Replace material with real. Is it real? Then there’s something there to it. That’s material. To say something isn’t material is to say something isn’t real.
your art betrays the emotional effect of your theorycheck your premises
>>16830683Agreed. That's why I think stuff like supernatural makes no logical sense, if something supernatural existed, then it is natural. However these words are useful because they can be used to mean something that is outside the realm of known physics.
>>16830683but fake stuff is real in a way. this just gets into my illusion autism. this might work for your witch tok but I need to think about my autism. also does this mean that mater as a term is wrong , you could at the very least create a scientific framework that has something that isn't matter right? even if its a nockoff of matter and has most of its rules , if it lacks an important one , then its not matter.I feel like you are playing world games , but I am currently to drunk to save you , so god save us all.
>>16831013The supernatural is just a proxy or stand-in for “I don’t fucking know”. It’s the same with religion and hocus pocus. Ignorance is a form of art. Highly dangerous art.
>>16830683>>16831013Not quite, Anons. Think about abstract concepts like Honor or Friendship.We can deduce some material facets of them (oxytocin spikes in people that enjoy each other's company), but we can't capture the entire concept in the purely Material sphere.Yet they're still definitely Real, as they still impact the ways people move through the world.Materialism has never been all-encompassing and it was never meant to be. Anyone trying to tell you otherwise is either a retard or a grifter.
>>16831013The literal meaning of the word makes no sense, but it works ok in a family resemblance way. When people say that, I know they mean ghosts and angels and gods, not trees and stones.
>>16831484>>16831494“That ain’t natural” is an opinion. The supernatural, or the unnatural, has always been an opinion. Homosexual is still unnatural to many Christians. They won’t call it supernatural but unnatural is more or less the same meaning—that it’s not natural.
>>16831507With meaning as use unnatural and supernatural are very different.
>>16831510No, they are not. Either something is natural or it isn’t.
>>16831010*affect
>>16831624Noone says God is unnatural and noone says gay sex is supernatural.
>>16831624It is the nature of all life to build. Bird nest, termite mound, yurt, same same.Building and construction are natural.
>>16831632You are having the wrong gay sex, bro.
>>16831624Everything is natural or else it doesn't exist. In common language though unnatural = against nature, so manmade stuff counts as unnatural even though logically we are part of nature. Supernatural= unexplainable by nature, so shit like ghosts, which based on all evidence don't exist
>>16831632The Christians in the past have used words like “supernatural” or “preternatural” or “unnatural” to describe God in the past. “He’s beyond nature”. It’s just silly. >>16831635What? I’m not arguing about the artificial here. The artificial would be the closest thing you could argue as being unnatural and yet you can use as easily argue it’s completely natural for all the things you mentioned. A termite mound is artificial. A bird’s nest is artificial.
>>16831645>Everything is natural or else it doesn't existYes. This is just basic logic. Anything that is “unnatural” or “supernatural” is just a point of view. A position of unfamiliarity. No different from religion or magic. Proxy logic. A stand-in. A contrast. >In common language though unnatural = against nature, so manmade stuff counts as unnatural even though logically we are part of nature.Yes. Hence: “The artificial would be the closest thing you could argue as being unnatural and yet you can use as easily argue it’s completely natural”. But at the end of the day nature is just reality and reality is anything that’s real.
You can just* as easily argue it’s completely natural
Christians arguing against materialism are arguing against God’s own existence.OP is right and you can only openly mald.
>>16831667>667Phew.
>>16831647>mud is unnatural >twigs are unnatural I think you just surrendered.The line you think you keep crossing exists solely in your head.
>>16831670>667Dude's been peeping across the street for sure.
>>16831672Nowhere did I claim mud or sticks are unnatural. Human infrastructure is natural despite all the pollution. Nature is nature. Because for a lot of idiots the artificial is an unnatural abomination.
>Because for a lot of idiots the artificial is an unnatural abomination.I’d argue that whether or not something is ‘unnaturally’ abhorrent depends on how we humans go about it. But this just goes all the way back to >>16831507 where it is an admission of opinion. “I don’t like it, therefore bad!”. Authors like Tolkien had considered war and industry to be black magic, or unnatural, just from his time serving in the world war, for its ability to ruin nature and beauty in the world. But he did not pretend that there isn’t a good side to this, which is what his elves represent. We could be making more beautiful things in tune with nature. We’re focusing on hideous industry, not nature. We abuse nature. But it’s still nature.
