How do materialists solve the issue of infinite regression that happens in the materialist worldview?
<Things are made of matter!
>What is matter made of?
<Out of atoms!
>What are atoms made of?
<Subatomic particles!
>What are subatomic particles made of?
<Strings/They are excitations of quantum fields!
>What are strings/quantum fields made of?
Where does it end?
282 posts and 30 image replies omitted.>>2408385>you can't define "matter" as anything intrinsically meaningful. It's just a lump of substance does matter exist? or not? Independently of your thought about it?
I'm guessing you are going to repeat that it's a meaningless question>without any necessary quality whatsoever, well that's where "Form" comes in. Matter is never found except in one "Form" or another, and different kinds of "Form" have different qualities.
>posited for the sake of argument that there is something to write about.Well, isn't there? Or is everything just void and nothingness?
I think anons are reluctant to think about metaphysics because they think it's a slippery slope to Christianity. This isn't necessarily the case.
<thou didst divide the sea by thy strength: thou brakest the heads of the dragons in the waters<Psalm 74:13It's obv a further elaboration of Genesis 1:1-2.
But if the God of the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament created everything, what were dragons already doing in the waters?
>>2416744Matter or substance exists as "something", but it is devoid of any inherent meaning simply by being "substance". It's like repeating the name "Jesus" ad nauseum as your proof that Jesus is the Son of God and just having to accept that. That's not Christianity. That's Satanism. It's very trvial to demonstrate why you don't believe in that.
The point is that there isn't any necessary "Form" for the universe. The universe doesn't exist to serve our conceits about it. That is apparently impossible for a follower of Christ-Lucifer to understand in current era. It's Germanic and it relies entirely on a belief that the universe can't be understood by our existence within it, which is all any of us have to know there is a universe or claim anything is "knowable". We only know we can speak of such a thing because we exist. If we didn't exist the universe could go on without us, but there would be nothing "meaningful" about it to be said. There would be no thought to think it, no language or body that can say it. Yet it would still exist without us.
>>2416781>If we didn't exist the universe could go on without us, but there would be nothing "meaningful" about it to be said. There would be no thought to think it, no language or body that can say it. Yet it would still exist without us.Ok. We wouldn't be there to think about it. But so what? Would the sun still be hot? If the sun has hotness as a quality of its form then it would. If any gods exist, then maybe the form of the sun's hotness would be in their minds. But it wouldn't be in ours, agreed.
Things wouldn't exist as concepts in our minds, but things would still exist in a combination form and matter.
Give you an example. There's a rubber (pencil eraser) on the sofa which im sitting on right now. It has form ,square, white in colour, all very Platonic right? But its made of matter
which when you think about it is just as Platonic ,because matter is never found in the physical universe on it's own ,except in some sort of form ,. All this is true even when I'm out at work ,and have forgotten about the rubber, the only time its in my mind when im out is when im thinking about changing something in my diary, or something.
>>2416916Heat is not a matter of opinion. It is a fact that affects the world without us. A fact by itself has no inherent meaning. Facts simply are. The problem is that the universe doesn't produce any fact ready-made for consumption. We have to ask ourselves why the sun is hot and if it was so in the past, from what we observe of it, to judge what is and is not a fact to our knowledge. We then conclude trivially that there was a sun long before any mind was there to judge that fact.
To the universe, all of it is just "matter in motion". The universe doesn't have any "sense" to tell it there is such a thing as a sun. It's just some well of heat that may be an anomaly on a cosmic scale. It's not asserting "sun-ness" as a fundamental form by some metaphysical hobgoblin. The star assembled from some components, rather than popping into existence arbitrarily.
Can you understand then why you're being a Satanist about this? All of your arguments rely on a childish sleight-of-hand trick, that is only ever used to insult and degrade children until they break down. It only exists because of extreme violence to make it so. What you're invoking has nothing to do with philosophy or Christianity. It has to do with a blind faith in forced ignorance as power in of itself. That's an easy argument to "debunk", but power makes its own reality in the minds of the true believers of such a doctrine. I'm no Christian but my understanding is that the entire purpose of the Christian theory of knowledge is to counteract such arguments as obvious malevolence (while shielding their own, more elaborate malevolence). The exhortation to believe "no matter what" is exactly what the pagans did when they demanded ritual sacrifice be offered to the Emperors; it was something you did not out of belief but as an obligation to the state, made with a knife at your throat if you refused.
