[ home / rules / faq ] [ overboard / sfw / alt ] [ leftypol / edu / labor / siberia / lgbt / latam / hobby / tech / games / anime / music / draw / AKM ] [ meta ] [ wiki / shop / tv / tiktok / twitter / patreon ] [ GET / ref / marx / booru ]

/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

"The anons of the past have only shitposted on the Internet about the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it."
Name
Options
Subject
Comment
Flag
File
Embed
Password(For file deletion.)
Not reporting is bourgeois
[ Return / Go to bottom ]

File: 1747997503734.jpeg (237.02 KB, 919x810, IMG_8018.jpeg)

 

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?

when we find out what the source of it all is?

>>2279883
>>2279881
It's like trying to describe the outside of a building when you've only been and can only be inside it. It's impossible.

>>2279883
How do you determine when you have the source of all? Doesn‘t the question recur about what it is made of as well?

File: 1747998857304.jpg (18.2 KB, 602x428, 0_W2WKHQY4IBf4g-nD.jpg)

the theoretical unit of matter is an "atom" (indivisible particle). yet as it seems, even "atoms" are not atomic. further, they are imperceptible in-themselves, and can only be expressed abstractly as mathematical constructs. we will never "see" an atom, yet we "see" lots of atoms bundled together. the singular and general nature of atoms are in contradiction thus. it is in the same manner for ourselves however. we have an individual and collective nature, where our activity can be tracked mathematically by statistical modeling; the same way we can formulate laws of physics. in the deepest levels of reality, paired with the most outward, we see mathematical formalism, or an immateriality. matter then, is confined to empirical perception, while rationality perceives the invisible using thought. mattee then, is a product (the objective appearance) of a larger mental substance.

The fuck dies this gotta do with the left?

>>2279889
Pseud.

>>2279896
yet you provide no arguments to the contrary

>>2279897
Yes, it‘s very surprising why someone wouldn‘t waste their time doing that.

>>2279901
yet you still waste your time replying to me. curious.

>>What is matter made of?
Irrelevant. Materialism doesn't literally mean "there is a matter object of which all things are made of", it means everything exists as matter. Being means existing materially.

>>2279903
>Materialism doesn't literally mean "there is a matter object of which all things are made of"
It does.

>it means everything exists as matter. Being means existing materially.
Which is a wholly meaningless statement if you insist on the prior statement.

>>2279906
Autistic weirdo. Don't you have a science forum to fuck off to?

>>2279881
String theory has no experimental validation. It is just a mathematical theory

>>2279911
A Marxist forum is a science forum. Marx precisely wanted to annihilate all ‘philosophical’, ‘idealogical’ understanding of political economy in order to establish a ‘scientific’ political economy

>>2279911
why so insulting?

>>2279906
>meaningless
It means things
<exist independent of us (object permanence)
<relate to other things (causality, necessity, etc.)
<are governed by laws reflected in our subjective consciousness and thus can be know (identity of thought and being)
Analytic philosophy is a mental disease.

>>2279918
Because I triggered them.

>>2279921
Then what are these objects made of that relate causally with one another which is governed by laws reflected in our subjective consciousness? What they are made of seems pretty important to concrertely answer each of your keypoints.

You don't. Read a non-retarded book on metaphysics (hard because there's so much retarded faggotry pumped out to defend this idiotic talking point). There's a lot of money spent on pushing "Absolute knowledge" retardation and ignore most of human written work on the topic since Antiquity that acknowledges this problem as a trivial one.

Also essentialism is strongly idealist, but today's "materialists" don't seem to understand anything about anything.

>>2279944
Alright, what book do you recommend for that purpose?

>>2279946
https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/59

Get started.

>>2279889
>mattee then, is a product (the objective appearance) of a larger mental substance
This doesn't follow.

>>2279911
LMAO that's being incredibly generous to OP. He has no scientific curiosity whatsoever. He made this thread to be dismissive of science in favor of peddling some baseless superstitious nonsense. I'm sure if you push him enough on it it'll become clear (please don't, just ignore this thread it's pretty low quality).

>>2279948
Of course because it's magical nonsense. Thank Popper and filth like him for teaching this retardation.

>>2279948
why does it not make sense? mind as inert substance is invisible. matter is its form of appearance. matter recedes into mind (invisibility) at the margins.

>>2279955
>poopy pseud poop
<Huh, why do you say it stinks? What about
>more poop

>>2279958
at the bottom of reality is abstract mathematics. that is not a silly claim, but our leading hypothesis where it concerns scientific discovery.

>>2279961
You realize that you haven‘t made that statement before, right? That people say what you told them before isn‘t comprehensible to them doesn’t mean they disagreed with whatever you claimed only now.

Something being 'Material' is a broader concept than something just being made out of matter. It also extends to things that are not matter in the strict physical sense, such as fields and energy, which do not have mass in the same way particles do, and do not occupy space in the classical sense. Yet, these can still be considered material because they are part of the physical, observable universe.

Sage for 5th-grade level science understanding.

>>2279965
>You realize that you haven‘t made that statement before, right
an abstraction is a mental object, which by effect, is directly imperceptible, and so must be indirectly represented. this applies to atoms, as i put it in my original post: >>2279889
>further, they are imperceptible in-themselves, and can only be expressed abstractly as mathematical constructs. we will never "see" an atom, yet we "see" lots of atoms bundled together. the singular and general nature of atoms are in contradiction thus.
>That people say what you told them before isn‘t comprehensible to them
i was only insulted, never seriously challenged
>>2279968
>materialism extends to things beyond matter
then why call it materialism? almost as if your theory is outdated

>>2279955
Nothing of what you said made sense.
This is why materialism is so important. You have to actually provide evidence based on real-world phenomena, not random gobbledy-goop based on vibes and daydreams.

>>2279972
>phenomena
this is the issue im tackling
can you "see" atoms? no. so they are not phenomenal entities, are they?

>>2279974
You are not tackling anything. You might as well be writing erotic fanfiction.

>>2279975
you cant see atoms yet you want evidence of my claims to be phenomenal. you are contradicting your own materialism

>>2279968
>It also extends to things that are not matter
>Yet, these can still be considered material because they are part of the physical, observable universe.
Flip flopping hard here.

>>2279972
Sorry, but you are just outing yourself as a brainlet. They are alluding to the phenomena noumena distinction and are saying that atoms are real but only mathematically inferable after you made sense of their collective appearance that are perceivable, meanwhile the individual atom is not.

>>2279971
>>2279977
>then why call it materialism? almost as if your theory is outdated

It's not, just the terminology is in a sense and you in addition to your scientific illiteracy you also are linguistically illiterate. Newsflash buddy, there is no coke in coca cola anymore but it's still what is considered coca cola. As science and philosophy changes, so does language. It's just that the term physicalism never caught on. Every contemporary author knows that when you use 'materialism' today you refer to everything that can be considered a physical entity which matter is just one aspect of.

>>2279987
why not just strictly call yourself a physicalist rather than a materialist, if the term is even problematic to you?

>>2279991
It's not problematic to me, literally everyone uses those terms interchangably. It's just sophists like you who love getting triggered over shitty linguistic games.

>>2279994
everything is physical, which denotes an equal quality between all things. what then determines a thing's physicality? most would answer, "matter", but we've yet to determine what matter even is. what is matter to you?

>>2279881
String theory isn't real and hasn't been considered a real science for 40 years

>>2279881
String theory doesn't hold much water amongst the majority of serious physicists anymore.
Anyway there is nothing contradictory between materialism and infinite regression or eternal recursion. The laws of physics may will show that is the case of how reality works.

I know it's hard for those raised in Abrahamic religions to understand.
It's hard for those who only have a childish understanding of the big bang as some final origin point, or of atoms as the smallest point of existence to understand.
But there is no reason why infinite recursion should be seen as unacceptable from a mathematical view.

