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

/edu/ - Education

'The weapon of criticism cannot, of course, replace criticism of the weapon, material force must be overthrown by material force; but theory also becomes a material force as soon as it has gripped the masses.' - Karl Marx
Name
Options
Subject
Comment
Flag
File
Embed
Password (For file deletion.)

Join our Matrix Chat <=> IRC: #leftypol on Rizon


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

 [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)
Why do the professional philosophers insist on arguing about idealistic nonsense when the two simple axioms
>matter always existed
>matter was always in motion
Solve all philosophical problems and leave only their practical solutions - i.e. the natural and social sciences, something tangible with results, to be studied? Is it because if the theory starts requiring practice, they lose their cushy jobs and pseudo-intellectuals on this board who jack off on structuralism, post-Marxism &c. would have to start doing manual labor to prove their points?

 

>philosophycels still malding that sciencechads stole physics from them
who would have thought you could learn more about how the world works by studying grass rather than imagining how grass works

 

>>20623
Did you even read the post? I literally agree with you.

 

>>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.

 

>>20625
But that's not true. The Big Bang doesn't explain what caused it, you just get back to an immovable mover.

 

>>20622
in a way you're right because the beginning of the universe was the beginning of time so there was no "before".

 

>>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

 

File: 1692735990085.png (12.11 KB, 500x250, Oekaki.png)

>>20626
> The Big Bang doesn't explain what caused it, you just get back to an immovable mover.
Or time is just curved and multi-dimensional like space, and the big bang happens to be a relative maximum or edge on the curve.

 

>>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

 

>>20622
Well, the space between galaxies is increasing, so yesterday they were closer. And you can rewind time and conclude that the universe evolved from a early dense and hot state. You see, causality has a speed, which is the speed of light. Evrything without mass moves at that speed, everything with mas can't reach that speed cause the velocity of causality is invariant between frames of reference. In an eternal universe, there would have been enough time for every particle to interact with each other. So everything would be a uniform goo. But that isn't the. So we can say that the existance of structure in our universe porves it evolves with time and that it had a beginning. If you are interested in this topic you shoudl read about theories like the multiverse or eternal inflation.

 

>>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.

 

>>20631
Fuck I should proofread before posting, damn

 

>>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.

 

File: 1692738391586.webm (66.73 MB, 360x640, shohmyoh.webm)

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.

This is how you have creatio ex nihilo without god. creatio ex nihilo is simply the void contradicting itself and resolving that contradiction through diversification of physical phenomena, this is the beginning of physics, and the bridge between the theoretical and the real. this is theologically too abstract for most people though, so they'll continue to anthropomorphize. The materialists are stuck with a never ending math problem because space itself is a matryoshka doll with no innermost or outermost shell. you can always delve deeper and "discover" (observe) that objects have components, which have subcomponents, which have sub-subcomponents, and so on. They say sometimes that there limit for this stuff, but really it's mostly a limit on what we are able to observe with our present instruments. 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. There is an infinite amount of time between two moments. There is an infinite amount of space between two objects. Everything is intimately interwoven yet totally alien to everything else. The multiverse is a living contradiction resolving from the void not being allowed to exist by itself. This is plain to anyone who is willing to extend the logic of what we have discovered so far. Teenager who take acid realize this stuff and then forget it. It's obvious.

 

>>20631
the anti-rational vulgar theological anthropomorphizers and their evolutionary brethren, the schizophrenia-addled pattern-seekers, shall say that God designed the eyeball to resemble this logarithmic illustration of the universe, but real secular metaphysicists descended from Hegel, Marx, and psychedelics know that physics starts with the contradiction posed by the void existing by itself, and that it is simply the principle of fractal resemblance playing out mathematically that causes the eyeball to resemble this illustration

 

>>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)

 

>>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

 

>Matter in motion since forever
This is impossible because all matter is created, ergo it necessarily needs to come from an unmoved mover.

 

File: 1692740274231.jpg (25.05 KB, 525x354, nothing_matters_yay.jpg)

>>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

 

>>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.

 

>>20641
a fine theory but if you think about it carefully you'll realize that motion isn't possible

 

>>20642
>>20639
terminal idealism

 

>>20643
how dare you besmirch the good name of my man Zeno like this

 

>>20640
Really honored you compare me with Saint Thomas!

 


 

>>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

 

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

 

>>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

 

>>20649
Eat a razor blade, bourgeois louse.

 

>>20650
germ theory status?

 

God has always existed and is always creating so the universe have been created eternally

 

>>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

 

>>20649
folks be all about scientific socialism until someone starts talking about scientific information that wasn't available in marx/engels/lenin's time

 

>>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".

 

>>20655
Well I'm pretty sure Leninhat in particular actually is racist, so I mean…

 

>>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.

 

>>20650
That's cap

 

File: 1692836823317.jpg (Spoiler Image, 112.78 KB, 650x864, D1E4A85.jpg)

>>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?

>Heraclitan flux

What cause the Heraclitan flux?

 

>>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."

