Anonymous 2023-08-22 (Tue) 19:56:20 No. 20623
>philosophycels still malding that sciencechads stole physics from them
Anonymous 2023-08-22 (Tue) 19:58:28 No. 20624
>>20623 Did you even read the post? I literally agree with you.
Anonymous 2023-08-22 (Tue) 20:02:10 No. 20625
>>20624 How do you figure? The evidence points to the universe having a beginning, that not only was matter not always in motion, but that matter did not always exist nor did motion.
Anonymous 2023-08-22 (Tue) 20:07:01 No. 20626
>>20625 But that's not true. The Big Bang doesn't explain what caused it, you just get back to an immovable mover.
Anonymous 2023-08-22 (Tue) 20:09:13 No. 20627
>>20622 in a way you're right because the beginning of the universe was the beginning of time so there was no "before".
Anonymous 2023-08-22 (Tue) 20:23:40 No. 20628
>>20622 >Referencing philosophers and political theorists rather than cosmologists and physicists to try understanding a problem related to cosmology and physics Already off to a bad start OP
>Why does the Universe need a beginning? The Big Bang Theory and theories of the early Universe don't describe how the Universe came to exist, they're only meant to explain why it looks the way it does and things act the way they do
The Big Bang theory assumes the Universe already existed when the Big Bang occurred but that our math breaks down when discussing the theorized earliest state of the Universe, scientists do not know where the singularity came from or why, and since spacetime is part of the Universe the idea of there being a "before" or even really a beginning may not be fully coherent to begin with
>All these other words because he can't do tucking maths Lmao
Anonymous 2023-08-22 (Tue) 20:27:22 No. 20630
>>20625 Actually the Big Bang is not the beginning of the Universe, the theory assumes the Universe already existing but as a singularity, where that singularity came from and why is not answered by the theory
Anonymous 2023-08-22 (Tue) 20:33:07 No. 20632
>>20629 The drawing is Big Crunch, not the heat death. Heat death is eternal expansion in a flat universe, which causes entropy to increase. But otherwise you are correct.
Anonymous 2023-08-22 (Tue) 20:34:28 No. 20633
>>20631 Fuck I should proofread before posting, damn
Anonymous 2023-08-22 (Tue) 20:37:42 No. 20634
>>20632 the picture is depicting time, not space. As you approach either a singularity or a heat death, the alternative times collapse into a single point of uniformity - either everything is in a singularity or everything is diffused into nothing.
Anonymous 2023-08-22 (Tue) 21:06:31 No. 20635
the multiverse exists because if nothing existed, that would be a contradiction, since by definition, nothing is that which does not exist and cannot be the only thing that exists. If nothing were to be the only thing that would exist, it would be a physical contradiction and immediately resolve itself through the physical diversification of matter and energy over time and space i.e. stuff would come into existence.
Anonymous 2023-08-22 (Tue) 21:15:38 No. 20637
>>20635 >this is the beginning of physics, and the bridge between the theoretical and the real. (btw, one clarification. i am speaking here not CHRONOlogically, not SPATIOlogically, but simply
logically . That is I am lifting up the hood of "time" and "space" and other things experienced by our biologically limited brains and working out the rather simple and overrated problem of why something must exist rather than nothing without invoking an anthropomorphic principle or a self-contradicting demiurge who is somehow supposed to live outside of time and space while at the same time committing actions which are bound by time and space)
Anonymous 2023-08-22 (Tue) 21:19:34 No. 20638
>>20635 >the multiverse exists because if nothing existed, that would be a contradiction, since by definition, nothing is that which does not exist and cannot be the only thing that exists. If nothing were to be the only thing that would exist, it would be a physical contradiction and immediately resolve itself through the physical diversification of matter and energy over time and space i.e. stuff would come into existence. The problem here is that the Big Bang does not and isn't designed to explain where the Universe came from, so you're describing the necessity of the multiverse to answer a question that isn't necessarily being asked.
The answer to:
>What is the Universe expanding into? What happened before the Big Bang? May very well be "Nothing" and our human brains evolved in the framework of the Earth System genuinely can't comprehend cosmology other than on a theoretical level
Anonymous 2023-08-22 (Tue) 21:31:41 No. 20639
>Matter in motion since forever
Anonymous 2023-08-22 (Tue) 21:37:54 No. 20640
>>20635 >There is no minimum or maximum size >Eventually we will be able to zoom in far enough and find entire alternate universes inside of units of matter smaller than the planck scale >Eventually we will realize that there is no "resolution" of time or space brave statements
>>20639 t. Thomas Aquinas
Anonymous 2023-08-22 (Tue) 21:39:31 No. 20641
>>20622 This isn't a question philosophy can answer. It isn't even that relevant tbh. Regardless if matter has always existed or not, the universe we live in still consists of matter in motion.
Anonymous 2023-08-22 (Tue) 21:45:48 No. 20642
>>20641 a fine theory but if you think about it carefully you'll realize that
motion isn't possible Anonymous 2023-08-22 (Tue) 21:48:21 No. 20643
>>20642 >>20639 terminal idealism
Anonymous 2023-08-22 (Tue) 21:57:40 No. 20644
>>20643 how dare you besmirch the good name of my man Zeno like this
Anonymous 2023-08-22 (Tue) 22:23:50 No. 20645
>>20640 Really honored you compare me with Saint Thomas!