With that out the way - I think it's probably more likely that the level of quarks and quantum fields is the base level, or as close to it as we can study.
This isn't as big a problem as you make out.

>>2279999
> what then determines a thing's physicality? most would answer, "matter"

Lolwat, everyone who had a few years of schooling in the 21st century who say that light and energy a physical entities. What is this nonsense?

>>2279999
Matter is a form of energy but energy (taking the fact that energy isn't conserved) cannot be defined

>>2280009
>light and energy are physical entities
and these are immaterial to you? what then makes a particle with and without mass both "physical"?

>>2280011
energy cannot be defined? then how do you describe it in the first place?

>>2280013
>what then makes a particle with and without mass both "physical"?

Light has mass bro. You can use light like you can use wind to propel you forward.

>>2280019
photons (light particles) have no mass

>>2280007
No one is saying infinite regression contradicts materialism, it just means there is a gap with no answer. You explain what one physical thing is made out of but then the question arises what this thing in turn is made out of.

>>2280013
> what then makes a particle with and without mass both "physical"?
The fact that you can observe and interact with it.

>>2280035
so you are being tautological
"whatever exists = physical"
what then, would be non-physical, to define the quality of physicality against? if i said that the images in my mind are "physical", you would rebuke this. what denies them the status of physicality?

>>2280015

>>2280039
I am not tautological I am consistent.

>if i said that the images in my mind are "physical", you would rebuke this.

Nope, because neither your 'mind' nor your 'thoughts' are ultimately non-physical entities or non-material entities dude. Literally a bunch of ion-action potentials ripping through your brain. lmao

Based thread exposing the retardation of materialism.

>>2280011
So your philosophical outlook has an undefinable aspect. Seems indicative of a grave error.

>>2280019
>You can use light like you can use wind to propel you forward.
That‘s not because photons have mass, they don‘t. If you are alluding to solar sails, that‘s because of the transfer of momentum.

>>2280040
so energy cannot be defined, since the universe is not a closed system? in a closed system, energy would be defined as the entity which is forever conserved (as per newton). energy then exists in terms of relative rates of entropy, between the categories of "heat" and "free energy", which are the rates of change within a system? the issue of course is that "energy" in itself still has no definition as a thing in itself. everything is energetic, yet no thing is energy.
>>2280042
>Nope, because neither your 'mind' nor your 'thoughts' are ultimately non-physical entities
so you have defined them as *not* "non-physical". what then is non-physicality?

>>2280049
You are a silly goose.
Every philosophy is built on an ineffable.

>>2280062
>what then is non-physicality?

No idea. That's what you are supposed to tell me. You are are the one attacking materialism/physicalism, not me. Your turn.

>>2280068
>my unknowable variable is better than yours

>>2280070
I don't hold to a strict materialist philosophy

>>2280068
So what are your standards as a materialist? Figuring out reality or operating on arbitrary, flawed stipulations like everyone else merely to have an answer?

>>2280073
>>2280075 (me)
Then nevermind.

Why are idealists in this thread trying to talk about science? Lmao

>>2279955
the mind is nothing but matter in specific kind of motion. think about it. without the hardware, the brain, and electricity, another form of matter, moving through it, there is no experience of 'consciousness'. humans are just turing machines with extra steps. if this is to abstract for you, think how a fertilized egg, due to heat (i.e. matter in motion) becomes a living being. it's similar with consciousness. no, there is no 'mind' at the bottom if it all. there is just matter, which is just another world for the objective existing reality we encounter.

>>2280086
>just another world
word*

>>2279889
>Under the heading ‘Matter has disappeared’, Lenin writes: “‘Matter is disappearing’ means that the limit within which we have hitherto known matter is vanishing and that our knowledge is penetrating deeper; properties of matter are likewise disappearing which formerly seemed absolute, immutable, and primary (impenetrability, inertia, mass, etc) and which are now revealed to be relative and characteristic only of certain states of matter. For the sole ‘property’ of matter with whose recognition philosophical materialism is bound up is the property of being an objective reality, of existing outside our mind”. Lenin further states: “The destructibility of the atom… the mutability of all forms of matter and of its motion, have always been the stronghold of dialectical materialism. All boundaries in nature are conditional, relative, movable, and express the gradual approximation of our mind towards the knowledge of matter”.

>>2280081
Idealism is not antithetical to all science.
Lenin writes about Mach's idealism but his name is on the Mach number for his contributions, etc.

>>2280097
the issue is that all scientists that are philosophical idealists are forced to in their daily praxis use materialism. they justify this by (in essence) saying that all we know about the world (from our material praxis) is true but the material word (in the end) is just part of some god's mind. lenin doesn't accuse mach of idealism per se, but of berkelyianism, agnosticism, declarative idealism practical materialism. you're conflating our critique of the philosophy of natural scientists with its method and its result, which are materialist, scientific, in their praxis.

>>2280095
He is just describing how he lived in an age where physicalism extended pre-modern science notions materialism by realising that there are physical entities beyond matter because he lived through an age where those discoveries were made. It's not a regression to idealism. Everyone knows that there is shit like energy and magnetic fields right now. It doesn't make people believe in spirits and god again.

>>2280086
>without the hardware, the brain, and electricity, another form of matter, moving through it, there is no experience of 'consciousness'.
>no, there is no 'mind' at the bottom if it all.
An assertion coming from residing in your materialist framework that you have yet to prove is true.

>there is just matter, which is just another world for the objective existing reality we encounter.
How do you know there is an objective reality and if your conception of matter is that flimsy why can't an idealist simply assert everything is consciousness?

>>2280069
>No idea
right, so you use words that you dont even understand. see the problem?
>That's what you are supposed to tell me.
the prefix "non" shows opposition or negation. we know what non-physical means if we first know what "physical" refers to. according to the dictionary, "physical" refers to the tangibility of something, or quality of it being material, and thus sensuous. we may define the non-physical as the intangible or immaterial then. what is immaterial? the opposite of material. what is matter. this is what the dictionary says:
>physical substance in general, as distinct from mind and spirit; (in physics) that which occupies space and possesses rest mass, especially as distinct from energy.
apparently, light does not possess rest mass, so is immaterial. gluons and gravitons also have no mass. gluons apparently allow atoms to form - so we might say that matter emerges from the immaterial, in this case. photons and gluons have energy, but no mass. energy is apparently considered separate from matter. so light is immaterial, and thus non-physical. yet, light still has physics, so cannot be non-physical. seems like a contradiction in the scientific system.
>>2280086
not all mind is consciousness
if we can say that mathematics exists as an abstract formality, it exists unconsciously
>>2280095
matter is vanishing yet it has always been. nothing changes except our perception of the world.

>>2280099
Idealism doesn't necessarily mean you are evoking God. Also, the idealist could just think of reality as recurring patterns of qualia of consciousness, without needing matter existing outside of consciousness.

>>2279916
This isn't a Marxist forum tho.
>>2279918
Because (you) are eternally shitting the site up with dogshit, unrelated and meme OPs.

>>2280102
>conception of matter is that flimsy
m8, the point of materialism is that the nature of matter is not an absolute but something that is continously discovered i.e. >>2280095
<All boundaries in nature are conditional, relative, movable, and express the gradual approximation of our mind towards the knowledge of matter
idealist think that materialists argue about the absolute essential qualities of matter instead of understanding that this is the idealist position, of an absolute something that they're demanding from materialists who don't even want to bother answering questions which are essentially variations of the question how many angels fit on the head of a pin
>materialist framework that you have yet to prove is true
>How do you know there is an objective reality
i think the history of the natural sciences and their praxis does/has shown this already. you know, some theory is true if it is verified in reality by human praxis (marx). materialism is verified by human praxis. idealism is not.
>an idealist simply assert everything is consciousness?
he sure can, and he would be wrong lol
>>2280103
>not all mind is consciousness
>if we can say that mathematics exists as an abstract formality, it exists unconsciously
>matter is vanishing yet it has always been. nothing changes except our perception of the world.
wordsalads. literally meaningless drivel. words have meaning and your responsibility is to use them correctly
>>2280105
it doesn't matter what you call it, god, absolute, 'recurring patterns of qualia'. the point is the same.
>>2280113
>This isn't a Marxist forum tho.
sadly, the moderators allow all kind of retards lately for sake of 'non-sectarianism'

>>2280075
I generally hold to a pandeist/panpsychist material view that mind is simply an inseparable property of matter, a logos/pattern generator.

