My Very Last Attempt to Ask a Question on Social Media
-
- Posts: 433
- Joined: March 5th, 2018, 4:27 am
My Very Last Attempt to Ask a Question on Social Media
~
While we specifically manufacture objects to be tables, they are also defined functionally, as something we put things on,. That means there's no specific set of objects in the material world to which the word 'table' invariably references. It's an abstracted function that can apply to anything we arbitrarily decide to use as a table. One can decide to use something manufactured to be something else, such as a stool, as a table. If one takes things off the stool and sits on it, one has executed a function that converts the object back to its manufactured purpose. The reason I explain this is that it parallels the conversion of subatomic particles between each other as they absorb and release energy.
~
In physical science, material objects are based on the notion of direct reference. For example, the word 'atom' refers directly to a member of a specific set of physical objects with fixed material properties: atoms have a nucleus containing protons and neutrons, etc. Here I've been required to note that the concept of 'property sets' in philosophy means that not all properties need to apply to all objects in them, for example, a hydrogen atom doesn't need to contain a neutron. Similarly, property sets for objects can change over time. This is perplexing to most physicists, who therefore object to saying Pluto was ever a planet. So this has turned into an advanced topic, even if what I am suggesting is really rather straightforward.
~
Maybe in physical reality at the quantum level, there aren't actually 'particles' to which the names of subatomic 'objects' also refer. Maybe they are also actually defined functionally. For example, when a particle changes to another, maybe what is really happening is a change in function of that zone of spacetime, in which there is no actual particle, and the function simply defines how that zone and its neighbors behave.
~
This would greatly simplify the definition of paradoxical subatomic properties, such as entanglement and the appearance of diffraction patterns from light sources emitting less energy than a photon, because there never was an actual particle in 'multiple places,' or being split into diffraction bands each with energy less than a photon. Sometimes the functions might resemble the behavior of particles, and sometimes not. The speed of light would become a very important constant, but not an absolute limit. There would be no necessity for quantum energy to be restrained to particulate intervals. And so on.
~
Thus the relationship between quantum mechanics and Newtonian physics would be similar to that of the relationship between Einsteinian physics and Newtonian physics. There would be overlap, but at the subatomic level there could be many more phenomena than currently conceived because spacetime ultimately is not filled with matter, but functions that produce matter.
~
This opens the door to many possibilities not so far considered much, because it voids the constraints of thermodynamic laws. That is, subatomic functions could apply over areas larger than possible for particles to move within the speed of light, which has been a bit of a problem over more recent years.
~
It's a new thought to me, and I am not an expert in quantum mechanics, so I don't know if anyone has really explored it before. I have tried to ask if others have any thoughts on how this might relate to existing theories, such as string theory, and whether this notion has been considered in other ways before.
~
So far, the replies have been direct statements that I don't know what metaphysics is, that I am wrong about what Wittgenstein said, or that I don't know what physical objects are, for which reason the introduction of this post has become so stuffed with clarifications to stupid criticisms saying I don't know what i am talking about, instead of asking what I mean, that no one has yet got to my question. So this is my very last attempt to say anything at all on social media because all that ever happens on it any more is that someone says I am wrong then says something wrong themselves.
~
Has anyone else has suggested that material reality is actually comprised of zones in spacetime containing functions that produce matter? Thank you for your consideration.
- Meta Island
- Posts: 107
- Joined: August 31st, 2022, 5:49 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Anyone who makes me think
- Location: USA
Re: My Very Last Attempt to Ask a Question on Social Media
You are wrong and I am always right.“ernestm” wrote: So this is my very last attempt to say anything at all on social media because all that ever happens on it any more is that someone says I am wrong then says something wrong themselves.
ernest, I have no idea if a primary driver like strings is behind those functions, but I’ll try a comment on the macro Nature of the functions you are proposing, although I expect I am preaching to the choir. Could wave consolidations, which can produce “matter”, be construed as the mechanics that define and execute your functions? Changing consolidations would be the actual expressed functions in any particular zone.“ernestm” wrote: Has anyone else has suggested that material reality is actually comprised of zones in spacetime containing functions that produce matter?