Anonymous 2023-08-23 (Wed) 00:31:54 No. 20647
>>20646 >despite the discrimination i know i will always continue to face, due to my appearance that's true, she is really hot
>i was born a demon oh, she means that
Anonymous 2023-08-23 (Wed) 15:29:16 No. 20648
The universe must have had a beginning because religious stories say so. And if ur a atheist then you believe in the big bang which is just god anyway
Anonymous 2023-08-23 (Wed) 15:47:09 No. 20649
>>20622 >Why must've the Universe had a beginning? >as Heraclitus, Descartes, Engels, Lenin and other materialist philosophers postulated. I'm really glad this is board is so obscure because at least 1/3 of the posters here genuinely think Marx', Engels' and Lenin's writings hold the key to unlocking all the secrets of the universe, literally treating them like religious scripture. Makes socialists look worse than any DSA twitter struggle session ever could.
>>20628 >Already off to a bad start OP Understatement
Anonymous 2023-08-23 (Wed) 16:12:29 No. 20650
>>20649 Eat a razor blade, bourgeois louse.
Anonymous 2023-08-23 (Wed) 16:14:57 No. 20651
>>20650 germ theory status?
Anonymous 2023-08-23 (Wed) 16:17:14 No. 20652
God has always existed and is always creating so the universe have been created eternally
Anonymous 2023-08-23 (Wed) 16:46:19 No. 20653
>>20651 It's bourgeois remember?
Modern science is all bourgeois metaphysics, the concept of science is bourgeois, we promote naturalist Marxism here, which is when you uhhh adhere to the literal miasma theory of disease and make sure to properly balance those humors and apply class struggle to harvesting crops lmao
Anonymous 2023-08-23 (Wed) 16:49:12 No. 20654
>>20649 folks be all about scientific socialism until someone starts talking about scientific information that wasn't available in marx/engels/lenin's time
Anonymous 2023-08-23 (Wed) 17:00:41 No. 20655
>>20653 There's also a contradiction in how the anti-science stuff is justified on the basis that it's western and bourgeois, when the scientific communities in the proletarian non-western states are world leaders in the same "bourgeois" scientific fields. No Chinese or Cuban scientist would ever entertain this garbage. It ironically perpetuates the fundamentally racist idea that modern science belongs to "Western Civilization".
Anonymous 2023-08-23 (Wed) 17:02:06 No. 20656
>>20655 Well I'm pretty sure Leninhat in particular actually is racist, so I mean…
Anonymous 2023-08-23 (Wed) 17:06:31 No. 20657
>>20655 Pretty much this. The USSR was home to a lot of accomplished mathematicians, nuclear physicists and linguists, and for a brief period was a hotbed of research into cybernetics.
Anonymous 2023-08-24 (Thu) 00:27:03 No. 20659
>>20622 >Why must've the Universe had a beginning? That's not what religious types, since Aristotle, are talking about. They're talking about why the Universe must have a *cause *. not a "beginning" - The argument doesn't need to reference chronological time at all. For example, what causes me to be held up in the position I'm in? The couch under me, What holds up the couch? The floor. What holds up the floor, the house foundations, and so on until you get to the centre of the earth. It's more like a snapshot in time, or what is causing this at any given moment.
The universe it must have a cause because everything has a cause. The exception being the prime mover, or "uncaused cause." Why must there logically be this exception?
Because otherwise we have a "turtles all the way down" type of problem,a problem of infinite regress. If the causes don't stop anywhere, then ultimately nothing has been explained! Because you're always one more cause away from explaining why things exist.
That's not a scientific problem. Becsuse science is concerned with why things exist , in terms of other things. Localised causes, if you like. It isn't concerned with why things exist at all, rather than nothing at all existing. That's a problem for metaphysics.
>pseudo-intellectuals on this board who jack off on structuralism, post-Marxism &c These philosophical trends have nothing to do with scholastic type metaphysics.
>would have to start doing manual labor to prove their points? How would doing manual labour prove a point about metaphysics?
What cause the Heraclitan flux?
Anonymous 2023-08-24 (Thu) 00:34:10 No. 20660
>>20636 I'm pretty sure you're joking, although what
>>20634 says about
>>20631 would make it into the beginning of Hegel's "Science of Logic."
Anonymous 2023-08-24 (Thu) 01:58:47 No. 20661
The universe makes me sad, bros
Anonymous 2023-08-24 (Thu) 02:17:53 No. 20663
>>20661 Why tho? Sure, it's cold, dark and empty, but if that were not so, you couldn't see the pretty stars that are trillions of miles away.
Anonymous 2023-08-24 (Thu) 03:15:57 No. 20664
>>20663 but why are they there. Why do they form and burn out. what's the point
Anonymous 2023-08-24 (Thu) 03:16:26 No. 20665
>>20664 >>20663 keep in mind i just played outer wilds for the first time so I've been thinking about this stuff lately
Anonymous 2023-08-24 (Thu) 05:23:28 No. 20666
All of this just to evade Idealism (which is correct btw)
Anonymous 2023-08-24 (Thu) 05:31:37 No. 20667
>>20662 yeah this is another possibility
we know that there's quantum instability in empty space, so maybe it's just something that happens
although space already exists now and the formation of space and fundamental forces was part of the big bang
Anonymous 2023-08-24 (Thu) 05:31:55 No. 20668
>>20664 under what circumstances would you be satisfied with a "point"? isnt it overall far more likely that if there WAS some underlying "point" to everything, it would be more horrifying than there being no "point"?
Anonymous 2023-08-24 (Thu) 06:43:06 No. 20669
>>20659 >literally repeating Duhring's arguments that Engels already debunked 200 years ago. Does no one read theory anymore?
Anonymous 2023-08-24 (Thu) 07:59:51 No. 20671
>>20649 Yeah it's funny, I don't know about Lenin but Marx and Engels were proto-sociologists. Thinking materialism as they talked about it concerns anything but a critical examination of humans and their social relations is ridiculous. Seriously go read The German Ideology. The whole point of that book is debunking the mental gymnastics of rugged individualism.