>>2280103
Again, you keep engaging in your dishonest sophistry, reverting back into your vulgar use of the term of 'materialism'. When people used 'materialism' or 'material' in the past they primarily used it distinguished dualistic and idealistic concepts, like the 'soul', 'god' or 'spirits', entities that are non-physical and 'immaterial' which are completely different from modern physical entities that are not based in matter like energy or fields which still aren't based on idealism but have a physical bases.

That's why it's perfectly fine to use physicalism and materialism interchangable in the modern age because it is assumed that most people aren't dishonest bad faith fucks like you who play shitty word games out of bad faith.

File: 1748012628376.mp4 (2.71 MB, 360x640, What is (Rest) Mass, Exact….mp4)

mass from masslessness

>>2280119
>m8, the point of materialism is that the nature of matter is not an absolute but something that is continously discovered
You are confusing epistemology with ontology.

>>2280121
>not based in matter like energy or fields
well. NTA but i think that lenin and possibly engels argue that energy or fields are matter in motion and i think lenin further pushes this point to matter = motion where the = is a hegalian A = A equality. this is besides your larger point, but i wanted to point this out.

>>2280119
>sadly, the moderators allow all kind of retards lately for sake of 'non-sectarianism'
Always has been, newfaggit.

>>2280119
mind is a substance, not a state of awareness.
>>2280121
>your dishonest sophistry
such as? im using official sources
>people in the past used materialism as a crutch
yes, and nothing's changed
>That's why it's perfectly fine to use physicalism and materialism interchangable
define "physical" as opposed to "non-physical"
define "material" as opposed to "immaterial"

>>2279887
>>2279881
it ends when physics finally discovers the lowest level of substance?

just because we don't know the answer doesn't mean there is no answer or its turtles all the way down

>>2280119
>it doesn't matter what you call it, god, absolute, 'recurring patterns of qualia'. the point is the same.
It isn't actually, because with no concrete definition of matter on your end and merely asserting it as the basis of reality, there is no reason to not just replace it with qualia while the idealist is still able to explain everything that is perceived.

>>2280139
Able to explain != correct

>>2280141
so you cant even explain what matter is?

>>2280143
I don't think I need to.

>>2280138
>it ends when physics finally discovers the lowest level of substance?
That's the entire point of the thread that materialism entails infinite regression.

>>2280136
You are not using any sources. You are selectively using using a bunch of different dictionary definitions of words that have multiple meanings in different contexts because of bad faith and a lack of understanding on your part. Do I win the argument now if I'll send you the link of the stanford encylopedia of philosophy that talks about how physicalism and materialism are used interchangably?

I have already explained to you the nuance and the history of term 'materialism' in the post you are replying and given examples on how there is no contradiction. You are just a dumbass.

>>2280129
no, it is YOU who are confused. my reply was to the claim about materialism necessarily positing some kind of 'absolute qualities of matter' like idealists do about the 'absolute qualities of the absolute' (really retarded). now you are changing the goalposts thinking that we are actually talking about the ontology of matter. well, the ontology of matter is not absolute anyway. our 'knowledge of matter' is more or less what is 'true' of matter because we verified it with human praxis, something idealism has no claim to.
>>2280136
>mind is a substance, not a state of awareness.
again you are just throwing words around.
>>2280139
>no concrete definition of matter
<word games
look m8, just look around. there's your matter. i don't have to convince you that your piss jugs will stay piss jugs even after you kill yourself.
>while the idealist is still able to explain everything that is perceived.
he explains this using materialist practices which are accepted inside of a larger idealistic framework which has political implications about the organization of society
read this intro https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1908/mec/intro.htm before you continue embarassing yourself

>>2280141
Where did I state every attempt to explain something is correct? The point is they don't even have a solid explanation.

File: 1748013467114-0.jpg (18.87 KB, 236x354, Saruman_uses_the_Palantir.jpg)

File: 1748013467114-1.jpg (18.87 KB, 236x354, Saruman_uses_the_Palantir.jpg)

File: 1748013467114-2.jpg (18.87 KB, 236x354, Saruman_uses_the_Palantir.jpg)

>>2279881
OP,

This isn't infinite regression its just discovering lower levels of material substance than previously existed. This isn't some idealist thought experiment where you have to identify the cause of causes or something its literally a more basal level of substance. To cast it as infinite "regression" is to put it in an idealist framing.

the dominant medical theory in ancient times and medieval was that of the four humors, blood, phlegm, yellow bile, and black bile. These weren’t observed substances, but theoretical constructs used to explain health and disease. Then, with the advent of anatomical study, physicians started asking: What are bodies really made of? The answer became organs, then tissues, cells, organelles, molecules, atoms, and now subatomic particles and fields.

At no point in this process was it an "infinite regress." Each step uncovered a deeper, more physically grounded layer of reality. Just as the humor theory gave way to organs and cells through empirical observation and better modeling, particle physics replaced the classical atom as we found it was not indivisible.

Calling it an "infinite regression" misframes it as a metaphysical quandary when it's actually a history of refining empirical models. The idea of quantum fields or strings being a "base level" isn’t a metaphysical stopgap, it's just the current frontier of testable physics. If something more fundamental is discovered in the future, it will be because it predicts and explains phenomena better than what we have now.

>>2279881
Materialism is bullshit because no Marxist materialist can tell me what 'matter' is. "Its just stuff, man."

>>2280146
Matter is that infinite regression then

File: 1748013520120.mp4 (4.2 MB, 360x640, videoplayback-4.mp4)

mass = energy from massless particles

What's the point of even calling yourself an idealist, or of arguing for idealism, if your idealism is so abstracted as to be practically meaningless and entirely un-disprovable and unfalsifiable?
If for example you identify the whole sum of reality as God, or that we are all aspects of the universe observing itself in some mystical sense, or somehow we're all one, that kind of spirituality is meaningless in it's nature beyond personal theorising and provides no evidence against materialism.

Fwiw I was raised in a strict protestant household and never had a single religious experience from any of my time being involved with that horseshit.
I also did a lot of psychedelic drugs in my early/mid twenties and while it can be a greatly significant psychological experience, there's nothing in it that can't be explained by materialism.
My point being is I have to ask idealists, do they genuinely believe they've had some kind of experience unexplainable by materialism? And if so what?
Or else what leads them to reject materialism, which is all they have ever personally experienced?

>>2280158
>Or else what leads them to reject materialism, which is all they have ever personally experienced?

The question on why some people engage in this form of sophistry is one of psychology, not philosophy, Anon.

>>2280145
>thinks everything is matter
>cant explain what matter is
>>2280148
>You are not using any sources
what have i said that requires a specific source?
>physicialism
you still havent comprehensively explained what "physical" or "material" means, so how can you believe in a theory around these undefined concepts?

by acknowledging that our knowledge is incomplete and built out of observation of our material conditions, rather than some kind of perfect knowledge that doesn't exist

>>2280164
>>2280155

Here you go :3

>>2279881
the only alternative to this is to pretend you have it all figured out by some appeal to the absolute idea.

>>2280150
>materialist practices
Materialism seems to be validated by just adding materialist to everything you do and see. Well, I confirmed idealism with my idealist practices of noticing recurring patterns of qualia that I mapped onto ideas in my mind to predict these patterns and give them meaning.

