Anonymous 22-08-23 19:52:02 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) >matter always existed >matter was always in motion
152 posts and 29 image replies omitted. Anonymous 29-08-23 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 29-08-23 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 29-08-23 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 29-08-23 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 29-08-23 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 29-08-23 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 29-08-23 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 30-08-23 04:20:54 No. 20822
>>20818 Big bang can make sense
Ex nihilo doesnt make sense
Thats the only qualification i make
Unique IPs: 27