeper question of whether it's possible to treat consciousness itself as a quantum system, and if so, whether that system is less susceptible to entanglement than the physical matter of the brain. What we do know is that we don't observe spooky quantum effects on a macroscopic scale.

i think i mean "Hidden Variable Theory", not "classical physics"
anyway, i hope you can figure out my problem.

But that places some special significance on the observer as being some sort of indivisible subject.

"I wish to make it clear that, as it stands, this is far from a resolution of the cat paradox. For there is nothing in the formalism of quantum mechanics that demands that a state of consciousness cannot involve the simultaneous perception of a live and a dead cat." -Roger Penrose

Wellllll at the end of the day, quantum phenomena are purely probabilistic. So there's still no free will involved, at least if we take a materialist view of it. It would be a probabilistic, instead of a deterministic universe.

Not entirely true tbh

The rotation of the polarizer means that photons, going in a certain direction, cannot go there anymore? You gotta assume that they're moving like an arc. That way you can see by simple mechanics that rotating the polarizer it will decrease linearly, because it blocks the photons

Photons move in straight lines, Rebel.

I know, I mean en masse. Consider a million photons moving from a point in every direction. after 1 second you could consider the 'fronter' between the photons and where they haven't yet reached a circle.

Same logic.

My singularity says not.

do your calculations involve cubic time? -.-

...

If you want to play these sorts of games, it's technically wrong to even state that the photon is moving, given that it's at lightspeed. The photon experiences 0 time and 0 distance, ergo it is at all points in its trajectory simultaneously.

you're not funny. it was somewhat funny when rebel did it but not really, either, because that kind of trolling isn't very original.

I don't mean arcs like "bending" my dude

no, you don't mean anything, you're just concatenating random words.

at least is technically correct, though it's completely useless.

"You're concocting random words"

Polariser make photon go poo. Photons less!

yeah no shit sherlock.
wish someone would ban this faggot.

youtube.com/watch?v=28XGWMnSxz8

The nothing you have just heard, is the velocity of light.

...

"Free will" is ultimately semantics so I'll overlook that.
But the universe ISN'T deterministic.

I want to buy one of his books. Any recommendations?

Zizek what the fuck are you doing?

Wew

bump

the first one

Quantum mechanics is not exempt from an ideological analysis, you stemlord autists.

Here's the basic gist so you can save yourself a lot of reading: the split between substance and subjectivity, Being and reflection, is insurmountable, and the only reconciliation possible is a narrative one, that of the subject telling the story of his endless oscillation between the two poles.

Top kook
I know you mean "the human act by which the theoretical model termed 'quantum mechanics' was discovered is subject to ideological analysis", not "the quantum mechanical underpinnings of reality are subject to ideology", or even "political ideology on the human level is shaped by the structure of subatomic physics", but you solipsist PoMo jerkoffs always have to phrase even the most vacuous truisms in the most misleadingly pretentious fashion possible.

Solipsist? Really?

Bro do you even gnosticism? The demiurge is a pure ideologist.

versus
I honestly can't tell whether you're agreeing with me, or spouting more
If you're so enthralled by staring into your navel that you think the processes used to resolve the petty political spats of some monkeys on a random ball of mud have any dominion over the system by which the universe resolves its continued existence, that's about as solipsist as you can get.

Does that mean we should humor Him by aligning our conduct to His? That'll only encourage Him!

Wait, so science isn't human activity?

Human activity
Completely unrelated to humanity

So are you saying that science is the only human activity whose products (theories, models, facts, etc.) become independent of their producers? As in these products, say, models, after being created, resemble nothing other that of human origins, including possible flaws, room for improvement, inconsistencies, paradoxes, etc.?

It's just SCIENCE! *poof* and it's OBJECTIVITY ACHIEVED?

Wow, I sure have a lot to learn from you!

Scientific theories are imperfect by nature, because they're products of human labor, designed as models to approximately predict their subjects of study. They are inseparable from their creators, because they are merely thoughts, but good science can be discerned (also imperfectly) from bad science by how closely it resembles its subject.

Scientific subjects are perfect (because something can't be an approximation of itself, duh) and in the case of fields such as physics, unchanging, because they simply exist, regardless of humanity.