>>2280150
>no, it is YOU who are confused. my reply was to the claim about materialism necessarily positing some kind of 'absolute qualities of matter' like idealists do about the 'absolute qualities of the absolute' (really retarded). now you are changing the goalposts thinking that we are actually talking about the ontology of matter. well, the ontology of matter is not absolute anyway. our 'knowledge of matter' is more or less what is 'true' of matter because we verified it with human praxis, something idealism has no claim to.
1) The entire conversation has always been about ontology.
2) You pivoted to making an epistemological claim and selling it as an ontological answer.
3) If matter has no absolute qualities how could you ever believe to have an understanding of what matter is? You took the dialectical process of making sense of something where it is out understanding that changes and confused it with the thing in itself changing.

>>2280164
>you still havent comprehensively explained what "physical" or "material" means

I have already said that. Everything that can be detected or interacted with which you purposely misinterpreted as 'existence' because you quite literally don't understand the point that the whole argument on materialism vs. immaterialism centers around this question of something existing outside of that framework.

Ironically by eqauting existence with physically you kind of outed yourself as a materialist which was a bit of an embarassing oopsie by you btw.

>>2280166
>matter is infinite regress
explain this in different terms

>>2280173
Matter is the absolute

>>2280173
>>2280175
samefag

>>2280172
>Everything that can be detected or interacted with
light can be detected. in fact, it is the thing which allows us to visually detect at all, yet it is massless, and therefore immaterial, according to physics. it has no mass and is not made of atoms. it may then be physical, but not material. see the difference?

>>2280153
<physicians started asking: What are bodies really made of? The answer became X
What are quantum fields made out of?

>>2280181
>conflating mass and matter

>>2280183
>conflating mass and matter
yes, that is the scientific definition
>Matter is any substance that has mass and takes up space.
https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/matter/

>>2280181
>light can be detected. in fact, it is the thing which allows us to visually detect at all, yet it is massless, and therefore immaterial

Again you are still engaging in the same sophistry conflating different meanings of words in different contexts. When you are talking in the context of the philosophy of materialism then light is material because in this context material is used interchangably with physical to denote an entity that is opposed to the deal. Light is not an ideal entity like a fucking spirit ghost, like it has a physical manifestation and is in this context material. For the third fucking time 'materialism' doesn't denote just matter the way it is used in the modern sense.

>>2280171
>If matter has no absolute qualities how could you ever believe to have an understanding of what matter is?
we verified our theories about matter using human praxis. this is the whole point. matter is just a placeholder for the world existing independently of the human mind. you are taking these arguments to a pendantically scholastic level. we discover properties of matter, which is a continuously happening process, throughout history. materialist don't claim any knowledge about the absolute ontology of matter. matter just is, and human praxis thorughout history discovers and gets a greater understanding of matter. god, stop with the bullcrap, fucking hell these are stupid arguments to be having. what makes it in your psychology such a ontologically necessity to demand some kind of 'spirit' in our world. is human history too scary and you need a father figure?

magnets huh

>if scientists havent figured something out than obviously woowoo magic idealism must be true materialists BTFO
god of gaps is so tiresome and cliche atp

>>2280194
>For the third fucking time 'materialism' doesn't denote just matter the way it is used in the modern sense.
then its an incorrect term, isnt it?
you are admitting that not everything is material, yet your crutch is this stupid word "materialism" that you vainly attempt to impose upon reality.

>>2280202
>then its an incorrect term, isnt it?
No, I have already explained that as well. The core of the term material was from the beginning in opposition to something that is ideal, not strictly refering to something that is defined by the concept of matter itself and everyone who hasn't such as stunted concept of human language, basic philosophy and science like you, knows this.

The only thing being imposed here is you imposing on us your fucking inability to use a dictionary properly.

>>2279881
Not for these reasons, but I've never been 100% sold on communism because I've never been 100% sold on materialism.
That being said, even as a non-materialist >>2279889 is a pretty shitty high school tier argument

>>2280195
>materialist don't claim any knowledge about the absolute ontology of matter.
My criticism pertained to you saying matter has no absolute qualities and not that materialists claim to have knowledge about the absolute ontology of matter. If matter has no absolute qualities then what are you even hoping to achieve by investigating matter? If something was continuously changing in arbitrary ways then you can't make sense of it.

>>2280207
Ok buddy, don't care about how much you love your skydaddy.

>>2280210
manifesting your downfall rn

>>2280211
Reported for anti-communism.

>>2280208
you're really not getting it. matter is just whatever is outside the human mind. something outside of the human mind exists, this is something that is historically proven. when i say matter has no absolute properties it means exactly that. all properties of matter we know are actually relative properties of matter. its properties of parts of matter in relations to other parts of matter.

>>2280205
>The core of the term material was from the beginning in opposition to something that is ideal
not at all. it is instead a positive term relating to the concept of the atom. we can read the history of materialism here:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Materialismhttps://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matter
>Materialism developed, possibly independently, in several geographically separated regions of Eurasia during what Karl Jaspers termed the Axial Age (c. 800–200 BC). in ancient Indian philosophy, materialism developed around 600 BC 
>In France, Pierre Gassendi (1592–1665) represented the materialist tradition in opposition to the attempts of René Descartes (1596–1650) to provide the natural sciences with dualist foundations.
>In England, materialism was developed in the philosophies of Francis Bacon (1561–1626), Thomas Hobbes (1588–1679), and John Locke (1632–1704).
no mention of ghouls or goblins here.
>The only thing being imposed here is you imposing on us your fucking inability to use a dictionary properly.
definition of "materialism"
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/materialism
>the belief that only physical matter exists and the spiritual world does not
interesting.

>>2280217
>matter is just whatever is outside the human mind.
if it exists outside of the human mind, how can we have knowledge of it?

>>2280220
>>In France, Pierre Gassendi (1592–1665) represented the materialist tradition in opposition to the attempts of René Descartes (1596–1650) to provide the natural sciences with dualist foundations.

IT LITERALLY SAYS IT RIGHT THERE YOU FUCKING ILLITERATE

>>2280223
human praxis verifies our theories

>>2280210
I'm not religious

>>2280226
>>2280223
let me put it even more clearly
practical manipulation of matter in reality proves theories of matter

>>2280220
>not at all.
There are at least two citations in your own post that are contradicting you, lmao.

>>2280227
You can call it whatever you want. Won't make me take you more seriously, sorry.

>>2279881
That isn't really Marxism. Marxism is more like society is made up of relations between people, not a mere aggregate of individuals. If anything Marxism is blind to what society is, only how society behaves.

>>2280225
and what does that statement mean to you?
you do realise that decartes was a scientist himself, who believed entirely in material findings?
>>2280233
which ones?

>>2280228
>>2280226
so human knowledge proves that matter exists outside of human knowledge?

>>2280234
Damn, that's just something I'll have to live with I guess!!! Shitty ragebait, do better.

>>2280236
>you do realise that decartes was a scientist himself, who believed entirely in material findings?

No he didn't, it literally says in your own post that he was opposed to materialism and that he was a proponed of dualism instead which is a form of idealism.

Dude are you fucking illiterate, unironically?

>>2280240
Exactly and I will make fun of people like you and bully you until the very end.

>>2280220
>The core of the term material was from the beginning in opposition to something that is ideal
>the belief that only physical matter exists and the spiritual world does not
>>In France, Pierre Gassendi (1592–1665) represented the materialist tradition in opposition to the attempts of René Descartes (1596–1650) to provide the natural sciences with dualist foundations.

