Creeping mysticism: The philosophical crisis in modern science

The crisis of capitalism is not just an economic and political crisis. It is a crisis of culture, of art, and of science. Mysticism and idealism are increasingly being reflected in the sciences.
In this talk, Ben Curry puts forward a defence of materialism: against idealist interpretations of quantum mechanics, mystical theories of consciousness, Big Bang creationism, and many other examples of the garbage that passes today as ‘science’.
🔗 Read more about Marxism and science over on our Marxist education hub: socialist.net/...
🌐 Check out Socialist Appeal's website for theory, news, and analysis: socialist.net/
✊ Join the fight for revolution with the International Marxist Tendency: www.socialist....
📰 Subscribe to the Socialist Appeal newspaper: www.socialist....
💸 Support the fight for socialism by making a donation: www.socialist....

[@sirmclovin9184]

I am a mathematical physicist and I approve of the central point. Actually, there is some history to this kind of criticism in the Soviet Union.

[@karenandjohn6620]

Excellent talk. In economics, I came across the very same argument that something "is necessary for the math(s) to work". "More is better" is a foundational assumption in economics, not because is describes reality (which it only does in very limited circumstances) but because it makes it possible to use calculus to come up with solutions. That's a good reason for a foundational assumption, that it makes it easier to use math and come up with a solution.

[@VanillaHorror]

Thank you for making this available I have subscribed

[@AlexandraBryngelsson]

Very interesting!

[@JackTyeWilson]

Great talk! 😊

[@GigaClutch]

This is an interesting talk about physics, but I find the philosophical component lacking. To ascribe to a certainty in materialism we need to consider the element that we are only coming into awareness of the world through our senses and nervous system, the most complex biological structures known to man. If somehow we could quantify the act of comprehension scientifically by understanding how billions of neurons fire to facilitate the process of understanding itself, which is clearly beyond our physical or mental capacities, we would have to be applying this in every moment like a machine to eleminate the unkown variable of our own unconscious functioning. To assume that science can be excluded from consciousness is foolish, we can indeed go to great lengths to remove its influence but that is never be complete, there would be no debate of materialism vs idealism if it could. This is why mysticism exists to this day, we cannot comprehend the totality of our existence, elements of it are illusory and incomprehensible, we can only access our experience, which is limited in itself. We cannot fully understand the mechanisms which lead to 'understanding'. Denying facts of our existence and preaching that only through rigorous science can we understand the world denies what it is to be human, living between the paradox of comprehension and incomprehensibility, simplicity and infinite complexity. Sorry to say there are no such straightforward solutions to the argument. Doesn't mean that we should behave differently as such, praxis is still praxis, thinking is still thinking, we just need to bear that we operate within the bounds of our comprehension.

[@whatabouttheearth]

What? It's not like mind-body dualism is a real thing, it's complete bullshit. The mind is an emergent property of the brain and the brain is a part of the body. There is nothing in existance that is not material. kzbin.infoHu6dBSWaEWc?feature=share

[@robertroest7619]

I’m just exploring Marxism, and it appeals to me quite a bit, and agree much of Marx’ view on religion. I’m not sure to what extend I’m going to be Marxist. I do have some questions about Marx’ labour theory of value, but I am also an old school idealist hahah. An atheist idealist, like Schopenhauer. Materialism doesn’t hold water I think, that doesn’t mean that I don’t take the material world very seriously. I don’t at all think it’s a mere illusion we have to withdraw from and focus on spiritual woo woo. No the material world is a representation, it’s as real as it gets. Reality fundamentally is mind stuff I think, a part of it appears materially to us, and this appearance is not arbitrary. My metaphysical views are very much informed by Bernardo Kastrup and Donald Hoffman. I now bump up against the hardcore materialist view of Marxism. Could there be a synthesis I wonder? Would an idealist communism be possible? It’s for sure a heresy, but I’m not sure how dogmatic Marxism is.. In the tradition of Hegelian Marxist proces, historic, dialectical way of thinking it may be possible to forge a synthesis. What do you think? All the schools of thought and individual thinkers that influenced my views I disagree with in parts btw.