>>16831683>dude machines le bad Tolkien was pure reddit
>>16831690…That’s not at all what he said. He said the abuses of machinery are akin to the abuses of sorcery. Abusing the world to dominate and subjugate. The elves use it too, in the form of artistic displays. Art is inseparable from artifice. It’s in the name. The black machines of Mordor are a dark side of this — they’re horrific to behold. It isn’t inspiring enchantment in a good way. It is very much a case of sufficiently advanced art/artifice is indistinguishable from magic. The elves don’t see their arts and crafts as magic. They don’t even see themselves as magical beings. The elves (and men and hobbits) look to the wizard Gandalf the same way men and hobbits look to the elves. Gandalf isn’t a wizard in Valinor. It’s a station. He’s a sage. He put on the pointy hat. He’s like Odin. His role is to be the humble guide. A higher being sent down by higher powers. There’s a lot of Prime Directive parallels in LotR.
>>16831698>dude it’s actually science fiction not fantasy No fuck off
>>16830683>>16831013>>16831507>>16831667what even is matter under this understanding.and more importanly what even is fictional under this understanding.
>>16831484That is nonsense, you most certainly can deduce both of those things completely because they don't exist independently from organisms. They are simply evolutionary mechanisms regarding cooperation. By "abstract" you just mean complex, and just because you might not be able to fully measure something right now doesn't mean it can't be in the future. I think you need better examples.
The concept of something being "unnatural" is usually just synonymous with it being dysgenic. In other contexts, supernatural would be the correct descriptor.
>>16832324Matter — is it anything with mass — or anything that matters?
>>16832390Which is just energy. Sweet, sweet potential energy.
Even space is a thing, or a fabric that we’re embedded in, and Einstein came dangerously close to believing in a variant of aether.
>>16830683yes
>>16830683Nothing material is real.
Light?
>>16834141Even massless particles like photons are real. Present.
Lol
>>16831484>We can deduce some material facets of them (oxytocin spikes in people that enjoy each other's company), but we can't capture the entire concept in the purely Material sphere.Yes we can. It all happens in the brain. Is the brain real? Listen, thoughts are linked to energy and the physical activity of the brain, so there is an infinitesimally small, immeasurable amount of mass associated with the energy and molecules involved in the electrochemical process of thinking. Even thoughts are material.
>>16831484Your idea of materialism is ass by the way. You deeply want there to be something a lot more special.
Gay.
>>16830683That's a great sculpture
>>16832390so what if something didn't had mass.
>>16830683>Replace material with real. Is it real? Then there’s something there to it. That’s material. To say something isn’t material is to say something isn’t real.Seems valid. You even can apply it to information: information is real because media on which it exists is material.
>>16831484>but we can't capture the entire concept in the purely Material sphereAre patterns of behavior not played out with material components? The relationship between atoms and honor/friendship is merely a few layers of emergent behavior stacked onto increasingly complex scales.
>>16842571There are massless particles, anon.
>>16842571>>16843970Light is not considered matter in the traditional sense because it has no "rest mass," but it can be thought of as a form of "matter" in the broader, modern physics sense because it is composed of particles (photons) that have energy and momentum. In classical physics, "matter" is defined by having mass and volume, which light does not. However, in modern quantum field theory, the universe is made of fields and their excitations, and light (electromagnetic field) is considered a form of matter because it has energy and momentum, and photons can be converted into other particles.
Ugh I hate words
>>16843398>abstract ideas are "patterns in matter"NTA but this is peak NPC thinking.
>>16844640>pure ad hom and no refutationITA and this is peak subhuman behavior
>>16844920To anyone with a mind, his idiotic proposition is self-refuting. I can entertain abstract concepts without any matter acting them out. Debating NPCs who aren't capable of abstract thought is subhuman behavior. Believing in """logical fallacies""" is sub-brown behavior.
>>16844933>I can entertain abstract concepts without any matter acting them outAnd yet, if you run a slug of lead through the matter that composes your brain, suddenly you can no longer entertain abstract concepts. Funny how that works.