Anonymous 2023-08-24 (Thu) 08:49:09 No. 20672
>>20635 >If nothing were to be the only thing that would exist, it would be a physical contradiction linguistic games, anthropocentric pov, etc, etc
Anonymous 2023-08-24 (Thu) 09:36:06 No. 20673
>>20622 >Descartes… and other materialist really?
>removes the "I" from the equation, where consciousness just becomes another form matter in motion (electricity in our brains) thats not what Engels and Lenin thought
Anonymous 2023-08-24 (Thu) 09:39:56 No. 20674
>>20623 Natural scientists believe that they free themselves from philosophy by ignoring it or abusing it. They cannot, however, make any headway without thought, and for thought they need thought determinations. But they take these categories unreflectingly from the common consciousness of so-called educated persons, which is dominated by the relics of long obsolete philosophies or from the little bit of philosophy compulsorily listened to at the University (which is not only fragmentary, but also a medley of views of people belonging to the most varied. and usually the worst schools), or from uncritical and unsystematic reading of philosophical writings of all kinds. Hence they are no less in bondage philosophy but unfortunately in most cases to the worst philosophy, and those who abuse philosophy most are slaves to precisely the worst vulgarized relics of the worst philosophies.
Natural scientists may adopt whatever attitude they please, they are still under the domination of philosophy. It is only a question whether they want to be dominated by a bad, fashionable philosophy or by a form of theoretical thought which rests on acquaintance with the history of thought and its achievements.
“Physics, beware of metaphysics,” is quite right, but in a different sense.
Natural scientists allow philosophy to prolong an illusory existence by making shift with the dregs of the old metaphysics. Only when natural and historical science has become imbued with dialectics will all the philosophical rubbish – other than the pure theory of thought – be superfluous, disappearing in positive science.
Anonymous 2023-08-24 (Thu) 10:01:35 No. 20675
>>20674 >All these words to justify not learning maths Anon
Understanding physics is a simple as reading about it
Do you actually want to understand the Universe or think about the Universe while masturbating to your own pseudo-intellectualism?
Anonymous 2023-08-24 (Thu) 10:20:41 No. 20676
>>20674 You should have added some actual examples for how natural sciences could be improved.
Anonymous 2023-08-24 (Thu) 10:26:05 No. 20677
The universe must have a creation and by extension a creator because our existence would completely violate fundamental dialectics otherwise. Contrary to what western libs may tell you, there is nothing scientific about a belief in nothing
Anonymous 2023-08-24 (Thu) 10:31:03 No. 20678
>>20677 why can't it just be an endless cycle with no beginning or end? or be 'created' by some completely natural process?
Anonymous 2023-08-24 (Thu) 10:41:46 No. 20679
>>20678 Because the doctrine of infinite self causality is idealist and in contradiction with physics as we understand it?
Anonymous 2023-08-24 (Thu) 10:51:19 No. 20680
>>20677 >Belief in YHWH is literal materialism! Maybe read a fucking science book before "Marxism" leads you back into literal theism and creationism?
>>20678 Once again the Big Bang doesn't actually describe how the Universe came to exist, the singularity proposed quite literally was the entire universe, it didn't happen in any one place because space is part of the universe, it happened everywhere simultaneously, and time itself is part of the universe and its expansion only begins with the Big Bang as well
>>20679 We don't actually have a causal explanation for the Big Bang at this time, scientists don't promote infinite self causality, they just state plainly we don't have the means to study the singularity because time didn't yet exist nor did the current laws of physics
Anonymous 2023-08-24 (Thu) 10:58:00 No. 20681
>>20677 >fundamental dialectics Why should anyone care if physics is undialectical?
Anonymous 2023-08-24 (Thu) 11:04:49 No. 20682
>>20681 That’s sort of like asking “what use is it for a living organism to eat?” Physics is the study of the fundamental forces of reality so by necessity real physics deals in dialectics. Creation and destruction. Proton and electron. Without opposites that form into a greater synthesis the universe as we know it would quite literally not exist, and the only materialist explanation for a universe with causality to exist is by necessity a higher power. Whether you call Him God, Allah, Brahma, or Tengri depends on your culture but it all leads to one truth. Marxism would not function otherwise
Anonymous 2023-08-24 (Thu) 11:16:22 No. 20684
As a physicist myself I'm sad to announce that I've deemed the standard model undialectical (left/right fermions couplings are ugly). The LHC will be closed until operational dialectic levels are restored.
Anonymous 2023-08-24 (Thu) 11:18:03 No. 20685
>>20682 Why should the fundamental forces of reality conform to the ideas of a couple of very verbos german philosophers?
>protons and electrons are dialectical lmao
Anonymous 2023-08-24 (Thu) 11:19:01 No. 20686
>>20684 There’s nothing about the LHC that violates physics or dialectics, that would literally be impossible. Now there absolutely are arguments to be made about the intentions of the device and its ultimate goal being antithetical to human life, but that’s an argument for another time
Anonymous 2023-08-24 (Thu) 11:20:02 No. 20687
>>20685 Because their philosophy was simply the codifying of the principles of existence into socioeconomic analysis
Anonymous 2023-08-24 (Thu) 11:22:55 No. 20688
I'm gonna screengrab and print this entire thread out and put it up all over the physics department at my university
Anonymous 2023-08-24 (Thu) 11:32:46 No. 20689
>>20687 It's very funny to me that Marxists simultaneously deny that they are essentially a modern religion and view Marx as a holy prophet while also trying to apply Marxism to fields like theoretical physics and cosmology and unironically argue that the scientific research or theory is incorrect if they think it goes against 19th Century political philosophy
Anonymous 2023-08-24 (Thu) 11:35:07 No. 20690
>>20686 And I want to beat you with a rusty iron pipe for your old and tired theist "arguements". Case closed
Anonymous 2023-08-24 (Thu) 11:41:25 No. 20691
>>20689 >Marxists simultaneously deny that they are essentially a modern religion The vast, vast majority of Marxists (in the west or in countries with actual marxist governments) aren't like this, these people are irrelevant outside the internet. Wanna get that out of the way first. But the so called marxists in this thread who unironically:
>apply Marxism to fields like theoretical physics and cosmology and unironically argue that the scientific research or theory is incorrect if they think it goes against 19th Century political philosophy Are way more dogmatic and retarded than 99% of religious people. They are the type of people who would've moved to Jonestown and chugged the cyanide kool-aid.
