Contrary views on Quantum Mechanics
- This topic has 23 replies, 6 voices, and was last updated 10 years, 9 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
twc, your usual garrulous and evasive response to my questions, about the philosophy of science and your ideological stance, has been noted.If you're not interested, why participate in a thread asking those questions?This has happened over several threads, now. I'm unfortunately losing patience, having tried a number of times to engage with you, and being disappointed. Any exchange has to take place on the basis of a conversation, not a lecture. 'Two-way' means questions and answers, not long-winded irrelevant soliloquies.
DJP wrote:LBird wrote:It's just strange, isn't it, that comrades should use the term 'materialism', which Marx rejected…Did he? References please.
What's the point, DJP? I've done this all before for you, and you ignore them.
LBird wrote:What's the point, DJP? I've done this all before for you, and you ignore them.All that 'materialism' means, in the philosophical sense, is that "all that exists is physical stuff", clearly Marx never rejected such a view once he accepted it. No quotes can be found to show the otherwise…
LBird, so you are the one who is losing patience! I've tolerated without a murmur your garallous attacks on Marx, Engels, the materialist conception of history, the Socialist Party position, and science through post after post after post in thread after thread after thread.Finally, you peremptorily demanded of me, for undisclosed personal reasons, that I forthwith disclose my own personal position on quantum interpretation — as if that mattered in the scheme of things — something I had studiously avoided doing because I'm simply not competent to judge it at the appropriate level of discourse.Neverheless to placate your arrogant demand of me, I obliged you, partly in order to assuage what could only be conceived as your petulance.And then you rewarded my reply with the opportunity to mount an attack on my abandoning of determinism, or some such accusation. Your avowed two-way conversation descended into a predetermined dog fight.So I responded by firing a preemptive shot across your piratical bows before you hijacked the thread along your familiar, familiar, familiar lines, for which you display endless patience.Please tell me how have I misrepresented your well-documented [and long-remembered] position, that you've iterated, reiterated and re-reiterated over post after post after post?Now you, LBird, must respond in turn to my peremptory demand:Show me where I misrepresent your position.
DJP wrote:All that 'materialism' means, in the philosophical sense, is that "all that exists is physical stuff", clearly Marx never rejected such a view once he accepted it. No quotes can be found to show the otherwise…Sounds similar to the 'pragmatism' expressed by YMS on the other thread, DJP.Matter is tangible. And consciousness is god.
twc wrote:…attacks on Marx, Engels…You really must try and read what other comrades write, twc!I defend Marx from Engels, on issues of science.I don't 'attack' Marx on this issue, and I don't 'attack' Engels on issues other than this.Must be difficult for the religious worldview of the adherents of 'Marx-Engels'. The inseparable nature of Father and Son; I suppose Lenin is your Holy Ghost, to complete the Trinity?
LBird wrote:DJP wrote:All that 'materialism' means, in the philosophical sense, is that "all that exists is physical stuff", clearly Marx never rejected such a view once he accepted it. No quotes can be found to show the otherwise…Sounds similar to the 'pragmatism' expressed by YMS on the other thread, DJP.Matter is tangible. And consciousness is god.
Pragmatism (in philosophy of science) is a standard of "truth". It means other things in other contexts…Materialism / dualism / idealism are metaphysical assumptions about the way things are.Lets not mix meanings…
You misrepresent me, and world socialists. All world socialists repudiate Lenin and communism.Your erstwhile communist comrades obsequiously worshipped at Lenin's feet, and you have only partly extricated yourself from his long shadow, still fighting for our benefit the battles you had to fight to gain your freedom from Leninism/communism's pernicious anti-socialist influence, but ignorantly assuming that world socialism, that historically long preceded Russian communism, ever partook of that noxious elitist position, but always and at all times opposed that position, right from the start in 1904.To repeat — the SPGB and world socialism never ever embraced Leninism/communism at all. Period.The SPGB and world socialists always opposed Leninism and communism, and were violently, often maliciously, opposed by it. The devious Leninists [communists] were such an easy theoretical target because their political stance shifted and turned at the behest of fund-controlling and policy-formulating mother Russia, in the interest of the thugs in charge of dictating mother Russia.But in many instances they proved a dangerous physical target, because their leaders were fed by ambition and money, as Marx put it "the most violent, mean, malignant passions of the human breast".That's my take on your smart-alec response.You apparently know little about the disgusting scramble of the first-generation of erstwhile western communist leaders, seeking political power, willing to ride roughshod on the backs of western workers in the process, eager to share in the coffers and reap the plaudits, before reaping the disgrace, of their soviet overlords.I despise them all, in the historical scheme of things. I despise their anti-socialist descendants, who won't free themselves from the long enduring clutches of their soviet heritage, and still hold society back by having hijacked socialism in their disgusting name.These people may apparently remain your comrades, but they can never ever be mine.To me, communists are enemies of socialism. We are hostile to them. See SPGB clause 7.Don't you ever try this pernicious ploy again!You, your tactics, and your arrogance betray the lingering hallmarks of your Leninist/communist heritage — something that I detected and noted precisely on our first encounter with you. You came to set the Party straight. You knew best.By your mark, I knew you then and I know you now. Now, answer my reciprocating peremptory demand without prevarication.
I'm not sure I know what you're talking about anymore, twc.I'd like a discussion, as I've said before, but you seem to prefer ranting at ghosts of your own creation. If you think I'm a Stalinist, why engage with me?I'm the one who argues that even 'scientific truth' should be produced by voting, so I'm not sure how that makes me complicit with your 'Communists'.If anything (like Marx), I'm a (too-?) radical democrat. Now, I can be criticised for that, but that leaves my criticisers on the side of the elite experts, that small section separate from society, that Marx warns us against.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.