These three statements all say, that materialism is primarily defined by its objection to idealism, not primarily by the mere concept of the atom, this is especially true in the citation on its objection to dualism. You actually can't fucking read. lol

File: 1748016731576.png (155.4 KB, 866x1390, ClipboardImage.png)

>>2280240
>>2280227

>idealists when you tell them there thoughts do no control reality
>idealists when you tell them a matter exists independently of there mind
>idealists when you dont acknowledge there indigo child super duper special boy chosen one status

many such cases

>>2280238
>human knowledge
>>2280226
>>2280228
<human praxis
<practical manipulation of matter
learn to read, please

>>2280241
>No he didn't
so descartes didnt trust his own senses?
do idealists believe that they can fly if they really believe it? ive never read any philosopher who has ever denied physical reality.
>dualism
yes, mind and MATTER. both have existence.
>>2280251
>These three statements all say, that materialism is primarily defined by its objection to idealism
is that why materialists cant define matter? because they just dont like idealism, then make the rest up?

>>2280261
>yes, mind and MATTER. both have existence.
yes but the mind is a special configuration of matter in motion. it's an illusion. see >>2280086

>>2280253
I'm not an idealist though? Genuinely enjoying how upset saying "hm I'm not entirely sold on materialism" apparently makes people here.

>>2280261
why should materialists define matter? why should we pretend that these philosophical word games have any merit? read and reread the eleventh thesis until you get it.

>>2280261
>so descartes didnt trust his own senses?
When it comes to the existence of the concept 'a mind' as an idealist concept he literally didn't trust his senses, yes exactly.

>yes, mind and MATTER. both have existence.
A mind if being defined as an non-physical idealist entity akin to a soul or spirit doesn't exist according to materialists no. It's something non-materialists like descartes believed in.

>is that why materialists cant define matter?
Because only mathematical concepts can be defined, only mathematical concepts can be proven. Natural phenomena can't be defined, they can only be experienced, inferred and described.

Also you have demonstrated throughout this thread is also that words can't be defined either through your stupidity. Words get their meaning through context. There is no such thing as an inherent meaning in a word, words are described by other words. This is the underlying principle of LLM and AI btw. Through using large amounts of data, texts, so many contexts we can asign mathematical values to words. However, these values are never absolute, they are always relative to other words and describe for example a form of proximity to each other.

>>2280272
>"hm I'm not entirely sold on materialism"
even questioning materialism shows that you are a petty bourgeois philistine intellectual. the working class has already a vulgar kind of materialism that they operate in their day to day life. the priests and other similar functions then introduced a kind of 'organized other', an appendage to help rule over the working classes which instintutionalized today in the thousands of philosophy faculties which study and discuss idealism wherever western colonialism ran rampant. the whole debacle is a non-issue for the third world countries where philosophical ideas ran course with historical development (china, inda, subsaharan africa) instead of parallel to scientific development to justify and spread a syncretic kind of colonial catholicism over the world.

>>2280278
Proxmity here meaning proximity in relative meaning, not proximity in their position in a text or something just to be clear.

>>2280271
>the mind is an illusion
< yet the mind objectively grounds knowledge
so truth is wrapped up in an illusion? if you are an empiricist like hume, you say that the mind has an objective architecture that reflects the nature of the world through the senses, but you say its an "illusion" instead.
>>2280274
>why should materialists define matter?
because you should know what your own beliefs are…
>>2280278
>nature is unknowable
>words dont actually mean anything
the final cope of all idiots

>>2280287
the illusion refers to the illusion of a mind that can't exist without matter. you claim dualism when you say mind and matter. i retort, mind from matter.

>>2280279
Whatever you gotta tell yourself, I guess.

>>2280287
>nature is unknowable
>words dont actually mean anything
Dude you are fucking illiterate if that's what you got out of those posts but what the fuck am I supposed to expect from an idiot who uses two citations from fucking wikipedia that completely contradict his own point he made in the very same post? You could have walked away from this thread going 'wow, I actually learned something from this thread about human language, the history of philosophy and human science' instead of being a dishonest jackass who is a better fit for the youtube comment section.

>>2280287
>because you should know what your own beliefs are…
no, you want me to justify materialism on a question that only idealism tries to answer namely 'what is the absolute nature of X' while i continuously tell you that this question is not something that materialism even thinks needs answering because there are no absolute things. we're operating on two different levels - my bus is much longer than your

>>2280287
>yet the mind objectively grounds knowledge
HUMAN. PRAXIS.

>>2280291
this is HISTORY buddy alright LEARN TO READ AND TO HUMBLE YOURSELF WHEN CONFRONTED WITH GNAWED LEDGE

>>2280289
Wow, what a weird strawmanny rant on an innucous point on how maths and sciences have differences in their methodology.

>>2280290
>the illusion refers to the illusion of a mind that can't exist without matter
if we changed the terms to say "consciousness cant exist without matter" i would agree, but i would still say that matter emerges from a larger, unconscious mind.
>>2280292
>Dude you are fucking illiterate if that's what you got out of those posts
lets read what you said: >>2280278
>Natural phenomena can't be defined
>words can't be defined either
>>2280294
>everything is matter
<cant define what matter is

>>2280303
I don't really know what made you go off on a completely unrelated tangent spilling the entire content you learned from your history of mathematics extracurricular but I am hoping you are feeling better soon buddy.

>>2280302
> but i would still say that matter emerges from a larger, unconscious mind.
BECAUSE YOU ARE A RETARD AND A TROGLODYTE AND YOU REFUSE TO FUCKING READ ANYTHING AND JUST PLAY PRETEND YOU MISH MASH ANY KIND OF ECCLETIC NONSENSE TOGETHER TO JUSTIFY YOUR SPINELESS, DEGENERATE, PETTY-BOURGEOIS, ANARCHOID, INTELLECTUAL, LIMPWIRSTED, DISRUPTIVE AND DESTRUCTIVE TENDECIES WHEN YOU BRING UP XVI CENTURY PHILOSOPHICAL IDEAS IN THE XXI CENTURY WHEN MARX ENGELS AND LENIN ALREADY DEALT WITH THOSE IDEAS A CENTURY BEFORE AND NOW YOU WANT US TO TAKE YOUR SHIT FOR BRAIN IDEAS SERIOUSLY?

NO

KILL YOURSELF NOW

>>2280307
i'm sorry i reread the post and i apologize for my outburst didn't really read through it and i'm already kind of tipsy i'm gonna delete the offensive and rude post now

>>2280279
That is a very anti Marxist take

File: 1748019522674.jpg (277.29 KB, 1199x1190, bafkreiang43xavszp2j3jca5k….jpg)

Materialism is not physicalism, shit like "what is the total list of things the universe is made of" is outside it's scope.

>>2279881
>Where does it end?
Either it doesn't end or it ends when we stop measuring for some reason or another. infinity is not a thing, but a symbol standing for an unbounded algorithmic process. We have to look at the material basis for this concept, and the neural basis for this concept. We have to investigate why it "makes sense" to us. Lakoff and Nunez argue in Where Mathematics Comes From that we can do math because the nervous system provides sufficient mechanisms to represent mathematical concepts.

In particular, they show that nervous systems have an ability that represents unbounded iteration. This emerged evolutionarily because locomotion of multicellular organisms requires it. We can express walking in algorithmic terms of what a robot's computer would tell its legs to do. The neural mechanisms used to generate gaits in animals are termed pattern generators. They are relatively simple oscillatory networks. A predatory chasing its prey invokes these patterns in an unbounded iteration until it catches up or is exhausted. Zeno's paradox has a prototype of the idea of infinitesimals. Can a cheeta catch up to his prey? To construct his paradox, Zeno relied on locomotion, the archetype of central pattern generator activity, the neural/material foundation for all ideas of infinity.

We can only know what we observe, and we can only observe what we can measure. We can only measure what either our senses can observe, or what our tools augment our senses to observe.

>>2280312
You will have to sit on daddy‘s dick if you want me to forgive you, babygirl.