Politically analyzing the human element makes sense, because humans are political. Politically analyzing the contents of a scientific theory, instead of the people behind it, is wrongheaded and useless. Politically analyzing nature itself directly is completely insane.

kek, ima do this too, muh nig

Politically analyzing the contents of a BAD scientific theory is OK.

Politically analyzing BAD theories of nature is OK.

You see what I did there?

Wow, getting religion-tier here, friend. What makes you think that whole scientific subjects can't become superfluous in time, for instance, that they can't conjoin or become? What makes you think that the distinction between chemistry and biology isn't an error in the first place? You describe scientific subjects as if the set of observable properties they deal with weren't chosen by us, as if these sets weren't continuously growing, changing.

Except nobody said that "physics as such was an approximation of physics as such." In fact it is you who seems to imply that scientific subjects exists "out there" and that we had nothing to do with their formulation. In other words, you are confusing "nature" with "scientific subject.

Just read again your sentence, dummy.

Wrong. Politics can't be used to analyze science, they can only be used to analyze the process by which science is conducted. Saying "this theory is right/wrong because I have research to the affirmative/contrary" is fine, saying "this theory is right/wrong because its findings are helpful/unacceptable" is crazy. The correct way to use politics for/against science is indirectly, by proving whether or not the motives of its participants interfered with its neutrality.

Two different things.

Maybe because the universe would exist whether or not we studied it, whether or not we even existed, and its rules are totally unaffected by anything we'll ever do? Any buffoon knows that science is fallible, but the universe can't be "wrong" even if our perception of it is.

!!!

By definition, science is the study of nature.

Wait, I think I understand one disconnect. The word "subject" as I used it meant "thing being subjected to science", while "subject" as you used it meant "subdiscipline within the many fields of science".

Politics can't be used to analyze anything, period. Critical analyses can have political consequences.

My whole point.

And by definition "the monkey" and "the studying of the monkey" are different.

Can't you see I'm not making a stupid "does the falling tree make sound if nobody hears it" argument? You start off by calling POMO everyone who isn't you and you can't seem to open your eyes to the real arguments.

If by "critical analysis" you mean "critical theory" in particular, rather than critical judgement itself (which the scientific process is built arount)? It is 101% political, and completely unsuited for anything outside politics.

Critical analysis can take many forms. You can also analyze the same thing on thousands of different levels, from different angles, comparing them to infinite number of things, and deducing millions of conclusions all while staying inside what you call "critical judgement". None of these are 'perfect' guarantees that your analysis was true. That you exclude from this huge sphere of possible critical endeavours "critical theory" just show your complete ignorance imo not just in critical theory, but in philosophy of science too.

If I had to take a guess I'd say you are a sam-harris adoring nu-atheist teenage faggot who drools over le science is awesome videos but doesn't actually study what science is, what opposing views scientists hold on what science is or can be, its history, its limitations, etc. Nope. For you it's "SCIENCE OMFG IT SOLVES EVERYTHING AND ITS OBJECTIVE AND SHUDUP YOU POMO FUNDIE CHRISTIAN, LOL!"

Critical analysis CAN take many forms, but not all of them are suited to every subject. When I refer to "critical theory", I am referring to a specific field originally intended to highlight the political ramifications of literary works, and which under the decades-long domination of masturbatory postmodernists has grown like a tumor to cover every subject known to humanity, all (ab)using the same methodology far beyond its intended design or inherent limitations.

I am not excluding critical theory from critical analysis. Rather, I am confining it to a subset of critical analysis, one separate from that of science. Applying critical theory to science, is no more sensible than applying science to literary critique: One is a fact-finding venture based on objective criteria, like a court trial; while the other is a conversational process based on subjective criteria, like a political congress. The two may overlap, but they don't mix.

I'm just someone who's seen the sciences hobbled by misguided moralizing, and the arts despoiled by pretentious pseudoscience, both resulting from the manipulative or ignorant shouting over the heads of experts in either field to manipulate laymen as shocktroops for coups.

What a perfectly useless circle this discussion moved in. We started with
and arrived at

It's as like you have no idea what you are talking about, especially if we look at what happened in between.

>based on objective criteria, like a court trial
dude, you are a dense one

Remember, my original issue wasn't that I (probably) disagreed with you, but that you phrased what you said in the gayest way imaginable. It's almost as though you're a pomo faggot.