>>16844968Funny how you immediately start chimping out with irrelevant nonsequiturs when the massive and obvious flaw in your idea is pointed out.
>>16844970Simple point: disrupt the matter's arrangement; disrupt the thoughtErgo the thought is emergent from the matter's arrangement
>>16844974>Simple point: disrupt the matter's arrangement; disrupt the thoughtI understand your trivial head canon but you're simply moves the goalpost. You initially asserted the substance of an idea is in the behavior of matter that composes the situations the idea describe. This is obviously retarded because the idea is formed by abstracting from any particular situation and any particular arrangement of matter. Once formed, it takes on a life of its own, even if nothing is physically playing it out.>Ergo the thought is emergent from the matter's arrangementDoesn't follow even if I allow you to move the goal post.
How is OP wrong? Humans try to compartmentalize and overcomplicate and simplest shit. Word wars ruin everything.
>>16847255>How is OP wrong?He's wrong because there's nothing "real" about the modern concept of matter on one hand and modern physics considers to be real a bunch of things that are explicitly non-material on the other. He couldn't be more wrong and retarded if he tried.
>>16847261>jargon God you suck
In the future we will be able to build using space
"matter" is just an idea you use to rationalize phenomena it's "real" sure, a real ideabut that's about it tbqhsome people don't need the conceptual training wheels anymore and approach metaphysics like mature adults
"truth" is not materialthat doesn't mean it isn't real"real" and "material" are not synonymousmaterialism is for retards
show me "matter" as a thing in itselfyou literally can'tall you can do is point at accidents of substance and say "this must mean tiny balls moving very fast are all that exist"the only real things you have personal access to are the sensations of perception and ideas conceived through the faculty of reasonnone of that is "matter"maybe "matter" is real in itself, but you literally cannot prove itnot being able to prove something doesn't mean it isn't real ask Heisenberg
>>16831647natural in that context means rather mundane. the opposite of natural is artificial. which has no absolute meaning, only for humans. everything that ever happened is natural since we're nature's result, thus our results are also natural. you cannot have unnatural things unless something pops here from somewhere else other than this universe, whatever that thing does, is not objectively natural. even though you could argue if that thing is possible, something coming here from another ... universe, even that is natural. since it's possible.thus unnatural becomes that which is not possible, under any circumstance.
>>16851778>maybe "matter" is real in itself, but you literally cannot prove itstatistically speaking it is kind of real, you know it on some fundamental level, else you wouldn't get out of the way of a fast approaching vehicle
>>16851778>>16852528just to be clear, in this context real meaning "of consequence"
Ah sweet a philosotard thread
>>16853312it's kinda tragic these threads go on for so long and not one mathfag exists who can just put an end to all this stupid meaningless nonsense by just mentioning calculus limits.
Physics DOES deal with what is real…. verifiably speaking….
>>16853827Is math real?
>>16855447Is math at the foundation of all reality, given it is presumably the foundation of physics?
>>16831645ALL EVIDENCE.
>>16830683is gravity real then?
>>16830683Is the truth that "2+2=4" contingent upon a material reality? Is there some arrangement of atoms which would make the statement "2+2=4" false in its fundamental meaning?
>>16857852>Is the truth that "2+2=4" contingent upon a material reality?Yes. Specifically, it is contingent upon there being more than one thing.
idealistic monism
>>16844640>>16843398well, if we explore that idea a bit, for example the concept of the number 1. it can be said to be a pattern in material components (possibly in all cases but depending on your level of assumptions), but what physical pattern is it exactly? how do you define pattern here? because the number of patterns the concept of the number 1 could take in material components is likely infinite. making the idea that it's purely material void imo.
Reality is existence and existence is reality; it is material; existential. Simple.
>>16830683Cool art.
>>16831645>Everything is natural or else it doesn't existReminder that this position is logically incompatible with causality, unless you suppose causality is some optional thing that applies only when you feel like it.
>>16869279Do you believe the principle of cause and effect applies to everything in nature?
>>16869287Is cause and effect real? Then it’s a part of nature. The simple fact is, if something is real, it happened. If something happened, then… well… use your brain.Also, it’s cute that you reported me, you overly sensitive melon.
