Physics doesn't say anything exists

[Juma]

Nobody believes that there are two forms of energy. Waves and particles are just different aspects of elementary particles.

... in current theory. They are conveniences for explaining outcomes, no more. They are no more real than are imaginary dimensions that make real theory work.

No. Wave and particle describes the actual behavior. That will never change: there are wave-like behavior and particle-like behavior.

 

[fromderinside]

No. Wave and particle describes the

Show

appear to describe

actual behavior. That will never change: there are

Show

apparent

wave-like behavior and particle-like behavior.

Fixed it

 

[Juma]

No. Wave and particle describes the

Show

appear to describe

actual behavior. That will never change: there are

Show

apparent

wave-like behavior and particle-like behavior.

Fixed it

No, you missed the point entirely. There ARE wave behavior and there ARE particle behavior. Any theory of matter must predict these behaviors.

 

[Speakpigeon]

We all agree I guess that physics doesn't say of anything in particular that it exists yes?

EB

NO. Physicists don't say that, maybe some philosophers do. Physics is about nothing but gaining a better understanding of what exists and how it interacts with other stuff that exists.

Ok, so something must exist and how it interacts would explain observations (or measures) but science doesn't say what it is. It predicts what will be observed, from experimental setup, initial conditions and the kind of measure that would be carried out without committing to the existence of any particular thing. So physicists do believe there is something that exists beyond the value measured in a particular setup but science doesn't say what it is exactly. So any description involving the notion of particle would be only a manner of speaking, not an actual commitment to the existence of a particle as such. Right?
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

Yep. Philosophy of science, without which science is rendered meaningless IMHO.

What does it mean to say that a wave/particle/space/time 'exists' as against those same things NOT existing?

- - - Updated - - -

To be (detected) or not to be (detected).

That is the question.

If waves/particles didn't exist then there would be no energy in the universe. They do so there is.

If space/time didn't exist then there would be no universe. Everything would have to be at the same point unchanging (or non-existent). There is space/time so there is a universe and everything doesn't occupy the same point and there is change.

Oh sorry, I guess I misunderstood your reply to the OP.
EB

 

[skepticalbip]

NO. Physicists don't say that, maybe some philosophers do. Physics is about nothing but gaining a better understanding of what exists and how it interacts with other stuff that exists.

Ok, so something must exist and how it interacts would explain observations (or measures) but science doesn't say what it is. It predicts what will be observed, from experimental setup, initial conditions and the kind of measure that would be carried out without committing to the existence of any particular thing. So physicists do believe there is something that exists beyond the value measured in a particular setup but science doesn't say what it is exactly. So any description involving the notion of particle would be only a manner of speaking, not an actual commitment to the existence of a particle as such. Right?
EB

I can't figure out what you are trying to say. "Not an actual commitment to the existence of a particle"??? Hell yes there is. We state what a particle's mass, charge, spin, energy, position, etc. is. If that isn't committing to its existence then I have no idea what you are calling "existence". If you don't think this is committing to its existence, then you certainly are using a different meaning for existence. It isn't what I mean by existence, isn't what science means by existence, and isn't what is meant by the common usage of the term.

Do you mean that if a particle is too small to see directly without instrumentation then it doesn't exist? If so, that is a damned weird definition, it would mean that viruses don't exist.

 

[fromderinside]

Fixed it

No, you missed the point entirely. There ARE wave behavior and there ARE particle behavior. Any theory of matter must predict these behaviors.

A cousin thread indicates there is no time in time space http://talkfreethought.org/showthread.php?7991-Coming-from-Nothing&p=284447&viewfull=1#post284447

If there is no time in time-space http://phys.org/news/2011-04-scientists-spacetime-dimension.html then wave indications must reflect limits in instrumentation to measure order of event with matter.

 

[fromderinside]

Two bites from same apple. Sorry.

 

[fromderinside]

NO. Physicists don't say that, maybe some philosophers do. Physics is about nothing but gaining a better understanding of what exists and how it interacts with other stuff that exists.

Ok, so something must exist and how it interacts would explain observations (or measures) but science doesn't say what it is. It predicts what will be observed, from experimental setup, initial conditions and the kind of measure that would be carried out without committing to the existence of any particular thing. So physicists do believe there is something that exists beyond the value measured in a particular setup but science doesn't say what it is exactly. So any description involving the notion of particle would be only a manner of speaking, not an actual commitment to the existence of a particle as such. Right?
EB

Apparently some now believe particles exist while quantum wave functions may reflect some sort of instrumentation shortfall. In a timeless world evidence of matter's order of location beyond our ability to resolve matter in space would be measured as wave.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Ok, so something must exist and how it interacts would explain observations (or measures) but science doesn't say what it is. It predicts what will be observed, from experimental setup, initial conditions and the kind of measure that would be carried out without committing to the existence of any particular thing. So physicists do believe there is something that exists beyond the value measured in a particular setup but science doesn't say what it is exactly. So any description involving the notion of particle would be only a manner of speaking, not an actual commitment to the existence of a particle as such. Right?
EB

Apparently some now believe particles exist while quantum wave functions may reflect some sort of instrumentation shortfall. In a timeless world evidence of matter's order of location beyond our ability to resolve matter in space would be measured as wave.

