[ home / rules / faq ] [ overboard / sfw / alt ] [ leftypol / siberia / edu / hobby / tech / games / anime / music / draw / AKM ] [ meta / roulette ] [ cytube / wiki / git ] [ GET / ref / marx / booru / zine ]

/edu/ - Education

'The weapon of criticism cannot, of course, replace criticism of the weapon, material force must be overthrown by material force; but theory also becomes a material force as soon as it has gripped the masses.' - Karl Marx
Name
Options
Subject
Comment
Flag
File
Embed
Password (For file deletion.)
Join our Matrix Chat <=> IRC: #leftypol on Rizon
[ Return / Go to bottom ]

File: 1692733922792.png (1.81 MB, 1182x788, ClipboardImage.png)

 No.20622[View All]

Why must've the Universe had a beginning? Why couldn't it have just been? Matter in motion since forever, always changing - as Heraclitus, Descartes, Engels, Lenin and other materialist philosophers postulated. Makes more sense than anything else.
>doesn't fall into the trap of an immovable mover
>doesn't fall into the trap of making matter out to be immutable since it is always changing
>removes the "I" from the equation, where consciousness just becomes another form matter in motion (electricity in our brains)
Why do the professional philosophers insist on arguing about idealistic nonsense when the two simple axioms
>matter always existed
>matter was always in motion
Solve all philosophical problems and leave only their practical solutions - i.e. the natural and social sciences, something tangible with results, to be studied? Is it because if the theory starts requiring practice, they lose their cushy jobs and pseudo-intellectuals on this board who jack off on structuralism, post-Marxism &c. would have to start doing manual labor to prove their points?
155 posts and 30 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.

 No.20778

>>20777
Why is critiquing cosmogony out of the question?

 No.20779

>>20655
"Science" in the west is just "eugenics" and fascism so what's the problem?

 No.20780

>>20778
A socio-economic theory like Marxism can't explain where stars came from. This should be self evident.

 No.20781

>>20780
>ruthless criticism of all that exists
<no not like that

 No.20782

>>20773
Historical materialism is just tool to look at how human society changes. Its not some law of nature or all encompassing ideological view.

 No.20783

>>20771
Seriously, when did /leftypol/ acquire so many IMT cranks?

 No.20784

>>20779
Man can you get a hobby other than trolling somewhere everyone hates you

 No.20785

>>20784
I'm not trolling. It's how it is. Universities just spew whatever the bourgeoisie demand.

 No.20786

>>20781
Never said that you can't be critical of the current scientific models, but Marxism doesn't offer any answers in this field.

 No.20787

>>20629
I still don't get how that makes sense without a immovable mover of some kind because of:
>>20630
>…where that singularity came from and why is not answered by the theory

 No.20788

>>20783
We have people here who think being a trad religious schizo is "materialist" because "hurr durr god made matter," it's not surprising that we'd get alan woods schizos

 No.20789

>>20785
>I learned math at universities…. CALCULUS IS BOURGEOIS EUGENICS THAT I MUST PURGE FROM MY LUSCIOUS, MOIST BOY BRAIN

 No.20790

>>20789
What passes for Economics, psychology, sociology, are all bourgeois ideology.

 No.20791

>>20790
>in a thread about physics

 No.20792

>>20791
Do we need to talk again about how the CopeMorehagen interpretation was a direct attack on Marxism.

 No.20793

>>20792
Don't you dare criticize machism in physics, the physicist know better.

 No.20794

File: 1693339096469.png (32.16 KB, 600x266, main-qimg-705ca9fc22844b3e….png)

>>20776
The only contention is an "ex nihilio" conception of a big bang. Any other explanation is possible only in relation to prior being, even a multiverse. And in any case the notion of "evolution" of forms is just repackaged idealism, of a "beginning" of time to the "complexity" of bodies, despite matter resting at paths of least resistance, hence geometric patterns spun into nature.
"Matter" as a base substance does not alterate, which is the fundament of an eternal notion of the universe. At the moment of the big bang we could expect galaxies to be already creating themselves.