>>16830683this isn't /lit/ retardtime to go back to pseud retard daycare >>>/lit/
>>16869395Anon. Scientists not agreeing on words is the bane of science. Semantics is rot. It’s an actual issue. Google Search: “Does matter without mass exist?”Google Answer: “Yes, retard. Photons are a thing.”Google Search: “Is light a form of matter?”Google Answer: “No, retard. Light has no mass!”Fucking hell.
>>16830683le funny bighead sculpture man
>>16830683So yesterday isn't real. Go next faggot
Bumpty dumpty
imagine being a midwit struggling with ontology lmao
>>16830683what about complex material like ceramic plasmonics
>>16831010cool strawman bro
Reality is reality. Real is real.
>>16830683if you use the term "material" to be synonymous with "real" then there's nothing anyone can say that'll change your mind. if you say that anything that isn't material itself is either not real, or they are made of things that are made of things that are ... made of things that are material, and are therefore material, then that's pure sophistry. whether or not there is such a thing as the supernatural is not something you can either prove or disprove through material. you'll take that to mean it's proven false, but please try to use that reasoning to disprove solipsism and get back to me. the best option right now is to keep an open mind to it, just like you might suggest a blind person to keep an open mind to the idea that colors exist, even if you can't prove it, or even explain it to him.>>16831484it's ultimately a matter of reddit atheists not understanding the implications of the words they use, or the ideas they believe in, and ultimately thinking that virtue signaling about pop-science and scientific consensus while not even understanding what science is, or what it aims to do, makes them appear smarter than they really are.
Was there a mass deletion of hundreds of posts across all boards or something? So many threads across multiple boards lost a lot of posts
>>16832332honor and friendship are "complex" like wizards in dnd are intelligent. a dumb person's understanding of how a smart person thinks is indistinguishable from magic. do you believe there is such a thing as emergent properties of some things, or do you believe that because everything that exists can be formed with things that are material, therefore everything is reducible to their material components?
>>16860393suppose there was nothing in the universe but a mind. this mind happens to not be made of any smaller components, but is capable of self-awareness anyways. it exists in the void otherwise. is this thing capable of conceiving of numbers that exceed 1, despite there not being 2 of anything in the universe it exists in, or not?
Read Kant, you fucking retards.
>>16883788There’s a butthurt/biased moderator deleting random posts across random boards for some unknown reason.
How is this even a question
No shit
>>16830683yep
4/3 net of color cuberesolution: 7
>>16868172Indeed. If I have some initial state the evolution of the system is not real, but it becomes real through causality. Meanwhile, the previous state is discard and becomes unreal.
HMMM
>>16835117But it renders them not "matter" in the definition used by "materialism".>>16838468>Is the brain real?The question is not whether the brain is "real", but whether the concept is a "material" thing, as opposed to whack-ass energy fields of quantum physics that only sometimes have mass. If the concept is only emergent in extremely high-order abstractions from numerous separate arrangements, then it cannot be meaningfully said to be a property of any particular substance, and thus is "immaterial" in the metaphysical philosophy that is being discussed.>>16847255Re-defining words generally held as distinct to synonymy is invalid logic in essentially all formal procedures for debate, because it destroys semantic breadth. The compartmentalization is vital to actually discuss things, hence the constant development of jargon meanings of words to increase their precision within a select context.>>16852527You're again insisting that meaning be prescribed according to constructions and reductions, which besides invalidity under basically any standards of debate is also a non-sequitur to discussing metaphysics. And insisting metaphysics are just a higher level of physics is not valid either, before you go down that retarded rabbit-hole again. Twisting your vocabulary into tautological knots is just turning yourself into a raving lunatic incapable of productive discourse.
