According to dialectical materialism, how was the universe created?

Read Reason in Revolt OP.

Through labour, duh

So the Book of Genesis is correct after all.

Why is the Big Bang "undialectical?"

In dhe beginnings was dhe Benis :DD, and dhe Benis was with Bagina, and dhe Benis was Bagina :–DDDDD

Attached: 1503590597762.gif (250x194, 47.42K)

Big Bang is actually dialectical. Just not the way dialectics were perceived by Stalin. If we look at the dialectic of existence it is the process of nothingness transforming into being. This transformation is becoming. By applying this to the Big Bang. Nothingness is the state before the universe was formed, while being is after the universe was formed, and the Big Bang is the state of becoming. Therefore aligning with the dialectic of existence. Big Bang is Hegel approved.

Thesis: There is nothing
Anti-Thesis: There is something infinitely small
Synthesis: Big Bang

marxist.com/big-bang-alternative300402.htm

Stalin made it.

it is an obscurantist synonym of the word stochastic used by translators of the french theorist Louis Althusser. Just replace it with stochastic whenever u read it.

Attached: 220px-Althusser.jpg (220x348, 12.88K)

also this

Attached: sovietspaceyuriaa1spacecpdailyworkerImage4.jpg (1085x733, 337.9K)

What's wrong with Stalin's dialectics?

shit dialectics, see me after class

It is the actual nomenclature used by Althusser (Aléatoire :: Aleatory)

That does not excuse his English translators of not using the already available English word

Aleatory is not a french-borrowed word, though. Both Aleatory and Stochastic were already present in the English language, the former representing total random choice; the latter being a statistically discernible randomness. The former is far better for the philosophical contexte, at least that is my own opinion.

Attached: stalinism.png (600x1282, 767.29K)

If you are not at least the third brain your are not my comrade and you will betray any revolution.

Dialectics is based on satanism so it's evil anyway.

how does that synthesis come about?

I miss when Anal Water used to debate T-A-Sfags.

All these posts and NO ONE HAS MENTIONED ILYENKOV'S "Cosmology of the Spirit," a Marxist MATERIALIST work on THIS VERY FUCKING QUESTION.

Goddam this is what is wrong with not reading.

That is not what dialectical materialism is for.
You basically get stuck at:
vs

Both of these lead to situations that cannot be resolved. Logic breaks, when we talk about the beginning of everything.
You bascially get stuck. You can't answer it with dialectic. How can you even ask that question honestly or answer that?

see

hot fucking take right here

time does not have a beggining

Learn to subl8, m8.

You can't get there, dummy. That's the point of it being a negative infinity.

Exactly. It breaks down in logic. You can always go further back and ask "what was before that".
The point obviously to see if there was a state in which the universe was different to what it was afterwards.

?

Yup, it breaks down in logic and dialectical materialism only works, if logic can work.

Let's just say that it's all a cycle, and we probably have already had this discussion infinite times before.

ITT: rectal discharge is posting sans name.

Question: how would stuff like sacred geometry, gematria, chaos theory, Mandelbrot, etc. fit in to DiaMat?

Attached: knot-of-creation-small.jpg (500x394, 74.98K)

...

Surprised no one has mentioned the Electric Universe.

Unscientific superstition. Prescribing supernatural qualities to patterns observed or made up.
Unscientific superstition. Feeble link between some words.

Deterministic chaos, as in the theory of unstable or chaotic systems in nature is scientific. In some cases of feedback system, a pattern emerges.

Fractals and such are a mathematical theory. A result of information processing. Fractals occur in nature.

We cannot perceive things outside our universe, therefore this cannot be answered within our universe. We can only speculate. So even big bang is just a speculation in the initial point, despite tracking back the evolution of matter composition of universe in its early stages. And those were supported by observations of universe, background microwave radiation and other astronomical observations. Or through analysis and verifications of matter composition models.

TL;DR: Who knows?

It doesn't.
marxists.org/archive/korsch/1934/why-marxist.htm
The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways; the point is to change it. – Marx

Attached: 52e76d70b0ea9ea756a1edc822888d36dcbededa1e5f9d1b60ec9f02a0bf3127.png (2000x1552, 3.68M)

Christcoms are a vocal minority here, so it was gaaaaaaaaawwwwwwwd.

There isn't anything. It is JUST a materialist philosophy that believes the world works dialectically. Things progress, change, and influence each other comstantly, in a dialectic process. Here's a book since you obviously do not know what dialectical materialism is.

>>2537746mypost

This is a pretty nice post. Dialectical Materialism isn't the Bible, and it doesn't claim to give you any magic knowledge. It's just a system to interpret the world through to change it.

...

Not anal water.

Stalin created the universe in the 0th five year plan, finishing it almost 14 billion years ahead of schedule.

Attached: stalin.png (662x635, 13.35K)

Seriously tho, if you don't give the masses some lysergic stuff like that, how can you win them to the revolution?

Futanaria was the beginning