I suspect there are some aspects of culture which are actually in decay; decaying in a grand structure that is being built by science and applied technology.....

For thousands of years, cultures have had to depend on their sophistication to predict and tackle problems that come along, but in these ages, it might seem easier to let problems arise, and then try to deal with them with modern technology. This might have allowed culture to become lazy..The arts seems to have taken a different route to science on their way to Scotland, as it were.

Indeed I thing this sliding back has had a bad effect on science too...there are ideas in science that need to be challenged, but culture has atrophied to the extent that it isn't even able to see that there are problems in science, let along tackle them.

My pet hobby-horse is the idea that space-time can be so curved that light is unable to escape an area of space. This might seem wonderful for those people who love the maths..although they don't love the maths enough to come up with a more complex model that would address certain issues with this model; that would be too difficult...culture should be in a position to say 'light??..you mean you think the universe would allow light to be a prisoner of time and space??'..
That shouldn't sit well with a healthy culture, or the arts, or religion....yet people will just accept TV science advocates that that is the case...and accept other materialistic points of view.

The arts has been led away by big money, and science is leading culture away in the direction of materialism...and people can watch culture rot, on their brand new flashy iphone, if they want.

The gent scholar types want to think that understanding principles of science, and applications in technology provide some inherent meaning. — schopenhauer1

Maybe there are types like that out there. I don't know. In my experience people often learn science and tech because it's fascinating, impressive, and well paid. Many of them are atheists who like dark comedy. They don't know what 'it' is all about and don't pretend to. Others are passionate liberals and seem to find more 'inherent meaning' in politics.

Does the fact that there is a can be useful information derived through mathematical-scientific methodologies make people feel there is meaning inherent in this? — schopenhauer1

For some the 'inherent meaning' just is the 'useful information.' The utility is objective compared to that of art or music. For the most part my opinion isn't valuable to others who already have their own opinion. On the other hand, they might need a tech person to fix their internet so they can share their opinion or design a memory card so they can record their child's first steps on their smartphone.

Is part of the charm of science is distance from the endlessly personal? I think so. Exact, testable knowledge can be created and shared. Relatively unambiguous progress is possible. In the world of Twitter and Facebook, it's nice that there's a realm where wishful thinking comes up against a resistance that filters out much of the delusion, confusion, and ambiguity.

For some the 'inherent meaning' just is the 'useful information.' The utility is objective compared to that of art or music. For the most part my opinion isn't valuable to others who already have their own opinion. On the other hand, they might need a tech person to fix their internet so they can share their opinion or design a memory card so they can record their child's first steps on their smartphone. — old

You I think this should be explored. The notion that science is useful, makes it better in some value or axiological sense. I welcome any ideas relating to that theme. The very use of its products speaks for itself, despite what comes out of the mind. But is there something missing here from its supremacy by pragmatic default?

Is part of the charm of science is distance from the endlessly personal? I think so. Exact, testable knowledge can be created and shared. Relatively unambiguous progress is possible. In the world of Twitter and Facebook, it's nice that there's a realm where wishful thinking comes up against a resistance that filters out much of the delusion, confusion, and ambiguity. — old

Yes this too should be explored. What about science makes itself immediately something to be embracing as a topic of focus and reverence? Its resistance to completely being collapsed into subjectivity in its outcomes and uses. However, does this create a default meaning? Does this make it better in some way? Does it make those who are immersed in it better as a result? Is there something superior about it, more meaningful, etc.?

The notion that science is useful, makes it better in some value or axiological sense. I welcome any ideas relating to that theme. The very use of its products speaks for itself, despite what comes out of the mind. But is there something missing here from its supremacy by pragmatic default? — schopenhauer1

Hi. I think I agree with a point I think you are making. There is nothing 'absolutely' deep about science, IMO. Personally I don't know what existence is all about and I don't think anyone else knows. I live as if there were no 'grand' meaning. This is fine for the most part, but it's not great for the occasional dark mood.

I like Schopenhauer, by the way, especially the essays and aphorisms. Recently I read Schopenhauer and the The Wild Years of Philosophy, which is pretty great. I enjoy various German philosophers who basically tried to make a rational, quasi-atheistic 'religion.' At the same time, none of them quite convince or convert me. So I don't have a system.

What about science makes itself immediately something to be embracing as a topic of focus and reverence? Its resistance to completely being collapsed into subjectivity in its outcomes and uses. However, does this create a default meaning? Does this make it better in some way? Does it make those who are immersed in it better as a result? Is there something superior about it, more meaningful, etc.? — schopenhauer1

I think you nailed it with its resistance to completely being collapsed into subjectivity in its outcomes and uses. While this doesn't give it an 'absolute' meaning, it's good enough often enough within the life of 'ultimately meaningless' mortals. At least in my opinion. I think we like building better and better mousetraps. Beavers probably like to build dams. Even this conversation seems to me like the attempt to build a better mousetrap.