 No.20795

>>20794
>"Matter" as a base substance does not alterate
Yes it absolutely does. It can transform into energy and does routinely, that's why the Sun will warm you tomorrow morning. And energy can also turn into matter, as it rutenly does when high energy cosmic rays impact our atmosphere and produce a lot of energy that then transforms into particles that then decay, or in large stars where gamma rays turn into matter-antimatter pairs. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pair_production

I beg you to read about the theory of the Big Bang and all its merits and open problems, like the need of Inflation to explain the isotropy of the universe or why did it produced more matter than antimatter.

 No.20796

>>20795
>Yes it absolutely does. It can transform into energy and does routinely
Energy is just a different form of moving matter. You are literally repeating arguments from a century ago. Matter isn't always what is immediately noticed by the senses ffs.

 No.20797

>>20792
See, in the interpretation of science and its Philosophy I can see Marxism doing good work (maybe), or at the very lest providing new perdpectives. But not on the actual discoveries and research. Saying things like "eternal universe makes sense" don't mean shit when there is evidence that the univere evolves over time. It's like invoking Aristotelian philosophy on modern medicine. Of course there is room (or even need) for phylosophy in medicine, but not like that.
>ib4 germ theory denial

 No.20798

>>20796
Well if you change definitions you will always be right. Matter is anything that has mass. That's is how we can differenciate from electromagnetic radiation and other sources of energy (gravitational waves,…). i sense that by "Matter" you mean "everything". You have a problem with the notion that everything came from nothing. Well, scientists have a problem too. That's why they are looking into it. Singualrity is just the name where you cannot make any more predictions using general relativity. You can make geometrical singularities plotting 3D functions that have undefined points.

 No.20799

>>20798
You're mixing up physical terms with philosophical terms. Matter philosophically is everything that exists - the external world etc. We're not talking about what is commonly known as matter.
>You have a problem with the notion that everything came from nothing.
Yes and if we today exist in an ex-nihilo paradigm that should be criticized. It's absolutely bonkers that Marxist just allow idealism and metaphysics to pop up in the hard sciences as long the white men in lab coats are okay with it.

 No.20800

>>20797
>I can see Marxism doing good work (maybe), or at the very lest providing new perdpectives. But not on the actual discoveries and research
sounds like you dont understand the problem or what is at stake

 No.20801

>>20795
I dont make a distinction between energy and matter in themselves. "Matter" comes from latin meaning "mother" hence its feminine and passive conotations which also lends itself to todays idealist discourses, where the mind is seen as "higher" than "the body" for example.
"Energy" is seen as this sporadic electrical substance dislocated from the "solidity" of form, where form or "matter" is likened to rocks or metals, instead of all natural objects.
I do think this discourse affects the way scientists imagine the world to be.
Again, i dont doubt the expansion of spacetime, but i dont see any "prima materia" in the mix as a stepping stone to "contemporary" forms, since there is no "time" except in the relations between objects. There is no "cosmic time" that ticks like a clock.

 No.20802

File: 1693343727250.png (272.56 KB, 424x429, ClipboardImage.png)

>still no examples for 'dialectics' having better predictive power in physics than our current mathematical models

 No.20803

>>20802
How do you think we got to these models without dialectics? Why does everyone on this board have a fetish for science? Do you even know what the scientific method, the method which gave us our models, is? (hint: it's dialectics).

 No.20804

>>20803
>Why does half this board have a fetish for science?
Half this board are evidently retards given by how well established theories are challenged by you downy fucktards by referencing 19th Century political philosophy rather than any contemporary theory
As for why people here “fetishize science”
What you mean is, they read books and didn’t study humanities as a cope for being unable to do fucking math

 No.20805

>>20804
>What you mean is, they read books and didn’t study humanities as a cope for being unable to do fucking math
I'm a professional mathematician and I think that physics shouldn't be metaphysical in theory. In praxis it is already dialectical, and we need the theory to reflect this.

 No.20806

>>20803
>Why does everyone on this board have a fetish for science
Ever heard of scientific socialism?
>Do you even know what the scientific method, the method which gave us our models, is? (hint: it's dialectics)
Method and model aren't the same thing. I agree that the way humans apply the scientific method is dialectical, but this doesn't necessitate that all processes in the physical world have to be dialectical.

 No.20807

>>20804
What value is "contemporary (scientific) theory" in light of the political struggles we all face that isnt enlightened by marxism?