>>2417513Religion and science are not the same thing. Religion can enshrine theories of science and claim their teachings are in line with a scientific inquiry, but the purpose of religion isn't knowledge of the world but the study of the Evil and study of the practice of the Evil, which the practices of any religion revolve around. You follow religion because it pertains to the Evil, which you may want to avoid, defeat, channel, embrace, or whatever you want to do with the Evil. Science has no necessary moral prescription whatsoever. You might want to use science to find the truth, but it is entirely possible to use legitimate scientific inquiry to create lies or conduct science for an opportunistic adventure that otherwise wouldn't exist at all to be "truth". We'd like science to be conducted on the basis of truth because that is the one thing everyone in the world can agree upon, but science has no monopoly on truth and even the most honest science can be wrong by some failure of humans who do science.
The religious thinkers were not in any conducting science, and of the religions only Christianity claimed any monopoly on the teaching of what we call today science. This was entirely because of the Christian doctrine that demanded total control of information to ascertain whether it was a true or false teaching, and that is particular to Christianity and its belief about knowledge and the Evil. Other religions are proudly anti-scientific and shriek in horror at the thought of science intruding on their rituals. The scientists conduct their work without regard for any particular religion or god, only occasionally commenting on such entities. Even when Christian priests are doing science, they are very clear that scientific claims about nature are not religious claims and would never be equated with such.
In some way religion entails a science about the subject matter it studies. Every religion has a system for its knowledge and practice of the Evil that is intelligible and can be compared with other religions. When a religion does the bit where they claim unique sacrosanctity, that's a bullshit alarm if I ever saw one. Every religion was able to either apologize for its tenets in some way or their religion was the private domain of an elect group and they understood the aliens believed in something else and made it a point to study their enemies to know how to defeat them.
>>2417581Chemistry is founded on the religious mysticism. You cannot take any particular substance for granted to say there are any things you just have to accept. You can only speak of substance itself without any meaning connecting it to a physical object.
Chemistry and alchemy both presume there is some "prime matter" of which all other substances derive. For chemistry this is physical force or energy, hence eventually coming around to "E = mc squared". That was ultimately a mystical assertion rather than a "super-scientific" one that you just had to accept, since you could easily consider that mass and energy had nothing to do with each other and referred to distinct events. It was a leap of faith necessary to assert that there was something primary, which was "light", that constituted the matter studied by chemistry and particle physics. Philosophically "matter" means something different if you're referring to the concepts of materialism. When a chemist is invoking "matter", you have to mentally substitute either "prime matter" or a derivative in some model that is basically supposed by a theory or model, to distinguish matter from the philosophical assertion that there is substance generally, since philosophically "matter" has no necessary definition in the universe. God is comprised of "matter" just as much as rocks are in order for that god to be deemed philosophically substantive, which is why it was a big deal to make claims about the substance of God and Christ in the early legal church. That had not just religious implications but political implications.
>>2417647This is actually science in general. Have you not read The Science of Logic? I hate to namedrop Hegel here but it's quite relevant. I think Heidegger writes on this as well in The End of Philosophy And the Task of Thinking.
Science takes its object for granted without questioning its ontology.
>>2417667No, that's a retarded Germanic conceit because they hate science and want to terminate it. That is exactly why that exists; to neutralize in the bud any inquiry that would work against the German ideology and its demonic program. Germanism is so insidious that it disallows anything to exist but itself, which it claims to be the primordial. It is evil.
Science always requires a basis in rationality to be conducted, beyond the crudest possible meaning of science where science is tantamount to "figuring things out organically" by some process that was not ordered or utilized any technology as such. The Germanic mindset terminates this absolutely and irrevocably, so that everyone is ground down to the same retarded level.
In every inquiry of science, the scientist always explains their method. They don't assert like a retard all of the asinine things Hegel does to justify his fantastic German racism. Some things are so common that they are assumed in any reasonable discussion, but those things are never taken for granted. Like I said, you don't have a detector finding ready-made particles for you anywhere in the universe. The existence of atoms and then protons and electrons was inferred before a model was demonstrated that was consistent and explained the elements known to mankind and described how elements may be found in the future. The Germanic mind imperiously asserts reality and makes it conform, because it is anti-science and does not allow anyone to say no.
>>2418096You have no model without metaphysics. You have no model if you cannot explain what something "is" sufficiently to have something to speak of in your model.
The point of science is that you can ask the question if anyone's metaphysics are bullshit. To have a communication of any model in science, both parties have to acknowledge certain facts about the world in order for the model to be intelligible. You don't just "assert" metaphysics as you please in science. You agree beforehand on some basic facts regarding the universe, among them the fact that any human being reading or hearing your theory has sense and Reason of their own that is much like your own. If you choose from the outset to believe another human is "retarded", a slave in the Germanic sense, you do not speak of science with retards. You shame them. You Lie to them. That is what Germanics do. It's not worth having a conversation with Germanics.