-
- Posts: 433
- Joined: March 5th, 2018, 4:27 am
Re: My Very Last Attempt to Ask a Question on Social Media
Well yes of course )Meta Island wrote: ↑February 24th, 2023, 8:43 pmYou are wrong and I am always right.“ernestm” wrote: So this is my very last attempt to say anything at all on social media because all that ever happens on it any more is that someone says I am wrong then says something wrong themselves.
ernest, I have no idea if a primary driver like strings is behind those functions, but I’ll try a comment on the macro Nature of the functions you are proposing, although I expect I am preaching to the choir. Could wave consolidations, which can produce “matter”, be construed as the mechanics that define and execute your functions? Changing consolidations would be the actual expressed functions in any particular zone.“ernestm” wrote: Has anyone else has suggested that material reality is actually comprised of zones in spacetime containing functions that produce matter?
Really this idea is about not thinking of the Standard Model as containing particles. The functions could have the same name as existing particles in the Standard Model. Ots just there's no reason to think of them as particles. So there is the thing where you fire one photon through double slits and it still gets diffracted. The Chinese say its because of interaction with media. The USA says the photon temporarily turns into a wave function while passing through the slits then turns back into a photon. From a Wittgensteinian view, such arguments are just language games. Why should one need to think of subatomic properties as either particles or waves in the first place? That's what Im trying to say.
- Meta Island
- Posts: 107
- Joined: August 31st, 2022, 5:49 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Anyone who makes me think
- Location: USA
Re: My Very Last Attempt to Ask a Question on Social Media
I can’t usefully contribute when the discussion turns to subatomic properties; maybe a physicist on the forum will find your post and comment.ernestm wrote: ↑February 24th, 2023, 9:43 pmWell yes of course )Meta Island wrote: ↑February 24th, 2023, 8:43 pmYou are wrong and I am always right.“ernestm” wrote: So this is my very last attempt to say anything at all on social media because all that ever happens on it any more is that someone says I am wrong then says something wrong themselves.
ernest, I have no idea if a primary driver like strings is behind those functions, but I’ll try a comment on the macro Nature of the functions you are proposing, although I expect I am preaching to the choir. Could wave consolidations, which can produce “matter”, be construed as the mechanics that define and execute your functions? Changing consolidations would be the actual expressed functions in any particular zone.“ernestm” wrote: Has anyone else has suggested that material reality is actually comprised of zones in spacetime containing functions that produce matter?
Really this idea is about not thinking of the Standard Model as containing particles. The functions could have the same name as existing particles in the Standard Model. Ots just there's no reason to think of them as particles. So there is the thing where you fire one photon through double slits and it still gets diffracted. The Chinese say its because of interaction with media. The USA says the photon temporarily turns into a wave function while passing through the slits then turns back into a photon. From a Wittgensteinian view, such arguments are just language games. Why should one need to think of subatomic properties as either particles or waves in the first place? That's what Im trying to say.
If it’s any encouragement, my carefully considered in general opinion about most things is that half the time nobody knows what’s really going on.
- GrayArea
- Posts: 374
- Joined: March 16th, 2021, 12:17 am
Re: My Very Last Attempt to Ask a Question on Social Media
I don't know if this is a sheer coincidence, but I've had the same thought before and it's like you took the words right out my mouth. I was trying to organize my ideas into paragraphs but it feels as if—in a way—you've already done that for me.
Personally, I think the reason why others have criticized you on your "understanding of Wittgenstein metaphysics" is because they did not know that your example of his metaphysics was just a metaphor. (At least it sounds like a metaphor to me!)
I will say though, I share and understand your pain of not being able to find anyone to truly get your ideas across. So many people either miss the point, don't care, or are just too lazy to read through the whole thing. It's enough to make one feel lonely.
I wish I could be of any constructive help by providing arguments or criticisms against your point, but as of now I seem to agree with you.
For example, going by the same logic, one could explain Quantum Entanglement NOT as Particle #1 instantly changing the state of Particle #2, but as Particle #1 and Particle #2 changing states at the same time because of the "singular force that is behind the existence of (at least) those two particles" acting on Particle #1 and Particle #2 at the same time in two different ways.
Do you agree? Or do you find my idea here to be different from yours?