[@cyberpunkalphamale]

@@robertroest7619 I suggest getting even more gritty and then see how the idealist lens copes with it. I would recommend something recent like Hell to Pay by Michael Lind or works by Jane McAlevey like no Shortcuts. I suggest these because I think they illustrate the real process by which labor gets its share of gross income, which is much different from the elegant mathematical models even from advanced econ like Stock-Flow modeling, etc. It encourages us to use more of an agent-based view to get our ratios, constants, and exponents.

[@Erosistheonlyreal]

I had pretty much the same thoughts, yeah.

[@hkmorhsi]

27:32 "it's mathematical idealism on the most absurd scale" advanced natural sciences from the 70s (some would say 60s) to now, summarized.

[@moumouzel]

Yes!

[@Drforbin941]

I think generally it's a good talk and outlines the destructive influences of post modernism and post structuralism. Why main criticism is he mischaracterizes some of the concepts of modern physics which have been empirically verified. Also this is done with some of his references to philosophy.

[@sehr.geheim]

Could you please reference to some of those things he got wrong, you peaked my interest

[@Drforbin941]

@@sehr.geheim I would enjoy speaking to you about them. Please give me your email so we may continue if you wish.

[@whatabouttheearth]

Why in the hell are all the people who know absolutely nothing about science (I'm not saying the guy in the video doesn't) obsessed with physics? I think it may be because it leads to misrepresentation and sensational psuedoscience because there is so much thought experiments and hypotheses due to some of it, especially quantum, being so far out there. 😂 Quantum's the new Krishna bro

[@cadkls]

​@@sehr.geheim None of out observations have discredited the big bang theory. Nobody is making the facts fit the theory, as far as we know, the big bang is the current best explanation for hoe the universe came into existence. For him to say that it leads to idealism is borrowing arguments from the religious, it isn't necessary for there to be a god to explain the big bang.

[@evanmoses4474]

Well done comrade!

[@robertroest7619]

I’m just exploring Marxism, and it appeals to me quite a bit. I agree with much of Marx’ view on religion. I’m not sure to what extend I’m going to be Marxist. I do have some questions about Marx’ labour theory of value, but I am also an old school idealist hahah. An atheist idealist, like Schopenhauer. Materialism doesn’t hold water I think, that doesn’t mean that I don’t take the material world very seriously. I don’t at all think it’s a mere illusion we have to withdraw from and focus on spiritual woo woo. No the material world is a representation, it’s as real as it gets. Reality fundamentally is mind stuff I think, a part of it appears materially to us, and this appearance is not arbitrary, this view is no reason to depart from reality as it appears to us, or to delve into superstitions. My metaphysical views are very much informed by Bernardo Kastrup and Donald Hoffman. I now bump up against the hardcore materialist view of Marxism. Could there be a synthesis I wonder? Would an idealist communism be possible? It’s for sure a heresy, but I’m not sure how dogmatic Marxism is.. In the tradition of Hegelian Marxist proces, historic, dialectical way of thinking it may be possible to forge a synthesis. What do you think? All the schools of thought and individual thinkers that influenced my views I disagree with in parts btw, also with the idealist thinkers that have informed me.

[@Erosistheonlyreal]

That's awesome. I don't really know where I stand but I've been interested in Marxism for a while, while also being drawn towards some type of (dialectical) idealism myself. Personally, I think of Marxism more as a kind of psychosociolocultural toolkit, and, as such, the metaphysical stances of Marx and Engels aren't necessary for using that toolkit, as far as I can tell; they're more incidental. I think hanging onto materialism in order to be a "true Marxist" is kind of an ideological cargo cult from yesteryear, and I agree that there needs to be a new kind of synthesis for our times. Man, I'm just glad to see your comment!

[@robertroest7619]

@@Erosistheonlyreal aaah thanks, I appreciate that! It’s 4 months ago I wrote this comment and I’ve been engaging and educating myself about Marxism in these months. I consider myself a Marxist now. What I speculate or think reality ultimately is, it’s nature, is not so urgent. It’s interesting and not unimportant, but perhaps the daily reality that’s right in front of us, the historical process, the here and now, material conditions, exploitation of humans and nature, pain and suffering and the grave injustices and inequalities are as real as its gets regardless of what reality ultimately consist of. We experience a great deal of it as material, and Marx is just spot on in his analysis of our world. In order to save humanity from capitalism which is at the root of so much pain and suffering and destruction we really do need the Marxist tradition to develop a path towards less exploitation of nature, animals and humans.