Court trials being decided on feefees instead of rules and evidence are the start and end of the problem.

It wasn't even me who you originally replied to. (see lack of flag)

I just thought that you intentionally or unknowingly misrepresent what was said there
It turns out the latter was true, that is, you are not just malignant, but stupid too.

Complex ideas are expressed in unconventional ways. Pic very much related.

Oh, I tend to switch flags when the tone of a discussion shifts from respectful to shitposty.

I unambiguously stated in the spoiler what I suspected the rhetorical motte in that little bailey was.

This is intentionally misleading:
This would be technically acceptable:
Notice the difference? The former is coquettishly teasing profundities about a relationship between political ideology and the breakthrough (not to mention highly respected prestigious) field of quantum physics, with perhaps just a sprinkle of mystical bullshit about quantum "consciousness" and the nature of truth.

The latter is (aside from being totally unrelated to what Zizek wrote) a banal statement of fact so pointless in its lack of any meaningful assertion as to be unworthy of utterance or sincere acknowledgment.

I already told you that it wasn't my post you first replied to, I joined in with a precise reformulation of user's sentence:

and later:

So back to your response:
The behavior? Like farting on duty, making mistakes because being hangover? How does that differ from the behavior of the janitor? I'm talking about the products of his labor: scientific theory; you: his behavior.
"Notice the difference?"

Also, nobody argued about spooky hippy interpretations of quantum physics ITT, nobody said that "quantum consciousness" is like, totally cool, man, nobody said that trees falling don't make a sound, yet you keep arguing against these ghosts.

It's a no-ID user board, and we weren't tripfagging, I just assumed you were the same person.

Making scientific theory isn't like making a chair or a novel, the product isn't supposed to be something that can be subjectively analyzed, it's supposed to be as identical a replica as possible of something that simply exists. You can critique the process used to create it, but not the result, which can only be compared.

Think of a history book, for instance. You can analyze the political character of the historian, and look for political bias influencing their historiography, but you can not analyze the factual claims of the book using critical theory, because history doesn't have a political bias, so the only tool you can analyze that with is… Historiography.

Things like philosophy of science can be used to analyze the process of science, but science itself is the only appropriate tool for analyzing the output of science.

Yeah? Well how do you decide what is a hypothesis worth pursuing? How do you decide that you have a theory that is telling you something is missing which it can be amended with as opposed to a theory that is plain wrong? How do you decide that you have a theory that is plain wrong because it is either conceptually confused (wave-particle duality) or applicable only to a lower domain (Newtonian mechanics) despite being functionally true?

Empirical science is relative to the subjective whims of individuals and popularity of conceptual beliefs. Just because it works does not mean the reason it claims to work is true.

Look at the evidence.
Compare it to evidence.
Search for evidence.

It is a perverse sort of fatalism to believe we are so blinded by personal subjectivity that we are incapable of discerning the most neutral truth from earnest observation.

You're the kind of person who would dismiss the big bang cosmological model because it was put forward by a Jesuit.

Distinguishing good science from bad science is really simply: Does this resemble reality more, or less?

Distinguishing good politics from bad politics is hopelessly subjective: Do I like it? Do you like it? Why are our opinions the way they are? etc, etc…

The two fields share basically nothing with each other.

...

Behold, the argumentative prowess of the postmodernist.

That's a shit tier interpretation of the scientific method. You can never know your hypothesis is true.

Irrelevant to science itself. There is no "worth pursuing" in science.
Also this

You can't "know" anything to be true, but you at least have an objective target you can attempt to measure and compare against.

The same can not be said for endeavors outside science.

Ah, I see you are the one who has direct access to "reality". Teach us your ways, great one!

Can you prove with the scientific method that nature is a totality or fully constituted "objective target"? It seems to me that with quantum physics we arrived to the point where we see holes in your "objectivity."

Just because you don't have a perfect view, doesn't mean you're blind. Also, if you're subject to a roughly similar obscuration at all times, you can recognize, and even correct for, it.

If some level of nature was "a moving target", the patterns of that movement would only betray the deeper rules by which that movement occurred, like breaking into a computer system. Science is the only intellectual tool we can do that with.

The law (courts and all) is the mother of all post-modernism. There are no facts in a trial, just scrambling over endless texts and finally an announcement which has no connection to reality, but derives its entire force from having been a pronouncement, and subsequently becomes the text that future lawyers and judges will scrabble over to make future pronouncements.