The notion that science is useful, makes it better in some value or axiological sense. I welcome any ideas relating to that theme. The very use of its products speaks for itself, despite what comes out of the mind. But is there something missing here from its supremacy by pragmatic default? — schopenhauer1

There are regularities within experience, or at least apparent, temporary ones, I suppose in a world without regularities we couldn't exist. Science's job is to uncover these regularities, then by making use of these apparent regularities we are able to manipulate our environment in a predictable way, which is technology. These regularities could be expressed in various ways, our culture has chosen to do it through its language of mathematics.

Scientists feel a sense of superiority or meaning because they believe they are able to see the world beyond our senses, that through their activities they gain access to the 'beyond'. But in effect what they actually do is imagine a world where the regularities they describe hold (such as a world of particles, or a world of probability-waves, or a world of energy, or a world of strings), and yet an arbitrarily large number of possible worlds can be imagined that fit a finite number of regularities. So they are not actually gaining any access to the 'beyond', they simply choose to fixate on one world which they imagine that can be made to fit with the regularities of experience and that suits their personal preferences, out of an infinity of possibilities, and then use the world they have imagined to tell people what they are made of, where they come from, where they are going, without realizing that if they had picked another world the answers would be very different.

As a basic example, light, as an entity that travels at a given speed and behaves in a specific way, is a product of the imagination and not something that we actually experience. We never see light traveling, what we see are colors, what we do is describe the way these colors change relative to each other through imagining a world in which an entity we call light travels from the things to our eyes. But the same regularities could be described without invoking the existence of an entity actually traveling between these things and our eyes.

So if scientists do not uncover anything about the 'beyond', about what exists beyond our senses, they simply uncover ways to predict to some extent what we will observe with our senses, and then essentially all they are doing is predicting the future to some extent, which is a useful survival tool, but such is also the belief in a greater power, or altruism, or exercising.

They feel they are participating in something more important by believing they gain access to the beyond, like the people who believe they gain access to an afterlife by worshipping some deity. Belief makes us see what we want to see.

We can see wonderful things within imagination, some believe they are traveling to other worlds or dimensions with it. But what do they ever bring back from it? Motivation, ideas, but they're still bound by the same constraints as everyone else, as if we couldn't ever really escape this place without death.

I like Schopenhauer, by the way, especially the essays and aphorisms. Recently I read Schopenhauer and the The Wild Years of Philosophy, which is pretty great. I enjoy various German philosophers who basically tried to make a rational, quasi-atheistic 'religion.' At the same time, none of them quite convince or convert me. So I don't have a system. — old

Understandable. I like Schopenhauer obviously, but I don't necessarily buy into his metaphysics, though I think his conclusions are pretty spot on.

I think you nailed it with its resistance to completely being collapsed into subjectivity in its outcomes and uses. While this doesn't give it an 'absolute' meaning, it's good enough often enough within the life of 'ultimately meaningless' mortals. At least in my opinion. I think we like building better and better mousetraps. Beavers probably like to build dams. Even this conversation seems to me like the attempt to build a better mousetrap. Ideas are a kind of technology. Exact, falsifiable, applicable ideas are the only ones of value, but they are perhaps the most reliable and esteemed. — old

I do like the idea that "ideas" are a kind of technology and building a better mousetrap. Even this philosophy forum can be seen as a strengthening of ideas through the dialectic process. Anyways, look at this example of scientific/technological complexity about how a computer processor is made: https://www.tomshardware.com/picturestory/514-intel-cpu-processor-core-i7.html

Some people would point to the complexity, ingenuity, intelligence, and research that went into these technologies, and say that these are examples of meaning. The fact that we can create such a complex tool from our understanding of how the world works and apply it to make even more complex tools, is a reason many people hold for why life has meaning. Our ability to understand the universe in ways where we can predict, explain, and shape our environment must mean there is meaning to be had there. Other than the bare essentials of living, it is these "loftier" pursuits that tap into our scientific-mathematical understanding of the world that gives us some access to meaning. Or that's the argument. Look at those, even in this forum, who are discussing the complex problems of various scientific and mathematical equations. Is there something inherently meaningful in this? Does this ability to even comprehend the world in such a rigorously refined and exacting way, analyzing very difficult information in such a way, make life inherently more meaningful? The products of technology, and the minds behind it, must mean something, no? (I am being the devil's advocate here).

Anyways, look at this example of scientific/technological complexity about how a computer processor is madel — schopenhauer1

Nice.

Does this ability to even comprehend the world in such a rigorously refined and exacting way, analyzing very difficult information in such a way, make life inherently more meaningful? — schopenhauer1

Personally I'd say no. I see no ultra-deep meaning to be had. I like Ecclesiastes. In thousands of years, how much progress has really been made on this issue? We get various 'religions' of progress, moral and scientific and creative. Most of them have their charms, but none of them have the power of belief in a dude who can break all the rules of everyday life at will and hurl us into paradise or torture. I know well enough what you mean by inherent meaning, but I think the concept can be further analyzed. Is 'meaninglessness' experienced with the perception that all things are temporary? That seems like part of it. On the other hand, immortality in a world that was somehow indestructible might not even touch the problem of 'inherent meaning.' It's as if we itch for something that we can't quite specify.

If you're talking about "meaning" as in "interpreting the way the world is", then yes, observation and reason are the best tools we have.