[@Erosistheonlyreal]

@@robertroest7619 Ahhh you've fully brainwashed yourself, have you? Don't forget the dialectical part of Marxism either though. Marx (to my understanding at least) did not see the bourgeoise as enemies, nor did he see capitalism as bad, but just necessary developments in the structure of human social relations as humankind experiments with how organizing itself across time. I'm mainly telling you this because I think there are a lot of really angry (understandably so) people who consider themselves Marxists but forget the dialectical aspect and turn this valuable toolkit of criticism and analysis more into an ideological weapon, a kind of justification for us vs. them black and white thinking.

[@Erosistheonlyreal]

@@robertroest7619 Also what changed your mind? Did you do a lot more reading on Marxism? Sounds like a lot changed in those 4 months.

[@robertroest7619]

@@Erosistheonlyreal well I didn’t have a strong position or opinion about Marxism. I just was too uninformed about it. Knew of course the clichés criticisms you hear in a capitalist country about socialism or Marxism, stemming from Cold War propaganda I think, but didn’t really agree or disagree with that. Yeah more reading and following some Marxist KZbinrs that go into the weeds. They may disagree on sub issues. But Dr. Richard Wolff was an influential voice with his book ‘understanding socialism, Noam Chomsky, KZbinr Hakim, Second Thought, Michael Parenti has been eye opening, and I learned a lot from Gabriel Rockhill. He critiques the Frankfurt school and French post modern philosophy from a Marxist perspective among other things. Also Kohei Saito, taught me a lot about Marxists view on humans relationship to nature, which Marx characterizes as a metabolizing relationship is solid. Brian Becker is an interesting Marxist who knows a lot about Lenin. I just learned a lot from it, and this tradition has made me understand much better how the world works, what the root causes of our problems are.. they align with my sense of what’s just. It took not much to see capitalist talking points against socialism fail. I also appreciate that Marx collaborated deeply with another thinker. I’ve often thought how productive it would be if philosophical inquiry could be a two -person project. Too often it’s one white guy on its own trying to make a theory about reality with its own personal jargon. Two people instead, committed to find truths and justice, and scrutinize each others arguments to come closer to both would be awesome. It’s also a dialectical tradition, so proces and progress is built into it, a good antidote to dogmatism and stagnation. Anyway.. I keep learning about it. Im still quite new to it.

[@JasonGoodfellow]

Brilliant

[@serversurfer6169]

🤓 The Big Bang Theory isn’t a creation myth. Best we can tell, the universe has always been there, at least for any meaningful definition of “always.” (You might have heard that matter cannot be created or destroyed.) 🎵 The whole universe was in a hot, dense state 🎶

[@sirmclovin9184]

Mara Beller: Quantum Dialogue

[@chrislawuk]

I’m sorry but what did you claim positivism meant? As far as I understood it it was the exact opposite of what you said it was. Positivism is actually a form of materialism, not idealism. If you can get such a basic concept not just wrong but completely diametrically oppositionally incorrect, I don’t know that I need to listen to anything else you have to say.

[@aidandurkan15]

I think when we ask the question what is consciousness ? Its the wrong question. I think what we think what "consciousness " is nothing more then then a byproduct of being able to think into the future. And if it is then our brains are just very complex prediction machines.

[@LadyLuck8_4]

Some examples would be nice of creeping mysticism into modern day science would be helpful.

[@sirmclovin9184]

He did give some during the talk. The king of them all is, of course, the Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum mechanics.

[@eriknelson2559]

"modern" physics references to Dancing Wu Li Masters, 8-fold ways, Vishnu the Angel of d**th the destroyer of worlds from the Bhagavad Gita, God Particles, gematria from the Zohar in String Theory, etc Sabine Hossenfelder says physics has been detailed and made no progress in decades The gift of heaven to earth... Decades of endless mystical prattlings producing nothing of positive-for-earth value

[@sambird7]

Pretty good for a trot ;)

[@MF_Plissken]

i would rather use antoher word than mysticism, cos this one is still far too positive as it is from a time even before marx´ time when people really didnt know very much and it was sort of a legit behaviour that fitted the era. today however, the term should be sort of gossip idealism

[@Drforbin941]

No offense, but I think you need alittle more physics understanding,

[@Anna-1917]

Do you have a particular criticism of this talk?

