Philosophy Discussion Forums

Sy Borg wrote: ↑August 15th, 2022, 1:51 am Not elements, which are entire atoms. Think waaay smaller.

My point, pardon the pun, is that I'm not sure that "point particles" are ontic points or epistemic points. That is, I'm not sure that we have detected the smallest states of matter at this stage. Activity at an even smaller scale may be behind the apparently random fluctuations of subatomic particles.

Since physicists have declared the quarks as indivisible, therefore fundamental, you must now be talking about a whole new universe for it to make sense. But this other universe must be only theoretical. Which is a danger to reality. One could make a whole new universe by creating a theory with all its infinitely small particles. And for that, no wonder many people tune out after quarks. I'd rather live in an imperfect world, than in a world created entirely by imagination.

Elephant wrote: ↑August 24th, 2022, 10:02 pm

Sy Borg wrote: ↑August 15th, 2022, 1:51 am Not elements, which are entire atoms. Think waaay smaller.

My point, pardon the pun, is that I'm not sure that "point particles" are ontic points or epistemic points. That is, I'm not sure that we have detected the smallest states of matter at this stage. Activity at an even smaller scale may be behind the apparently random fluctuations of subatomic particles.

Since physicists have declared the quarks as indivisible, therefore fundamental, you must now be talking about a whole new universe for it to make sense. But this other universe must be only theoretical. Which is a danger to reality. One could make a whole new universe by creating a theory with all its infinitely small particles. And for that, no wonder many people tune out after quarks. I'd rather live in an imperfect world, than in a world created entirely by imagination.

The Standard Model can be revised without discarding the whole model. The discovery of subatomic particles did not mean living in a whole new universe (and quanta were also once considered imaginary, since atoms were once believed to be indivisible). If, for instance, string theory is true, that does not mean living in a different universe. It means living in a universe where Earth hominids use particular physical models.

Sy Borg wrote: ↑August 15th, 2022, 1:51 am Not elements, which are entire atoms. Think waaay smaller.

My point, pardon the pun, is that I'm not sure that "point particles" are ontic points or epistemic points. That is, I'm not sure that we have detected the smallest states of matter at this stage. Activity at an even smaller scale may be behind the apparently random fluctuations of subatomic particles.

Elephant wrote: ↑August 24th, 2022, 10:02 pm Since physicists have declared the quarks as indivisible, therefore fundamental, you must now be talking about a whole new universe for it to make sense. But this other universe must be only theoretical. Which is a danger to reality. One could make a whole new universe by creating a theory with all its infinitely small particles. And for that, no wonder many people tune out after quarks. I'd rather live in an imperfect world, than in a world created entirely by imagination.

You seem to mistake the success of science for proof of its theories. There is no such proof; that's not how science works. Science "is only theoretical", as is the model of a universe that it offers us. The universe itself is not theoretical, of course, it is our one and only reference. Science follows the universe, not the other way around. So maybe quarks, if they exist at all, are not the smallest type of particle?

As for your parting shot, we all live in an imaginary world. We just like to think our imagination has some basis — and maybe it does...