But you're clearly alluding to some kind of grander existential meaning. No, science doesn't provide that, but fortunately our neurology takes care of that for us. We have wants and desires, and to better achieve them more reliable predictive models are objectively useful.

If you don't believe me, just imagine dropping an anvil on your foot.

But look at the complexity of statements like this:

Information and probability are dual notions; wherever you have a probability distribution you have an entropy. The connection between the two is particularly intimate for discrete random variables - like when there is a given probability of being in one of countably many eigenstates of an operator. Quantum entropy measures the degree of mixing in a state; how close it is to behaving in a singular eigenstate (unless I'm misinterpreting, I am both rusty and mostly uneducated here). Information measures are derivable from probability distributions, but the process of mapping a distribution to an entropy value is not invertible - so the two notions can't be taken as inter-definable. As in, if you have an entropy, you have a single number, which could be generated from lots of different quantum states and probability distributions.

I'm sure there are problems, but I think there are good reasons to believe that information is just as much a part of nature as wave functions. — fdrake

Doesn’t that count for something? Doesn’t the fact that the process to create a microchip being so complex yet some people can construct and engineer one mean something? All the people who can comprehend, analyze, and make new technologies, aren’t they the ones keeping society going? Aren’t the ones who make the very things we use, who can translate scientific principles into complex equations...aren’t they somehow doing the real shit? The shit that matters? The hard shit? Isn’t it the peoole who wheel and deal in equations and scientific complexities the real ones? Isn’t it the capitalist entrepreneur who bring the resources together..aren’t they the real ones, providing meaning with their USE and their grasp of mathematical and the complexities of scientific theory and application?

Look at what doesn’t matter. What isn’t even heard. This kind of stuff.

While much is made of Nietzsche’s Dionysian desires, it is the Apollonian maxim: know thyself, that is central to Nietzsche. But to know yourself you must become who you are. It is not about discovery but creation. Yet one does not create ex nihilo. — Fooloso4

That isn’t a complex equation, some idea contributing to inventing, not about the minute mathematically derived model regarding some complexity of the natural world or synthetically engineered device or process.

Doesn’t that count for something? Doesn’t the fact that the process to create a microchip being so complex yet some people can construct and engineer one mean something? All the people who can comprehend, analyze, and make new technologies, aren’t they the ones keeping society going? Aren’t the ones who make the very things we use, who can translate scientific principles into complex equations...aren’t they somehow doing the real shit? The shit that matters? The hard shit? Isn’t it the people who wheel and deal in equations and scientific complexities the real ones? Isn’t it the capitalist entrepreneur who bring the resources together..aren’t they the real ones, providing meaning with their USE and their grasp of mathematical and the complexities of scientific theory and application? — schopenhauer1

It counts toward non-subjective world-modeling (which might fairly be labeled its own broad category of knowledge and intelligence). It's only "meaningful" in so far as it serves the things that matter to us. If the scientist fulfills their own goals with science they're doing what matters. Likewise, if a poet successfully communicates their ideas with the intended perspective(s), they've achieved what matters to them.

Because survival and happiness are so often counted among our individual existential requisites, it makes sense for some people to say that science is what matters, but they're merely using science as an equivocational proxy for more a more fundamental existential platform: science gets us a kind of potent knowledge which is why we want it in the first place; subjective utility. The people who wax scientific such as you describe are overwhelmed by the world of possibility, power, (and idealized utopic delight) that scientific and technological progress can bring in blind theory.

Crises of identity and other such human problems usually don't demand (or permit) inquiry of the scientific kind. It's another realm of human knowledge and intelligence entirely, but generally it is made to serve the same human purposes: how do we reach a world that is relatively more free of our current dilemmas?

Ultimately I think the criticism you broadly apply can be launched against anything. "_____ isn't everything". If science killed the star-philosoper, did philosophy kill the master story-teller?

Doesn’t that count for something? Doesn’t the fact that the process to create a microchip being so complex yet some people can construct and engineer one mean something? — schopenhauer1

Well it's cool, no doubt. Depends what you mean by 'mean' here. I mentioned the 'itch' earlier. I kinda sorta know what you mean by mean, but that's maybe because I suffer/enjoy the vague itch.

All the people who can comprehend, analyze, and make new technologies, aren’t they the ones keeping society going? Aren’t the ones who make the very things we use, who can translate scientific principles into complex equations...aren’t they somehow doing the real shit? — schopenhauer1

What they do is impressive. Whether it's the real shit is a matter of opinion. Some of them probably think so. And I respect them and work in that field myself. Is the inventor better than a great actor or doctor or reliable auto mechanic? I don't think so. An actor is as concerned with the details as an engineer. The difference is that success is more ambiguous in the aesthetic realm. Those who are paid well and admired in their own lifetime in the aesthetic realm are probably higher on the hog than a respectable but mediocre engineer. I don't see how it goes any deeper than that, though others might.

What they do is impressive. Whether it's the real shit is a matter of opinion. Some of them probably think so. And I respect them and work in that field myself. Is the inventor better than a great actor or doctor or reliable auto mechanic? I don't think so. An actor is as concerned with the details as an engineer. The difference is that success is more ambiguous in the aesthetic realm. Those who are paid well and admired in their own lifetime in the aesthetic realm are probably higher on the hog than a respectable but mediocre engineer. I don't see how it goes any deeper than that, though others might. — old

Nothing matters more than a mathematically derived formula that “works” in predicting a physical event or creating a useful technology. You can put that on a t-shirt!