Anonymous 2023-08-24 (Thu) 11:51:42 No. 20692
>>20689 I mean good luck with that, personally I think it’s a fool’s errand trying to take a collectivist worldview directly based on proletarian religious tradition and recontextualized into an industrial framework and twist it to justify your own individualistic nihilism but you do you. I would say good luck on trying to live a fulfilling life with such a blatantly self destructive worldview but judging by your posts I think you’ll catch a PLA or Chekist bullet before you get a chance to worry about that
Anonymous 2023-08-24 (Thu) 11:56:35 No. 20693
>>20689 Yet despite that there are fruit orchards in Moscow and Leningrad comrade Lysenko grew by planting the seeds of the mother tree further north each generation.
Perhaps the immortal science applies far more to life than you give credit?
Anonymous 2023-08-24 (Thu) 11:59:23 No. 20694
>>20693 damn he could conjure fruits fr fr im convinced
Anonymous 2023-08-24 (Thu) 12:03:48 No. 20696
>>20662 Acceleration of the expansion of teh universe is due to Dark Energy (we don't know what it is). That drawing is correct. Also remember that you aren't drawing space, but spacetime.
Anonymous 2023-08-24 (Thu) 12:14:19 No. 20698
I don't care about philosophers talking about the origin of the universe and reality and everything (if they know math), but I draw the line on politicians.
Anonymous 2023-08-24 (Thu) 12:16:05 No. 20699
>>20671 They were actual sociologists, Comte was a proto sociologist
Anonymous 2023-08-24 (Thu) 15:02:00 No. 20700
>>20691 Ngl
I genuinely don’t think most of the people on leftypol are actually Marxists, I think they like the aesthetics of Marxism
So when I say “Marxists” arguably I mean “leftypol fuckers”
But also lots of actual Marxists will promote incredibly retarded ideas from time to time, like the IMT coming out against Big Bang cosmology for being uhhhh philosophically and politically incorrect somehow?
>>20692 What does any of this have to do with fucktards on this board trying to use “Marxism” to deny modern scientific research?
> I would say good luck on trying to live a fulfilling life with such a blatantly self destructive worldview but judging by your posts I think you’ll catch a PLA or Chekist bullet before you get a chance to worry about that You talk like a man who’s never had sex or even touched grass for that matter
>>20693 Damn nigha Lysenko planted some seeds evolution is wrong fr fr and we should apply the idea of class struggle to plants
This board is literally full of retards, I honestly wonder how it compares to /pol/ in that regard
Anonymous 2023-08-24 (Thu) 15:04:43 No. 20701
>>20700 >Damn nigha Lysenko planted some seeds evolution is wrong fr fr and we should apply the idea of class struggle to plants It means that even though you have the stupid genes, you're not limited by them.
Hope that helped.
Anonymous 2023-08-24 (Thu) 15:06:52 No. 20702
>>20701 Are stupid genes why the people here have turned Marxism into your religion, or is that a result of your lack of sex? Or are they connected?
Anonymous 2023-08-24 (Thu) 15:16:55 No. 20703
As per CPT symmetry there isn't really a "beginning" of the universe but there is a "zero point"
Anonymous 2023-08-24 (Thu) 15:19:19 No. 20704
>>20702 I notice religions have massive organisational capabilities, and institutional resilience.
Anonymous 2023-08-24 (Thu) 15:23:45 No. 20706
>>20700 >This board is literally full of retards, I honestly wonder how it compares to /pol/ in that regard Honestly I think imageboards just attract these types. The medium is the message etc
Anonymous 2023-08-24 (Thu) 15:56:57 No. 20708
>>20704 At least you're coming around to accepting that nothing you believe in can be called "science"
Anonymous 2023-08-24 (Thu) 17:00:44 No. 20709
>>20700 >But also lots of actual Marxists will promote incredibly retarded ideas from time to time Sadly true, earlier this year one of the ML parties in my country released a book, where they also deny the big bang.
Anonymous 2023-08-24 (Thu) 17:04:11 No. 20710
>>20706 Yes, it attracts people that thrive on being contrarian and saying hot takes.
Anonymous 2023-08-24 (Thu) 17:08:43 No. 20711
>>20708 Your opposition to Lysenko is religious.