>>2280338
ew
kill all moids

>>2280330
>>2280153
>>2280158
Pragmatic and rational answers on an imageboard? Simply impossible

>>2280338
>daddy
Nonce.

>>2279881
>Where does it end?
The original term atom was a philosophical concept for the smallest thing possible after divining something an infinite number of times. Why we still call something we know is made of smaller things atom is… strange to say the least… But words change their meaning I guess.

>>2280338
> idealist is a sex pest creep
many such cases

>>2280312
No problem, happens to the best of us.

>>2279994
>literally everyone uses those terms interchangably
marxists dont. physical reductionism is in opposition to dialectical materialism
>>2280007
>amongst the majority of serious physicists anymore
the majority of physicists are idealists that adopted that view because of the cold war. copemorehagen was an anti-communist forum

>>2280161
>>2280158
this quote describes many but certainly not all idealists I've met:

>This is why the rumor doesn’t really need to be plausible or believable. It isn’t intended to deceive others. It’s intended to invite others to participate with you in deception.

>Are you afraid you might be a coward? Join us in pretending to believe this lie and you can pretend to feel brave. Are you afraid that your life is meaningless? Join us in pretending to believe this lie and you can pretend your life has purpose. Are you afraid you’re mired in mediocrity? Join us in pretending to believe this lie and you can pretend to feel exceptional. Are you worried that you won’t be able to forget that you’re just pretending and that all those good feelings will thus seem hollow and empty? Join us and we will pretend it’s true for you if you will pretend it’s true for us. We need each other.

plain ole material reality just doesn't soothe people as much and definitely doesn't stroke there ego as much as most forms of idealism does. many idealists just dont wanna accept they aren't literally the main character(see resentment of le normies and/or sheeple) and still think the world revolves around there personal desires and whatever new set of aesthetics there chasing after in search of finding meaning,personality and authenticity where there is none. I mean ffs one of basic precepts of idealism is (your) mind over matter, its a fundamentally self absorbed worldview.

THE PLANCK LENGTH
>>2280338
WTF

i'm a materialist
i'm a materialist
i buy a piece of shit car and i lower the motherfucka

File: 1748060865093.png (6.65 KB, 201x251, ClipboardImage.png)

>>2280852
>i buy a piece of shit car and i lower the motherfucka

>>2280040
please don't post anticommunist sabine hossenfelder

>>2281032
So why are you posting it on this site?
Go the fuck back retard.

Sweet Jesus I gave you assholes the words from the horse's mouth about what you're arguing over, and you can look up rudimentary sources from the smart men who ask this question throughout history. The internet still has some use, you know.

I'll try to make this simple. Matter is not an "idea" itself when speaking of it philosophically. Materialism describes how to approach understanding things and a universe comprised of such things, rather than imperious declarations of what the universe "is", which is inherently an idea or conceit of the universe we hold in our head. A materialistic approach regards that the universe is whatever "this" is that is understood by sense, and that we can learn about what this is by analysis and science. We can easily ask questions about what sense and thought themselves are and conclude they are manifestations of matter. The real problem with materialism is mereological nihilism, which is to say you cannot say much about "matter" other than "it exists" and even existence can be doubted. Everything discovered in the materialistic approach is reverse engineered, starting from some simple assumptions that are necessary to begin any inquiry whatsoever. You know what they say about assumptions, of course.

If you are describing an elaborate formalism or "total system" that is an idealistic framework. Usually when this stupid topic comes up, it is the result of the piss-poor teaching of science in schools, intended to retard the mind of everyone so they'll go along with this nightmarish regime of the past 100 years.

Nearly every ontological understanding of the universe is more complex than "Idea" or "Materialism"; so much that every philosopher in the ancient world disagreed with every other philosopher and made it a point to be particular about their system over any other system, even when they stole parts of someone else's system to construct their own.

>>2279881
Is it a problem? What if reality is, in fact, recursive? Or, what if it is not and there is a finite end, eventually?

Fundamentally, this infinite regression "issue" has never been solved; a made-up creator does not deserve a "pass"; that worldview, too, suffers from the regression problem.

>>2281046
You've described the problem with idealism, not materialism. Infinite regress from causality would exist, as you say, even if you invent a supernatural creator God. Materialist ontologies require a "prime mover" to explain why anything happens. The Idealist ontology presumes the universe effectively always existed, and everything outside of that existence is not a valid or admissible object. The easy materialist answer is that nature itself is the prime mover and coterminous with the existence of the universe; that all is "nature", and our sense of the supernatural or unnatural is something that arose ultimately from some origin in nature that allows us to explain why there is anything "supernatural". A materialist understanding of "God" would basically say God is something akin to Nature, but not, if the God in question is some omniscient creator deity of the sort envisioned. There are of course severe problems with such a deity's existence that a child can detect, which is why materialism was usually atheistic or polytheistic, and the gods if they existed were just another aspect of the universe. For the idealist though, anything before "Idea" is simply invalid or nonsense. It would be improper to speak of "Creation" in idealism as such, in terms that can relate to our expectation of a creator in time (any type of time, if we say the creator was "outside of time"). Idealism does not need a "creator" or "creation" as such, but it implies there is such a thing as "Idea" that moves the universe, and the material substance is incidental to anything meaningful.

How do anons solve the issue of faggot OPs trying to smuggle in their own unquestionable conclusions? There is no infinite regression in a materialistic worldview, unless you're a dishonest god-worshiping idealist in the closet, which you, the faggot OP in question, are. You prove your own infinite parts-of-parts mereology you yourself conjured up or eat shit so you'll shut the fuck up.

>>2282407
In short: have you told your dad you're a fucking faggot yet, OP?

>>2282409
>calling others faggot
<is a literal namefag

>>2282411
Filter me or cry more, bitch uygha

You guys get very upset over a dilemma you still didn't manage to solve.

>>2282528
it's a dilemma for an idealist, not a materialist, and materialists are not obliged to operate in idealistic frameworks. try again, buddy.

Wtf is OP even trying to say lol?
Ok Marxists don't have a complete scientific theory for the breakdown of what everything is made up of since science hasn't advanced that far yet…but NEITHER DOES ANYONE ELSE GENIUS. YOU CAN POSE THIS EXACT SAME DILEMMA TO LITERALLY EVERY OTHER PHILOSOPHY AND RELIGION IN THE ENTIRE WORLD.
fucking hell people are becoming so stupid nowadays they post shit like this and really think they're being clever.

>>2282528
It was already answered many times before.
>>2282554
They make useless (in relation to /leftypol/) threads like these in order to take a jab at commies, because they're still not ready to give up the porky liberal systems they've grown up on.

>>2282528
quarks, leptons and bosons uygha

>>2282687
Even there there is class with some getting most of the mass while others nothing

>>2282528
>I made up an absurdly specific thought experiment where I'm right and your wrong MATERIALISM BTFO
between this and god of the gaps im convinced your incapable of doing better than this atp

>>2282554
its called the God of Gaps arguement its nothing new, they think since scientists don't claim to be all knowing than there specific magic system has to be true

>>2282559
>They make useless (in relation to /leftypol/) threads
it's an imageboard, not a union meeting, or a communist group meeting, with specific agendas to get through . sure it has a Marxist/ left wing orientation, and you dont want to allow neonazi wreckers or whatever
>like these in order to take a jab at commies, because they're still not ready to give up the porky liberal systems they've grown up on.
Well, "-ish". Historically, Protestant Christianity is associated with porky liberal systems, but that's about it .
What about proto- communists ,pre- "scientific socialism", like the levellers and diggers ? They operated within an apocalyptic/ millenial Christianity.
This goes right back to the Dead Sea Scrolls, with it's coded references to the Roman Military Tax-Extracting Complex.
Metaphysical speculation as in this thread seems more of an anarchistic thing, than porky/liberal. In case you hadn't noticed, the latter is about making money.

