/lit/ - Literature

>>15746247
>are both true
proof?

>>15746247
Perspectives are subjective and not subject to refutation.
Therefore you are right.

>>15746247
I literally don't give a shit

>materialism
ok. what is matter then? Explain it to me. I want a good theory here, no self-referential or circular reasoning
>Determinism
Okay, but what does it imply?

>>15746247
But they are both mutually exclusive?

>>15746290
This.
/thread

they are both false but some people are determined to be both

And that's a good thing

>>15746247
No. Consciousness is irreducible to material components.

>>15746274
>>15746282
>>15746290
Cope.

>>15746329
>ok. what is matter then?
Bosons and Fermions.

>Okay, but what does it imply?
The causal closure of the physical.

No sense in you. I discard you off my hand then.

>>15746511
>bosons and fermions
very good. But, I want a theory which does not simply name the smallest possible particles. All scientists know that there are differences in scale from the most microscopic to macroscopic, via "emergent properties" - that is to say, real patterns of interaction from within the microscopic world that cannot be explained by them. Think, there is more than one boson and fermion in this world, isn't there? What good is to know what one boson does only if there are an incalculably high number of them all interacting? What can you actually predict with materialist ontology? What beliefs, theories, or imaginations can you say fore sure are not true on account of materialist ontology? Knowledge is only as good as it is useful, because its use is the confirmation of its completeness.

>>15746247
You also objectively cannot prove them right, because as Heidegger said, an objection to a metaphysical statement is still metaphysics, and as such a rejection of metaphysics is still a metaphysics.

>>15746580
Very appreciable post; though you could have taken a more direct route in the argumentation that would have pushed the Op much more, you decided to be instructive in easily giving of leeway, very nice.

>>15746580
>very good. But, I want a theory which does not simply name the smallest possible particles. All scientists know that there are differences in scale from the most microscopic to macroscopic, via "emergent properties" - that is to say, real patterns of interaction from within the microscopic world that cannot be explained by them.
Not sure what exactly your objection is here.

>Think, there is more than one boson and fermion in this world, isn't there?
No. Ultimately there is just spacetime and its properties -- namely, the bosonic and fermionic fields defined over it. For instance, there is not more than one electron. There is one electron field that permeates spacetime. Same applies to all elementary 'particles' (which, in layman's terms, are actually fields).

>What good is to know what one boson does only if there are an incalculably high number of them all interacting?
There aren't. That's not how it works.

>What can you actually predict with materialist ontology?
Every observable event that can be reliably predicted, can be predicted on the basis of a purely 'materialist ontology'.

>What beliefs, theories, or imaginations can you say fore sure are not true on account of materialist ontology?
Any belief system that contradicts the results of observation.

>Knowledge is only as good as it is useful, because its use is the confirmation of its completeness.
You can define the term "Knowledge" however you like. The universe doesn't care about what is useful to you.

OP is either baiting or, god forbid, an angloid. I do not lead by example, when I claim that one does well to pay him no mind.

>>15746247
Determinism and materialism are incompatible because causes are immaterial

>>15746247
>materialism
t. p-zombie

>>15746498

>>15746247
> trying to prove circularly-reasoned axioms
Man, summer sucks.

>>15746329
>what is matter?
everything
what are the implications of determinism?
everything

>>15746247
You can know they are wrong while still understanding that there is no way to prove it with 100% certainty. Yet the fact that they cannot be proven wrong does not mean that they can be proven correct either.

>>15747487
>causes are immaterial
So if my material foot in your material arse didn't cause you to scream, what did?

>>15746511
False. Matter is made up of chicken and watermelon.