-
- Posts: 433
- Joined: March 5th, 2018, 4:27 am
Re: My Very Last Attempt to Ask a Question on Social Media
I totally agree. The attempt to create a paradox because the observations do not fit with our rational expectation is really artificial to me. It doesn't seem to me that the idea of a 'particle instantly changing state' offers any benefit at all to our understanding of the observations. There's actually no reason to think the particle has any state before it's observed. Maybe it does, maybe it doesn'r, but if its basically unknowable then that's what it is. Basically inknowable. That's the Wittgensteinian perspective on the problem.GrayArea wrote: ↑February 25th, 2023, 9:22 am Hi,
I don't know if this is a sheer coincidence, but I've had the same thought before and it's like you took the words right out my mouth. I was trying to organize my ideas into paragraphs but it feels as if—in a way—you've already done that for me.
Personally, I think the reason why others have criticized you on your "understanding of Wittgenstein metaphysics" is because they did not know that your example of his metaphysics was just a metaphor. (At least it sounds like a metaphor to me!)
I will say though, I share and understand your pain of not being able to find anyone to truly get your ideas across. So many people either miss the point, don't care, or are just too lazy to read through the whole thing. It's enough to make one feel lonely.
I wish I could be of any constructive help by providing arguments or criticisms against your point, but as of now I seem to agree with you.
For example, going by the same logic, one could explain Quantum Entanglement NOT as Particle #1 instantly changing the state of Particle #2, but as Particle #1 and Particle #2 changing states at the same time because of the "singular force that is behind the existence of (at least) those two particles" acting on Particle #1 and Particle #2 at the same time in two different ways.
Do you agree? Or do you find my idea here to be different from yours?
-
- Posts: 433
- Joined: March 5th, 2018, 4:27 am
Re: My Very Last Attempt to Ask a Question on Social Media
-
- Posts: 219
- Joined: March 27th, 2011, 8:03 am
Re: My Very Last Attempt to Ask a Question on Social Media
On the other hand, Wittgenstein's interpretation stands just as much in need of proof as the proposition that dreams really do occur while we are sleeping. In fact, the empirical evidence seems to be rather against him. But he was always inclined to undervalue empirical experience and observation.ernestm wrote: ↑February 25th, 2023, 6:28 pm What I would add is that alot of people have problems with Wittgenstein's extremel;y skeptical perspective on knowability. For example, one of his observations was that dreams are memories we have that spontaneously occur when waking up, because there is no way to prove someone is having a dream when they are asleep. My ex-wife, who has a PhD in psychology, found the notion to observe to think about at all. So I asked the question, suppose the person died before they woke up? There would be no way of knowing if they had a dream or not. So its just fundamentally unknowable. To me, that's the correct conclusion for empirical science, but others really have a problem with it. It's like existentialism: some people love it, and some people think it's total garbage. That's the way it is, sadly.
You're not really leaving us, are you? As one of the few contributors who shows occasional glimmers of human intelligence, I'd hate to see you go.
-
- Posts: 433
- Joined: March 5th, 2018, 4:27 am
Re: My Very Last Attempt to Ask a Question on Social Media
Well OK, Ill publish share something else here, but I'll have to refer to my server yofiel for edits in response to comments, its really got out of hand. Thank you for your support )Alan Masterman wrote: ↑March 1st, 2023, 8:35 amOn the other hand, Wittgenstein's interpretation stands just as much in need of proof as the proposition that dreams really do occur while we are sleeping. In fact, the empirical evidence seems to be rather against him. But he was always inclined to undervalue empirical experience and observation.ernestm wrote: ↑February 25th, 2023, 6:28 pm What I would add is that alot of people have problems with Wittgenstein's extremel;y skeptical perspective on knowability. For example, one of his observations was that dreams are memories we have that spontaneously occur when waking up, because there is no way to prove someone is having a dream when they are asleep. My ex-wife, who has a PhD in psychology, found the notion to observe to think about at all. So I asked the question, suppose the person died before they woke up? There would be no way of knowing if they had a dream or not. So its just fundamentally unknowable. To me, that's the correct conclusion for empirical science, but others really have a problem with it. It's like existentialism: some people love it, and some people think it's total garbage. That's the way it is, sadly.
You're not really leaving us, are you? As one of the few contributors who shows occasional glimmers of human intelligence, I'd hate to see you go.
2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023