yusrob
In going further, I have read these thinkers, and Marx was strongly influenced by Feuerbach, Engels too was strongly influenced. They considered this materialism against a kind of idealism, and so they asserted that material is not spiritual. But we don’t know this, we cannot assert that consciousness emerges from matter. I consider a totally different logic, with matter expressing a finite part of this infinite eternal consciousness.
And that is why Lorraine still says important things, because we need deeper parameters regarding information, knowledge, categories, and numbers, because they must know what to do, and so the matter also must know, and this we don’t understand at this quantum scale.
We must also differentiate religions, which are human inventions, from a God of Spinoza, like Einstein said,a God of nature. It is about the ideal, yes, but accepting our limitations. So in my reasoning this infinite eternal consciousness in 0D does create the universe. So yes, we need to know more about this metaphysics and this evolutive universe. Matter, life, and mind are more than we can imagine.
So this dialectical materialism from Feuerbach, Marx, Hegel, Engels…is in a sense a reductive point of view, asserting a truth that cannot be proved and cannot be asserted due to these limitations that I explained. I do the same with my theory of spherisation,I do not assert it. Doubt is important for a general thinker when something is not proved. We can have our extrapolations and explorations, but only the proved laws, axioms, and equations are accepted. Matter seems primary, yes, but this 0D of this God of Spinoza also seems primary.
By rejecting the metaphysical consciousness or deeper informational foundations, we reduce matter, motion, evolution, humans, consciousness, and life to a mathematical accident, and it seems nonsensical in modern philosophical physics. Quantum information seems fundamental, and that is why I believe that this mass–energy–information equivalence is important, and the expression of consciousness also. In all cases, that gives ontological layers deeper than relativity and QFT alone; we need to go further than this. That is why, in a sense, information is primary, and consciousness also.
This consciousness seems really intrinsic to reality and not produced by our brain, I do not assert it, of course, but it seems more logical to consider consciousness as fundamental. Penrose, Wheeler, Chalmers, and others try to give a deeper ontological logic than the 19th-century materialists. We need to unify ontologically and explore possibilities. Cosmology, quantum mechanics, consciousness, and information need to be explored more deeply, and Feuerbach, Marx, Engels, Hegel…focused only on social philosophy, anthropology, and materialism without physics and the knowledge we have today.
My approach seems more logical considering our modern physics and modern ontology: information as physical, and the need to go beyond relativity and actual QFT. In a sense, the ontology of Feuerbach, Engels, and Marx is outdated relative to our current scientific ontological landscape.