There are many scientists you have been taught to respect who made worse errors than doubting genetics in an era where geneticists had counted the wrong number of human chromesomes
Anonymous 2023-08-24 (Thu) 17:18:50 No. 20712
Just figured out a way to make this board 20% less retarded
Anonymous 2023-08-24 (Thu) 17:36:49 No. 20713
It's funny that people here claiming to be Marxists denounce some of the fundamentals like materialism or dialectics just to be in touch with contemporary physics which has fallen into the same problem from a 100 years ago - understanding reality is reduced to understanding equations - physics has become mathemathified - and then thinking that these equations present some eternal truth about the universe; just look at the fixation of finding one "equation of everything" or trying to fit Einstein's relativity with other new models. It's metaphysical yet anons here who think they are high and mighty for knowing how to read differential equations and tensor notation and have thusly understood the universe think that we should uncritically accept the paradigm in modern physics just because men in lab coats do it. But then again the loudest critics of Marxism are also the most reactionary and it's no surprise they would return to theism, berkelyanity, or kantian philosophical outlooks. I'm sure they know how physics and math was understood in the USSR - I'm sure they're familiar with the discussions on infinity and infinite processes - I'm sure they think that the materialist paradigm in the USSR was wrong in spite of giving some of the greatest probability theoreticians like Markov and effectively gave the tools for our probabilistic understanding of the universe, or greatest result in measure theory &c.
Anonymous 2023-08-24 (Thu) 18:04:07 No. 20714
>>20713 Provide link to one of these dialectical non-metaphysical Marxist physics papers
>I'm sure they know how physics and math was understood in the USSR Soviet nuclear physicists (some of the best on the planet) competed with the west to find heavier and heavier elements by smashing atomic nuclei together. They didn't subscribe to some alternative proletarian class struggle physics, and implying they did is an insult to its legacy.
>>20711 >There are many scientists you have been taught to respect who made worse errors than doubting genetics Science isn't about respecting or not respecting individual scientists. Upholding great
men scientists of history is retarded. Modern evolutionary biologists don't dogmatically adhere to everything Darwin wrote because his understanding was obviously incomplete (how could it not have been).
Anonymous 2023-08-24 (Thu) 18:06:21 No. 20715
>>20714 Oh wow now I get it. You think that because I'm arguing for Marxism - dialectical materialism - in natural sciences, as has been the standard way of operating before we started replacing experimenting and research with models and equations, I am arguing for historical materialism in science. Fucking wild that it took me so long to see that I'm dealing with a retard.
Anonymous 2023-08-24 (Thu) 18:14:16 No. 20716
>>20715 >no argument Curious
Models and equations are built on previous experimental results, and are then used to make further predictions that can be tested experimentally to assess the validity of the model. There's no dichotomy between models/equations and experimental research, which you would understand if you had read a single scientific paper ever in your life.
Anonymous 2023-08-24 (Thu) 18:16:02 No. 20717
>>20716 >which you would understand if you had read a single scientific paper ever in your life. I did, thank you very much. I'm a scientist like (You) but don't think that my qualifications give any credibility to my arguments because they mean nothing. I'm not arguing from authority like (You) are and I suggest that you relearn what materialistic philosophy really is about (it's not just about muh experiments and muh equations btw)
Anonymous 2023-08-24 (Thu) 18:19:12 No. 20718
>>20717 You’re a person on a fringe imageboard
Anonymous 2023-08-24 (Thu) 18:25:19 No. 20719
>>20717 >I'm a scientist like (You) but don't think that my qualifications give any credibility to my arguments because they mean nothing. I'm not arguing from authority like (You) Not once did I bring up what qualifications I have or what I do. You're deflecting again.
You're not making any arguments to begin with, all you've said is
<USSR did science good and correct, NO I will not elaborate or give an example, it's not my job to educate you Anonymous 2023-08-24 (Thu) 18:26:45 No. 20720
>>20718 I in all sincerity fail to see the relevance of this comment.
Anonymous 2023-08-24 (Thu) 18:28:20 No. 20721
>>20713 >Physics has become mathemathified Cope
>Contemporary physics has not moved from Mach or Poinacre Yes it has for example:
>just look at the fixation of finding one "equation of everything" This fixation is dying and the quest for finding an "elegant" theory pf everything is only pursued by some old people who still like string theory.
Anonymous 2023-08-24 (Thu) 18:34:22 No. 20722
>>20713 Also, you think the entire scientific community is a monolith but there is a lot of internal dialogue about the interpretations of theories, like quantum mechanics for example. Does marxism has a place in that internal dialogue? Maybe, I don't know. To me it's just an extremely useful tool for understanding societies of humans (that could be generalised to complex societies in general).
Anonymous 2023-08-24 (Thu) 19:36:42 No. 20723
>>20700 >deny modern scientific research Whos doing this? Why are you getting so defensive? Science is perfectly compatible with Marxism and Dialectics. Ontology doesn't replace Epistemology but they are not the same thing. You are being criticized for trying to apply things where they dont belong, for trying to raise empiricism to ontology when its not.
Anonymous 2023-08-24 (Thu) 19:37:18 No. 20724
>>20675 >>20676 Yeah sure I'll pass your message on to Engels.
Anonymous 2023-08-24 (Thu) 21:27:04 No. 20725
>>20723 >Whos doing this? Never ask an online ML what a gene is or a trotskyist boomer where the cosmic microwave background radiation comes from.
Anonymous 2023-08-25 (Fri) 02:53:53 No. 20728
>>20723 He is butthurt about Lysenko.
Anonymous 2023-08-25 (Fri) 04:54:16 No. 20729
>>20641 is correct. Whether if the universe is eternal or not has nothing to do with the validity of dialectical materialism compared to its current state & existence. It's non-sequitor & a red herring.
Anonymous 2023-08-28 (Mon) 05:22:00 No. 20732
>>20682 >Physics is the study of the fundamental forces of reality so by necessity real physics deals in dialectics. Dialectics is a tool for analysis, not a fundamental law. Using your own example: protons and electrons can be contrasted with one another to understand their different electric charges. But you can also contrast these particles with neutrons (electric charge vs no electric charge), antiparticles (identical functions, opposite electric charges), and so on. That doesn't make any of these "fundamental opposites" (not even particles vs antiparticles, due to how quarks behave).