>>16892390>But it renders them not "matter" in the definition used by "materialism".The problem is that the word “matter” has no formal definition.To some physicists, all fields/particles (what we call “particles” are, in fact, excitations of fields in quantum field theory) are forms of matter. That includes light (i.e., the electromagnetic field) as well as the quark and lepton fields of which ordinary stuff (e.g., chemical elements) are made of.Other physicists may apply a more restrictive definition of matter. For starters, they may only consider those particles that have rest mass. This would exclude light, but it would include, e.g., the Z boson of the weak interaction, which for all intents and purposes looks just like the photon of light, except that unlike photons, the Z-boson is very heavy.So then, other physicists might exclude bosons altogether, on account of the fact that the kind of structure that ordinary, everyday matter has (e.g., solids and liquids, chemical properties and reactions) exists in large part because the basic constituents are fermions, not bosons. (The important thing to know about these two fundamental types of particles is that to fermions, the exclusion principle applies: no two fermion can be in the exact same state. On the other hand, bosons love to be in the same state.)But even if we exclude bosons, we’re still left with some particles, such as heavy quarks, that only have an extremely fleeting existence: though they can be produced in particle accelerators, they vanish in a tiny fraction of a second. Is it really justifiable to call this stuff “matter”? Perhaps not… so some might define “matter” as stuff made of stable fermions, that is, the electron, the up and the down quark. This is the stuff from which ordinary atoms and molecules are made.
Now I emphasize, what we call “matter” is a human choice, a lexicographical choice. The important thing is not how we define the word but our understanding of the different properties of various subatomic fields. Whether or not we call the photon “matter” is irrelevant. Knowing that the photon is a spin-1 massless vector boson that interacts with charged leptons and quarks is actionable knowledge: it allows us to predict the outcome of physical reactions, and ultimately, design machines that do useful things.
>>16892404Just call matter anything which is made up of particles. Problem solved.
>>16892415Nope, scientists will still have slap fights.
>>16892424Only if they're too stupid to see that the problem has already been solved.
>>16892426So most scientists?
>>16892436Maybe, if you post evidence that most scientists argue about the 'definition of matter'
>>16892440Why matter, specifically? Nearly half of the scientific community can’t agree on what sex, or a woman, is. What makes you think it hasn’t already gotten far more pathetic, since then?
>>16892443Oh, you're one of those people.
>>16830683OP is only interesting insofar as he provides a glimpse into the broken minds of biological chatbots that can't distinguish between labels and concepts.
>>16892445Ah. It makes so much sense now. You CAN tell me what a woman is, right? Can you?
>>16892448Focusing on labels, or superficiality, to the detriment of the essence, or meaning, is a recipe for confusion. Disaster. Don’t do that. Focus first on the meaning, then the word.
>>16892451>biological chatbot displaying its confusion even more overtly nowWeird stuff.
>>16892454If a Christian says to you, after claiming their shit is no different, “no it’s a miracle, not magic”, you DON’T look at them like they’re retarded? Label obsessions are religious thinking.
>>16892455>biological chabot is primed by my prompt but incapable of reflecting on its own errors and relating my criticism to its nonsensical claim
>>16892404>The problem is that the word “matter” has no formal definition.In the context of metaphysics pertaining to the position of "materialism" the jargon is quite specific.>>16892443Because you posted a thread about "materialism", and for the debate to go anywhere forcing you to settle on a specific meaning instead of letting you keep prescribing synonymies is rather important.>>16892455Incorrect, being very particular about labels is vital to describe the distinctions between concepts, like those responsible for "magic" and "miracle" being different words in the first place. Even if only by peripheral connotation, that alone is reason enough to distinguish. Semantic precision is accomplished by complexity and context, not simplicity and generalization.
>>16892461>writing paragraphs of pseudbabble trying to """debate""" a biological chatbotDebate culture is a mental illness.
>>16892461Ah, so you ARE retarded to think that an apple is not an apple. “It’s green, so how could it be red?”. They’re BOTH apples. Superficial distinctions doesn’t make an apple not an apple. Different words for exposure logic (magic, wonder, miracles, etc) don’t make it not exposure logic. Good lord. Remove yourselves.
Matter is very much not formal.
>Ah, so you ARE retarded to think that an apple is not an apple. “It’s green, so how could it be red?”. They’re BOTH apples. Superficial distinctions doesn’t make an apple not an apple. Different words for exposure logic (magic, wonder, miracles, etc) don’t make it not exposure logic.>Good lord. Remove yourselves.See? This is the kind of response you get when you """debate""" bio-chatbots. And you do deserve it, anon.
>>16892467>Different words for exposure logic (magic, wonder, miracles, etc) don’t make it not exposure logic.But the words use in exposure logic have different connotations, and they have common use outside it that is simply illegible if you reduce all usage to "basically one thing" in exposure logic. It is you who is committed to a "war of words", and quite a destructive one because your prescriptions break intelligibility.
