OK.ernestm wrote: ↑March 5th, 2023, 11:55 amWrom W.s point of view, states and events ARE observations, and there's no need to qualify them further, because the only states and events that exist are the ones we observe.Gertie wrote: ↑March 4th, 2023, 6:08 pmI think it would be more appropriate to say, in this context, words refer to observations and their explanations.It seems pretty clear from modern philosophy that words merely refer to states and events with clusters of properties. 'Objects,' per se, are only one of these properties. Objects and atoms don't really exist in physical reality: they are properties we assign to observations in our attempt to make sense of them, and that is all.
One explanation being that particular objects exist and have particular properties which result in particular observations of objects, states and events.
Another explanation would be only properties which are particular states and events exist, which we observe and explain in terms of objects with properties, as above. Which invites the question what are these states and properties of?
The 'atom' is a primitive and outmoded concept
-
- Posts: 2181
- Joined: January 7th, 2015, 7:09 am
Re: The 'atom' is a primitive and outmoded concept
- Sy Borg
- Site Admin
- Posts: 14992
- Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm
Re: The 'atom' is a primitive and outmoded concept
Geez, where did that come from?? You are getting me confused with someone else.ernestm wrote: ↑March 5th, 2023, 11:52 amPtolemy's model also successfully predicted the position of stars in the sky, but when I raised that, Borg, you said it was obviously wrong and how stupid I was. However much you could substantiate the standard model's use of particles, or the periodic table's usefulness, you already invalidated your own argument with regard to using archaic concepts for physics.Sy Borg wrote: ↑March 4th, 2023, 7:40 pm I don't understand the objection to the idea of atoms. Ernest, do you have thoughts on the "ground zero" of physical reality, if not atoms and subatomic particles?
The standard model and periodic table have clearly been successful in a practical sense, noting that each is like a simple "two dimensional" summary of known reality. Behind the standard model lie various 'colours', spins, charges and whatnot and each element in the periodic table has multiple isotopes, with cesium and xenon each having 36 isotopes.
So there is no way I can take anything you argue seriously any more.
I do not call anyone "stupid" so that's simply wrong. It may help to be sure you know you are talking to, before unloading on them. Or better still, show some respect for the forum and avoid such insulting behaviour.
I have long been aware that Ptolemy's models predicted the travel of the known planets, and so I would never have criticised that observation.
If a model is to be replaced, ideally there will be a viable alternative that yields accurate results in the areas where current theories break down.
- Consul
- Posts: 6036
- Joined: February 21st, 2014, 6:32 am
- Location: Germany
Re: The 'atom' is a primitive and outmoded concept
-
- Posts: 711
- Joined: February 6th, 2021, 5:27 am
Re: The 'atom' is a primitive and outmoded concept
-
- Posts: 219
- Joined: March 27th, 2011, 8:03 am
Re: The 'atom' is a primitive and outmoded concept
- Sy Borg
- Site Admin
- Posts: 14992
- Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm
Re: The 'atom' is a primitive and outmoded concept
If atoms are a primitive concept, what is the alternative? What I see here are ad hominem attacks, either implied or direct, and criticisms of educational models that probably are outmoded - but the models have been deliberately simplified to be usable for students.
It's like defining planets. There's not actually eight planets, there's hundreds. However, the old model was kept simple for educational purposes. There is always the risk of swamping students with dizzying complexity, so the old simple models are added to rather than replaced. Naturally, those who don't work in the field will often have a wrongful idea about the phenomena based on the oversimplifications, mistaking the map for the territory, but most experts know better (and their interest wasn't dampened by information overload too early).
Whatever, I like biology more than chemistry and physics. Anyone wanting to test their physics-based ideas would ideally post them to physics forums, to an audience who more intimately know the subject matter. I'd be interested to see the responses if this was posted to a physics forum. It would be entertaining, if nothing else.
My own simple understanding is that an atom consists of three extremely small and dense quarks zipping around each other at something like light speed within an extremely small volume, held in by the gluons of the strong nuclear force, and the whole edifice has a positive charge. Around this hyper-dense nucleus is a field of negatively charged electrons. These entities join together in different ways, making up molecules.
Still, I just think of them all as tiny energetic dimples in the fabric of reality with variant qualities but, as I say, I'm not a physicist.
-
- Posts: 219
- Joined: March 27th, 2011, 8:03 am
Re: The 'atom' is a primitive and outmoded concept
I agree with you, there are far too many atoms. The flippin' government ought to do something.
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