Only if time is a law separate from the universe, which it's not - time is a
property of the universe (the "time" part of spacetime). Causality did not exist before the Big Bang, because there wasn't a "before" at all.
First of all - really? Your answer is religion? (And don't give us the "oh I'm not saying it's God" bullshit, yes you are, your wording is explicitly alluding to something divine.)
Second of all, that's not necessary at all. The Big Bang could simply be an inherent property of the universe, the same way entropy is. Sometimes, things just behave a certain way - they are their own "prime mover."
Retrocausality is also an interesting possibility, but I don't know nearly enough about that to talk about it.
Anonymous 2023-08-28 (Mon) 12:54:48 No. 20733
>>20622 that's a cool statue. where is it located?
Anonymous 2023-08-28 (Mon) 13:12:24 No. 20734
Yes you are absolutely right
Anonymous 2023-08-28 (Mon) 13:36:16 No. 20735
>>20659 >Because otherwise we have a "turtles all the way down" type of problem,a problem of infinite regress. If the causes don't stop anywhere, then ultimately nothing has been explained! Because you're always one more cause away from explaining why things exist. The universe is infinitely regressing - it feeds into itself. Time is also not something experienced *by* the universe, but only a product of consciousness. Time is an illusion of memory - when all things actually do is simply circulate, like the seasons.
The mystery of energy is its infinity, which is given in the plurality of form. It is an impossible inquiry.
See things as cycles, not as vertical or horizontal.
Anonymous 2023-08-28 (Mon) 14:16:13 No. 20738
>>20734 >To me an eternal universe seems to make sense. The evolving universe and the Cosmic Microwave Background doesn't care what you believe lil bro.
Anonymous 2023-08-28 (Mon) 14:18:21 No. 20739
>>20735 Memory is a tool of our minds to record the time dimension of nature.
Anonymous 2023-08-28 (Mon) 14:27:11 No. 20740
>>20736 The universe as a total object does not "age" in an eternal model whereas time is experienced as linear by humans
Anonymous 2023-08-28 (Mon) 14:29:23 No. 20741
>>20739 Time is simply the record of change within experience ordered chronologically - "time" as a vector is the same as its spatial aspect of "potential" within form. There is no pure time, like a cosmic clock.
Anonymous 2023-08-28 (Mon) 14:31:12 No. 20742
>>20740 Not the point being made, anon
Anonymous 2023-08-28 (Mon) 14:36:21 No. 20743
>>20742 What is the point?
Anonymous 2023-08-28 (Mon) 14:40:17 No. 20745
>>20738 How did the big bang happen?
(Pls dont say multiverse)
Anonymous 2023-08-28 (Mon) 14:40:21 No. 20746
>>20737 Honestly the science critics here would be even a tiny bit credible if they even knew the actual claims of the theory and could falsify it scientifically rather than claiming the theory is philosophically incorrect and then stating that the original hypothesis came from a theist as a way to indirectly disprove the research the theory was built on.
Anonymous 2023-08-28 (Mon) 14:43:47 No. 20747
>>20744 I assume that the universe has no perception as a total object and that time is a product of personal experience. Im making the objective/subjective distinction.
I understand the transcendental critique though, of my temporality abridging itself to an abstract eternity. To me there is motion in space, which creates "time" as a relation, but not as a continuum that stands independently from phenomena - some kantian category or whatever.
Anonymous 2023-08-28 (Mon) 14:50:08 No. 20748
>>20746 The historicity of an idea matters
Anonymous 2023-08-28 (Mon) 15:31:44 No. 20749
>>20622 These are the types of questions that are unavoidably metaphysical, even theological, not matter how much science tries to avoid it. The scientific revolution started in the West, and in its earliest stages, could never quite wash itself clean of the vernix it was born with from the womb of theology. "In the beginning" said the Bible, and ever since, the predominant belief in western cosmology is that the universe MUST have a beginning.
The big bang is no confirmation of this view either. It still leaves unexplained certain metaphysical conundrums, such as how something can come from nothing or how energy would suddenly burst into being 13.8 billion years ago, along with spacetime. The law of physics struggle at this point. To preserve the law of energy conservation, either hand waving about quantum uncertainty must be relied on, or the universe must be eternal. Indeed, now physicists are starting to doubt that the universe began at the big bang, and that cosmic inflation preceded it.
And not to nitpick, but if "quantum foam" preceded the observable universe, then what explains the origins of that foam? Why must things necessarily, be presumed to require an origin? Then there are competing theories such as the many worlds interpretation, etc.
In Hindu cosmology, there exists an multiverse, and each universe undergoes an evolutionary lifecycle from birth to death and rebirth. This view seems closer to the truth than the more impoverished and ill-founded view of a singular, paradoxical universe with an arbitrary start date that emerged from nothing after an eternity.
Anonymous 2023-08-28 (Mon) 15:37:39 No. 20750
It seems quite obvious that from our finite standpoint the far side of events, we have a permanent epistemic and informational disadvantage. Cosmologists can only reconstruct what's happened from scattered fragments, and even then, all the available fragments within the circle of observability might be fewer than we need to complete the puzzle. The universe is already much larger than what we observe. The big bang might just be the edge of some larger phenomenon that we can't discern from our standpoint.
Anonymous 2023-08-28 (Mon) 15:42:11 No. 20751
>>20748 Especially if you have politically motivated reasons to prove a theory wrong and can't let pesky things like
>Knowledge of the actual theory and any sort of scientific background in physics Get in the way
Like most fucktard "Marxists" that will simultaneously tell you Marxism is a science but can't do basic arithmetic or actually read a research paper lmao
Anonymous 2023-08-28 (Mon) 15:45:44 No. 20753
>>20751 What would be my motivation to prove it wrong? I simply hold it in suspension since i admittedly dont understand it. What I understand its object as a discourse however.