Science is a tradition and because of this, it provides meaning to many people. Sometimes the zealous types get insulted when a comparison is drawn between science and religion - "science works, religion doesn't", i.e. religion is just the stupid stuff, and science is everything that is good. But the point is rather that science fulfills the same role as religion did. Religion seeks to:

1.) Explain the origins and nature of the world.
2.) Explain the relationship between humans and the world.
3.) Provide a sense of purpose or meaning behind "it all".
4.) Shield us from the harrowing prospect of death.
5.) Secure social values and keep the community together.

Science arguably does all of this. Or, more specifically, many people think science does all of this, or believe HOPE that science can. And by science, what is really meant is technology.

And so while it is true that science (technology) has given us vaccines and telecommunication, it has not and cannot solve basic constituent problems that are inherent to being alive. It has also brought incalculable suffering in the form of modern warfare, ecological mismanagement, etc.

Similarly, the religion of the past gave us universities and hospitals. But they also carved out brutal conflicts in the Crusades, Inquisition, etc. And so the good is always paired with the bad, as we should expect.

However your post seems to be more oriented to the starry-eyed scientists than the technocrats and their sheep. Ligotti writes:

"Nothing in the world is inherently compelling. Whatever may be really “out there” cannot project itself as an affective experience. It is all a vacuous affair with only a chemical prestige. Nothing is either good or bad, desirable or undesirable, or anything else except that it is made so by laboratories inside us producing the emotions on which we live. And to live on our emotions is to live arbitrarily, inaccurately—imparting meaning to what has none of its own.

One cringes to hear scientists cooing over the universe or any part thereof like schoolgirls over-heated by their first crush. From the studies of Krafft-Ebbing onward, we know that it is possible to become excited about anything—from shins to shoehorns. But it would be nice if just one of these gushing eggheads would step back and, as a concession to objectivity, speak the truth: THERE IS NOTHING INNATELY IMPRESSIVE ABOUT THE UNIVERSE OR ANYTHING IN IT."

It spooks me out to see these adults fawning about the beauty of the cosmos as if it "speaks" to them (through the "poetry of math" or some stupid shit like that), or has "secrets" that we must discover, or that only a select few "intellectuals" can truly understand what it all means. Did not the mystics believe that God spoke to them, that God held the all-important secrets, and that some truths were esoteric and hidden from the masses?

Nothing matters more than a mathematically derived formula that “works” in predicting a physical event or creating a useful technology. You can put that on a t-shirt! — schopenhauer1

I gotta say: I don't think you'll find many who will put it in those terms. Behind whatever hype is out there is still the old fashioned appreciation for a discipline where fine phrases alone don't cut it. If some are peering into the secrets of the cosmos, others are just building a faster racecar or GPU. Of those I know who chose that path, only one was a true believer. Others thought it was solid way to make a living, given the reliable income and (let's be honest) its respectability.

After all, has the world ever been more crammed with opinion, opinion, opinion? Some 'metaphysically' minded science types may indeed wax poetic, but maybe a taste for facts as opposed to interpretation is more important here. The personality I have in mind and relate to no longer bothers with grand, vague narratives that can be debated endlessly. Why does it all mean? Don't know. Prolly nothin'. Let's build something cool.

Recently I read Schopenhauer and the Wild Years of Philosophy, which is pretty great. — old

Thanks for the mention, looks a good read! Interesting author, also.

The gent scholar types want to think that understanding principles of science, and applications in technology provide some inherent meaning. — schopenhauer1

I think you really have to grasp the historical dimension of this statement. Philosophy proper, before philosophy and science started to be regarded as separate disciplines, was always concerned with qualitative issues, with questions of meaning and purpose. From the time the scientific revolution, this has been stripped out of much Western philosophy due to the ascendancy of the role of quantitative measurement. In this new philosophy, what was real were the mathematically-quantifiable attributes of bodies, which is why physics replaced theology as the ‘queen of sciences’. Questions of meaning, purpose, intentionality, and so on, were relegated to the domain of secondary qualities and by implication, personal belief. Protestantism played into this narrative with its emphasis on the primacy of individual conscience.

In light of that, I think your analysis is actually off the mark, because the ‘gentlemen scientists’ of the modern epoch proclaimed loudly and often that the universe revealed by science was actually quite devoid of meaning, and that whatever meaning we might seek and find, was surely of the individual’s own devising. Of course, even today scientific intellectuals speak of the awe of the vistas that science delivers us, but the underlying sensibility is worlds apart from the grand tradition of philosophy. There, causation was understood as strictly ‘top-down’, and the attraction of mathematics and reason was the insights they provided into the incorruptible realm of the perfect Ideas. So whilst Platonism admired mathematics, it never depicted mathematical knowledge (dianoia) as the ultimate, but only a pointer towards the even higher truths of noesis. (My spell checker wanted to change ‘noesis’ to ‘onesies’, a type of pyjama, which is kind of like a cyber-Freudian slip. :-) )

But I do agree with your analysis of the subordination of science to ‘what works’.