This shit's simple. You think you have correct knowledge until you observe something that debunks it. We don't have "access to" objective reality but we all live in it.

Oh, I think the Fritjof Capras of the world were very deliberate about it.

Resemblances are always false. If you wish to use this definition you must forfeit your claim that science produces truths.

[moving goalpost happens here]
No, what was said here
is that nature is an objective target. An opposed notion was raised here (that nature is forever always unfinished on an ontological level, thus can't be totalized, thus the category "objective" doesn't really suffice) and not the notion that "it's a moving target."

BTW that you are trying to compare the astonishing weirdness of quantum phenomena and our current theoretical deadlock to formalize it to >hacking a computer just shows that you aren't just shit at philosophy of science but at your own fedora tipping too. (I recommend you watching more Sam Harris, that will surely help, wink wink!)

I actually think that knowledges can't describe truth – on the other hand I don't doubt that truth exists. I'm not aware of a scientific knowledge whose status as "correct" hasn't been over-ruled by another (and plz don't mistake science for to its application or technology, e.g. "if I mix piss and poop I always get mustard gas, SCIENCE!" or for mathematic truths, thanks.)

...

shit, forgot to memearrow twice

What? This question is nonsensical, as it implies there is always there is a closed loop of scientific theories that override each other.

Which question? Please quote it.

Have you seen a "finalized" scientific theory yet? One which hasn't been questioned on scientific grounds, one that didn't produce even the smallest anomalies when put to practice, or one that hasn't been over-ruled by another? If not, that surely it's not nonsensical to state a simple observation.

The quoted sentence with a question mark at the end, genius.

General Relativity has made 70 years of consistent predictions. You don't know what you're talking about.

But that's the problem. There was no question you could possibly quote. You made one, no doubt, but don't attribute it to me.

Yeah, call me when you have it united with quantum theory.

Whatever. I must have cut + pasted wrong. It's a statement now, and it's still nonsensical.

And the goalposts have started sliding. You asked for a "correct" scientific theory, not a theory of everything.

No problem. You can still ask questions concerning those sentences.

With you its like we're not even in the same discussion.

That's such a naive hypothetical, a pop-sci term, no wonder that it was initially used with an ironic connotation to refer to overgeneralized theories. What's next? The God particle, bby?

The Sublime Object of Ideology, The Ticklish Subject, The Fragile Absolute: Or, Why is the Christian Legacy Worth Fighting For?, Did Somebody Say Totalitarianism?, Revolution at the Gates: Žižek on Lenin, the 1917 Writings, The Parallax View, Less Than Nothing: Hegel and the Shadow of Dialectical Materialism, Trouble in Paradise: From the End of History to the End of Capitalism, Absolute Recoil: Towards a New Foundation of Dialectical Materialism, Against the Double Blackmail: Refugees, Terror and Other Troubles with the Neighbours

His first works are good for first reading. He has some works on christianity as well if you're interested in that stuff..

No we've not. This is just what pretensions posers want it to mean.

oh no, my feelings

So let's talk about Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, an ontological either/or, right?

I can know the position of a particle.
I can know its momentum.
But not both at the same time.

As we know this isn't about the observation, but a fundamental property of quantum systems.

You say particles exist "objectively". A particle, by definition is an object with a position and momentum (mass, velocity). Can you prove to me that any given particle satisfies "objectively" its defining criteria?

⁉⁉⁉⁉⁉⁉

How many levels of irony are you on, bru? If I try to draw copies of a painting, and some are closer to the original, are you saying there's no objective standard to decide which is the best copy, and it's no more objective than simply judging which painting is prettiest?

Metaphysics is just philosophy, it's purely for mental exercise, like arguing about comic book continuity or RPG rules, and has no link to reality.

Like I said, we've already formalized it. Quantum mechanics perfectly predicts the behavior of quantum systems using statistical probability. The lack of a unified theory between microphysics and macrophysics has zero bearing on the accuracy of either model within its domain.

That's not the point, science isn't composed of what could accurately be termed "facts" or "knowledge", just theories of varying strength. The idea behind the scientific method is to ruthlessly, endlessly call bullshit on everything. Any theories that withstand this onslaught are the closest humanity can come to facts.

