I know this is a meme post but I’m going to leave these here for anyone who wants to read up on philosophy, specifically Dialectical-Materialism.
Georges Politzers’ book Elementary Principles of Philosophy
Sean Sayers’ article Materialism, Realism, and the Theory of Reflection
Note on EPoP: When my local group of comrades read EPoP together, many of us found Politzers’ arguments against religion in parts 1 & 2 to be too overly antagonistic to include in the mass community education program we’re developing (even though we agreed with the logic of Politzers’ arguments and his conclusions). Use this information as you see fit.
Be sure to follow Politzer’s work with On Contradiction, as Politzer makes some errors regarding dialectics, contradiction, and the negation of the negation.
Reality is whatever is going on in at any given point in gay bathhouses and everything around that is imaginary set dressing and lore to getting there
where does [reality is not but you are] fit? probably the DMT or be not afraid?
My view is that we may not necessarily know or agree on reality itself or religion but we can agree on following a materialist analysis as it clearly has predictive power and people who suffer materially need a material solution
The presupposition of a mind-independent material world seems justified on practical grounds so long as we exclude subatomic particles. But the emergence of quantum physics has interesting philosophical implications.
It really does not. Physics academia is just filled with crackpot mystics. I like to call them the metaphysical-physicists, the physicists who do not just immerse their mind in practical work but start talking metaphysics.
In 1964, the physicist John Bell proved that if you assume (1) that objective reality exists, (2) quantum mechanics is correct, and (3) special relativity is correct, then you run into a contradiction, and so one of the assumptions must be wrong. Deranged physicists in academia concluded #1 one is wrong and started to promote the crackpot mystical views that objective reality doesn’t actually exist. Like 90% of the quantum mysticism you see these does not originate from non-physicists like Deepak Chopra but from actual PhD physicists.
This is, at least, the story the mystics like to tell, that Bell’s theorem “proved” there is no objective reality. But this is a historical falsification, because if you actually check the historical record, you find that physicists in academia started to come to the “consensus” that objective reality isn’t real back in the 1927 Solvay conference, decades before John Bell ever published his theorem, and many more decades before it was ever confirmed in experiment, with Albert Einstein pretty much the last major holdout criticizing this turn of events, once asking Abraham Pais, “do you really believe that the moon doesn’t exist when you’re not looking at it?”
They already decided it doesn’t exist before they had any theorem or any empirical evidence that the theorem was correct. Bell’s theorem genuinely has nothing to do with this turn of events.
What is even more absurd is that we have known since the day special relativity was introduced in 1905 that it is not even necessary to make the right predictions of special relativity. Lorentz had proposed a theory in 1904 which is mathematically equivalent to special relativity without special relativity, and hence we know you can drop #3 without actually dropping the empirical predictions of #3. There is zero empirical necessity for premise #3.
Metaphysical-physicists love historical falsification. They make up this completely bologna narrative that we should accept the truth of special relativity because “it is the most tested theory in the history of physics,” but the statement is nonsensical, because it is mathematically equivalent to Lorentz’s theory. Hence, every “test” for special relativity is also a test of Lorentz’s theory.
You see this dishonest line of argumentation pushed a lot by the metaphysical-physicist crowd. They will push the most absurd metaphysics you can imagine that is entirely incoherent and when you say you don’t agree with that, they accuse you of denying the science because it is “well-tested.” But none of their crackpot metaphysics has been tested at all. There is no experiment you can conduct that proves a particle doesn’t have a definite value when you are not looking at it. This is just a delusion.
Besides what the other user said, this doesn’t really change my comment at all. The inner workings of reality don’t matter when you’re cold or hungry or when your bodily autonomy is violated. These problems are material, and so are the solutions.
i’m real because i’m here.
can’t vouch for everything else though sorry.
Get this solipsism out of my thread
Way to assume there is a perceiving subject, you’re it, and its assumptions are reliable smh
I smh, therefore I am
i’ll have you know i’m very reliable at existential dread.
Where is “nothing is real, but good luck making use of that information”?
The concepts “reality”, “objectivity”, “subjectivity”, “being”, “existence”, and “everything” are all subject to debate. There are too many questions here for this to have any meaning (to invoke another elusive concept)
- Do all entities that have reality also exist? (Consider, for example, the unicorn in my dreams)
- Do all entities that exist also have being? (Consider the natural numbers)
- Is “everything” merely the set of entities that exist or does it also include the things that we can identify with language but do not exist? (Consider the logically contradictory “square circle”)
- Are “objective” and “subjective” mutually exclusive? (For example, I am objectively feeling pain but pain is a subjective mental state; the stick in water objectively has the property of subjectively appearing bent in water)
- Why should objectivity entail materialism? Why should subjectivity entail idealism?
Ofc this is all in good humor but it’s worth flagging these issues.
I’ve been through pretty much every stage shown here and now I’m firmly in the “I don’t know” camp. It feels like I’ll be here until I’m dead, tbh. Not that it matters (maybe).
The only things that are not real that people think is real are time and space, especially space.
An illusion is when an object that is thought to have a certain shape,
turning out to have a very different shape and that usually means that
what one thinks it is seeing a solid three-dimensional object, it in reality is
just mere “smoke and mirrors”.The moment you try and touch the object with your hand, your hand goes right through it.
Now one needs to use objects to create such an illusion, and those objects are real,
it’s the object that’s perceived to be real that isn’t.Space is not an illusion, but it is misdefined as having the properties of an object
therefore turning something that merely conceptual as something that is real.
Yet even the most prominent scientists of today are too daft to realize this simple thing
and actually think that space is real and define it having dimensions.And they define it as such: “You can travel through it three-dimensionally,
therefore it has three dimensions.”While it may look like space has three dimensions, it doesn’t.
It doesn’t the same way mathematics doesn’t have
any place-value notation as a property of mathematics.
Sure, you can use the decimal system in mathematics,
but you based that on the number of fingers you have.
It’s not a property of mathematics, it’s just the preferred system we use.
And the same goes with space. Our body has three dimensions,
therefore we think space does but in reality space has no dimensions.Dimensions are defined as the limits to where an object stops being.
Your length, height and width are the limits to how much you are.
You are not defined by how much an object can travel through you.Space is not an aquarium with imaginary glass panes and infinite volume,
that auto-magically get an extra set of panes the moment one of the fish that swim in it
suddenly grows a new set of limbs that protrude into the next dimension.Space is nothing. It is zero-dimensional as it has no height, no width and no length
and therefore is not real in the same sense that you and me are.
And thought of space having such qualities is the ultimate illusion.