>>16892470All you’re doing is deflecting and resorting to name calling to avoid making an actual argument.
>>16892472Sorry. All hocus pocus, spirituality, religion, etc, has the same origin. It has the same recipe. You aren’t being a good scientist if you don’t recognize the causality of it all. The fact of the matter is, psychology is a form of engineering.
Google Search: “Does matter without mass exist?”Google Answer: “Yes, retard. Photons are a thing. God you’re stupid.”Google Search: “Is light a form of matter?”Google Answer: “No, you absolute fucking retard. Light has no mass!”If you claim light isn’t photons…
The Christian mass is indistinguishable from witchcraft and black magic. These people are literally going to some dead guy’s temple to partake of his flesh and blood. And if you don’t? You will burn in literal hellfire for all eternity. How is this not demonic? I’m glad religion is changing into “oh my science…”, even though the cancer will be the same, but with different words, all the same. It’s ALWAYS the same…Moronic apes think faith and dogma don’t infect the scientific community up its own ass. It does. Oh it fucking does. “Did you just disrespect high arch-scientist Fauci?”
Replace mental with real. Is it real? Then there’s something there to it. That’s mental. To say something isn’t mental is to say something isn’t real.Replace material with illusory. Is it material? Then there’s nothing to it. That’s illusory. To say something is material is to say something isn’t real.And let us not obsess with labels and semantics. This is a discussion about meaning. True, mental meaning. Not illusory, materialist meaning.
>>16892474>Sorry. All hocus pocus, spirituality, religion, etc, has the same origin. It has the same recipe.No, it does not, and no amount of insisting I reduce the specific contexts of faiths separated by millennia and thousands of miles to the barest threads of commonality will ever get me to agree. The precise details MATTER, no matter how much you bitch and moan about some nigh-solipsistic sense of "shared essences" or prescribe synonymy to long lists of words. Your constructed definitions are rejected, and without them your arguments are incoherent.>You aren’t being a good scientist if you don’t recognize the causality of it all.You're not being a scientist at all with all this, because there is no hypothesis, no testing criteria, no standard of disproof, absolutely fucking nothing of what actually won epistemology. You are simply a raving lunatic repeating the same few canned responses because, rather exactly like the worst sort of god-in-the-gaps Christian, you cannot stand things being truly unknown.
>>16892478“If you don’t take the vax you will suffer a fate worse than death!” (having your job fire you in ‘such intrepid times’) Kekaroo
>>16892480>he thinks every thought he has isn’t physical or real Hm. Retard hours.
>>16892481>No, it does notYes, it does. If things like mystery and wonder and horror make religion, magic, etc, then ignorance is the greatest magic of all.Anything we don’t know is everything else out there. Ignorance outnumbers truth. The stars are still stars no matter how ignorantly you interpret them, in any endless ways. In the absence of truth we make artistic ignorance to explain it. Then propagate it. Ignorance IS a form of art. Magic IS a form of art. Religion IS a form of art. It’s ALL art. It’s all quite simple. You’re being pretentious by assuming it’s more than that. If you can’t explain something simply enough, you don’t understand it well enough. Einstein also said that.
>>16892481>You're not being a scientist at all with all this, because there is no hypothesis, no testing criteriaThis comes after the assumption that something is caused. To deny that religion is caused, or to deny what it is caused by, is being a poor scientist. Psychology is the softest science of all, though.
>>16892483The point appears to be highlighting that you make no actual argument, just empty assertions redefining what words "actually" mean, creating a tautological knot where anyone who accepts your meanings cannot argue against your conclusions. Which is another grave violation of ACTUAL science, a sneering refusal of any possibility of falsification.For "material" to be meaningful to distinguish the nature of existence, there must be a logically valid outgroup. For "nature" to hold antonyms, there must be things it does not include. For "literally" to be used to mean outright contradictory things, words must have multiple definitions.>>16892489>Yes, it does.No, they don't, and no amount of insisting otherwise will get anyone to budge. You have to actually go through the steps of semantic analysis to show that their usage overlaps to the point of synonymy, not just insist that because the underlying truth-value is similar they've got to be the same thing. Words routinely refer to untrue and non-real things, and this is very important to the logical operations of science.>>16892492>This comes after the assumption that something is caused.As a thing distinguishing science from empiricism more generally. Your prescription that causality be synonymous with science is rejected, and without it your argument is incoherent. Stop pushing your own meanings to the exclusion of common use.
