Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Quotidian]

Most arguments are based on one principle. What exactly is my argument if you are so aware of it?

Your argument seems to be that people accept Big Bang cosmology and many other facets of physical cosmology, purely on the authority of Big Science, to the extent that it is like a religious dogma.

There is some truth in that, I suppose, but it is an over-simplification, in other ways. There is enormous internal dissent in science about many of these questions. There are also great technical difficulties involved in understanding the issues.

Anyway, as regards the photon, and sub-atomic entities generally, it is quite possible that in some sense, these are simply conceptual, in some way, as you appear to suggest. But this throws up a big question of ontology, of what the world 'is made of', or 'what is fundamentally real'. That is why these questions are so vexed.

I don't think it has to be interpretted as saying that there is no underlying truth about what light "really" is. I think the mistake that is often made is in thinking that the words "particle" and "wave" are being used to signify anything more than mathematical models. These two words, in this context, are shorthand terms for little packages of mathematical description. They are not words for objects.

If we apply the same logic to other sub-atomic 'entities', and they, too are not objects, as such, then we are left facing the question 'well what actually is there'?

From my philosophical position, which is essentially idealist, this is not such a problem, but I think it is a problem for anyone who has a realist or materialist view. (Actually, I have a very provocative opinion piece, published in Nature a few years back, by a physicist who has adopted a completely idealist view of life, called The Mental Universe. Have a peek, the reference might be deleted because of copyright.)

[Xris]

I will look tomorrow as it is late, for me, but thanks. My complaints become complex simply by defence more than reason. I am content to admit that many concepts of the quantum world are satisfactory in general terms. If I had to make one argument it would be that we accept the concept of light as proven too easily. Steve admits that it is beyond acceptable reason but then back tracks as if it is of no consequence. Everything I oppose in theoretical quantum science hinges on the concept of light. If we accept that light travels and travels as photon particle we are compelled to accept the consequences. Those consequences are the BB. The BB invents dark energy,dark mass, black holes. The list grows longer and longer. Now we are to suppose the god particle depends on it. Just imagine that science has deceived itself on the one and crucial concept of light. What if it is wrong.

[Steve3007]

Xris:

Suddenly realised you have a reverse gear? ... You are the first and only who has had the ability to admit that it is a mathematical invention and now you appear to find the dark side too frightening.

If I had to make one argument it would be that we accept the concept of light as proven too easily. Steve admits that it is beyond acceptable reason but then back tracks as if it is of no consequence.

Jeez. I sometimes wonder if you see completely different text to that which I type. All I said was that I understood your point of view about scientific journalism with reference to a particular radio programme about the Big Bang:

listening (vaguely) to that programme with my "Xris ears" on, I can concede that you have a valid point about that kind of presentation of science.

...and now I've apparently "gone into reverse gear" about all kinds of things, including the thing that I've been consistently saying since, it seems, the dawn of time.

Xris, I've been trying to explain to you the concept of models and their use in science over and over again, saying almost exactly what I said in this thread about concepts like particles, forever. Your claim that I'm suddenly somehow saying something different beggars belief. Here is an entire thread I devoted to the subject, as a result of previous discussions in previous threads, about 6 months ago which says essentially just what I have said in this thread (note the exasperation in this thread as a result of previous efforts having not got through):

onlinephilosophyclub.com/forums/viewtop ... amp;t=6240

Your ability to misunderstand, deliberately or otherwise, is absolutely staggering. I salute you.

---

Quotidian:

If we apply the same logic to other sub-atomic 'entities', and they, too are not objects, as such, then we are left facing the question 'well what actually is there'?

Note: the passage of mine to which this was a reply was not in any sense claiming that light is not there or that light is a mathematical construct. It was simply drawing attention to the fact that the mathematical models, referred to by the words "particle" and "wave" that are among the various models used to describe the observed behaviour of real entities like light are just that - mathematical models.

"What is actually there?". What form of answer do you want from that question? Do you want some English words which describe various phenomena which are known about via the presence of observations? In that case, light is actually there. Matter and energy are actually there. Electric charge is actually there. etc. We can make up lots of words like these to describe what is actually there. But, at the end of the day, if we start asking what these words mean, what else can we do other than describe the sets of observations to which they refer, and the patterns in those observations?

[Quotidian]

"What is actually there?". What form of answer do you want from that question?

A philosophical one, would be a great start.

[Steve3007]

And was the answer that I gave a philosophical one? What would a philosophical answer look like?

[Quotidian]

Empiricists will always give an empiricist answer. "The world consists of phenomena which we examine by means of science", and so on. This view is mainly instrumental and pragmatic. But empiricism has forgotten that philosophy started out with a completely different kind of quest, one to understand the reality or the principle in terms of which everything else can be understood.

[Xris]

Steve do you not realise I understand what you have constantly said on the subject of particles? I understand but completely disagree with you. It is no good stating the blatantly obvious and then getting annoyed because I oppose you. Particles as a concept or a mathematical examples are not working. It may work on the practical level but when it is used to invent further concepts it results in horrendous results.