Also:
Most theories aren't "debunked" in whole, instead being abstracted, tweaked, or amended, with most or all of their assertions left standing beneath the newer theories. Wholesale changes in science are extremely rare.

If you think complaining about the incompleteness of candidates for "theory of everything" is silly, why do you use this same argument to ignore the fact that domain-specific theories are already complete and functional?

Under quantum mechanics, there is no such thing as a particle, there are only quantum systems, which can be conveniently described as embodying virtual particles.

Particles objectively exist yes. They don't care if you're watching them, they do what they do. Nuclear decay for example predates sentient life. Are you arguing for the existence of god or some other conscious creator? Your magical thinking and lack of understanding of quantum mechanics doesn't change the reality, that we live in a materialist world where things can be quantified and measured.

...

...

He wasn't talking about art. This thread isn't about art. Keep your anti-positivism confined to the humanities where it belongs.

...

lel

I was making the metaphorical argument that using subjectivism to study the universe is as ridiculous as using positivism to study the humanities.

First, let me appreciate that you at least googled "ontology". It's sad that you didn't go further than the first sentence, but your efforts were noted.

Second, let's also acknowledge that you didn't answer my question about the "objectivity" of nature.

Third, you are full of shit about the HUP:
>In quantum mechanics, the uncertainty principle, also known as Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, is any of a variety of mathematical inequalities asserting a fundamental limit to the precision with which certain pairs of physical properties of a particle, known as complementary variables, such as position x and momentum p, can be known.
>the uncertainty principle actually states a fundamental property of quantum systems, and is not a statement about the observational success of current technology.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle

Fourth, >debunk. I not once used that word in this discussion. Just ctrl+f it. It's this idiot on your side, who brought it in:
Again, you misattribute.

Fifth, you seriously, seriously need to work on your reading comprehension.

Point to the post that argues for this ITT.
HINT: you can't.

And this is bullshit, btw.

Because it's fundamentally wrongheaded. Note that I placed "'moving target'" in scare-quotes, and explained that the idea of the universe being immune to experimental measurement is a self-contradictory notion, because any immeasurability in one respect points to its cause in another. Any seeming "change" is only as a part of a broader static system. The only way the universe could be truly subjective is if we were somehow incapable of measuring anything.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_field_theory
>In theoretical physics, quantum field theory (QFT) is the theoretical framework for constructing quantum mechanical models of subatomic particles in particle physics and quasiparticles in condensed matter physics. A QFT treats particles as excited states of the underlying physical field, so these are called field quanta.
Particles in UHP are just an abstraction for human convenience. PoMos, just stop pretending quantum physics is some super-deep confirmation of your anti-positivist quasi-mystical crapola, please, all of you.

He seemed to be using it in an honest fashion, describing the upward march of science. You, on the other hand, used it to in a creationist-tier argument that "lel all science is equally incomplete".

Patient zero

Just to clear things up, particles exist objectively(irrespective of subject). Yay or nae?

X concept in Z field is just an abstraction for human convenience. (aka. turning to semantics)

Particles exist irrespective of subject, ofc.
Clear up "objective," plz.

"Particle" is a holdover from earlier incarnations of classical mechanics, and much like other holdovers (e.g.: the "orbits" of electrons) remains a useful "toy model" for easier human understanding. Under general relativity, and especially under quantum mechanics, what we commonly describe as particles are merely localized concentrations of probability in spacetime.

Do those measurable variations in probability objectively exist? Yes. Does quantum mechanics accurately model and predict them? So far as practical experiments can discern, also yes.

Aren't you pointing to a post who calls for ideological analysis of quantum physics and not the universe?

Esp. in the context of OP.

Aren't "localized concentrations of probability" abstraction for human convenience?

Ideology is inherently subjective, physics is inherently objective. And that post was phrased vaguely enough to provide "motte and bailey"-room to urge an attack on quantum physics with ideological "analysis", and then retreat with the excuse "I only meant attacking the people who invented it!"

Regarding OP, Zizek was actually doing the exact opposite, using analysis of physics to inform analysis of politics. I think that's silly too (what bearing does subatomic physics have on human social interaction?), but it's not so aggressively delusional.

