Nothing means anything, we're all just transient chemical complexity

[Anonymous No.11976343]

The rules of the universe only allow for momentary chemical complexity, before the next cascade failure.
The fermi paradox can be explained by this. Technological aliens have existed and will exist, but they're too far away in space and/or time, so contact is unlikely.
How long do you think we have left before our final collapse? 50 years? 100? Will it be oil scarcity? Some virus? social unstability due to poverty? food scarcity caused by global warming and overpopulation? A random big ass asteroid? Somethin we don't even know about yet that could happen?
I don't know, but one thing is certain, the next collapse will be the last.

[Anonymous No.11977133]

[Anonymous No.11977143]

>>11976343
You can't have chemicals without math so your chemical/material determinism is incorrect

[Anonymous No.11978440]

>>11976343
Nothing is certain and we dont know how far consciousness can go. Maybe it can take this universe to another level.

[Anonymous No.11978468]

Imagine being this much of a materialist cuck

[Anonymous No.11978485]

>>11976343
Unlikely but not impossible.

[Anonymous No.11978487]

>>11977133
/thread

[Anonymous No.11978545]

>>11977133
fpbp

[Anonymous No.11978560]

>>11978468

They are brainwashed pretty much by television

[Solivagus No.11978686]

>>11976343
I like knowing that the universe runs off people's existential crisis, kind of like that Rick and Morty episode: The Ricks Must Be Crazy.

>Chemical homeostasis singularity when?

[Anonymous No.11979026]

>>11976343

physical reality has to correspond to cognitive-perceptual syntax to be perceivable/intelligeble

cognitive-perceptual syntax is the syntax of the meta-language of reality

if some physical process were not perceivable/intelligeble, it could not be ascribed the attribute "real", and thus would not exist

metaphysics-free metaphysical naturalism doesn't really make any sense

[Anonymous No.11979146]

meaning is meaningless, material object tries to make statements about itself but always fails due to implicit parallax, keep vibrating, nigger nigger nigger nigger n^i * g(e)r

[Anonymous No.11980115]

>>11977133
Noone said there's no value to complexity, but that complexity is transient. Everything crumbles eventually.

[Anonymous No.11980123]

>>11979146
this

>>11979026
Yes

[Anonymous No.11980128]

>>11978468
>>11978560
You can't be anything else than materialistic. Anything else is self-delussion.

[Anonymous No.11980244]

>>11980128

I'd say that metaphysical naturalism is self-refuting. Naturalism doesn't explain the connection between brain activity and the mental realm (It just conveniently ignores the problem). Yet, scientific, naturalistic knowledge depends on logic and mathematics, neither of which have any physical extension. Even the claim "materialism is true" uses logic. Logic is not matter, so then it's not real right? And since it's not real, you cannot make any claims that conforms to logic. Thus your claim is just a string of air vibrations or ink blots on a piece of paper or pixels on a screen. There is no meaning behind it

[Anonymous No.11980286]

>>11980244

wrong.

[Anonymous No.11980381]

>>11978686
That's my favorite episode

[Anonymous No.11980702]

>>11980244
Logic is what works. It's tested continously and it's a proven core theory. It is a theory nonetheless. If we humans ever come to find it has flaws, we will explore them. Abstract ideas don't exist per se but still are useful to describe what does exist.

[Anonymous No.11980725]

>>11980702

logic is not a physical theory. All scientific theories require logic and most require mathematics. Mathematics and logic does not depend on science (on observational testing and experimentation). You are trying to smuggle the formal, mental domain into the physical one, without actually presenting an argument for why logic and math is embedded in the physical universe and not for example the other way around

explain to me how you can physically test 2 + 2 = 4 or A or -A experimentally? (pro-tip: you can't)

[Anonymous No.11980754]

>>11980702

You have to accept that there are things the scientific method cannot touch, such as:

mathematical truth

rare and unpredictable phenomena that cannot be easily captured by microscopes, telescopes and other scientific instruments

things that are “too universal” and therefore indiscernable, like the homogeneous medium of which reality consists

things that are “too subjective”, like human consciousness, human emotions, and so-called “pure qualities” or qualia

[Anonymous No.11980767]

>>11976343

It's like retards like you forget that meaning comes from the safe materialism chemical complexity you are talking about, it is part of it. You can be a materialist, and still live a meaningful life

[Anonymous No.11980775]

>>11980725
Logic is based on observations, if you had no senses how could you make any implications about anything? How would you observe that if 1+1=2 then 2+2=4?