[Steve3007]

I'm not annoyed by opposition or disagreement. But by misrepresentation.

[Xris]

I'm not annoyed by opposition or disagreement. But by misrepresentation.

How am I misrepresenting you?

[Steve3007]

See post #33

[Xris]

See post #33

I am opposing your reasoning when you say that you can not recall denying a photon as a particle. You appear to be saying one moment that it is simply a mathematical concept and the next infer it is a particle. I am constantly confused with your stated beliefs.

[Steve3007]

OK. Well I apologise for the confusion. I thought I'd pretty consistently expressed the view (my view) that the most effective way to understand the observable world is to say that there are observations and that there are models that we make to explain those observations. "Particle" and "Wave" are two such models.

I wouldn't say "light is a particle" because that would be saying that light is only a sub-set of its own observed characteristics. That would make no sense except as a metaphor. In the same way, it makes sense to say "the Sun is an orange" only as a metaphor. The Sun is round and orangey coloured. But that is not all there is to it. For some purposes an orange makes a good model of the Sun. For others, not so good. Same for light and particle.

---

In the hope of persuading you that I have been consistent in this view, here is an excerpt from the thread of 6 months ago to which I posted a link earlier:

Steve3007:

[Post #1]A model is an imaginary piece of the world which possesses only a small subset of the properties of the real thing. One such model is "particle".

Xris:

[Post #2]What if it never acts like a particle can it be still described as a particle?

Steve:

[Post #3]No. The whole point of a model is that it possesses some of the properties of the set of observations that it is designed to describe. If it possesses none of those properties then it's no good as a model!

Xris:

[Post #2]Electrons are waves or particles, we are told

Steve3007:

[Post #3]Not quite. You're still using that "are/is" word! Electrons appear to behave in such a way that two of the possible chunks of mathematics that can be usefully used to describe some aspects of that behaviour are the particle model and the wave model. Electrons are electrons.

And so on. I think there are similar exchanges on other threads.

[Xris]

So I have not misrepresented your position. You admit that particles are a concept but refuse to acknowledge they are anything else. I would like to ask what you oppose in my arguments after so many conflicts?

[Jklint]

Sometimes I wonder what's more toxic to the human brain, particles or waves?

[Steve3007]

Xris:

I'd have to go back through about 2 years of arguments to work that out properly.

How are you defining the word "concept" today? If you're defining it as a model to predict observations, then we agree. But, if the past is any indication of the future, if we were to start talking about the subject again you'd start saying things like "but is an electron a particle or not?" again. Or maybe not. Who knows.

---


Quotidian:

...understand...everything else...

About philosophy, they sometimes say "it's all just semantics", don't they?

For example, what does it mean to "understand" something, in the sense that we are using it here? One definition of the word involves knowing of an underlying mechanism for something by which you can, to some extent, predict its behaviour. But people often like to think they mean something "deeper" than this.

What do you mean by "everything else"? Everything that can be sensed? Everything that can be sensed, believed or intuited? Or what? If you are including things that cannot be sensed, felt, believed in or inuited, then I would say you are talking about things that are logically identical to non-existent things.

Empiricists will always give an empiricist answer. "The world consists of phenomena which we examine by means of science", and so on.

Maybe I'm not an empiricist. I would say: "the world of things-that-exist consists of everything that can possibly be sensed, experienced, felt, intuited, believed or logically extrapolated from these things. Some of these phenomena contain patterns and can therefore be used as the basis for laws to predict other phenomena. (These laws exist too.) Some don't so they can't."

If you believe that there are higher levels of existence that are not susceptable to scientific investigation then you are saying that you feel/believe/inuit that these levels exist and that they do not contain observable internal patterns or interact with the lower levels in predicable ways. Fine. They exist. They will never be understood.

If I do not believe in such higher levels of existence, that doesn't stop them from existing for you. It's just one of the ways in which they are non-universal (by not being universally believed in) and therefore one of the ways in which they are outside the scope of scientific investigation. (Being universally believed in is a strong pattern. Some people apparently think that only things that are universally believed in exist.)

This view is mainly instrumental and pragmatic.

My view is pragmatic in the sense that I think the best view is the one that helps you to achieve your purposes, whatever they may be.

But empiricism has forgotten that philosophy started out with a completely different kind of quest, one to understand the reality or the principle in terms of which everything else can be understood.

There are principles by which large collections of things can be understood. They exist because those collections have patterns in them. The ones that relate to things that can be sensed are called laws of nature. Maybe there will turn out to be one big pattern, or "law of nature", by which everything can be understood. Maybe not. Maybe there will turn out to be a big pattern by which everything that can be detected by the senses can be understood. Maybe not. But it's certainly a possibility that interests many who call themselves scientists. Given that you closely equate empiricism with science, I don't see how you can say that empiricists/scientists have forgotten this.

If such a big pattern is ever found, then it will be seen to exist. The little patterns that we have found already (incomplete laws of phyiscs and so on) could be said to exist.


P.S. Your link to "The Mental Universe" worked. I'll have a look at it.

P.P.S I've skimmed through it and, at first glance, it seems not unreasonable.