>>16892483>he thinks every thought he has isn’t mental or real Hm. Retard hours.
>>16892496Anon. You type a lot of words that amount to absolutely nothing. I’m not taking you seriously for the simple fact that you seem to think that shit like religion just starts out of nowhere. You are not historically literate. Therefore you are not my equal.
>>16892496>and no amount of insisting otherwise will get anyone to budgeWe’re not your army /tg/ touristGo back
>>16892496>Words routinely refer to untrue and non-real things, and this is very important to the logical operations of science.That they’re even words at all implies they have a basis in reality, actually. Even the non-existent dragon is based on “oh my god it’s a beast”, which is a very real concept. The gods? Forces of nature. To be godly. Nature is godly. Even fiction is built on logic.
>>16892496>Stop pushing your own meanings to the exclusion of common use.WaitIs your argument that common use trumps proper use? What the fuck So do you think fascism is just violence? Because that’s the most common use of the word nowYou’re a liberal, aren’t you? “Words matter! Gender is different from sex!” How about no?God I hate tourists
>>16892514>trumpsYou just triggered them.
>>16892496Well someone just pointed out the scientists sometimes don’t agree on definitions so I don’t know what to tell you exactly. Disagreements happen. That’s not NOT science.
>>16892509>You type a lot of words that amount to absolutely nothingSays the one who's arguments revolve around prescribing constructed re-definitions of words according to reductions.>I’m not taking you seriously for the simple fact that you seem to think that shit like religion just starts out of nowhere.How does stating that I insist on recognizing the disparate contexts entail this?>You are not historically literate.Says the one who apparently thinks Islam and Christianity are basically the same thing because they come from basically the same source, to the willful refusal to recognize all the differences in when, where, and how they started.>>16892511>That they’re even words at all implies they have a basis in reality, actually. Incorrect, the vast majority of history having very bad knowledge of the world means that a great deal of most languages center on phenomena with a negative truth-value. Unless by "basis in reality" you're again blowing out from any appreciable >Even fiction is built on logic.And logic is not confined to the real.>>16892514>Is your argument that common use trumps proper use?No, it is that proper use does not ERASE common use the way you insist it does, but rather exists in parallel. The retards screeching about any use of state force they don't like being fascism require their use of the word be recognized and understood for their statements to be legible, even as the scant few who dig into the writings of certain early 20th century Italians only use it for an incredibly specific political movement. The contradictions and ambiguities must be cleared by establishing definitions for a particular discourse or careful consideration of the context of usage.
>>16892522Okay so you really are just a retarded liberal having a legit freak out over being bested with common sense; something that pisses you off because for so long you’ve thought you had a chokehold over words like the tyrant cunt that you are
>>16892522>Says the one who apparently thinks Islam and Christianity are basically the same thing because they come from basically the same sourceReligion cuck detected; no one made that claim here>And logic is not confined to the real.A phenomenally retarded statement
>>16892522I don’t think he was making the claim that Islam and Christianity are the same, just that they both have the same roots, in the sense that it they started with prophets attempting to explain the mystical. They both allegedly conversed with the ineffable. That’s straight up mysticism. Mystery. Faith is placing your trust in the mysteries. Faith isn’t veracity. That’s just my perspective.
>>16892525The only one mad about not getting a chokehold over words here is you, given you're the only one actually rejecting the validity of other meanings. Yes, it generates an assload of semantic ambiguity, but the answer is not to invent a new set of definitions according to profoundly absurd equivocations, it's to settle on a specific meaning for the context. Both are jargon, but the former leaves adherents uncomprehending of past usage where the latter permits arbitrarily many archaic meanings be learned, accepted, and applied in their proper context, and thus it is the latter that far better fulfils the need for communication.>>16892526>Religion cuck detected; no one made that claim hereThis certainly appears to be attempting to reduce away any logical distinction between particular religions:>>16892489>In the absence of truth we make artistic ignorance to explain it. Then propagate it. Ignorance IS a form of art. Magic IS a form of art. Religion IS a form of art. It’s ALL art.Particularly in combination with all the other nonsensical drivel that different words are actually one thing.