[@smonkedweed7414]

​@@Anna-1917 The fact that his actual criticisms center around modern physics disagreeing with a 19th Century philosopher and that reality being extremely bizarre is just too unthinkable?

[@smonkedweed7414]

​@@Anna-1917 The fact that these people reject the Big Bang theory in such a way that proves they don't even understand it is grounds to ignore anything they have to say outside their actual field of study which is political economy.

[@stookful]

Ben Curry has a masters in physics

[@Drforbin941]

@@stookful Who is Ben Curry?

[@OvermindBG]

I'd suggest you guys check the works of Donald Hoffman and Bernardo Kastrup and then try to defend materialism :)

[@robertroest7619]

I’m just exploring Marxism, and it appeals to me quite a bit. I’m not sure to what extend I’m going to be Marxist, I do have some questions about Marx’ labour theory of value, but I am also an old school idealist hahah. An atheist idealist, not a religious one, like Schopenhauer. Materialism doesn’t hold water I think, that doesn’t mean that I don’t take the material world very seriously. I don’t at all think it’s a mere illusion, no it’s a representation. It’s as real as it gets, but there’s more reality outside of the scope of our senses and experience. My metaphysical views are very much informed by Kastrup and Hoffman. I now bump up against the hardcore materialist view of Marxism. Could there be a synthesis I wonder? Would an idealist communism be possible? It’s for sure a heresy, but I’m not sure how dogmatic Marxism is.. In the tradition of Hegelian Marxist proces, historic, dialectical way of thinking it may be possible to forge a synthesis. What do you think?

[@OvermindBG]

@@robertroest7619 I don't see why you can't be an idealist communist. Communism is an economic system. It's about who controls the means of production. But maybe you cannot be an idealist marxist.

[@AsadAli-jc5tg]

Wrong, Science uses mathematics as a method which is metaphysical not material. To say science is material only is a wrong conception, it's tantamount to considering science as material philosophy not science. When science uses mathematics it defacto acknowledges mind over matter. Marxism's over consistency with materialism is the problem not science or religion. Saying all that I don't deny that Capitalism is in a rut and is a failed unnatural system which is designed to rig and abuse and misinterpret justice, what I'm suggesting is that Marxism is not the only idea of socialism and it's certainly not scientific.

[@karlthemarxist6806]

Mathematics is not a metaphysical nor a mystical discipline. Professor Paul Cockshott "Maths and Matter": kzbin.info/www/bejne/gIjEpp6ZrZKopsk

[@whatabouttheearth]

What? Mind-body dualism is fucking bullshit. The mind is an emergent property of the brain, and the brain is a part of the body. Mathematics is simply measurement. NOTHING except the material exists. kzbin.infoHu6dBSWaEWc?feature=share

[@sirmclovin9184]

That's like saying by using language you make an ontological commitment towards idealism. Bogus!

[@mistergray9664]

You talk about mysticism as if it's garbage... This defense of materialism is garbage.

[@DipayanPyne94]

Mysticism is fundamentally irrational. So, it's garbage. Period ...

[@Sosarchives]

I’ve been looking for a good couple of months for a marxist to present a good argument for materialism but this one is no different

[@whatabouttheearth]

There is nothing in existance except the material. Mind-body dualism is absolute bullshit. The mind is an emergent property of the brain, and the brain is a part of the body. kzbin.infoHu6dBSWaEWc?feature=share

[@ludviglidstrom6924]

“If materialism is true, then the Big Bang couldn’t have happened!” is probably the worst defense of materialism I’ve ever heard. I’m a Marxist by the way; that’s the worst thing about being a Marxist, all those idiots out there also claiming to be that. On the actual ontological issue of materialism I actually agree with Noam Chomsky that there hasn’t been a coherent concept of materialism since the 17th century, but I don’t see that as being important to Marxism.

[@whatabouttheearth]

@@ludviglidstrom6924 Wait.. who in the hell said that? And in defense of materialism?

[@Meine.Postma]

This is a good speech. Leave out the comrades and politics and it's points are even better made

[@serversurfer6169]

🤓 The Big Bang Theory isn’t a creation myth. Best we can tell, the universe has always been there, at least for any meaningful definition of “always.” (You might have heard that matter cannot be created or destroyed.) 🎵 The whole universe was in a hot, dense state 🎶