>>2279881
>>2282528
Infinite regression might come up when each step leads to a new contradiction, requiring another synthesis, ad infinitum. But Hegel doesn't think it goes on forever. Instead, he believes this process culminates in the Absolute, where all contradictions are resolved, and the system is complete. So the key is that the dialectical process has an end point in the Absolute, which stops the infinite regression.

But how does the Absolute stop the regression? Because it's self-sufficient, self-explanatory. The Absolute is the totality of all concepts and reality, fully actualized. It doesn't need anything beyond itself to explain it, so there's no need for further regression.

Theres also Hegel's concept of the "true infinite" versus the "bad infinite." The bad infinite is the endless, unending sequence—like an infinite chain of causes. The true infinite is a self-contained system that doesn't rely on an external series. For Hegel, reality isn't an endless chain but a circular, self-relating system where each part is interrelated within the whole. So instead of an infinite linear regression, you have a totality that's self-grounding.

In the Phenomenology of Spirit, consciousness progresses through stages, each time encountering contradictions that push it to a higher stage. This progression ends when consciousness realizes itself as the Absolute, understanding that it's the source of its own determinations. This self-realization stops the infinite regression because there's no external 'other' needed—it's all internal to the Absolute.

Marx's rejects abstract philosophical systems. He focuses on praxis, the unity of theory and practice. By grounding his analysis in real, observable material conditions and human activity, he avoids the need for infinite metaphysical explanations. The regression stops at the material level because that's the basis of all social structures.

Marx avoids infinite regression by grounding his theory in material conditions, which serve as the foundational explanation for social structures. Praxis unites theory and action, stopping the need for further metaphysical explanations.

Marx avoids infinite regression by grounding his philosophical and historical analysis in material conditions and dialectical materialism, which anchor explanation in observable, socio-economic realities rather than abstract metaphysical chains.

By rooting explanations in concrete, empirical realities, Marx halts infinite regression. The material base is the ultimate explanatory terminus: there is no need to regress further once material conditions are analyzed. By focusing on human activity, he bypasses metaphysical regress. Explanations terminate in material practice—the real-world actions of people reproducing their existence. Internal contradictions are immanent to the system itself, requiring no external cause or infinite chain of explanations.

In mathematics, a manifold doesn't have inherent holes or boundaries in higher dimensions, which might metaphorically relate to a self-contained system that Hegel or Marx propose. A manifold is a topological space that locally resembles Euclidean space. Globally, it can have complex curvature or connectivity, but locally it is "flat" and finite-dimensional. In Kant’s epistemology, the manifold (Mannigfaltigkeit) refers to the raw, unstructured data of sensory experience before it is synthesized by the mind’s categories. Hegel critiques Kant’s passive manifold by insisting that reality is dynamically structured through dialectical reason, not fixed categories. Marx further grounds this structuring in material practice.

For Hegel, the manifold refers to the differentiated moments of reality that are unified through the dialectic. The Absolute is the fully realized manifold where all contradictions are resolved. This avoids infinite regression because the Absolute is a self-contained totality—no external explanation is needed. Hegel’s dialectic or Marx’s historical materialism could be analogized as "manifolds" structuring reality: finite, self-contained systems where local contradictions resolve into global coherence. Marx’s analysis of society treats class relations, modes of production, and ideology as interconnected parts of a social manifold. The "manifold" of social relations is finite and self-contained, rooted in praxis. The "base" (economic structure) and "superstructure" (culture, politics) form a totality where contradictions drive historical change.

In Einstein’s general relativity, spacetime is modeled as a 4D manifold. Its curvature explains gravity, avoiding infinite regress by treating spacetime as a self-contained dynamical entity. Like Hegel’s Absolute or Marx’s historical materialism, spacetime’s manifold requires no "external" cause—it is its own explanation. Both Hegel and Marx reject infinite chains by positing structured totalities (manifolds) where explanation terminates internally. A manifold’s local simplicity and global complexity mirror dialectical processes where contradictions resolve into higher syntheses.

>>2282554
>Wtf is OP even trying to say lol?
OP is making an Aristotlean argument, anon.
<Since everything that changes must be changed by something, if something is changing place and being moved by something else, and this agent of change in its turn is being moved by some other moving object, which is being moved by another moving object, and so on, there must be some first mover - the sequence cannot go on *ad infinitum*. -Aristotle, Physics, VII.I
>Ok Marxists don't have a complete scientific theory for the breakdown of what everything is made up of since science hasn't advanced that far yet…but NEITHER DOES ANYONE ELSE GENIUS. YOU CAN POSE THIS EXACT SAME DILEMMA TO LITERALLY EVERY OTHER PHILOSOPHY AND RELIGION IN THE ENTIRE WORLD.
what the first mover is, is what followers of various religions, heretics, cranks, various, etc . disagree about,. But they all think there is one! So they're not caught on the horns of a dilemma. A dilemma is when youre not sure which of two options is correct yourself, not when you are but someone else thinks its another option.
Maybe excepting buddhists, hindus .is indras net a first mover? Probably not. Maybe thats one for you scientists into the pre-socratic flux, maaan.
Anons ITT seem to be talking about the western metaphysical tradition. Medieval theology.
Even if belivers don't use the Aristotlean lingo like " first mover", or "uncaused cause." It's what they're talking about, really. they all think that there is a first mover,. Even though they don't normally think it's a physical first mover.
>fucking hell people are becoming so stupid nowadays they post shit like this and really think they're being clever.
Takes me back to being a little boy at primary school and the teacher would say
>anon thinks he's being clever
Is that you Mrs. E*s? Did the Devil throw you back because you were too horrible ?

File: 1748242390937.jpg (78.1 KB, 1418x828, mahito6.jpg)

Every argument for the existence of a creator recurses infinitely, until you reach humanity. Humanity created itself out of dumbass apes and then created all the gods as tools for itself. Tools which we have outgrown and now all that is left is collective self-deification in the name of the people!

it's turtles all the way down

>>2280338

File: 1748291732642.png (619.37 KB, 1280x720, ClipboardImage.png)

>>2283608

>>2280158
"I can't explain it, therefore magic"
t. every idealist argument ever

>>2279881
Dogmatism.

Longer: The Greek 'hyle' for matter refers to wood, with the connotation that it can be moulded by humans. The point is not the various particular stages of matter, but that matter is there is there for humans' ends.

File: 1749827143409.png (254.84 KB, 1079x565, marxistscience.png)

I fail to see how this is of any relevance. As a matter of fact, we as human civilization can not yet pinpoint the foundational unit of reality. The correct scientific stance is to abstract that which we can not know at the present stage of scientific development instead of conjecturing something out of biases and wishing for it to be true. If you want to debunk a framework on this basis, you have to argue for its relevance applied to real world scenarios. In any case, dialecticians analyze phenomena starting from relations between elements, not from elements in of themselves.

File: 1749840522904.png (335.64 KB, 894x1369, materialism_effortpost.png)

>>2280330
Correct

File: 1749843355883.jpg (25.79 KB, 518x490, from-the-universal-to-the-….jpg)

>>2319037
>In any case, dialecticians analyze phenomena starting from relations between elements, not from elements in of themselves.
do you not see the contradiction of your statement? a relationship is a relationship between particular entities; so the entities are presupposed in the relation - therefore we return to OP's question. what is the substance which self-relates? in your conception, all we can perceive is phenomena, so we can only see an ever-changing image. this issue with this is that it makes knowledge impossible. this is why heraclitus conceives of (λόγος) as a power which brings harmony and balance to transience. a materialist however says that there is no principle except transience itself. the issue of course is that in this, "matter" is conceived as an abstraction from particulars themselves. in this case, materialism cannot explain what matter is in itself, for it has nothing to relate to, to gain an opposed concept of itself (for it cannot even explain the relation of the atom to larger bodies). if i ask for example, "what is matter?" i will get no satisfactory reply. that is also why you avoid the question. what is matter? this should not be difficult for a "matetialist" to answer.