>>16892532He’s saying religion is a form of art; how the fuck is that a bad thing? It’s about the only good thing about religion; sheer art; sheer imagination Everything we do is technically an art form
>>16892535>He’s saying religion is a form of art; how the fuck is that a bad thing?As part of the same line of argumentation that insists "matter", "real", and "physical" are synonymous, it appears to be more of reduction by equivocation then prescribing definitions constructed from the results of such sophistry.
>>16892537>"matter", "real", and "physical" are synonymousTo the hard realist, they absolutely are more or less synonymous; like, this is so stupid on your part to argue otherwise
>>16892540It's not stupid, it's insisting that the meanings of the words continue to include the ones required to understand the epistemological and metaphysical philosophy that got us to this point.
>>16892543No one looks at it that way; I suggest you stop projecting
Materialism won because everything is made out of particles (matter). This is irrefutable. The debate ends here. No more worthless philosophical babbling required.
>Materialism wonIt "won" so hard the scientific community ditched at the beginning of the last century in favor of cope like Physicalism.
>>16892581That's a nice fanfiction, but completely irrelevant to anything. When do you plan to release it?
>it's completely irrelevant that physicists found materialism untenable in the face of modern physics>heckin' materialism still won
>>16892588Meanwhile, in the real world, physics proved that everything is made out of particles (matter) and thus proved materialism.
>physics proved that everything is made out of particlesIt's another episode of nu-/sci/ straight up denying modern physics.
^This fanfiction author hasn't even heard of particle physics apparently.
Even if something isn’t made up of particles, it’s still there. It exists. Not the particles. The thing. Space is a thing.
>>16892595>Space is a thing.Spacetime you mean. Spacetime is just more particles - gravitons.
>>16892599Time isn’t real, silly. It’s just an avenue for space to take/progress.
>>16892600Sorry, that's just more of your fanfiction, not at all related to the real world.
>>16892602Time. Is an illusion. You have already taken a shit. You just don’t know it.
>>16892603I think humanities majors should be forced to take more science classes.
>>16892595By failing to shit and piss on him and making it sound like it's some kind of "debate", you are emboldening the cretin to dump more of its "intellectual" payload. You are the problem. If everyone gave the cretin the correct treatment, the cretin would go back to spreddit.
^Lol, this cucklord is too afraid to even quote me.
>>16892590Incorrect, physics is still not settled on to interpret quantum waveform collapse in relation to matter versus energy categorization.>>16892594It being a sub-field entails that it does not, in fact, contain literally all that can be known as your arguments suggest.
>>16892637>interpret quantum waveform collapseThis is pseudo problem/philosophy, not a physics problem, and is completely irrelevant to the scientific fact that everything is made of particles. >in relation to matter versus energy categorization.?>entails that it does not, in fact, contain literally all that can be knownNo, it doesn't entail that, but I never made that claim anyway.
>>16892637>physics is still not settled on to interpret quantum waveform collapse in relation to matter versus energy categorizationIf you're going to argue with this scientifically illiterate cretin unironically, at least rub its nose in the fact that fields are considered real and fundamental in the Standard Model. They're not made of particles. They're not made of anything. Particles themselves are considered to be excitations in quantum fields.
>>16892482he definitely sounds vaxxed.
>>16892649You should stop lurking or grow enough balls to reply to me properly, mr. cucklord.
Exactly, this is way any kind of math is a waste of time. Where is "1", or a "derivative" in nature?
Why even become a physicist if you’re just going to hate on the physical?
>>16892657Good question. I think a lot of physicists become physicists as a form of coping about real life.
>>16892581>>16892588>>16892592This does not belong on /sci/
>>16830683Bingo.
Stop being sensible.
>>16830683Yes.
There is no such thing as philosophy free science.
>>16830683The irony is that esotericists and scientists pre-Einstein (and I do mean both pre-Einstein) understood that better than modern, mainstream scientists.
>>16899656Based
>>16899656There was a time when poking at the mysteries of nature was seen as a divine and magical pursuit. Oh how soulless and unappreciative we’ve become.
>>16830683I look like this and feel like this
>>16905586 You're the [s4s] poster aren't you
