this post was submitted on 26 Jun 2024
1 points (100.0% liked)

Ask Lemmygrad

803 readers
14 users here now

A place to ask questions of Lemmygrad's best and brightest

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

I had this question proposed to me recently, and thought I would give it my best shot. I would love any input you guys have on how I can refine this further, make it more clear, more accurate, more succinct, all that.

Also, this is specifically geared towards Marxist-Leninists and Marxist-Leninist-Maoists, and that understanding of dialectics, just to be clear. I'm not interested in the hyper-orthodox understanding of dialectical materialism.

I don't understand the ins and outs of gravity perfectly, but here goes.

Internal contradiction is what drives all things. This is true for gravity, as much as anything in the world. Gravity could then be analyzed in the framework of the contradictor forces within gravity. What would those forces be?

Well, Einstein's general relativity is probably the best place to start. I will outline the two contradictory forces below.

Again, I don't know a ton about the in's and out's of it, but the way I see it, there are two sets of contradictions at work in "gravity".

First, the contradiction of Mass and Spacetime Curvature. We have the force of attraction, where masses attract each other, but contradictory to that, we also have the resistance of compression, where the curvature of space resists this attraction.

Second, we have the contradiction of Inertia and Graviational Pull. Objects resist changes to their existing state of motion, but the force of attraction seeks to change the motion of objects

In the case of general relativity, I would say the first contradiction is the primary one, since that relationship is what defines the attraction between masses, and the resistances between each one. I would say the second contradiction is the secondary one, since it's still crucial for understanding how gravity works, but, it explains the result of gravitational attraction, rather than the fundamental cause of it.

In the case of the primary contradiction, I would say that the force of attraction is the primary aspect of the contradiction, over resistance to compression, since the attraction of mass to itself is the fundamental reason why spacetime is distorted in the first place. In the secondary contradiction, gravitational pull is of course, the primary aspect there.

Let me know what you think, and thank you.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

The comments in this thread has made me realise I need to read the following:

  • In Defence Of Materialism by Plekhanov
  • Dialectical Biologist by Lewontin and Lewin

And re-read the Red Sails articles:

  1. https://redsails.org/what-is-dialectics/
  2. https://redsails.org/dialectics/
  3. https://redsails.org/on-dialectics/
[–] [email protected] 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

The Dialectical Biologist is pretty great, but keep in mind it’s a little outdated, and they didn’t know Lysenko was vindicated.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

Thank you - epigenetics? If you have reading material to share on rethinking Lysenkoism in the 21st century I would be grateful.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

I’m not an expert on the topic, but I listened to this, and someone who works in agriculture elaborated how China uses some of his discoveries today. How Lysenko was the guy that got people planting potato eyes instead of the whole potato etc.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 4 months ago

Interesting; thank you!

[–] [email protected] 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Caudwell's Crisis in Physics does some of this but for quantum mechanics. You'd love the read.

Really its done science first approach then dialectics to examine the environment your project's developed in for anything weird that will diminish understanding, then fix and repeat since there's no such thing as perfection in reality. You don't go in with dialectics first, that won't do you good and just make you overly rigid without proper knowledge and limit your understanding of the situation at hand leading to silly errors. Gotta ground yourself in what is known of reality first.

It is neat for thought experiments for project design too and is a way to break out of the 'its x or y or a mere continuum' to noticing 'gee this doesn't fit my data nor my problem, necessity v sufficiency for instance develops from this line of approach (and others, there are many tools in the tool kit, dia is just one) and is beyond helpful in life sciences.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 4 months ago

That's fascinating. Thank you!

load more comments
view more: next ›