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?
221 posts and 17 image replies omitted.>>2279881What “infinite regress”? Knowledge about the empirical world goes through a refinement process.
>where does it end?Who knows? We will only find out via empirical processes. As an absolute idealist, do better!
>>2337089>the first thing about the marxists.org archive is that many texts are deleted, so sources are limited. they are deleted by request of the archivists for MECW:not the anon but many can still be found on the webarchive version of the site. Also there's all 50 volumes of MECW in PDF form int he
>>>/edu/ PDF thread
>>2279881>how do materialists solve the issue of infinite regressionHow is it an issue, and
Proove that it is infinite regression
>>2279881>Where does it end?At whatever the fundamental element of reality turns out to be.
You're a fucking loon acting like its some sort of made up slippery slope hoax.
Shit thread, drink bleach.
>>2338582the very idea of a fundamental element of reality is retarded because people interchangeably use "fundamental element of reality" to refer to what is the most specific, the smallest, and the most numerous element of reality, like some kind of subatomic particle, or to refer to what is the most general, the biggest, and the leadst numerous element of reality, like "the universe" or "the multiverse" or "the fabric of reality" or "God" in the pantheist sense of the word or whatever.
The question becomes: Does fundamental mean the most granular or the least granular? If reality turns out to infinitely granular and there is no smallest thing, we keep finding new things
[1] and reality turns out to be infinitely large and there are countless universes with different laws of physics
[2] then the question of ontological fundamentalism is thrown completely out the window. If reality does have some kind of ontological fundamentalism then the question becomes "why." Why is there some kind of arbitrary determination and limitation to it? Some might think that question is unanswerable but maybe there is an adjacent question that can be answered instead. Any time we find something arbitrary in reality our first instinct is to answer with either "it's random" or "that's just the way it is" and only later are we able to investigate the internal relations of the phenomenon and find that no, it's not completely arbitrary, there is some predictability and order to it. As any body of knowledge expands it so does the border it shares with the unknown. Are there an infinite amount of unknown things or some things that simply cannot be known?
[1] I'm skeptical of the idea that the planck unit is really the limit because implies reality has a resolution like a screen has pixels, i.e. that it is completely and arbitrarily limited for no clear reason which creates more questions than answers)
[2] I'm also skeptical of the idea that this universe is the only one and that there is only one arbitrary set of physical laws and only 1 arbitrary universe. any arbitrariness always creates more questions than answers
>>2360694Depending on the context!
The nature of all things is…an ambiguousness-engine.
Ambiguousity and unambiguosity are the nature of all things. By making this statement, it is unambiguously true.
Whats' the difference betwen ambiguous and unambiguous? It's ambiguous! It's unambiguous!
thats the core logic engine of the universe, unambiguously!
Why is this true? It's ambiguous!
Materialism and Idealism are full of ambiguities, and thus actually both reduce down to - ambiguity itself.
Unique IPs: 16