It spooks me out to see these adults fawning about the beauty of the cosmos as if it "speaks" to them (through the "poetry of math" or some stupid shit like that), or has "secrets" that we must discover, or that only a select few "intellectuals" can truly understand what it all means. Did not the mystics believe that God spoke to them, that God held the all-important secrets, and that some truths were esoteric and hidden from the masses? — darthbarracuda

Nice Ligotti quote. Yes, you are getting close to my main point. There is also the nuance that being able to UNDERSTAND and DO the maths involved is in itself superior than all forms of knowledge. If you gave me an opinion on the metaphysics of matter and consciousness, it wouldn't matter to many of the mathematically-oriented. THEY create, derive, and solve equations relating to things that predict and have use. The fact that they can DO this with regularity and full comprehension makes it de facto superior. The actual DOING and KNOWING fully of what one is doing in hard-to-grasp concepts that are mastered and used to create new technologies or contribute to the research that can then be applied or used for predictive purposes- that is something these people will offer. They will by default win by the de facto nature of the ability to create things which "work", and are governed by principles that cannot be argued due to the fact that they in fact do work as technology. If I wax on about Schopenhauer, and fdrake waxes on about equations of probabilities that actually map to processes of entropy, and he can back this up with equations that "work", his is the superior topic by default.. at least to a cadre of people who may judge what is meaningful.

After all, has the world ever been more crammed with opinion, opinion, opinion? Some 'metaphysically' minded science types may indeed wax poetic, but maybe a taste for facts as opposed to interpretation is more important here. The personality I have in mind and relate to no longer bothers with grand, vague narratives that can be debated endlessly. Why does it all mean? Don't know. Prolly nothin'. Let's build something cool. — old

Indeed this is very close to what I'm getting at. The de facto nature of being able to DO the hard maths and science that WORKS being deemed as superior and more meaningful in its default nature of de facto WORKING.

In light of that, I think your analysis is actually off the mark, because the ‘gentlemen scientists’ of the modern epoch proclaimed loudly and often that the universe revealed by science was actually quite devoid of meaning, and that whatever meaning we might seek and find, was surely of the individual’s own devising. Of course, even today scientific intellectuals speak of the awe of the vistas that science delivers us, but the underlying sensibility is worlds apart from the grand tradition of philosophy. There, causation was understood as strictly ‘top-down’, and the attraction of mathematics and reason was the insights they provided into the incorruptible realm of the perfect Ideas. So whilst Platonism admired mathematics, it never depicted mathematical knowledge (dianoia) as the ultimate, but only a pointer towards the even higher truths of noesis. (My spell checker wanted to change ‘noesis’ to ‘onesies’, a type of pyjama, which is kind of like a cyber-Freudian slip. :-) )

But I do agree with your analysis of the subordination of science to ‘what works’. — Wayfarer

But what I mean by meaning, is in a way, a sense of superior understanding of the world, and the self-assurance that one is doing something that actually WORKS. By participating in the mathematical-science traditions, by understanding highly rigorous, complex models of the universe that actually WORK in predicting events in the universe, and that can be applied to technology in ways that innovate and can be used by people in functional ways, these people de facto are doing something more meaningful. There is no debate when it comes to someone who can create, derive, and solve complex mathematically-based problems that can be applied to scientific concepts and engineering, and can then be used to construct things that work and are useful and/or describe events with precision and accuracy using precise languages. Mastery of this, and participating in this, make it for them more meaningful. The meaning is in the mastery of the complexity, and knowing something that is difficult, providing them a "seat at the table" at what "really" matters, which is to say, what is useful and actually works.

Indeed this is very close to what I'm getting at. The de facto nature of being able to DO the hard maths and science that WORKS being deemed as superior and more meaningful in its default nature of de facto WORKING. — schopenhauer1

We are mostly on the same page, but I mentioned other high-status careers in the aesthetic realm to emphasize that technical people aren't alone on the pedestal. Tech efforts just offer a more objective measure of success. Does the machine work? How fast is it? How accurate are its predictions? These things can be established against the bias of those who want the machine to fail. What's challenging in this world is convincing others of what they don't want to hear. As animals with various needs and vulnerabilities, we can't get away with ignoring those who can transform and predict the environment reliably --not for long anyway.

Philosophical types sometimes envy/resent physicists in particular as direct competitors. The 'metaphysicists' would like their TOE made of words to be respected as true. But such theories don't seem to get much work done beyond preventing boredom and increasing self-esteem --from the point of view of those who aren't already convinced. There's a market for this stuff, but there's something for everyone on the shelves. You can have Plato or Crowley or Icke or Buddha or Schopenhauer or Peterson or Wittgenstein or... On other shelves there are machines that work whether you believe they work or not. They promise less but deliver what they promise to all consumers. People still prefer their Plato or Jesus or Trump or Warren to gadgets, but they all meet in their need for the gadgets, which they can then use to broadcast the superiority of their spiritual products on social media.

