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: 27