>mfw brainlets actually think materialism's arbitrary denial of meaning as property of physical systems is tenable
>mfw brainlets arbitrarily grant primacy to matter over subjectivity without any material basis (because there is none)
>mfw brainlets believe the geometric patterns of self-organization found in nature aren't actually indicative of a naturalistic teleology, at the very least
When will these cucks finally be able to sit at the big boy table?
>>1101820
>the geometric patterns of self-organization found in nature aren't actually indicative of a naturalistic teleology, at the very least
Literally on par with saying "this object is itself"
>>1101820
Cuck frog manlet meme.
>>1101846
Uh, read it til you get it
But they're not indicative of teleology. They're indicative of the fact our universe follows consistent physical laws.
Here's a tip: don't hold opinions on things you know nothing about, like the meaning of the universe.
>>1101857
Consistent physical laws with an inherent drive towards consciousness and greater complexity. Yeah that's what I said lmao
>>1101820
dumb frogposter
>>1101894
>with an inherent drive towards consciousness and greater complexity
Uh yeah no
>>1101894
Oh, you're that moron who claimed that because the universe can support conscious life, that must be its purpose. You do realize that same claim could be made for any phenomena with the same level of validity, right? "The universe is capable of gamma ray bursts, that must be its purpose."
>teleology
>sit at the big boy table
The only thing your type needs to sit in is the short bus
>>1101908
>the universe is capable of colossal retards like OP
>its whole purpose is to shit out more mindless retards like OP
Op's logic rivals Plato's holy shit
>brainlets
Stealing this
OP is right, you guys should grow up and accept the universe as your lord and saviour.
>>1101820
>implying materialism denies meaning as a property of physical systems instead of as a property of physical things themselves
>still believing the immateriality is necessary for meaning meme you were brainwashed into believing from religion
>implying the objective-subjective distinction is legitimate outside of science
You may have me on your last point.
>>1101857
http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2010-09/physics-laws-change-depending-when-and-where-you-are-new-study-says
>mfw brainlets believe laws of physics are constant
>>1101984
>he fell for clickbait headlines instead of understanding basic cosmology
>>1101996
Enlighten me.
ITT: everybody adheres to pop definitions of teleology
>>1102002
If the laws of physics changed with distance, we'd expect stars and galaxies to work differently in different parts of the universe.
Astronomers have been looking for things that indicate fluctuations in the standard model of particle physics since the 70s.
Given that whoever discovered this shit would probably win a Nobel prize, the fact that nothing has been found indicates that other than the things we know we can't explain (dark matter, dark energy, and cosmic structures larger than 1.5 billion light years) the laws of physics change with distance.
We can observe pretty much everything within 14 billion light-years of us, so that's pretty much the known universe sorted.
Aw man, is it pleb hour or what?
>>1101897
You're implying either A) we're not actually having this conversation right now, Lel or B) life does exist and evolves but it isn't somehow "inherent", as if the first amino acids that bonded to form a protein magically defied the behavioral ruleset that up until that point had rendered them incapable of constituting life. Both are absurd. Next.
>>1101908
So the system that has been objectively evolving from a state of uniform simplicity to localized/particularized complexity isn't somehow "really" doing that? This process that culminates and continues through life and consciousness isn't actually happening? What are you smoking m8?
How do you tell what the System is doing here without having an outsider's vantage point? You look at what it's been doing the whole time. And what's that? The process I just described, which we are part and parcel of. So yes, whatever the system is doing (its purpose, but I know that word gives fedoras the vapors) we are intrinsically tied up in it
>>1102022
We cant really learn much about dark matter because it doesnt react to light meaning its literally impossible to actually see for us photon receptive organisms maybe some really weird aliens that can uses gravity waves can see it who knows, and dark energy is "something" its not even energy its you literally cant explain what it is thats its bizarre.
>>1101894
>an inherent drive towards consciousness and greater complexity.
>>1102301
Epic argument, wait til my reddit buddies hear about this one!!
>>1101846
No, it's basically saying "Purpose is latent in form."