Anonymous 2023-08-28 (Mon) 15:47:47 No. 20754
>>20753 Probably whatever motivated you to substitute Marxism for Christianity in the first place
Anonymous 2023-08-28 (Mon) 15:49:13 No. 20755
>>20754 Im not a christian
Anonymous 2023-08-28 (Mon) 16:25:56 No. 20756
>>20754 Dialectical materialism offers a negative view of matter which reconciles it to the state of its perpetual motion, that there is a quality inborn of its quantity, given in self-consciousness (subjectivity) of its operation, so as to disentangle compounded essences related to its form, yet by this motion, circling it back to a heightened state of its primal condition, like the transition of ape to human, to speak vulgarly. By this reversion of progress along the dialectic we achieve species-being, as a "becoming" of the same, and so alienation collapses its object in obtainment, yet this also eludes itself and the cycle opens back up, as an endless loop of mediating the stasis of an idea.
In hegel this represents the state in its universalizing properties which collapses the nation into impersonal form, but by its insufficiency, of the political being purely negative, jt reverts this contraction and sprawls back into possibility.
In psychoanalysis this is the object of desire, which by mediation has its being in negation, and by its capture loses its essence by the absorption of its properties into the subject, assuming a positive existence - what is gained is lost.
In astrological discourses, this is the loop of the sun by the year, where it dies and is reborn in capricorn, by the QUALITY of the "inversion" of darkness (negation) into light, like the resurrection of jesus after hell (an astrological myth of the winter solstice).
This same process occurs in the shape of a taurus field, the model of electro-magnetism, where the core (centre of the "infinity" sign) replenishes itself by the outpouring of its elemental power, which then gives form or motion (time) by its "occult" origin.
To me thats the cyclical model, which opposes christian theology, hellbent on "the end" of time as a prefixture to their liberation. They see time as a horizontal line, which is how the big bang's expansion is also represented.
Anonymous 2023-08-28 (Mon) 16:46:06 No. 20759
>>20745 We know that there was a Big Bang event based on our understanding of redshift and the CMB. We don't know anything about the universe before that, not just because the information isn't available but because our understanding of spacetime breaks down at that level; there isn't really a "before" without time. As I explained here
>>20732 you're asking for something impossible - what caused causality - because causality as we understand it must have emerged during the Big Bang.
TL;DR - As far as we know, it just happened. Our understanding of spacetime and causality breaks down beyond this point.
Anonymous 2023-08-28 (Mon) 16:46:38 No. 20760
>>20755 You might as well be
>>20756 Not reading all this while I'm at work
Marxism isn't a religion
And calling yourself a "Marxist" isn't a magic shield that hides the fact that you're a moron
Albeit a very verbose moron
Anonymous 2023-08-28 (Mon) 17:06:23 No. 20761
>>20760 Im just explaining the cyclical perspective of time, as something which feeds into itself as an open circuit
Anonymous 2023-08-28 (Mon) 17:09:34 No. 20762
>>20759 I think naturalism entails the fact that the universe is self-caused. Im not looking for any idea of something before or beyond time. Time is motion and motion is being. I just think "ex nihilo" is something certainly incorrect and sneaks in as a theological fixture, of a "beginning".
Anonymous 2023-08-28 (Mon) 17:10:28 No. 20763
>>20758 Geometry seems like a staple in the way things work
Anonymous 2023-08-28 (Mon) 17:19:26 No. 20764
Physicists have their own implicit and unexamined philosophical assumptions, probably the most egregious of which is the uniformitarian principle, i.e, that the laws of physics are uniform and unchanging in all times and places. The most empirically valid nomothetic understanding is descriptivist. Natural laws merely describe unfailingly consistent observational regularities. However, many physicists seem to view it otherwise, and metaphysicalize physical law, viewing them almost platonically as these self-existent, independent rules that instruct the universe rather than emerge out of it.
Anonymous 2023-08-28 (Mon) 17:40:53 No. 20765
>>20762 Ex nihilo isn't unfounded - virtual particles, quantum foam, etc. lend credence to the idea that something can come from nothing. It only seems absurd to us because we're animals built to view the world as cause-and-effect, since that's important for our immediate environment.
Just because people tend to treat "the beginning" as a theological affair doesn't mean it actually IS a theological affair. The historicity of an idea does not make it any more or less valid - it only affects how we apply it.
Anonymous 2023-08-28 (Mon) 17:45:38 No. 20766
>>20765 How does the nothing become something?
Anonymous 2023-08-28 (Mon) 17:49:02 No. 20767
>>20766 >>20765 I dont disagree with the principle, but to me nothingness is the quality of a relation, which eludes objectification. Subjectivity for example is the no-thing which underlies human affairs. Nothingness can exist in residuum to a process, but it cant sustain independent existence because it has none
Anonymous 2023-08-28 (Mon) 17:55:46 No. 20768
>>20764 >That the laws of physics are uniform and unchanging in all times and places They apply Occam's Razor cause it's the easier possibility. But there are hipothesis out there that talk about a variable speed of light (causality) and other constants not being constant across time and/or space. The thing is, if one phenomenon can be explained by uniform laws of physics and also variable laws of physics, by Occam's Razor, the uniform view is true.
Anonymous 2023-08-28 (Mon) 17:57:32 No. 20769
>>20766 This video
>>20646 is good if you want the perspective of scientists
Anonymous 2023-08-28 (Mon) 18:21:17 No. 20770
>>20769 Didnt really explain how something comes from nothing but was still a good video
Ive always known "metaphysics" was a clunky word with even clunkier agendas behind it. At least we can all agree to battle idealism here.