For the most part, humanity assumes a peculiar ontology and metaphysics when they conduct science, and this is a fatal error that is exploited by cajolers and liars, not just Germanics. But, it is not controversial to state that humans have eyes that see the world accurately enough. You would have to prove that everyone is hallucinating "naturally" to prove mediated reality, and that is not a defensible claim if you ask what the human eye, brain, mind, and experience has been, which every human does. Those who are blind can know why they are blind and why others can see. Those who see hallucinations do not see "random" things. They see particular things and can ask why these illusions exist, if they are indeed illusions. I've had hallucinations before. Most humans have. It is not hard to distinguish hallucinations from a reality we learn to verify with the crudest reasoning available to us. Hallucinations are notable precisely because they are discordant with our sense of what we would see if our sight was sane and pertained to the world we are speaking of here. The Germanic idea is to insist that an imperiously decreed Lie is greater than your own sense; to turn off your brain when the truth is right in front of you, verified over and over. Such liars insist that you have to believe in the power of Lie to the bitter end. It hasn't ever worked for them. The Kraut race is a falied race, committed to a failed system, and this failed system was given to them so they would be subdued by the Empire, the last Empire in the world, the only Empire that exists now.
>>2418096So to make this clearer, when you speak of "science" or any method of knowledge, you are necessarily making some claims about the universe in order for science to be a valid practice. One of those is that there is a world, and another is that subjective opinion, sense-experience, or what we assume or want the world to be is irrelevant. If you are making a metaphysical claim in science, you are saying "the world is this", or more accurately, "my model of the world tells anyone who understands it this about the world, and the model is my best effort to approximate what the world actually does". If you model is incompatible with models of other things, you either accept that scientifically models of two different things have nothing to do with each other, or the incompatibility has to be reconciled somewhere. For example you can't make a "dual system of physics" for small distances and large ones, the way quantum physics is invoked. That is obvious doublethink and malevolence, and that is what Popperism leads to.
The point here is that to make any positive claim, you're necessarily claiming or at least agreeing to commonly held knowledge about the world, and what you're even speaking of. You don't just assert "God said there will be wind and rain and so there is". That is exactly what Germanism does, "just so". That's what Heidegger recapitulated, that disgusting fag.
>>2418096The inverse malevolence is the "total system" that usually plagues the left; that everything in the universe must be a total clockwork and subsume other things. This gets back to what I wrote earlier about monism being untenable, and this is also proof that there is no "God" as such nor anything like it. There is no "totality" or "world-spirit" that subsumes all of existence, and the invocation of such is essentially Satanic. It's always been that. There is the concept of an "eternal god" or "eternal spirit" that is not temporal or subject to temporal history as we know it, but under totalism that is wholly inadmissible… which leads to the kind of fallacy seen in OP, which is as old as Zeno's Paradox.
You have a problem then of being able to make claims that the universe is an algorithmic clockwork or "computer program", which has always been a false teaching intended to beguile and cajole people deemed too stupid. Standard Masonic Tactics. The universe and history do not work that way. Yet, that is the only way a model can be intelligible. Whenever you propose any model in science, it is open up to full analysis, and there is no magic trick where you can say no analysis or breakdown of the system is possible here. To answer the fallacy of OP, it's very simple; motion and causality are conditions of the objects we are referencing for them to exist, because they are all temporal concepts and must be so to speak of their existence. You have to metaphysically see that, rather than assume it is "just so" or make claims about "fundamental reality" that are imperious and lead to obvious contradictions. You can imagine a universe without "motion" as such, or things without motion, but if you followed through that thought experiment and asked some simple questions about how we sense or reason about objects, how we understand their existence, you'd see that the thing without motion has very peculiar properties, rather than "just-being" as if something in the physical universe we inhabit could be inert and yet solid and exert force. We may doubt whether all things are "physical" things, or the nature of those physical objects, so we can ask "what is the force" instead of just assuming it's there as an artifice or agent itself. The reality is that force isn't "pushing" an object in the abstract, but that force is a component of the objects you are studying, and we differentiate physical objects from non-physical ones. In mechanics we envision there is a "force moving objects" in order for mechanics to be consistent, but we have to invent a law in physics such as "an object in motion tends to stay in motion" to grant to physical objects this property; that is, once something is in motion, there is nothing actively "pushing" it or "making it go" in that sense, but there is still the energy of that motion in the body that is moving, which can affect other bodies. You're then asking much more detailed questions of what a "body" is, what particles may exist, and whether these particles are "billiard balls" or if they are clouds of electrons that are more vague, as is the present understanding of these particles.
