/lit/ - Literature

>>19783947
alter, ist das schön! :O
realistically, how often does it pay off, tho?
i cant really think of a book where that would''ve been useful lately, except maybe - maybe - all tomorrows. i thought its for weebs

>>19500997
My PhD is in physics and I demand neither truth nor certainty from it to enjoy it. You can enjoy studying the laws of general relativity as they apply in a toilet - the theory is a human creation that's a great human achievement in the same way a Dostoyevsky book is one. You don't even need any sort of materialist outlook to enjoy it. I'm certainly not subscribing to physicalism. Haskell is an interesting programming language even if it's never used. It's something smart some people once did and reading it is fun

>This is a so-called literature board, but the very title is an oxymoron.
I think for something to be an oxymoron, the contradiction must be evident in the name itself - that is to say, "literature board" would have to be contraditory (as in, e.g., "delighted sorrow"). You can't reflect on what you know of the literature board outside of its name an thus conclude it's an oxymoron.

I feel you when you say you wasted lots of hours and feel like you lost attention span, but I think that's the endorphine triggering process in general - not /lit/. I.e. this would also be the case if you were an producing insta thot having to come back to instagram every 20 minutes.

I like Kripke, but it's a turnoff that he's a literal high functioning autist who can't say a straight sentence.
https://youtu.be/KE9m6Bu0RGI

For an entry into mathematical logic, I recommend those lecture notes
http://www.personal.psu.edu/t20/notes/logic.pdf

I'm fond of modal logics, in particular since it's semantics also work for non-classical logics, e.g. minimal logic. Although admittedly I'm more mathematically inclined than e.g. Kripkes more "literary" work like naming and necessity. It's a good read tho.

I have a quick rundown on the whitepaper, if anybody is too lazy to read it but interested

https://youtu.be/n6HkMnvMFRE

imagine taking anything and breaking it down into two vague categories and thinking "yes, that about covers everything"
imagine thinking that it's in any way insightful or helpful or approaching any kind of universal truth
It would certainly be neat and convenient if we could do that and feel confident that we'd actually explored something thoroughly instead of reducing it down to a useless semantic dichotomy

This might be a bit technical, but for those who want to get a feel how machine learning works, he's a 1.5h clip of me implementing an ML algorithm that recognizes hand written digits - the point being that it's from scratch (in Python), so I don't use any libraries (other than np to make array code more concise).

https://youtu.be/z2aq21lMw40

Translations of Alice in Wonderland can be taken as gems of logic content.

Btw. I have a youtube channel where I discuss math foundations

https://www.youtube.com/c/NikolajKuntner

(but it's formal math, so not so much comic entertainment)

code is literature

I'd say yes, essentially every young person can learn to code.
And let me take this chance to shill my youtube channel, I do some basic Python to explain math

https://youtu.be/h-sZ4kgln40

>>13332246
Newton all in all wrote more on religion than he did write on math/physics

t. physics PhD

Besides, formal logic fags like Kripke have books that are discussing philosophy topics, e..g "Naming and Necessity", but fyi /lit/ is essentially 30% philsophy threads and also they hate formal logic and especially rationalism (which I agree with).
Start with the Greeks if you have time, or start with the memes if you want to shitpost early on. I'd personally say actually get the >The Oxford Illustrated History of Western Philosophy (Oxford Illustrated Histories). It has about 7 pages on all the fags from Socrates to Heidegger, the main problems and how each builds or expands on the other thinker.

>>13213630
If pop-science passes as "academic-tier", then "non-fiction" subsumes "academic-tier"

There's a nice lightweight clip
https://youtu.be/aircAruvnKk

but if you know some python (and you should just learn it), he's a theory intro

http://neuralnetworksanddeeplearning.com/index.html

t. statistical physicist working in computer vision
so I'm somewhat biased

life*
Also I try to get into meditation and fasting.

>>12648651
I don't follow the argument at all. Is he saying you can only be curios about something if at least a second person also knows about the subject? (If I'm the last man on in the world after a nuclear catastrophe and I find a cave behind a waterfall, can I not be curios about what's behind just because I'm the last person alive?)

I got a PhD in physics theory and spend most of my time reading math books "for fun", that are unrelated to my tech job.
- Part of the appeal could be finding a problem or project that could make one famous
- Part of the appeal could be getting better at related problems by coming up with new connections
- Part of the appeal could well be escapism
- Ultimately, I'd say math is like music, except it has a steep barrier to get into it first. You read and do it because it's beautiful and a pleasure to consume. It's like sex in that it's fun while you do it, but until sex everything you read sticks with you, you learn and opens up doors to other content that you can reach from the stage you're at after the consumption.

And I'd tie all to me being curios about the infinite nuggets that smart people have come up with in the last 200 years.

>>12615000
From the start of it, it struck me as a pure psychology/neurology book.

>have you read Being and Time?
I started it once, 10 years ago. So no.
For reference, I'm a physics theory PhD and also write smart contracts, that's my angle.

>only that it might appeal to you if you are looking for psych
Not really, no.

>>12349435
I'm already involved with many projects and I don't know anybody in this space that has my outlook. I don't even know anyone in this space who known who Land is. Effectively everybody (the 100 or so active known projects, in the pool of 2500 coins) compete with each other by picking up one of the buzzwords and claiming the will be the ones resolving the issue and making it more use-friendly and/or society-friendly. I aim at trying something different is all.

>>12228906

>Do it? (y/n)$
>$n
>$git init
>$git add *
>$git commit * -m "backup state before le irrevocably change"
>Do it? (y/n)$
>$y

33
Der Einzige und Sein Eigentum, Ego and It's Own (unironically)
Well I consider reading along with the Anti-Oedipus thread and otherwise computer science textbooks
17cm / 6.9 inches

>>8636249
Things that really matter, like cohesive refinements of homotopy type theory for prequantum geometry

>>7828215
Aha, an angry rant... well I don't disagree with you on that scientists reject a lot of thoughts that can be helpful and interesting.
I literally just said that it's not a bad thing that they gave a precise meaning to some vague notions/words - and if you want to go back and use the word in a vague way again (to be able to express non-scientific realism'ish philosophical thoughts), then introduce new words. Maybe you think it's unfair that those guys taken the expression "time", view it as some variable in some theory and disregard your ideas as soon as you use "time" differently, but I think it's good that this happened, even if I'm not the kind of person that simply rejects other philosophy.