No, because they are the most complete, accurate description we have invented for the underlying phenomena. Superceded theories, on the other hand, are provably inaccurate in certain specific ways, so they can only be used in contexts where those inaccuracies aren't relevant.

Now I totally get it!!!!
Whenever we start using a not yet superseded theory that is the most complete, accurate description we have at that point in our history for the underlying phenomena IT'S NOT an abstraction UNTIL and only if we find their inaccuracies, THEN they became abstractions.

Wow, I feel much better now.

For a second I thought that "human abstractions" had to do with human cognition, but now I understand that theories are outside human cognition and whenever are proven false they transubstantiate into cognition.

A theory is used with the intention of being as close as possible to reality. Any flaws are unintentional.

An abstraction is used with the intention of being convenient. It is intentionally flawed.

Neither one is necessarily perfect.

Where do you go to learn this kind of obstructive argumentation? Like you know fedora you're arguing with is correct in all he says, so you're trying to drag him into a debate about philosophy/linguistics where your argument roots back to the poster above said here

tbh I thought this was a joke

But no. Seems some here sincerely believe that ideology is relevant to physical science. Neva change left/pol/

Ha! So you admit that all science is flawed then? Stemlords BTAFO!

OK, this time I REALLY get it!
When we are dealing with reality we do it outside of the sphere of ideas, somehow we are able to go beyond our own limitation of being confined to the world of ideas.

On the other hand, when we are dealing with ideas, we are always flawed.

What point are you trying to make?

I honestly can't tell whether he was sincerely confused about the argumentative positions of the other posters, he's ESL, or if it's very carefully written shitposting. Maybe it doesn't matter, he's broken the barrier.

Since ideology permeates everything humans do why would you restrict yourself from analyzing porn videos and pornstars, scientific theory and scientists? Nobody was talking about ideologically analyzing the "fall of a rock" or a supernova.

Do you understand these sentences so far? Because mr. hat can't seem to.

No, I honestly believe he's an idiot who can't distinguish very basic things like "car" and "riding a car" from each other, in our case the descriptions created by the field of physics as productions of human activity from the described thing itself.

He argues that if I ideologically analyze porn videos I'm substituting it for biology, if I do the same with the deadlock of unifying GR & QFT I'm substituting it for physics.

Do you still follow?

I believe so too, but I'm not interested in intention. I already said it was badly worded in any case.

How do you do science if not with ideas? The raw material transformed in the creation of theories are ideas [and not the things those ideas represent, like actual supernovas] just like the raw material in the creation of steel is iron ore.

I think the words you were looking for: ideology manifests locally, physics aims at universality.

Speak for yourself. The entire point of science is to look at evidence impartially and objectively. Ideology plays no part in say engineering, the physical application of scientific principals.

What value of insight can be gleaned from ideological analysis of physics? I'm not saying don't bother just wondering if you know what you're looking for? Cause if not how will you know if you find it?

The issue with ideological analysis of sciences is it creates the impression that the results or conclusions reached through scientific method are themselves just one opinion and that the other side should be held in as high regard. This creates space for spooky magical thinking like this peach.

youtube.com/watch?v=4C5pq7W5yRM

Things like the video above come across as implying that there is no point to science as we cannot know anything for certain, where science shows again and again that we can make accurate predictions using the knowledge gleaned from modeling and empirical research.

This is probably the wrong thread, but I saw Zizek so I have to ask; does anybody have that webm where he's talking about love? I think he mentioned Kierkegaard in it too. I'd like to have it for something I'm working on.

i just lost a page long reply and I really don't feel like typing it in again
apt-get install xfce4-clipman

feels bad lad.

Thank you, comrade.

Sentences written by utter morons, yes.

""""incompatible""""
They apply to completely different domains of study, and the effects they study are immeasurably small when mixed into each other's domains. Keep pretending you know your shit.

Shut the fuck up you fucking meme master. ToE is universally understood as the unison of GR and QFT, which is what you so pointlessly brought into the discussion. Jesus.

Quantum Field Theory is not an abstraction, the idea of a "particle" you humanityfags so naively brought into the debate is an abstraction.

wew

Of course it is flawed.
Progress is nothing but the making of a giant nuke we sit on.

Zizek is a counter-revolutionary twat only popular with parasitic college students. He's gonna need to go to the gulag

"Ideological analysis" in inherently reactionary, dumbass.