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?
206 posts and 14 image replies omitted.>>2280154Stuff does stuff to stuff and this is how stuff happens.
That's materialism covered, any questions?
>>2322155>Planck length isn't defined by human capacity to measure it. That's exactly what all constants are derived form: The human capacity to measure it
>It's one of the four universal constants, alongside the speed of light, the gravitational constant, and the Boltzmann constantwhich are also derived from the human capacity to measure it
>Distance literally has no meaning below that length.As far as we know for now. Our ability to pry into the nature of things is still incredibly primitive. It's easy to forget that all our physics knowledge so far has been gathered by animals stuck on a rock in a single solar system who only recently stopped being hunter gatherers. You are welcome to be more confident than me about our species' knowledge. It makes no difference to me. We will probably both be dead soon. But people a few centuries from now will know things that will make us seem to them like bronze age herdsmen.
>>2322181bruh planck length would be known by even an alien civilization
relativism doesnt work here
>>2322711is it a question without an answer?
>>2322714OP isnt asking why, he's asking how.
>>2322905the answer is quite simple, in fact i basically answered it in the first post
>>2279883so i'll explain it further if i didn't make it clear, it ends when we find the most basal of materials, whatever that is, and that's when it ends
>>2323000the issue isnt assigning necessity to an essential physical substance; its calling this "matter", since this presupposes properties which are not comported with what we understand to be matter (such as mass). further, physical atoms cannot be directly perceived, but remain abstract objects (the same way we can never "see" galaxies, but interpret them from radiation). there is a change in kind by this regression, which is contradictory. the issue then is that the universe is not a single substance (the difference between the relative, newtonian and quantum is spoken of for example). if knowledge of the world is by its nature, a quality of the mind, and its practicability depends upon abstraction, then it is easy to say that the world contains a field of abstraction within it, called the mind. this would then be a different substance from matter, but entangled within it.
>>2323053>its calling this "matter", since this presupposes properties which are not comported with what we understand to be matter (such as mass). further, physical atoms cannot be directly perceivedthats really just a linguistic problem. matter has mass by definition but thats not precisely whats being referred to. its just the most common name for the material substance or "stuff" not specifically atoms. yes any particular is an abstraction but the whole together is not, its just ineffable, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist
>if knowledge of the world is by its nature, a quality of the mind, and its practicability depends upon abstraction, then it is easy to say that the world contains a field of abstraction within it, called the mind. this would then be a different substance from matter, but entangled within it.it doesn't have to be dualist why would you assume that? panpsychism isnt dualist or idealist you just have to understand consciousness as the ability to react to the environment, which makes stuff like erosion and gravity conscious. photons can only proceed through space by discrete units of plank length and which direction they travel is dependent on its environment so each discrete moment can be thought of as a reaction.
>>2322655>planck units are defined by humans measuring with very primtive instruments
> to be certain natural properties regardless of how well we measure them.based on theories we've derived using measurements we've made with our very primitive tools
Theories change. If the universe really has a resoluton, below which movement is "instantaneous" and no longer "gradual" that creates more questions than answers
>>2326179Let me put it another way. Movement across a Planck length is meaningless in current physics. At that scale, space and time may lose their classical meaning due to quantum gravity effects. But meaningless is not the same thing as answering the question of whether movement at that scale is instantaneous or gradual, instead it raises more questions and shows the limitations of our current theories, which are human constructs fundamentally limited by our abilities to probe into these matters, which are limited by our historical, evolutionary, and technological development. Our material conditions. Our tools and theories
cannot probe at that scale, and that's a
new problem to solve rather than a permanent state of affairs. It's not a closed case, but an open case. But the question becomes how much more development do we need as a species, evolutionarily, technologically, historically, before we can overcome our own limitations preventing us from probing this question?
>>2325632>matter has mass by definitionyes, but not everything physical has mass, so not everything is material. photons for example, have no mass.
>yes any particular is an abstraction but the whole together is notno, youre thinking backwards. an abstraction is simply the common identity of different particulars. the "whole" is the universal abstraction, which is also the most simple identity.
>which makes stuff like erosion and gravity conscious.thats retarded. those phenomena are unconscious.
>>2325674as a materialist, what is matter?