[Anonymous No.11980794]

>>11980725
>Mathematics and logic does not depend on science (on observational testing and experimentation).
They do.
>Logic is what works. It's tested continously and it's a proven core theory.
If we had different results we would have different logic.

>logic is not a physical theory. All scientific theories require logic and most require mathematics.
>it's a proven core theory
Yes, lower level theories require higher level theories. However I don't see a reason to label them as physical or nonphysical / metaphysical? Those are all just abstract tools that we use when contacting with reality.

> without actually presenting an argument for why logic and math is embedded in the physical universe and not for example the other way around
I have no idea what's "behind the curtains" of our universe. I would very much like to find out why our world works the way it does. As we witness it there are certain rules this world follows and we call them logic.
It may very well be so that what we consider material is just a part of a fractal, a mathematical string, a kind of logic that is just purely information. But that logic/math, that structure made of information would not be the same thing as our logic/math which are just theories.

>explain to me how you can physically test 2 + 2 = 4
Just add four sticks together.

[Anonymous No.11980803]

>>11980754
Nah. That's just defetist's talk.
You have to accept that our understanding is limited so you can not predict how much more we will understand. Especially about human consciousness. The way many treat it as magic is laughable. Even more so than thinking it would be simple to understand.

[Anonymous No.11980811]

[Anonymous No.11980822]

>>11980775

even by asking a question, you are assuming logic is valid, since if not, it would be impossible to answer the question. Logic cannot be a sub-theory in physics when all of physics is embedded in logical language

you don't observe that 2 + 2 is equal to 4, it is already assumed when you begin to count stuff. 2 means 1+1, 3 means 2+1, etc. You're assuming math works if you count, there is no way around it. It's not derived from observation

[Anonymous No.11980828]

>>11980803

> that is just defeatist' talk

not really. Just because something isn't touchable by experiment or observation doesn't mean we cannot gain knowledge of it. It just means that we must get that knowledge another way

[Anonymous No.11980833]

>>11980828
Here we go. Tell us about that "another way".

[Anonymous No.11980863]

>>11980833

it would have to be analytic I guess, like math and logic

[Anonymous No.11980910]

>>11980822
Everything we do is based on assumption, that doesn't mean it doesn't work based on our assumptions. My assumption is the value or definition given to the symbols 1, + and =. Based on those assumptions and my observation of the world around me I can do math and physics. It doesn't mean logic is a subcategory of physics, it means logic abstracts deeper than physics.

Physics asks what is matter made of, logic allows you to ask that question and create a model to attempt to answer it, it has nothing to do with right or wrong or what works and doesn't.

Physics involves itself with the consistency btn what we observe and what we can predict, logic allows you to interpret any meaning, physical, mathematical or computational heck even emotional out of what you observe.

