Philosophy Discussion Forums

In single universe interpretations of quantum mechanics, the wavefunction does not refer to "an element of reality".

A particle is not a wavefunction.

I never said it did/was. Irrelevant to me.

Still waiting for answers and a consensus. I am accused of having insufficient knowledge of the subject but considering the disputes observed by others, I do not think I am alone. How can particles supposedly be seen bouncing one moment and then observed being absorbed the next? How can you describe photons as particles when none of their values give you that right. You can continue to ignore my questions but the answers are still required.

How could you describe the Sun as an orange?

Steve3007 wrote:How could you describe the Sun as an orange?

I would not describe the sun as an orange not unless I was being poetically flippant. " The sun in the early morning mist looked like an orange in a fish and chip shop"...

Next question: Can you imagine any situation in which somebody might represent the Sun with an orange?

Steve3007 wrote:Next question: Can you imagine any situation in which somebody might represent the Sun with an orange?

In a naive and simple way? Yes but it would be obvious to even a child that it was not very good representation. Considering the description of them both.

Yes. It's far from ideal, isn't it? But is there any way at all that it works? Is there any feature at all of the Sun that it might serve to represent?

Steve3007 wrote:Yes. It's far from ideal, isn't it? But is there any way at all that it works? Is there any feature at all of the Sun that it might serve to represent?

It is round and under certain circumstances it looks the same colour. But the resemblance no matter how hard you try is never going to convince me one is the same as the other.

It is round and under certain circumstances it looks the same colour. But the resemblance no matter how hard you try is never going to convince me one is the same as the other.

I've repeated this because I agree with it more completely than almost anything you have said before.

I too am absolutely unconvinced that an orange is the Sun. And if we improved things and used, say, a yellow plastic ball with a bulb in it, that wouldn't be the Sun either. But if you wanted to make a model of the Solar System, can you imagine yourself using one of these two objects?

Steve3007 wrote: (Nested quote removed.)


I've repeated this because I agree with it more completely than almost anything you have said before.

I too am absolutely unconvinced that an orange is the Sun. And if we improved things and used, say, a yellow plastic ball with a bulb in it, that wouldn't be the Sun either. But if you wanted to make a model of the Solar System, can you imagine yourself using one of these two objects?

Yes I can but you forget I do not believe in your sun. Your sun is not hot enough, it is far too small and it is the wrong colour. If you make the assumption that photons are behaving like particles you would make that analogy but they are not behaving like particles. That's the damned problem with science. You would not call a cat a dog if it did not bark. It was not there yesterday and surprise, surprise it was not there today.Oft to the gym for an hour Steve, sharpen your pencil.

It's sharp.

Your sun is not hot enough, it is far too small and it is the wrong colour.

True. Those are the things that it does not share with the Sun. So let's make our model of the Sun more realistic. Let's increase the size and temperature. But now, of course, it's 100 times bigger than the Earth! It doesn't fit in our world. We have no object that can simultaneously represent the shape, colour and size of the Sun and still exist in our world.

What, then, can we do to represent the Sun in a model that we can play with and examine in our world? Well, perhaps we could use more than one model. One model could accurately represent, say, the colour and shape. Another might represent just the temperature. Another still might represent the spectral characteristics of the light that comes out of the Sun. Different models for different purposes. Leaving aside, for a minute, the question of photons and what-not, can you see any merit in this technique?

That's the damned problem with science. You would not call a cat a dog if it did not bark.

But you would call them both mammals. They have something in common.



What do you think of the argument so far? I think we've already got further than last time.

Logicus wrote: (Nested quote removed.)

Waves and particles are descriptions of matter. You stated waves are always waves and particles are always particles. This is not true. Sometimes matter behaves like waves; sometimes it behaves like particles.

But it all depends on the definition of "particle" and "wave". And we DECIDE on the definitions.

-- Updated December 1st, 2012, 10:42 am to add the following --

Xris wrote:That's the damned problem with science. You would not call a cat a dog if it did not bark.

You can define a cat as "a dog which does not bark". And you could have "found" a "new" species in the process, thus gaining some funding too! Some "scientists" do it all the time...

Steve3007 wrote:It's sharp.


(Nested quote removed.)


True. Those are the things that it does not share with the Sun. So let's make our model of the Sun more realistic. Let's increase the size and temperature. But now, of course, it's 100 times bigger than the Earth! It doesn't fit in our world. We have no object that can simultaneously represent the shape, colour and size of the Sun and still exist in our world.

What, then, can we do to represent the Sun in a model that we can play with and examine in our world? Well, perhaps we could use more than one model. One model could accurately represent, say, the colour and shape. Another might represent just the temperature. Another still might represent the spectral characteristics of the light that comes out of the Sun. Different models for different purposes. Leaving aside, for a minute, the question of photons and what-not, can you see any merit in this technique?


(Nested quote removed.)


But you would call them both mammals. They have something in common.



What do you think of the argument so far? I think we've already got further than last time.

Not a lot. Still can not see why you need to pretend you are seeing particles when there are none. What analogy are you going to give to explain the phenomena a particle has when it sometimes bounces and sometimes disappears. It sounds easy relating two objects that are obvious to us but not concepts that we simply imagining. Analogies are fine on certain occassions but they fail dismally when they have no relation to the subject. Particles no matter how small they are require mass, shape, a point of rest, an ability to experience time, to experience acceleration. They do not in any way resemble a particle. Its like asking me if I see the relationship between the sun and a cow.

Not a lot

A little bit. That's good enough for me.

Still can not see why you need to pretend you are seeing particles when there are none.

You don't need to pretend you are seeing particles. You don't need to pretend you are seeing oranges.

What analogy are you going to give to explain the phenomena a particle has when it sometimes bounces and sometimes disappears.

I don't know. But if that really was what we were seeing then we would have to think of one.

I'll leave it there for now.

Bouncing particles that suddenly disappear. I refer to my last link.Simple remarks or observations are treated as nothing to be concerned with but are crucial in determining what is occurring. If you imagine particles you have to constantly modify your reasoning. There are no photons.