>>22798811. Why do we need to
2. Historical materialism isn’t physicalism so it doesn’t matter
>>2326566Historical materialism doesn’t say immaterial factors like culture don’t matter, it says that the social relations that inform/constrain your interests and sustenance are the root of social phenomena and change
Trying to debunk a local ontology like that by trying to appeal to fundamental metaphysics is like going up yo a chemist and going “YOU THINK YOU DO THINGS WITH MOLECULES, BUT YOU CANNOT PROVE STRING THEORY!!?!?!?!?” and then declaring victory. It’s irrelevant on its face from a practical standpoint
>>2326614(Reposting to correct for a jargon mistake on my end)
Because it really doesn’t matter.
Your entire post is about trying to disprove a local ontology by making it about global ontology, which is backwards on its face because it’s imputing an epistemological status to the former that it doesn’t claim.
Listing off immaterial factors has nothing to do with what has causal power
>>23266421. You honestly just come off mad that I’m rejecting your premises
2. Your own own graphic illustrating the theory states that superstructural (“immaterial”) factors like culture and ideas feed back onto the base, so you’ve basically undermined your own objection on the outset
>>2326646>You honestly just come off mad that I’m rejecting your premisesi offered zero premises. i asked the most simple request for you to define "immaterial" with examples, for which you relentlessly refuse. this shows that your position is undefined and therefore unintelligible
>superstructural (“immaterial”) factorswhat makes these factors "immaterial"?
what immaterial substance composes cultural transmission? richard dawkins shows how "memes" mimic genes and display predictable trends of virology. this makes culture a physical construct, by internal laws of motion and development (biology). to simplify, culture is a biological construct (this is common sense to most people). oh, but you dont believe in "physicalism" do you? 😂 instead you promote the "immaterial" as an explanation. tell me, what is immateriality as it differs from the material?
>>2326691can ideas exist outside of brains?
>>2326699I don’t think I made my position clear.
I’m more inclined than not to agree with what you wrote, I never said I don’t believe in physicalism. I’m saying that whether or not it’s true doesn’t necessarily have to be a problem for historical materialism. One is a global ontology, the other is local.
> can ideas exist outside of brains?The jury is still out, but I’m doubtful.
>>2326699This makes absolutely no sense. When Dawkins referred to culture being memetic he means it in the sense that it evolves in a similar logic with genetics, in that it prioritizes numerical replication and quantitative expansion.
If culture is rooted in biology then it does not act memetically because it will be limited in its spread to people of similar biological structure. The opposite is true; culture cannot be bound by biology, or by geography or anything else since that will maximize its global reach. The easiest hint for this in the word "memetics" itself; meme. Just like how soyjaks is used and viewed by Indians, Chinese, Europeans, even Black peoples, the primary aim of culture is to spread and control the globe in a hegemonic mode
>>2326708>I never said I don’t believe in physicalismso this isnt you:
>>2326559>Historical materialism isn’t physicalism so it doesn’t matter.
>One is a global ontology, the other is local.what is the "local ontology" of historical materialism?
>>2326711>If culture is rooted in biology then it does not act memetically because it will be limited in its spread to people of similar biological structureyes, culture is inherently particular to regions
>the primary aim of culture is to spread and control the globe in a hegemonic modeyes, we all participate in american culture because that is the global hegemon; that doesnt make us part of the same culture, but only mediated by a common memepool. now, it may mutate into local replication, but it will then undergo a form of speciation.
>>2326717>yes, culture is inherently particular to regionsIt emerges in regions, but by its nature it will try to break out to other regions and other peoples. Otherwise it will not be memetic
>that doesnt make us part of the same culture, but only mediated by a common memepoolThis one i do not understand. Isn't culture in itself a form of mediation between individuals through a common memepool? You can argue that the further removed someone is from the material origins that give rise to said culture the less they will be able to "grasp" it in its totality, but then that would be merely a difference in degree, not in quality. Religions might be the easiest proof of this; there is certainly a difference between the Islam of Arabs and the Islam of Indians, but even among Arabs themselves they cannot agree which Islam is the true Islam. Same with Christianity and Buddhism
>>2326717(Had to rewrite because I fucked up the wording and formatting because I’m phoneposting and still kinda tired, so I’m kinda struggling to word shit how I mean here)
1. Saying that one thing is not another is not saying that the other thing isn’t true, it’s just a statement of fact. Astrophysics isn’t gender studies, that doesn’t mean one of them is false.
2.
> what is the "local ontology" of historical materialism?It’s a theory of society and social change specifically. It’s not a theory of metaphysics. Whether or not it leads to the broader ontology called dialectical materialism in the way that Leninism states is something I think is an open question - but again, I personally think that historical materialism itself is self-enclosed enough that, again, you can get away with leaving it as is
Unique IPs: 28