Can dialectical materialism explain the origin of the universe?

No. Dialectical materialism is a theory of human society and interaction. It is not a theory relating to the origin of the universe. This is like asking if evolution can explain the moon. Stop being a fucking idiot.

What if people throughout history figured it out already?

dialectics can't explain shit. anyone who believes this to be a relevant mode of thought and analysis is a braindead twit.

No, but I can.

The universe is a simulation created in the 10th dimension.
Paralel universes are other simulations running at the same time.
All information of the simulation is stored in black holes.
You cannot escape the simulation, thus it doesn't matter.

I cannot prove my theory, and noone knows what was before the big bang, so, I can believe whatever I want, as long as it doesn't effect my everyday life.

NEXT.

What about it? It still doesn't change the fact that we don't know, and if they did figure it out we would have to confirm it ourselves, and the only way to do that is through empirical means.

Assertion. Provide evidence and a theory explaining that evidence please, then we will get to the rest of your post.

Indeed, materialists are the lowest of the shit tier philosophers.

And here we have the materialist in its natural habitat, being a solipsistic faggot and not even trying to rhetorically debate the concept.

Neither do you because you're a dumb libarts student who doesn't know shit about science and thinks tabloids are a proper source for science.

...

That's a nice appeal from ignorance there. 8/10

Have you ever had a lucid dream? Did you try and explain the fact that the experience was a dream to the characters in the dream? How did they react?

I have no evidence. I need no evidence as this is only an excuse I created so that I don't need to question the reason of my existance.

Check out Bookchin's dialectical naturalism. He roots history in evolution, thereby including the origins of the universe and the evolution of the organic from the inorganic into his dialectics.

Because you haven't defined what we're arguing about and you don't have any evidence for your first fucking assertion. You're fucking Deepak Chopra tier in your understanding of science and you expect someone else to take you seriously.

No, but you actually don't know because you're literally making that shit up.

Yes, and I just had fun because I knew it was a dream. And no, I didn't ask others because I knew it was a dream, retard. We know how dreams work.

Why do you need a reason? There is nothing wrong with honest ignorance. It's certainly superior to dishonest self-delusion.

I didn't say ask. I said tell.

This is the kind of shit I'm talking about tho.

So why not apply the same rationale to your waking life?

Erik Verlinde, sun columnist.

What about it? We do know how dreams work. It isn't fucking magic or other dimensions.

Because my waking life doesn't take place inside my head and has real consequences for me. How dumb are you?

Some of us need spooks to survive.
And all we can do is make our spooks less spooky.

I'm saying if you try to explain that a dream is a dream to a character in a dream who fully believes that they are 'real' in a 'real' world they'll hit you with the anger and the cognitive dissonance and other weird shit.

Until they don't tho amirite?

Or they won't, because they aren't a separate entity, you retard. It's a dream, that's all you.

What are you even talking about? Are you saying dreams have real consequences? Or are you just illiterate?

This is a futile conversation. Keep believing your 'reality', just try to enjoy it more. Or don't.

You haven't made any non-retarded arguments. You are giving up not because I haven't listened to you but because you have decided that you are right, all evidence to the contrary, to the point that it seems you are denying reality itself.

You didn't understand a single thing I said and resorted to insults in every response.

I'm not trying to score internet argument victory points and I don't need validation the 'sky is blue' by convincing a blind man.

To put it simply, your understanding of life/the world/universe is predicated on a mountain of false assumptions, so the only way I've ever known of imparting a more 'rational' view of things is obtuse(would be from your perspective at least) statements, questions and metaphors. But even if I convinced you of something or imparted some half-understanding to you, you would probably revert back to superstition at some point anyways, hence the futility.

I understood you just fine. You're just fucking retarded. If I am wrong on this. Please explain why. At no point did I see you make a sound argument. All you kept doing is going on about muh dreams and other retarded shit. I could be forgiven for thinking you're a stupid idiot.

Exactly, so if you're actually interested in arguing, why not make an argument instead of being annoyed that people don't agree with you when you talk about stupid shit like dreams when the thread topic was about whether a historical social theory could be used to explain physical phenomena.

Like?

So you can't simply explain what you think is wrong about my "assumptions" and give a logical argument for why they might be false? You have to resort to metaphors that don't seem to work and make you look like a retard?

Oh, right you're so smart, user. You're totally the only one that can understand da troof, and not us lowly people that demand some evidence to your claims. You're pretty much confirmed for retarded at this point.

You can be forgiven for anything user.

Since you asked nicely…. Oh yeah.

I'll give you some readings anyways:

ashtangayoga.info/philosophy/yoga-sutra/
en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Complete_Works_of_Swami_Vivekananda/Volume_2/Jnana-Yoga/Maya_and_Illusion
srichinmoy.org/#threadSelf
srichinmoylibrary.com/covers

Yeah, more shit that makes claims without evidence, in other words, trash. You're a fucking idiot, user. As I said previously, Deepak Chopra-tier retarded.

Have a nice day yo.

...