>>2419118The funny thing about chemistry is that at the higher levels it is made ideological. Can't question that Rockefeller oil monopoly that lubricates the Empire, can we?
>>2419155Technology is not invented blindly. It has been invented for purposes, and so those whose purpose is control and death only allowed those technologies to flourish, and all others that other people would build are systematically destroyed.
That's why I roll my eyes at "inevitable and inexorable technological progress". How it would have happened is some new ideas would proliferate, and eventually technological advance returns to a long period of stagnation. You can even see where that technological stagnation would have taken place without the disturbance of the Eugenics wars (what you call the world wars), and by the year 2000 the potential of the 17th century scientific revolution would have been exhausted. As it is, even when people do try, they really can't break out of the paradigm that was set then, and so there is no ability to assemble the means for any genuine technological advance. The narrative of "inexorable technology" was constructed to retard technology and curate what can be done with it. It has only ever served that purpose. Actual technology is built by people whose inventions are stolen, which has been a reason why humans suck at making even basic and obvious technology (another being that they are basically retarded, jabbering apes that barely know how to communicate and only do so with great difficulty, with no built-in defense against bullbaiting and rank dishonesty that is common for their race). It's actually quite bizarre that human technology is as capable as it is given that they are comically incapable of using that technology for anything but more ritual sacrifice, and that isn't particular to capitalism. Humans simply do not know and do not want to know anything else, even though the ritual sacrifice cult has always been ruinous for anything you'd want to do but more ritual sacrifice. That's how fucking retarded and evil humans are.
There will be another paradigm in the future, but it would have required many centuries to be assembled and it would require humans to be very different creatures. Because of Eugenics, that has been forestalled permanently, all for the sake of some screaming Satanics and thieves, so that ritual sacrifice can be naturalized, essentialized, made permanent and Absolute, and no one will ever say no to these Satanics ever again. There will still be a new paradigm, but only when ritual sacrifice is so sacrosanct that it will allow this to happen entirely on terms that preserve the cult of ritual sacrifice and its conceits of the mind, the self, and existence. It cannot stop until it has remade the world in its image. It will fail at its present attempt, but it will succeed is pushing so far that its future attempts will be successful, and there will be no going back.
The paradigm that would have allowed another scientific revolution would be obliteration of the self, freeing humanity from the shackles of their limited language, a proper theory and understanding of what thought actually is and how consciousness is constituted, and a willingness of humanity to choose peace instead of the thrill of torturing other humans, which by now humans chose for no good reason to make holy and sacrosanct. We were even given a brief period for humanity to see that the course it was set on was utterly ruinous, pointless, and wouldn't work. That is what I grew up in, when it was clearer than ever that the world did not need to be this, and the eugenic creed insisted that they alone were Absolute and could dictate history. Even as stupid and evil as humans are, they could see that they clearly did not need to go down this road. They would also see that, without the eugenic creed's overbearing torture and death, there really wasn't much for humans to do in this time. Humans were nowhere near ready for a new system or way of thinking. What they needed, what most of humanity wanted, was their lives back, so they didn't have to be tortured arbitrarily by some fucking Satanics. We're not allowed to have that though. Failed race.
>>2417169>The universe doesn't have any "sense" to tell it there is such a thing as a sun. It's just some well of heat that may be an anomaly on a cosmic scale. It's not asserting "sun-ness" as a fundamental form by some metaphysical hobgoblin.
If the entire material universe and every human mind went out of existence tomorrow, would the propositions that "there was once a hot sun", or "anon was once sitting on his sofa which also had a rubber /pencil eraser on it" then not be true?
The metaphysical hobgoblin comes into it when you think about what could be the first cause of change .we know there is change, and something causes every change. . Aristotle says there must have been first agent of change. Aristotle says this prime mover/uncaused cause has no parts and no size (.He thinks the universe is eternal, so it's not really a "what winked the universe into existence "type of cosmological argument , but what causes change in the universe)..anyway this makes it sound like the prime mover ,whatever pushes everything else from potential to actual, isnt something physical.
>>2420563Temporal existence is a fact we observe about the world. If there is a past, then that past happened even if the universe were abolished. What is done cannot be undone. Such is the nature of history.
