Anonymous 22-08-23 19:52:02 No. 20622 [Last 50 Posts]
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
Anonymous 22-08-23 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 22-08-23 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 22-08-23 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 22-08-23 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 22-08-23 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 23-08-23 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 23-08-23 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 23-08-23 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 24-08-23 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 24-08-23 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 24-08-23 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 24-08-23 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 24-08-23 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 24-08-23 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 24-08-23 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 24-08-23 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 24-08-23 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 24-08-23 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 24-08-23 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 24-08-23 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 24-08-23 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 24-08-23 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 24-08-23 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 24-08-23 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 24-08-23 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 28-08-23 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 28-08-23 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 28-08-23 14:40:17 No. 20745
>>20738 How did the big bang happen?
(Pls dont say multiverse)
Anonymous 28-08-23 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 28-08-23 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 28-08-23 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 28-08-23 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 28-08-23 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 28-08-23 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 28-08-23 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 28-08-23 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 28-08-23 17:57:32 No. 20769
>>20766 This video
>>20646 is good if you want the perspective of scientists
Anonymous 28-08-23 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 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: 83