Philosophy Discussion Forums

Teh wrote: (Nested quote removed.)


You are simply evading the question: "What is real to you, Xris?" Why don't you answer it?

You claim that "the universe is known to be 95% electromagnet[sic] energy". Could you do me a favour and put numbers to the following: 1. The total energy of the universe. 2. What the other 5% is?

I assume the 5% is the visible mass, the mass that is made of energy. Real what is real? Is this philosophical question? My experiences as a human are the only real things I can be reasonable sure of. My senses communicate with this reality and my mind diagnoses this reality.Whats real to you?

Xris wrote: I assume the 5% is the visible mass, the mass that is made of energy. Real what is real? Is this philosophical question? My experiences as a human are the only real things I can be reasonable sure of. My senses communicate with this reality and my mind diagnoses this reality.Whats real to you?

O.K. so you know that 95% of the universe is "EM" energy, and you "assume" the other 5% is visible mass (which isn't made of particles).

So, as I asked before, what is the total energy?

The only limit science has is the limit of the observer; science as the object and the study of science is two different things, and we as scientists are too keen to call our observation the object.

Science of course has limits. It sees itself as necessarily provisional and requires its results to have the potentiality of being falsified for them to count as scientific. Too, there are realms of inquiry it knows, or should know, it can't answer such as morality and aesthetics and judgment in the balancing of competing rights. But its limits obviously conceded there is an anti intellectual tendency to deride its phenomenal significance, which any thinking person should avoid.

Teh wrote: (Nested quote removed.)


O.K. so you know that 95% of the universe is "EM" energy, and you "assume" the other 5% is visible mass (which isn't made of particles).

So, as I asked before, what is the total energy?

I never said mass was not made of particles, if that is what you are inferring. Why don't you answer a few of my questions instead of interrogating my view of the universe. I do appreciate when questions become too difficult the only way out is to ask questions in return. I have now asked certain questions at least thre times. If I have been available to your enquiry the least you could do is reply to mine.

The universe is intelligible, but only to those have sufficient evidence to work with and the ability to correctly interpret that evidence. For centuries we've been inventing and refining tools to extend our senses, and we've been developing new systems of logic to extract meaning from data, but we're still far away from explaining everything, and we'll probably never explain everything.

Xris wrote: I never said mass was not made of particles, if that is what you are inferring. Why don't you answer a few of my questions instead of interrogating my view of the universe. I do appreciate when questions become too difficult the only way out is to ask questions in return. I have now asked certain questions at least thre times. If I have been available to your enquiry the least you could do is reply to mine.

I can't remember which of your questions you are referring to.

As far as I can tell, you believe that 95% of the universe (which you are unable to quantify) is made up of "EM" energy. The rest you "assume" is made up of "matter" which, in turn is made up of particles, but not the sub-atomic particles we are familiar with: i.e. electrons, nucleons etc.

I will infer that if you don't believe sub-atomic particles exist, then neither do you believe atoms exist, and by extension molecules.

I really think the question regarding how much energy you think there is in the universe, is an important one for you to try to answer.

Teh wrote: (Nested quote removed.)


I can't remember which of your questions you are referring to.

As far as I can tell, you believe that 95% of the universe (which you are unable to quantify) is made up of "EM" energy. The rest you "assume" is made up of "matter" which, in turn is made up of particles, but not the sub-atomic particles we are familiar with: i.e. electrons, nucleons etc.

I will infer that if you don't believe sub-atomic particles exist, then neither do you believe atoms exist, and by extension molecules.

I really think the question regarding how much energy you think there is in the universe, is an important one for you to try to answer.

I am done answering your questions. A, because you have not the decency to find my questions and B, because you constantly make assumptions about my understanding. Molecules are particles.

Xris wrote: I am done answering your questions. A, because you have not the decency to find my questions and B, because you constantly make assumptions about my understanding. Molecules are particles.

But you haven't answered any of my questions. I think I know why...

Teh wrote: (Nested quote removed.)


But you haven't answered any of my questions. I think I know why...

I have but not as you would like it. When you consider I have constantly asked questions over a long period with no response. You can do the proverbial"other"...

Xris wrote: I have but not as you would like it. When you consider I have constantly asked questions over a long period with no response. You can do the proverbial"other"...

I think you know that none of your arguments or beliefs will stand up to scrutiny, that is why you evade answering direct questions.

e.g. You say that 95% of the universe is made up of "EM" energy, and you "assume" the rest is "matter", but you won't say what 100% of the energy in the universe adds up to.

Quotidian wrote:So I think 'exist' is the wrong word for such things as atoms, even though they are not non-existent. Maybe 'subsists' would be better. So, in a sense, I agree with Xris, albeit without the constant sense of righteous umbrage.

However did you get involved with this?
I have tried to form the opinion that it does not matter if particles exist or not, but Xris will insist that the belief they do has shaped our entire understanding of reality and they, therefore, cannot be ignored. In a sense, though, he is correct. We are now several generations into teaching about atoms and particles from elementary education to advanced degrees. In terms of statements in propaganda, this is the "big lie": Say it enough times, and everyone begins to believe it. It shapes their thinking; they can't remember thinking any other way. This, I believe, is the source of his "righteous umbrage" (great phrase).

The hunt for the ultimate indivisible something as the basis of reality continues, which brings up my point: Are these things real, or are they created by the energies used in the experimental processes? It is an interesting question, especially, since further explorations may never be possible: The energy needed for delving deeper into matter is well beyond any conceivable level we could attain. Is that because it takes so much energy to knock things apart, or to create them? It could still be argued that the created particles only appear at certain energies and not others, but maybe that is a property of the Universe and not a proof of particles. Are properties of the Universe being called particles? That would seem to be the interpretation of some early quantum physicists.

Where does all this leave us? This started out as a thread about the limits of Science, and it led to a discussion about particles. Does the entire edifice of Science rest on the concept of particles?

It seems to me to rest on useful models. Particles are one such thing. They are very useful. But, to quote Groucho Marx: "These are my principles. And if you don't like them ... I have others."

Umbridge here, thanks Logicus for your attempt at understanding my grievances. Thanks Steve for your humour.

Logicus wrote:
Where does all this leave us? This started out as a thread about the limits of Science, and it led to a discussion about particles. Does the entire edifice of Science rest on the concept of particles?

There are plenty of fields of science that don't deal with particles: Evolutionary Biology deals with evolution, neuroscience studies the brain, psychology studies behaviour, cosmology studies the universe, meteorology studies the weather .... and so on. No one is daft enough claim, evolution, the brain, behaviour, the universe, the weather ... don't exist! So, there must be something distinctly different about particle physics (or more generally, physics) that causes some people to complain that the object of its study does not exist. This is despite QM ans the SM in particular, being the most severely and relentlessly tested theory in human history.

-- Updated December 3rd, 2012, 3:23 pm to add the following --

Xris wrote:Umbridge here, thanks Logicus for your attempt at understanding my grievances.

Considering the etymology of the word "umbrage", might I suggest it is something you stand in to hide from simple direct questions like:

How much energy (given you claim 95% is "EM" energy) is there in the universe?

If it looks like an electron, behaves like an electron, has the same charge, mass and spin as an electron and obeys the Pauli exclusion principle, but it is not an electron, what is it?