Anonymous 2023-08-28 (Mon) 18:23:35 No. 20771
Fuck off imt. The big bang isn't incompatible with historical materialism.
Anonymous 2023-08-28 (Mon) 21:10:05 No. 20776
>>20770 >Didnt really explain how something comes from nothing It did say that we don't know and maybe that isn't the right question at all. Science is also about knowing which questions to ask.
Anonymous 2023-08-28 (Mon) 21:13:54 No. 20777
The thing is that science is difficult to define. And there isn't unity among different fields in approach, data gathering, experiments. there is a loose conection maybe of ideals and goals but it becomes fuzzy at the edges. But one thing I am certain of is that Marxism won't contribute anything to cosmology. And it doesn't have to.
Anonymous 2023-08-28 (Mon) 22:56:37 No. 20778
>>20777 Why is critiquing cosmogony out of the question?
Anonymous 2023-08-28 (Mon) 23:08:58 No. 20779
>>20655 "Science" in the west is just "eugenics" and fascism so what's the problem?
Anonymous 2023-08-29 (Tue) 07:22:58 No. 20780
>>20778 A socio-economic theory like Marxism can't explain where stars came from. This should be self evident.
Anonymous 2023-08-29 (Tue) 11:02:04 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.
Anonymous 2023-08-29 (Tue) 11:57:11 No. 20783
>>20771 Seriously, when did /leftypol/ acquire so many IMT cranks?
Anonymous 2023-08-29 (Tue) 11:58:23 No. 20784
>>20779 Man can you get a hobby other than trolling somewhere everyone hates you
Actual Leninhat 2023-08-29 (Tue) 12:28:09 No. 20785
>>20784 I'm not trolling. It's how it is. Universities just spew whatever the bourgeoisie demand.
Anonymous 2023-08-29 (Tue) 12:42:32 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.
Anonymous 2023-08-29 (Tue) 12:50:34 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 Anonymous 2023-08-29 (Tue) 12:59:06 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
Actual Leninhat 2023-08-29 (Tue) 13:03:08 No. 20790
>>20789 What passes for Economics, psychology, sociology, are all bourgeois ideology.
Anonymous 2023-08-29 (Tue) 19:25:31 No. 20792
>>20791 Do we need to talk again about how the CopeMorehagen interpretation was a direct attack on Marxism.
Anonymous 2023-08-29 (Tue) 19:39:42 No. 20793
>>20792 Don't you dare criticize machism in physics, the physicist know better.
Anonymous 2023-08-29 (Tue) 19:58:16 No. 20794
>>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.
Anonymous 2023-08-29 (Tue) 20:11:58 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.
Anonymous 2023-08-29 (Tue) 20:16:05 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.
Anonymous 2023-08-29 (Tue) 20:17:38 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 Anonymous 2023-08-29 (Tue) 20:24:01 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.
Anonymous 2023-08-29 (Tue) 20:27:14 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.
Anonymous 2023-08-29 (Tue) 20:31:16 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
Anonymous 2023-08-29 (Tue) 20:37:43 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.
Anonymous 2023-08-29 (Tue) 21:19:25 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).
Anonymous 2023-08-29 (Tue) 21:23:43 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
Anonymous 2023-08-29 (Tue) 21:27:40 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.
Anonymous 2023-08-29 (Tue) 21:41:30 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.
Anonymous 2023-08-29 (Tue) 21:41:48 No. 20807
>>20804 What value is "contemporary (scientific) theory" in light of the political struggles we all face that isnt enlightened by marxism?
Anonymous 2023-08-29 (Tue) 21:51:56 No. 20809
>>20806 Matter itself is dialectical
Anonymous 2023-08-29 (Tue) 22:02:45 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.
Anonymous 2023-08-29 (Tue) 22:04:47 No. 20811
>>20674 As someone who does research in neuroscience, this is extremelly relevant. I agree completely.
Anonymous 2023-08-29 (Tue) 22:26:44 No. 20812
>>20810 Do you think the big bang is dialectical?
Anonymous 2023-08-29 (Tue) 22:28:35 No. 20813
>>20812 The idea of a "nothingness" "before" time is undialectical, and idealist.
Anonymous 2023-08-29 (Tue) 23:13:05 No. 20814
The big bang is dialectical. Everything is dialectical. Everything is connected, like gravity. There wasn't "nothing" before the big bang.
Anonymous 2023-08-29 (Tue) 23:16:53 No. 20815
>>20805 Oh you the typical matehmatician mf who writes emails about how everything in modern physics is wrong
Anonymous 2023-08-29 (Tue) 23:21:25 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 Anonymous 2023-08-29 (Tue) 23:26:55 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.
Anonymous 2023-08-30 (Wed) 02:06:15 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.
Anonymous 2023-08-30 (Wed) 02:18:05 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.
Anonymous 2023-08-30 (Wed) 02:22:21 No. 20821
>>20820 you have to study for 5+ years to become a professional scientist, that's plenty of time to think about things
Anonymous 2023-08-30 (Wed) 04:20:54 No. 20822
>>20818 Big bang can make sense
Ex nihilo doesnt make sense
Thats the only qualification i make
Anonymous 2023-08-30 (Wed) 04:33:47 No. 20825
Also apologies for my English
Anonymous 2023-08-30 (Wed) 05:47:02 No. 20826
>>20823 Mainlanders vs anglos
Anonymous 2023-08-30 (Wed) 08:43:43 No. 20827
>>20823 Yeah that image proves my point
Unique IPs: 85