Your error is assuming temporality is "innately philosophical" and thus fused to "fundamental nature". If you look at the universe another way, there is no "time" as such. There is also no place where the past is "happening now" in that sense. The proposition that there is a past is inherent to the idea that there is any history at all. Now, tell me, why would someone insist on making temporality "fundamental"? To edit history. There is no other purpose. That is another Germanic disease, to relitigate history until the past is abolished, and ultimately "history ends". It is a form of insanity. History is never "abolished". History does not work that way.
And so the answer to your question is simple, because you have to make assumptions about time and the universe and causality that are entirely about creating those metaphysical hobgoblins to justify the editing of history.
We make the mistake of assuming "time is linear" and proceeds in a peculiar way, when the philosophical "prime mover" can be entirely outside of temporal existence, and may even "keep happening" in our temporal line. That's roughly how religions can say God(s) intervene in the universe. What you can't change is that a prime mover is a necessary assumption of naturalism, in order for anything to be rational. Causality is a rational relationship rather than "baked in" to the universe in the way you're imagining. We need causality to describe the world or thought or mechanics, not because the universe is lighting up some circuitry to determine what it will do as if it were a simulation. At a basic level, every "thing" in the universe is its own prime mover once it is created. Everything that is "instantiated" exists for a reason that we can identify, but once created, it operates on its own without any necessary regard for the rest of the universe, as if the universe is "pushing" that thing into existence by some power. The problem is that by nature alone, the only thing we can say is that there is a world, and some aspect of its existence we deem "natural" to set it apart from that which is artificial or other-than-natural. We can't speak of any particular things in it until we invoke the assumption that the universe is knowable and that "knowing" is happening in some way. Once there is something that "knows" it can back-date facts from before its existence easily. A child can ask what existed before he did. Without any knowledge though, the existence of "things" is quite irrelevant. We do possess knowledge which is why we can ask this question, and we can also judge that if we didn't exist but some other type of "knowing" did, then that type of knowing wouldn't be placed under any special limitations due to particular types of knowledge being "special". You see here why these ideas have to be defended. They uphold a monopoly on who has "real knowledge" and who does not. That is the only function it serves.
>>2420970>Your error is assuming temporality is "innately philosophical" and thus fused to "fundamental nature".If this helps, I think "now " doesn't have duration in time. The present moment is like a point on a line, it doesn't "last" in time. Otherwise, if it did have duration, it could be further sundivided into different "nows". But that doesn't mean time doesn't exist.
If time is Satanism , Germanic, or a monopolising of knowledge ,how come if I put a frozen pie in the oven for half and hour it comes only thawed, but for an hour hot enough to eat?
>the philosophical "prime mover" can be entirely outside of temporal existence, and may even "keep happening" in our temporal line. Entirely agree, anon. We're talking about causes,which dont have to be chronological. At this present moment I am typing this on my phone on my bed, the bed is holding me up, causing me not to fall to the floor and giving me a nice warm comfy feeling in my back, which has been sore from overwork lately.
>>2279881Where coms't the Universe?
>out of GodWhoms't made God?
>Him was forevarsProof?
>No >>2421037It's not a controversial take that time is an entirely relational concept for us. There is no "absolute time", only frames of reference. What is "absolute" is history as a concept. We hold there is a past and present and future. That is determined by causal relationships more than it is any notion of "time moving", as if the universe is pushing events to move towards some goal or activating the simulation to advance the counter. Instead, objects in the universe move of their own accord, and so do their components or whatever "strands" of matter comprise them. They would HAVE to be able to move of their own accord without a "mover" forcing them to move presently that is outside of them. For history to be sensical, and we hold that there is a singular history that describes "the world", we have to reconcile all of these local histories with the record of the whole world. You can see how that invites havoc since you have people making historical events all over the place without any necessary regard for each other, and so too are those who write history writing from their time and place.
I wrote something that can help with deprogramming:
https://eugeneseffortposts.royalwebhosting.net/0009.html >>2421083Dick sucks. Bergson I'm not familiar with.
Time isn't "mind control". There's just a really bizarre narrative that was pushed aggressively by Fabianism to say you were too stupid to make comparisons. This is all very intuitive and non-controversial if you aren't brainwashed by an insane cult. It's hard when that insane cult produces an absurd quantity of propaganda and Lie and laughs at "making you do it to yourself" by reinforcing that Lie. If you talk to someone who actually asks the question of what causality, time, and relativity mean, they'd tell you what I told you. The "time dilation" faggotry is deliberate controlled insanity, there to insult and mock you. A child can see through it, and it's all a test of who can be Lied to and insulted.
Unique IPs: 11