 

The universe makes me sad, bros

 

File: 1692842917178.png (26.02 KB, 727x250, Oekaki.png)


 

>>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.

 

>>20663
but why are they there. Why do they form and burn out. what's the point

 

>>20664
>>20663
keep in mind i just played outer wilds for the first time so I've been thinking about this stuff lately

 

All of this just to evade Idealism (which is correct btw)

 

>>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

 

>>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"?

 

>>20659
>literally repeating Duhring's arguments that Engels already debunked 200 years ago.
Does no one read theory anymore?

 

File: 1692861388447.jpg (Spoiler Image, 12.17 KB, 225x320, evil-nun-crazy-dad_th_04.jpg)

>>20669
I'm re-repeating the argument from causation, made by Aristotle, and repeated by Christian theologians for 2,300 years.

 

>>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.

 

>>20635
>If nothing were to be the only thing that would exist, it would be a physical contradiction
linguistic games, anthropocentric pov, etc, etc

 

File: 1692869766784.png (138.3 KB, 638x479, ClipboardImage.png)

>>20622
>Descartes… and other materialist
really?

>Engels, Lenin

>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

 

>>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.

 

>>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?

 

>>20674
You should have added some actual examples for how natural sciences could be improved.

 

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

 

>>20677
why can't it just be an endless cycle with no beginning or end? or be 'created' by some completely natural process?

 

>>20678
Because the doctrine of infinite self causality is idealist and in contradiction with physics as we understand it?

 

>>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

 

>>20677
>fundamental dialectics
Why should anyone care if physics is undialectical?

 

>>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

 

>>20682
I call it Stalin.

 

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.

 

>>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

 

>>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

 

>>20685
Because their philosophy was simply the codifying of the principles of existence into socioeconomic analysis

 

I'm gonna screengrab and print this entire thread out and put it up all over the physics department at my university

 

>>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

 

>>20686
And I want to beat you with a rusty iron pipe for your old and tired theist "arguements". Case closed

 

>>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.

 

>>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

 

>>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?

 

>>20693
damn he could conjure fruits fr fr im convinced

 

File: 1692878429259.jpg (6.77 KB, 241x205, 01x5w4zxae081.jpg)

>>20687
>Cosmologists rn

 

>>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.

 

File: 1692879014140.pdf (1.63 MB, 174x255, lenin-cw-vol-14.pdf)

>>20671
>Yeah it's funny, I don't know about Lenin

 

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.

 

>>20671
They were actual sociologists, Comte was a proto sociologist

 

>>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

 

>>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.

 

>>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?

 

As per CPT symmetry there isn't really a "beginning" of the universe but there is a "zero point"

 

>>20702
I notice religions have massive organisational capabilities, and institutional resilience.

 

>>20700
>looking for a good modern-day book on dialectics for normies
>"oooh reason in revolt looks cool"
<THE BIG BANG ISN'T REAL
>stop reading

 

>>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

 

>>20706
Hehehe

 

>>20704
At least you're coming around to accepting that nothing you believe in can be called "science"

 

>>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.

 

>>20706
Yes, it attracts people that thrive on being contrarian and saying hot takes.

 

>>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

 

Just figured out a way to make this board 20% less retarded

 

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.

The point of Marxism is not to look at what is current, popular and what is established, but to look at what is changing, coming into life. Contemporary physics has not moved from Mach or Poinacre, they have just replaced "collections of senses" with an even more solipsistic outlook: thinking that our physical laws and models are not the most credible images of the natural world, the most general axioms we have yet constructed, but some inscribed rules of material movement we are discovering.

 

>>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).

 

>>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.

 

>>20715
>no argument
Curious

>before we started replacing experimenting and research with models and equations

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.

 

>>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)

 

>>20717
You’re a person on a fringe imageboard

 

>>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.

>I'm not arguing from

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

 

>>20718
I in all sincerity fail to see the relevance of this comment.

 

>>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.

 

>>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).

 

>>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.

 

>>20675
>>20676
Yeah sure I'll pass your message on to Engels.

 

>>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.

 


 

Evald Ilyenkov’s “Cosmology of the Spirit” was written in the 1950s, but published posthumously only at the end of 1980s as it was too heretical to be published during the author’s lifetime. The text was heretical not because it was “dissident” or critical of the Soviet Union where the philosopher lived all his life, but because of its enormously speculative and hypothetical nature. Addressing the physicist idea of the “thermal death of the universe,” and creating an original combination of the Hegelian dialectics and Spinoza’s notion of the attribute, Ilyenkov claims that thought (and the seemingly contingent emergence of “thinking life”) is a necessary attribute of matter, as it is able to prevent the terminal entropic collapse.

 

>>20723
He is butthurt about Lysenko.

 

>>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.

 


 

File: 1693188434540.jpg (83.25 KB, 577x470, demiporky.jpg)

>>20677
<The universe must have a creation and by extension a creator because our existence would completely violate fundamental dialectics otherwise.
My sides!
How have I missed this thread for so long?

 

File: 1693200120004.png (153.5 KB, 313x245, ClipboardImage.png)

>>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).