The actual DOING and KNOWING fully of what one is doing in hard-to-grasp concepts that are mastered and used to create new technologies or contribute to the research that can then be applied or used for predictive purposes- that is something these people will offer. They will by default win by the de facto nature of the ability to create things which "work", and are governed by principles that cannot be argued due to the fact that they in fact do work as technology. If I wax on about Schopenhauer, and fdrake waxes on about equations of probabilities that actually map to processes of entropy, and he can back this up with equations that "work", his is the superior topic by default.. at least to a cadre of people who may judge what is meaningful. — schopenhauer1

It seems to me that most people still value something or other more than technology. In a free society they just choose or find themselves with differing spiritual beliefs/practices while relying on the same physical technologies. Maybe a few people make technology their religion, but they strike me as an eccentric minority who have chosen one version of spirituality among others. Arguments against them seem like one more metaphysical/spiritual issue.

From this perspective, the 'equations that work' are superior in a practical context to religious/philosophical musings. I probably don't care about my electrician's religion or philosophy. That's not what he's selling. Technology has a kind of independence from philosophy and religion that's being neglected here. On the other hand, if you are some other metaphysician tell me exactly what I need to hear to feel at home in the world, I and other consumers/voters might make you rich or elect your president. Maybe we'll even drink poison to catch a ride on a UFO.

You can have Plato or Crowley or Icke or Buddha or Schopenhauer or Peterson or Wittgenstein or... On other shelves there are machines that work whether you believe they work or not. They promise less but deliver what they promise to all consumers. People still prefer their Plato or Jesus or Trump or Warren to gadgets, but they all meet in their need for the gadgets, which they can then use to broadcast the superiority of their spiritual products on social media. — old

Yes the de facto fact is that all need technology. Those who can actually engineer, solve, and experiment in the science/technology realm are thus automatically doing superior things- the things that take principles of the physical world and apply to functional devices and processes.

From this perspective, the 'equations that work' are superior in a practical context to religious/philosophical musings. I probably don't care about my electrician's religion or philosophy. That's not what he's selling. Technology has a kind of independence from philosophy and religion that's being neglected here. On the other hand, if you are some other metaphysician tell me exactly what I need to hear to feel at home in the world, I and other consumers/voters might make you rich or elect your president. Maybe we'll even drink poison to catch a ride on a UFO. — old

But again, the electrician (or perhaps the electrical engineer) is the one that is called- that is doing work that is harnessing the physical processes. Isn't that objective understanding of something we all see is useful, works, and "does stuff" mean something? Aren't the ones engaged in these activities doing superior work to others that don't do stuff? The ones who can wade in the minutia of hard-to-grasp equations in order to bring about an outcome of precise explanatory or applicable power? Isn't that what "matters"? At the end of the day, we go to jobs that move technology and information to people, or that in (not so) indirect ways supports these technologies. The internet, the product, the device, the software, the hardware, and all that surrounds it to make it come about. THAT is what matters. Everything else is just noise. Whatever supports the circular flow of information for more novelty in engineering and scientific application is what matters, apparently.

The internet, the product, the device, the software, the hardware, and all that surrounds it to make it come about. THAT is what matters. Everything else is just noise. — schopenhauer1

Aren't you forgetting what people use that stuff for? To surf porn, watch Peterson videos, see how Game of Thrones ends, or argue politics? Customized horoscopes, conspiracy theory videos, life hacks, interviews with rappers, funny sermons from John Oliver.

Speaking loosely, science is not the truths that people want. It's the truths that get in the way of what they want. It's the annoying truths that they have to deal with either directly or by paying someone to do so. What they want is poetic theories of everything made of words that guarantee them cosmic justice, an afterlife, the correctness or superiority of their values and politics, a deep explanation of why we're here and not just a description useful for prediction and control. And they also just want to be entertained with a good story, laugh at a good comedian, enjoy a song and dance from a pop star in his or her underwear. What do the kids want to be these days? Many of them are selling their personalities, snowflake romanticism (love it or hate it.) That's far more glamorous than an objective discipline which requires a certain humility and interest in the sub-personal. Is engineering a sexy field? Maybe for the chick with the 'I love nerds' T-shirt. And for the nerds.

Aren't you forgetting what people use that stuff for? To surf porn, watch Peterson videos, see how Game of Thrones ends, or argue politics? Customized horoscopes, conspiracy theory videos, life hacks, interviews with rappers, funny sermons from John Oliver.

Speaking loosely, science is not the truths that people want. It's the truths that get in the way of what they want. It's the annoying truths that they have to deal with either directly or by paying someone to do so. What they want is poetic theories of everything made of words that guarantee them cosmic justice, an afterlife, the correctness or superiority of their values and politics, a deep explanation of why we're here and not just a description useful for prediction and control. And they also just want to be entertained with a good story, laugh at a good comedian, enjoy a song and dance from a pop star in his or her underwear. — old

Yes but that's what makes these guys superior. I call it "minutia-mongering". Those who not only tolerate, but REVEL in complex mathematical formulas, theories, and applicable functions of physical materials. These are ones doing the superior things. All else is blather and noise.

