@Deleted User
Can you prove that? Is a materialistic framework more verifiable than a subjective one, where the only thing you're ever actually able to verify is your own direct experiential perception?

@Deleted User
Yes.

'Framework; is not necessary. Nor is verifiableness. If it were necessary for existance I would correctly attribute it to subjectivity.

Do I have to verify that the air is breathable?

@Deleted User
Logically speaking you can't prove that atoms and the void are all that exists when your mind is actually all you really have. I argue that it's not matter or energy that is the most fundamental, but information; defined simply as whatever subjective pattern that is.

@Deleted User
It's already self-evident as verification.

none of you are ubermensch, get out

Lel Nietzsche's Will to Power

My Willy has Power

Nietzche's guide to picking up women

This world: a monster of energy, without beginning, without end; a firm, iron magnitude of force that does not grow bigger or smaller, that does not expend itself but only transforms itself; as a whole, of unalterable size, a household without expenses or losses, but likewise without increase or income; enclosed by "nothingness" as by a boundary; not something blurry or wasted, not something endlessly extended, but set in a definite space as a definite force, and not a sphere that might be "empty" here or there, but rather as force throughout, as a play of forces and waves of forces, at the same time one and many, increasing here and at the same time decreasing there; a sea of forces flowing and rushing together, eternally changing, eternally flooding back, with tremendous years of recurrence, with an ebb and a flood of its forms; out of the simplest forms striving toward the most complex, out of the stillest, most rigid, coldest forms toward the hottest, most turbulent, most self -contradictory, and then again returning home to the simple out of this abundance, out of the play of contradictions back to the joy of concord, still affirming itself in this uniformity of its courses and its years, blessing itself as that which must return eternally, as a becoming that knows no satiety, no disgust, no weariness: this, my Dionysian world of the eternally self -creating, the eternally self- destroying, this mystery world of the twofold voluptuous delight, my "beyond good and evil," without goal, unless the joy of the circle is itself a goal; without will, unless a ring feels good will toward itself--do you want a name for this world? A solution for all its riddles? A light for you, too, you best-concealed, strongest, most intrepid, most midnightly men?-- This world is the will to power— and nothing besides! And you yourselves are also this will to power— and nothing besides!

wiat

"monster"

"energy"?

Monster Energy?

Thanks for the sophistry, Descartes. You need language to express that, firstly. Language is formed by mechanisms in the body which are materialistic realities. The first thing you encounter in your mind is not the first thing only the most present.

I thought you weren't aloud to advertise sports drinks here

@Deleted User
@danman1950
That's an excerpt from Friedrich Nietzsche's Will to Power.

fuck you guys, i'm masterbating in my barrel

@Tʜᴇ Sᴛᴜᴅʏ ᴏғ Cʜᴀɴɢᴇ#1345 I know I wasted 4 years of my life studying that shit.

@Deleted User
Whoa. Is that what philosophy really is like? Armchair ramblings?

@Deleted User nope you did it wrong, you fap in a barrel.that's how you really do it

@Tʜᴇ Sᴛᴜᴅʏ ᴏғ Cʜᴀɴɢᴇ#1345 Yes. RUN.

@Deleted User
Thanks for the advice. xD

so was nietzsche a hack?

@Mawk
If you read many of his writings, he appears as such.

how come?

@Mawk
He was incredibly pretentious and speculative when formulating his existential philosophy. He didn't really formalize it, but he did conceive of ideas that were formulated previously.

ty

@Tʜᴇ Sᴛᴜᴅʏ ᴏғ Cʜᴀɴɢᴇ#1345 So where does language come from? Subjectivity?

@Zielgerät
My philosophy doesn't exclusively reduce down to solipsism. It's a more developed framework of idealism where, in this case, language would originate from systems of information. This is an epistemic realism position, although there are many variations of it that deal with the underlying metaphysics. The _basic_ idea is that the World is an interface. Call it a simulation if you may.

Sounds fancy but what is the difference between 'systems of information' and material reality?

Instead of Bit from It, you get It from Bit. This concept reduces all of material reality to code that could potentially be replicated on a quantum computer, and theoretical physicists today are using this Information-Theoretic approach as a replacement for this previous spacetime-centric worldview, which was significantly more constrained. They've managed instead to reduce things to a more basic level, where networks and relations are actually more fundamental than the objects they are allegedly derived from.

Why go to that effort? Do you enjoy being a special snowflake?

@Deleted User
Well no. This is simply a novel view of the world that could actually yield more fruit than our current materialistic framework that puts everything in a box rather than seeing nature as it is. I plan on learning more about physics through this approach, as it's what many physicists have explained could lead to the Theory of Everything, reconciling quantum mechanics with general relativity. Our current framework isn't capable of doing that; but this one aims to do so: http://www.quantumgravityresearch.org/publications

This seems like optimistic preference rather than a 'denial of diamat'. Can you summerize?

We can finish there.

20th century is materialism.
21st century is informational realism.

I leave it at that, lol.

I don't see the dichotomoy.

Both are scientific.