Everything, ever that we have ever known and could ever see, touch, taste, and hear...

Everything, ever that we have ever known and could ever see, touch, taste, and hear, it is nothing more then complex arrangements of “electrical charges”

Atoms are made of protons neutrons and electrons. Which are just different forms of positive & negative charges being pressured in certain densities to create an element. The rest is empty space.

So with that being said. We are literally nothing but electricity. Everythings is. The space we all live in is just a harmonic outcome of an off -charge and a +charge.

Prove me wrong.. pls

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=Kppx4bzfAaE
marxist.com/quantum-mechanics-copenhagen130705.htm
twitter.com/AnonBabble

>Makes statement
>The burden of proof is now on you!

I just want someone to tell me I am wrong and maybe see it from another perspective.
I’m so autistic and fixated on this being the soul foundation of everything.

He already proved his statement, dumbarse.

>The space we all live in is just a harmonic outcome of an off -charge and a +charge.
The "harmonic charge" stuff makes no sense.

We're built of elementary particles and most of us is empty space. A billion neutrinos have gone through you while you read this sentence.
So?
My desk feels solid even though I know my knuckles are just being repelled by an electron cloud.
What's so terrifying?
The world's always been like that. You just understand it better now.

The only reason you want to believe the whole 'electrozidy!!' Thing is because you can loosely relate it to some cosmic spiritual theory of energy or some bs like that.

Furthermore, you ask to be proven wrong as if that's what you really want.

>prove me wrong
>muh electricity
the brain isn't actually running on electricity but on electrochemistry

that being said the concept still applies, if you want to counter your argument look into arguments against physical materialism

they essentially boil down to qualia
a colourblind person can learn everything about a certain colour, the wavelength, speed of propagation, etc... but they can't experience it

anti-materialists would claim that the qualia occur in an abstract "dimension" outside of physical world thus negating hard materialistic claim that everything is physical

I myself am a materialist and studying biochemistry has only further strengthened my claim

The electric universe theory has already been debunked last time I checked.

This is a gross oversimplification of the fundamentals of the universe.

String Theory in its current form asserts that the universe is made up of various forms of quanta of energy. Electrons are only one of those. They are special in that the basis of chemistry lies in them and their strange behavior, but that's about all they're good for. Now string theory has plenty of criticism, but there's not a better contender for a GUT.

Light is important. The various bosons are important. Atomic interactions are important (see: stars).

You see the universe in a limited way if you choose a limited scope.

Debunked how exactly?

here youtube.com/watch?v=Kppx4bzfAaE

Oh so you're one of those faggots.

>i got no arguments

Materialism doesn't jive with QM though.

Where's your argument then?

What is electricity? What does negative and positive charge mean?

How so?
QM calculations deal with material objects.
I mean, they don't invoke immaterial (in the theological or spiritual sense) entities. QM devices, like transistors, rely solely on placing atoms in certain arrangements. That's necessary and sufficient.
What's your definition of "materialism"?

marxist.com/quantum-mechanics-copenhagen130705.htm

ether vortexes

That there is a material reality. I'm saying that there is no material reality.
Why are you posting Marxist stuff? Do communists actually think the idealist interpretation of QM is a threat to the social/economic dialectic materialism? That's a reach, I've never heard someone say that the lack of a material reality means that communism is wrong.

Maybe you're right.

but there are particles that dont interact with electricity

namely, the neutron

>I mean, they don't invoke immaterial
Spooky action at a distance is immaterial as far as we know.

It relies too much on archaic ideas and pseudoscience like ether among other things. I'm not doing your homework. research it.

>one of the competing theories of the universe is wrong.
>I can't remember exactly why
>so, I'll just keeping believing that it is
I've done my homework. The reason you don't want to make a positive statement on here is that you will be open to rebuttal. Just state your evidence.

I told you why, it relies on ether and pseudoscience.

>neglecting particles physic and gravity
Niggu wut?
The dank approach is realizing that everything is one single complicated as fuck wavefunction

99% of your weight is virtual particles
strong force has a massive effect on you

The colorblind argument is overly simplistic in my opinion

All "learning" is simply personal awareness of a certain mental configuration, in the case of learning wavelengths it's knowledge of the mental configuration of what it feels like to comprehend the concept of wavelength and colors, etc. This doesn't mean they should be able to know what it's like to see red and the absence of them knowing this doesn't indicate them - they haven't experienced the neural combination of seeing red

It's confusing knowledge with some abstract platonic form concept instead of an experience in itself