>the only materialist explanation for a universe with causality to exist

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.

>is by necessity a higher power

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.

 

>>20622
that's a cool statue. where is it located?

 

Yes you are absolutely right
People dont know that the big bang theory was actually formulated by a catholic priest who made the claim to "prove god" as a creation of the universe "ex nihilio". Most "science" is also "theoretical" today, meaning its just mathematics, not empirical. Recently string theory (the pet theory of the last 2 decades) has been renounced as a failure and a fantasy akin to quantum mysticism, the same crap idealists eat up. A lot of what is claimed to be "science" is just stuff peddled as true to be given grant money to preserve the salaries of professors. We see this historicism in the discourses of the past, including darwinism, which is heavily influenced by the ideas of malthus, a good friend to darwin at the time. Darwinism turns the fossil record into an essentialising of a market competition into nature.
To me an eternal universe seems to make sense.

 

File: 1693229776665.png (313.95 KB, 481x640, vortex-5273023_640.png)

>>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.

 

>>20735
>the characteristics of the universe as we percieve it are not actually of the universe but a property of how we experience it
<now go ahead and think of the universe as this very neat and human concept

 

>>20734
>Doesn't know that theory doesn't mean hypothesis

 

>>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.

 

>>20735
Memory is a tool of our minds to record the time dimension of nature.

 

>>20736
The universe as a total object does not "age" in an eternal model whereas time is experienced as linear by humans

 

>>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.

 

>>20740
Not the point being made, anon

 

>>20742
What is the point?

 

>>20743
>categories like time are a property of perception and not the thing itself
<now go ahead and think of the unvierse as being in-itself like this mental model that is by definition a derivative of perception

 

>>20738
How did the big bang happen?
(Pls dont say multiverse)

 

>>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.

 

>>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.

 

>>20746
The historicity of an idea matters

 

>>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.

 

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.

 

>>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

 

>>20749
There is no great question, there is only the experience of nature as it is.

 

>>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.

 

>>20753
Probably whatever motivated you to substitute Marxism for Christianity in the first place

 

>>20754
Im not a christian

 

File: 1693239955369-0.png (1.37 MB, 2000x1250, COVER.png)

>>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.

 

File: 1693240243048.png (143.26 KB, 350x350, clown.png)

>>20745
>Isn't comfortable with the unknowns of nature

 

File: 1693240425523.jpg (107.06 KB, 1024x897, IMG_20200521_105151.jpg)

>>20752
>The idea that humans are an infallible instrument of measure and we see everything when infrared light, gravitational waves and subatomic particles walk in

 

File: 1693241166655.png (361.76 KB, 507x386, ClipboardImage.png)

>>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.

 

>>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

 

>>20760
Im just explaining the cyclical perspective of time, as something which feeds into itself as an open circuit

 

>>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".

 

>>20758
Geometry seems like a staple in the way things work

 

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.

Evolutionary theories of natural law, that view them not as always having prevailed in the universe, but instead having developed from its internal dynamics at various stages in universal evolution, would help unburden physics of certain narrowing assumptions that tell it that only what is consistent with our understanding of natural law is possible, the rest be damned. When you extrapolate too greedily using present nomological knowledge, however, you arrive at certain absurdities, singularities, or paradoxes that seem to break those very laws. Then you get the hand wavy stuff like, "ok, energy cannot be created or destroyed, but somehow a universe-ful of energy was randomly generated thanks to quantum statistical fluctuation just because."

I bet if certain edge events like the big bang were reevaluated without assuming uniformitarianism then much that is inexplicable about it will drop away. And maybe at the same time we can advance our knowledge of natural law to the latest "standard definition"

 

File: 1693244453146.png (335.26 KB, 607x390, ClipboardImage.png)

>>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.

 

>>20765
How does the nothing become something?

 

>>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

 

>>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.

 

>>20766
This video >>20646 is good if you want the perspective of scientists

 

>>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.

 

Fuck off imt. The big bang isn't incompatible with historical materialism.

 

File: 1693247921327.gif (486.11 KB, 220x208, my b.gif)


 

>>20771
how not?

 

File: 1693252903593.gif (1.11 MB, 498x371, patrick-star-stupid.gif)

>"Marxism is definitely a science guys" mfers when confronted with a theory that wasn't around in the 19th Century

 


 

>>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.

 

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.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

>>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

 

>>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

 

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

 

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

 

>>20790
>in a thread about physics

 

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

 

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

 

>>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.

 

>>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.

 

>>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.

 

>>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

 

>>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.

 

>>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.

 

>>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

 

>>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.

 

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

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

 

>>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).

 

>>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

 

>>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.

 

>>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.

 

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

 

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

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

 

>>20806
Matter itself is dialectical

 

>>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.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

>>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

 

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

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


 

>>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.

 

>>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.

 

>>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.

 

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

 

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

 

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


 

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

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

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

 

Also apologies for my English

 

>>20823
Mainlanders vs anglos

 

>>20823
Yeah that image proves my point


Unique IPs: 85

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