Let's take fdrake as another example of this reveling in what matters:

Riemann is constraining his discussion to metrics, means of measuring distances in continuous manifoldnesses, which ascribe distances independent of the location on the manifoldness. Note that this is a way of assigning a notion of size to a notion of geometry, rather than measuring a specific shape. This notion is what sets up the meaning of length in a geometry, rather than an instance of measuring any particular distance within it. To be sure, objects (sub-manifoldnesses, neighbhourhoods etc) will have their sizes expressible through this notion of size, but the notion of size itself is a characteriser of the geometry rather than of any particular shape.

When you say the length of lines is independent of their position, what this means is that the distance notion applies the same everywhere in the space - there are no partitions acting on the size notion that create regions of distinct size ascriptions. To make this clear, consider two notions of interpoint distances in our usual 1 dimensional Cartesian coordinates, the real line:

(A):d(x,y)=(x−y)2−−−−−−−√(A):d(x,y)=(x−y)2
the usual distance notion
and:
(B):d2(x,y)={0↔x2+y2<1d2(x,y)=d(x,y)↔x2+y2≥1(B):d2(x,y)={0↔x2+y2<1d2(x,y)=d(x,y)↔x2+y2≥1

(A) computes the distance between the number 2 and the number 1, d(2,1) by sqrt (2-1)^2 = sqrt(1)=1, which is the usual distance between the numbers, and behaves exactly the same over the entire real line. (B) computes distances as 0 if x^2+y^2<1, and computes them exactly as in (A) if x^2 + y^2 is greater than or equal to 1. The picture here is that if we pick two numbers x,y that give a coordinate within the unit circle centred at the origin in the plane, the distance between them is 0, if we pick two numbers that give a coordinate outside of the unit circle, the distance between them is the usual distance on the real line. (A) is a metric in which the size of a line is independent of the position, (B) is a metric in which the size of a line is dependent upon the position.errata.

However, the distinction between this 'global sense' of the metric is that (A) operates on the entire embedding space whereas what Riemann's after is a localised version. In order to set up this localised version, however, we still need to have a localised coordinate system (n-ply extended magnitude) of appropriate dimension for the manifold (of n dimensions). — fdrake

Yes but that's what makes these guys superior. I call it "minutia-mongering". Those who not only tolerate, but REVEL in complex mathematical formulas, theories, and applicable functions of physical materials. These are ones doing the superior things. All else is blather and noise. — schopenhauer1

You are presenting a position that is not your own, correct? As I understand it, you are attributing this opinion to an ideological opponent, to mock it. If so, I agree that a few people think like that. I suggest (to be clear) that all else is not blather and noise. Philosophy and religion and literature are indeed valuable pursuits. The scientist does not have the highest status, but merely a high status. I think it's safe to say that religious people value their religion more than science and therefore give their religious authorities a higher status than physicists for instance. It's only a certain kind of a philosopher (something like a positivists or a pragmatist) who wants to dismiss non-science as 'blather and noise.' If the view above was dominant, then wouldn't we elect scientists as leaders? Who do we actually elect as leaders? And what do they say to convince us to do so? Stuff about freedom, equality.... the 'blather' that moves millions after all.

As to the quoted example, well that's just nerding out (which is fine for a nerdy place like this forum.) Because the stuff is hard to learn and generally respected, it's always tempting to drag it out for display. This site seems more or less built for intellectual showoffs. That's why I'm here (to jokingly oversimplify). The game is more about Pepsi versus Coke than water versus soft drinks. If showing off technical knowledge is resented, there's probably some envy involved. One of my philosophy professors (in a surprisingly candid moment) admitted that he wasn't good at math and (in short) envied scientists. And he has a point. Who really thinks a philosophy professor has special access to the truth? Few think scientists have the deep truth, but most agree that they have valuable, reliable truths for practical life. Philosophy in the eyes of many doesn't offer that much, or, when it does, it's not the academic stuff.

You presenting a position that is not your own, correct? — old

Yes, there is some strong cynicism here, but I'm trying to be convincing :smile:. However, what I am doing is similar to doing hard work out of spite of having to do the work; I admire the opponent enough to give him a fair shake, and perhaps can retain his position enough to make my point, in the long game using devil's advocate advocacy.

I think it's safe to say that religious people value their religion more than science and therefore give their religious authorities a higher status than physicists or instance. It's only a certain kind of a philosopher (something like a positivists or a pragmatist) who wants to dismiss non-science as 'blather and noise.' Or that's how it looks to me. I am open to correction. — old

But the pragmatist-scientist would just kind of have an amused chuckle and roll their eyes.. At the end of the day, religion doesn't make the human world do anything outside of the extremists and/or providing some people ways to alleviate boredom with the mundaneness of modern life. Rather, THEY (the scientist-pragmatists) are the ones who are deriving useful equations and concepts from the universe and applying it such that humans can use it to their wants and needs (through avenues of commerce and trade of course!). Look at extremist Islamic terrorism.. For all their talk about going back to the 600s, they use modern technological means to achieve it. Hypocrites to say the least. But that is the way technology dominates human pursuits. It is ready-at-hand, and people will take every opportunity to use it.