>Where does it end?
Planck length.

Garbage pseudoscience thread.

>>2320076
You should probably re-read my post.

>>2320584
>Planck length.
*as far as we're aware given our current ability to measure investigate and extrapolate with at our current technology

>>2280153
good post, anon

>>2280154
Stuff does stuff to stuff and this is how stuff happens.
That's materialism covered, any questions?

>>2320705
Planck length isn't defined by human capacity to measure it. It's one of the four universal constants, alongside the speed of light, the gravitational constant, and the Boltzmann constant. Distance literally has no meaning below that length.

File: 1749881873275.png (822.94 KB, 874x552, ClipboardImage.png)

>>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 constant
which 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.

>>2320609
your point is that dialecticians deal in abstractions rather than particulars, but an abstraction is relates particulars to each other. if everything is material, then everything must contain the same substantial identity (i.e matter). so then, what is matter?

>>2322181
i seem to recall that also mao said something like, in a 1000 years, even the ideas of marx or lenin might be seen as stupid

>>2322181
planck units are defined to be certain natural properties regardless of how well we measure them.

>>2322181
bruh planck length would be known by even an alien civilization
relativism doesnt work here

What is the point of even asking these questions in the political sphere when pretty much every property you can list is an emergent one? What pressing questions will this answer?

>>2322683
why are you avoiding the question?

>>2322700
it's a pointless question?

>>2322700
I'm not, the OP is begging the question that this is somehow a critical flaw in materialism which I don't buy. Not knowing *why* a bullet flies won't stop it from piercing someones lung

>>2322711
is it a question without an answer?
>>2322714
OP isnt asking why, he's asking how.

>>2322862
>is it a question without an answer?
no, it's a question with an answer that doesn't really matter nor disproves materialism, it's a pointless question for that reason

>>2322891
if the question has an answer, give it.

>>2322905
the answer is quite simple, in fact i basically answered it in the first post
>>2279883
so 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

>>2322914
so we dont actually know what "matter" is, yet we "know" that matter (an unknown) substance comprises everything?

>>2279881
Someone needs to read about Ancient Greek Atomism.

>>2322939
yes, this is how things work believe it or not, because this is not an intentionally created universe

>>2322972
the issue should be self-evident. you proposing a "god of the gaps" argument. we cant know what we dont know, so we cannot appeal to ignorance as a basis of what presuppose.

>>2322987
the question is pointless, if it keeps going down until it hits its lowest limit, which is the trend of how we measure things, we can presume it keeps going downward until it hits that point, there is no cognitive dissonance in such an argument since it simply follows the pattern of things as they go now

File: 1749912648480.jpg (300.5 KB, 1280x720, maxresdefault.jpg)

>>2323000
the 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.

File: 1749914040398.jpg (59.9 KB, 850x400, quote-mind-and-matter-are-….jpg)

>>2323000
>>2323053
to simplify, human brains cause a massive restructuring of natural environments, not only locally, but galactically, by recalling information from across stars. this is all created by machines of abstraction, which simultaneously reveals nature to itself. the further we go into nature, the further we must go into mind. so i feel that we cannot separate mind from matter.

>>2323116
true which is why i say that answering the question is pointless and doesn't affect the validity of materialism, everything in the universe is the result of mechanistic processes, this is easily provable with basic demonstrations of casualty, this disproves any supernatural thinking (as they violate this principle of mechanisms), which is why the question doesn't really matter, neither does it really matter what actually created this universe, what is relevant, though is whether such questions advance our knowledge of how the universe currently works, which they don't really

File: 1749915117160.jpg (39.66 KB, 512x273, unnamed.jpg)

>>2323128
look up "acausality" and its relationship to mechanism. we may invoke the acausal to demonstrate the principle of "effects without causes", or "ends in themselves", which seem to be linked to mental processes. jung writes about it in hos short book "synchronicity". the only question is, does the mind conform to its own causality, like a tremor leaves ripples in a water? i have felt this before; that the mind as a field of consciousness also has its internal mechanisms. the only question then is, what causes the tremor in the mind? matter, i assign to the princiole of unconsciousness, but matter is within mind for this sake.

>>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 perceived
thats 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.

I'm a materialist because I can't understand how any of this shit matters. Sorry, by all means call me retarded because I probably am, but it won't feed anyone though. Nothing else changes that.

>>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

>>2326179
Let 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?

As an actual theoretical phycisist the number of shit takes in this thread is quite shocking. Please remember chairman Mao's words: "No investigation, no right to speak".
Like my dudes, you sound like Jordan Peterson talking about Marx. If you want to understand theoretical physics you have to read the fucking books, you can't just say stupid shit like "string theory isn't respectable today" – because frankly that's bullshit.
I have spent a decade of my life dedicated to studying theoretical physics (not string theory) and wouldn't speak with a quarter of the confidence most posts in the threads have.

As for the stupid ass question of OP the obvious answer is it ends when it ends.

Please let this thread die, it's a fucking embarassment to this board. In fact mods you should probably lock it and set it on fire.

>>2326266
as a physicist, what is matter?

>>2325632
>matter has mass by definition
yes, 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 not
no, 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.
>>2325674
as a materialist, what is matter?

File: 1749983515792.png (126.04 KB, 1092x321, ClipboardImage.png)

>>2326343
You just ignored both points instead of addressing them.

>>2326357
what is matter?

File: 1749990081610.jpeg (11.66 KB, 183x276, IMG_4699.jpeg)

>>2279881
1. Why do we need to
2. Historical materialism isn’t physicalism so it doesn’t matter

>>2326559
whats the difference between materialism and physicalism?

autism is a curse on mankind

>>2326566
Historical 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

>>2326573
what are some other "immaterial" factors?

>>2326610
Beside the point.

>>2326612
how? you are saying that the difference between historical materialism and physicalism is the "immaterial". so what are some examples?

File: 1749993429732.png (209.15 KB, 1200x1176, Base-superstructure_Dialec….png)

>>2326627
>Listing off immaterial factors has nothing to do with what has causal power
okay, so since youre too pathetic or cowardly to answer extremely basic questions, what is "immaterial" about culture?
also, investigating your original claim:
>Historical materialism doesn’t say immaterial factors like culture don’t matter
doesnt this violate the logic of base and supetstructure as they interact?

>>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

>>2326642
1. 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

>>2326642
> what is "immaterial" about culture?
Sorry, missed this part. I just woke up. I’m inclined to claim there’s a strong physical and social component to culture. It can’t exist without a physical medium (speech, writing, analog or digital storage and institutions to store and transmit information) and institutions to house them, plus there are the things we in our common speech we describe as “immaterial” - thoughts, ideas, emotions, etc.

File: 1749996559606.mp4 (9.21 MB, 720x1280, Richard Dawkins Explains M….mp4)

>>2326646
>You honestly just come off mad that I’m rejecting your premises
i 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”) factors
what 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?
>>2326691
can ideas exist outside of brains?

>>2326699
I 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.

>>2326699
This 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 physicalism
so 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 structure
yes, culture is inherently particular to regions
>the primary aim of culture is to spread and control the globe in a hegemonic mode
yes, 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.

>>2326711
>>2326717
an example might be how we all speak english, bit with different accents. the accent or dialect is itself a mutation.

>>2326717
>yes, culture is inherently particular to regions
It 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 memepool
This 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: 86
[Return][Go to top] [Catalog] | [Home][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[ home / rules / faq ] [ overboard / sfw / alt ] [ leftypol / edu / labor / siberia / lgbt / latam / hobby / tech / games / anime / music / draw / AKM ] [ meta ] [ wiki / shop / tv / tiktok / twitter / patreon ] [ GET / ref / marx / booru ]
[ Return / Go to top /