Quote:
Originally Posted by Split
Yeah man, no offense, I'm pretty sure you have no idea what you're talking about. you can't just extrapolate circumstantial evidence into philosophical claims like that.
and life mirrors science mirrors thought because they're all interconnected by the same middleground, but you can't zip up their separate 'frameworks' with the infinitesimal amount of 'fabric' we have now.
I agree with you about the fractal-like relationships from the smallest to the largest levels of existence.
but yo I don't think anyone's looking for "answers" by looking for smaller and smaller particles, but they do find some 'answers' every step down the rabbithole they go. they just have a lesser and lesser individual relevance to our world
|
totally agree, to the point i'm not even sure where you think we disagree? when you boil it down, the scientific method is not so dissimilar from the philosophical method.
honestly, grasping the fractal relationship above and below is all that's need for literally every other answer to be reached. it's why we cellular mitosis works the way it does, it's why we create in our image in our offspring when we pass on our genes, and it's why we create in our image in every creative moment, invention, computer and machine.
But of course they are looking for answers bro - that is the goal of any question, and the very concept of science (just as philosophy) stemmed from the desire to answer questions in a methodical way.
again though - that fractal relationship is the key, and everything else in between is typically miscommunication.
but word, interested in where in particular you think we are in disagreement?