But the pragmatist-scientist would say just kind of have an amused mild laugh and roll their eyes.. — schopenhauer1

I'm currently playing at a milder version of that with my forum persona. Does anyone live entirely without 'blather and nonsense'? I don't think so. But it's possible to be a skeptic in the face of grand claims and stay close to the facts of life and theories that prove themselves practically. There's still some faith involved, faith for instance in that there is not a God who has mischievously hidden himself and that death is real.

At the end of the day, religion doesn't make the human world do anything outside of extremists and/or ways to alleviate boredom with the mundaneness of modern life. Rather, THEY are the ones who are deriving useful equations and concepts from the universe and applying it such that humans can use it to their wants and needs (through avenues of commerce and trade of course!). Look at extremist Islamic terrorism.. For all their talk about going back to the 600s, they use modern technological means to achieve it. Hypocrites to say the least. But that is the way technology dominates human pursuits. It is ready-at-hand, and people will take every opportunity to use it. — schopenhauer1

Good points. But consider that we are here talking this meta-blather and meta-nonsense when we could be reading about convnets. A certain amount of identity-bolstering blather seems to be an important part of a balanced intellectual diet. Some kind of philosophical scaffolding seems necessary. An anti-religion is still a religion, that sort of thing.

A certain amount of identity-bolstering blather seems to be an important part of a balanced intellectual diet. Some kind of philosophical scaffolding seems necessary. An anti-religion is still a religion, that sort of thing. — old

But that's the thing! The minutia-mongerer doesn't care (or need!) intellectual underpinnings. His/her formulas and applications speak for themselves. That is what moves the world. That is actually doing the work. The printing press, not the content in them (unless it's about building things like printing presses). That is the useful stuff!

But that's the thing! The minutia-mongerer doesn't care (or need!) intellectual underpinnings. Their formulas and applications speak for themselves. That is what moves the world. That is actually doing the work. The printing press, not the content in them (unless it's about building things like printing presses). That is the useful stuff! — schopenhauer1

I hear you and I agree. I guess it's only a matter of emphasis or arrogance. A person can politely tolerate or even empathize with those who cling to underpinnings or arrogantly deny the possibility of underpinnings. To deny the underpinnings is to fall back into metaphysics, but it's hard to avoid if one bothers to show up to that kind of party. To me the 'profound' reading of Wittgenstein makes this mistake. 'Metaphysics is metaphysically impossible.' It seems more stylish to sketch the advantages of an alternative and move on.

As a minutia-mongerer in career terms (and for philosophically reasons lately, I'm more impressed by someone who can code up a convnet in C than by someone who wants to preach politics or metaphysics to me. Still, I have this view to some degree because I was various (anti-) philosophers. I also tried on various grand narratives for size and they didn't wear well. 'Let them take it, for there's more enterprise in walking naked.'

The tech people (in this context) are those who make millions selling shovels during a gold rush. Let others dig for Truth. One useful truth is that digging for Truth requires a shovel. Of course shovels are laptops, etc.

The philosophical version is to stop worrying about Truth and learn to make due with truths.

The tech people (in this context) are those who make millions selling shovels during a gold rush. Let others dig for Truth. The truth is that digging for Truth requires a shovel. — old

Yes, that is it. When you want to talk about "big boy" things, you talk about the "work" you do. The useful things you do that support the techno-industrial economy. You don't usually talk about your view on the metaphysics of mind or the underlying principles of reality (unless it is a scientific/technocratic topic and relates to your work...). The people who can churn out equations, manipulate scientific concepts, use complex tools to make more complex tools, those are the "real" ones. Everything else, is epiphenomonal to that. Using this computer for example says so. Driving to my destination says so. Gathering my food from a grocery store says so.. and all the rest of daily life.

Schools are not that efficient, but they are essentially designed to see who can perform science and math with ease, quickly, so that they can be put on a track to be the ones that count. The rest are there to support them, or provide the consumptive powers to organizations that will support them, so that they make more technology. The minutia-mongerers are the movers and shakers of the world. Their meaning comes from their doing, and what they do, effects billions.

If you don't minutia-monger, you are simply babbling fantasy nonsense and unnecessary noise out of your mouth hole. You are here to contribute to the techno-economic system. Otherwise, you are here to consume from it. The only ones who derive true meaning then, are the pragmatic-scientists who quietly churn out more scientific, applied mathematical, or technological advancements in their workplaces or other production locations.

Yes, that is it. When you want to talk about "big boy" things, you talk about the "work" you do. — schopenhauer1

I mostly agree, but wouldn't a younger person rather be a famous athlete or movie star? If tech people sell the shovels to the gold miners, some of those miners actually strike gold. Who has higher status? Beyonce' or some random coder making 80K? The 'big boy' theme is at least as entangled with money and fame as it is with science. I think it's only some philosophical types who struggle with science envy. If only their deep truths could have the prestige of shallow truths of sciences...Others just want their gear to work so well as to become invisible, along with its creators. I struggled with this envy myself once and ...put on my big boy pants and studied science. Or rather I studied a little part of it, quickly learning that there's just too much knowledge for any single mind. One has to specialize. So philosophy remains valuable as an attempt to make sense of the big picture and not drown in the details.