 No.20808

File: 1693345472100.png (333.25 KB, 860x665, Socratic_Method.png)

>>20804
>reminder the dialectic method is much older than Marx or even Hegel
>reminder the very first western scientists were literally philosophers
>reminder Einstein used the dialectic method in his theory of relativity
>reminder that Lenin argued that Einstein's theory of general relativity does not conflict with materialism https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1922/mar/12.htm
>reminder that flag users are by and large retards screeching for attention

 No.20809

>>20806
Matter itself is dialectical

 No.20810

>>20806
>but this doesn't necessitate that all processes in the physical world have to be dialectical.
This leads to idealism. Every natural process is the resolving of existing contradictions and the establishing of new contradictions. This is so because matter and motion are inseparable and motion is already a contradiction.

 No.20811

>>20674
As someone who does research in neuroscience, this is extremelly relevant. I agree completely.

 No.20812

>>20810
Do you think the big bang is dialectical?

 No.20813

>>20812
The idea of a "nothingness" "before" time is undialectical, and idealist.

 No.20814

The big bang is dialectical. Everything is dialectical. Everything is connected, like gravity. There wasn't "nothing" before the big bang.

 No.20815

>>20805
Oh you the typical matehmatician mf who writes emails about how everything in modern physics is wrong

 No.20816

>>20674
>Natural scientists believe that they free themselves from philosophy by ignoring it or abusing it.
Lie of the highest degree. If your only source of science wasn't science communicatros, (whose job is to dumb down everythign and inform the public), you would know that scientists are incredibly interested in the philosophy of science and the interpretations of their theories. And you would know this if you has watched a scientist talk like in these two videos >>20726 >>20646

 No.20817

File: 1693351331375-0.mp4 (3.84 MB, 720x480, given_myth.mp4)

File: 1693351331375-1.mp4 (3.6 MB, 852x480, soc_thot.mp4)


 No.20818

>>20813
Ok, but a true scientist who would say that marxism is their inspiration for understanding nature (however questionable) would try to makes sense of the current evidence and theories and try to propose an eternal universe/eternal spacetime/ eternal energy theory with the evidence. What's that evidence? The expansion of the universe, the Cosmic Microwave Background,… You don't just sit there and say "eternal universe makes sense". Maybe Marxism could be a source of inspiration just like how other ideas were the inspiration of so many other scientists, some of which were religious.

 No.20819

>>20816
This is not true in most cases. Ive been working in neuroscience for years and it would surprise you the amount of ignorance a lot of "hard science" people have in relation to the philosophical foundations of their own doscipline. I would say maybe most scientists today working in biological sciences see their research and methodology simply as a self-evident, self-given technical procedure. And this leads to gross errors and misinterpretations of data a lot of times.

 No.20820

>>20816
Most people are like algorithmic program drones that simply gets shit done when it comes to their professions and they don't think that much about it.

 No.20821

>>20820
you have to study for 5+ years to become a professional scientist, that's plenty of time to think about things

 No.20822

>>20818
Big bang can make sense
Ex nihilo doesnt make sense
Thats the only qualification i make

 No.20823

File: 1693369369511.jpg (460.31 KB, 1716x1710, 4p24qgmttqj91.jpg)

>>20816

 No.20824

File: 1693369959137.jpg (119.81 KB, 1280x1280, wp8711098.jpg)

If u extrapolate from the movement of the stars away from each other, you can make an educated guess that they were all much closer to each other in the past. Further evidence suggests that all matter was concentrated in a single point at a time.

Time, however, is not a constant basis. Einstein theorized, and it has been shown by many experiments and observations, that time is a property of space. We can determine from Einstein's theories that time "slows down" as mass and energy increases. This means that as we approach singularity of all matter into a single point, time passes infinitely slowly (does not move). This is why the universe can't go "before" the big bang, and must have a starting point. This is the point at which dialectical tells us comrade Stalin created the universe.

 No.20825

Also apologies for my English

 No.20826

>>20823
Mainlanders vs anglos

 No.20827

>>20823
Yeah that image proves my point


Unique IPs: 27
[Return][Go to top] [Catalog] | [Home][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[ home / rules / faq ] [ overboard / sfw / alt ] [ leftypol / siberia / edu / hobby / tech / games / anime / music / draw / AKM ] [ meta / roulette ] [ cytube / wiki / git ] [ GET / ref / marx / booru / zine ]
[ Return / Go to top /