[Anonymous No.11980942]

>>11980244
>

Energy is expended whenever logic is expressed

[Anonymous No.11981066]

>>11980942

yes, it is

the way I look at it is that reality has a metalanguage M that maps cognitive-perceptual syntax (i.e. logic and mathematics) L to physical observables (the concrete universe we inhabit) U

M: L <--> U
M = (M ⊃ L ⊃ U)

in L there exists potentials of expressions that are outside of U, but potentials can only be expressed in U, and U cannot cointain contradictory expressions, while L contains a superposition of contradictory expressions (that are still formulated correctly within the L-syntax)

tldr: logic and mathematics are valid without reference to physical observables, but can only be expressed in physical observables

the two are related by a more fundamental mapping, a metalanguage (of the ultimate degree) (which they are both embedded in as sub-languages)

[Anonymous No.11981087]

>>11981066
>logic and mathematics are valid without reference to physical observables, but can only be expressed in physical observables
I don't think so. You can't even do logic or math without physical observation. It's like saying that a rock is capable of contemplating math. We can use logic because of what we observe. Anything that can be said about anything came from observation. Now you may not observe what I observe, some even claim to observe magic, but logic is nothing without perception, which comes from observation of our reality.

[Anonymous No.11981105]

>>11981087

observation is never theory-free. An observation is an interpretation. Theories are logical sub-languages. Without logic, nothing could even be perceived, nothing would be intelligeble. So logic is in that sense prior to physics, not the other way around. Either you see x or you don't.

for instance, let's say you tried to verify that the law of excluded middle works. You roll a die on the table and test if its either 6 or not-6. When you look at the number of the die and ask the question "is it either 6 or not-6", it would be impossible to answer the question without already assuming binary logic. The answer is either yes (1) or no (0). So you cannot building any kind of theory without using logic.

you're putting the cart before the horse. Without logic, there is no perception or intellect, and without those there is no observation and no theory

[Anonymous No.11981141]

>>11981105
You are trivializing what observation is. Plants observe but they can't do logic or math, they react to water, gravity, light, etc based on stored info in the chemical molecules ala DNA. We do more, we interpret the observation using logic because we can observe more. So no, logic isn't needed for observation, it's only needed when we interpret observation.

And before you say that plants do math or biology, they don't, we use logic to interpret what they do as math/bio, there's a difference.

You could also say that logic exists in the structures of reality but without observation we wouldn't know that.

[Anonymous No.11981174]

>>11981141
>You could also say that logic exists in the structures of reality but without observation we wouldn't know that.

We can't even be sure of this because the logic we use to interpret reality maybe an approximation to something more elegant.

[Anonymous No.11981197]

>>11981141

everything you think you know about the physical universe are theories. Theories are logical constructs. If you have an illogical theory, it is wrong by default. Observation is interpretation of stimuli within a theoretical context. You cannot know anything about the physical world without using logic to begin with. Without logic, you're theories can make no claim to having a truth value

in other words, you cannot say anything intelligeble about the world without saying it in a logical way. This means that everything that can be talked about fruitfully must have logical structure. If the physical world is a meaningful construct, it must have logical structure

> you could also say that logic exists in the structures of reality but without observation we wouldn't know that

I don't disagree with that. I do say that logic exists, and without observation of the world I wouldn't know that. And yet, without logical structure, there would be nothing to observe at all

[Anonymous No.11981245]

>>11981197

to make this a bit more concrete and managable:

take the theory that brain activity causes mental content. It seems almost self-evident in the light of the modern acumulation of evidence. In the past, it didn't seem obvious that thinking had to do with the brain because they knew so much less about biology. Yet, all we really can objectively observe is brain activity and the behavior of the person with the brain activity. Nowhere do we observe thoughts, emotions, qualia in the brain. We cannot observe logic og math in the brain of the person, only braincells and chemicals, and patterns of activity. Yet, science depends on logical and math, which the theory thinks only exists in human minds. So we are taking for granted that which the theory is trying to prove by trying to proving the theory. You must begin by assuming the mind exists, independent of the content of physical reality, or you just fail by default

[Anonymous No.11981301]

>>11981197
But we also can't know whether the structure of reality we observe and interpret is really the way we see it. There might be phenomena we can't observe and therefore, we don't know whether logic is even there to speak of. So observation is more fundamental in that it reveals reality without necessarily assuming that it has a logical structure. If our brains create color, what else do/don't they create, only advanced observation can reveal this, previous usage of logic led us to believe that color existed as we saw it.