Thanks. I'll try to get my head round that idea as soon as I can get an aspirin. Maybe this lies beyond my ability to resolve understanding.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

Ok, so something must exist and how it interacts would explain observations (or measures) but science doesn't say what it is. It predicts what will be observed, from experimental setup, initial conditions and the kind of measure that would be carried out without committing to the existence of any particular thing. So physicists do believe there is something that exists beyond the value measured in a particular setup but science doesn't say what it is exactly. So any description involving the notion of particle would be only a manner of speaking, not an actual commitment to the existence of a particle as such. Right?
EB

I can't figure out what you are trying to say. "Not an actual commitment to the existence of a particle"??? Hell yes there is. We state what a particle's mass, charge, spin, energy, position, etc. is. If that isn't committing to its existence then I have no idea what you are calling "existence". If you don't think this is committing to its existence, then you certainly are using a different meaning for existence. It isn't what I mean by existence, isn't what science means by existence, and isn't what is meant by the common usage of the term.

Do you mean that if a particle is too small to see directly without instrumentation then it doesn't exist? If so, that is a damned weird definition, it would mean that viruses don't exist.

My point is that Qantum Physics doesn't contain equations proving particles. For example, although it's been assumed by scientists for a while that bubble chambers showed the trajectory of actual particles, physicists now accept that it is merely compatible with this possibility, i.e. it's also very possible that there are no particles at all, only bubbles that pop up along a particular curve merely because that curve is just the most probable location for the bubbles to show up. I understand this is now the standard view. And QM being the general framework for other theories, such as particle physics, whenever physicists in particle physics talk about particles, this is only a matter of speaking for them, a short cut. They know there may be not particle as such. There's no good basis in theory to claim there are particles (although one believes what one believes, but it's no longer science, merely an irrational belief stemming from a Neanderthal brain).
EB

 

[modernPrimitive2]

My point is that Qantum Physics doesn't contain equations proving particles. For example, although it's been assumed by scientists for a while that bubble chambers showed the trajectory of actual particles, physicists now accept that it is merely compatible with this possibility, i.e. it's also very possible that there are no particles at all, only bubbles that pop up along a particular curve merely because that curve is just the most probable location for the bubbles to show up. I understand this is now the standard view. And QM being the general framework for other theories, such as particle physics, whenever physicists in particle physics talk about particles, this is only a matter of speaking for them, a short cut. They know there may be not particle as such. There's no good basis in theory to claim there are particles (although one believes what one believes, but it's no longer science, merely an irrational belief stemming from a Neanderthal brain).
EB

Kind of what I've been trying to say. The problem comes in because we have such a cognitive bias towards a "solid" material reality in our day-to-day existence that it becomes hard to see that a particle is not a "substance". Yes, there are some energetic behaviours and so on, but it's just not a "substance" or a "materiality" so to speak - it's something else. Exactly what it is, QM doesn't really say. What is the fundamental "substance" of reality then like materialism infers? It simply can't be found. Maybe it's more like "energy" that sounds too "spiritual" and then Deepak Chopra wins.

 

[bigfield]

They know there may be not particle as such. There's no good basis in theory to claim there are particles (although one believes what one believes, but it's no longer science, merely an irrational belief stemming from a Neanderthal brain).

The Standard Model is just that--a model; the elementary particles are abstract representations of the phenomena that are observed; they don't exist any more or less than a chair or any other abstraction humans have invented to describe what we observe.

Eventually, physics may develop a more precise and accurate model to describe observed phenomena, at which point the Standard Model will be discarded, and we laypersons will declare that 'particles don't actually exist' simply because scientists chose a different label.

 

[Perspicuo]

Physics doesn't say anything exists

Define "exists". I suspect your title and opening statement presuppose naïve realism, the subjective "feeling" you know what you're talking about when you're a ten y.o. boy and you say things like "ball" or "person" or "disappear".

If it interacts with this world it exists. What exists produces either direct experience or interaction with other things that in turn are related to things that produce experience.

 

[skepticalbip]

I can't figure out what you are trying to say. "Not an actual commitment to the existence of a particle"??? Hell yes there is. We state what a particle's mass, charge, spin, energy, position, etc. is. If that isn't committing to its existence then I have no idea what you are calling "existence". If you don't think this is committing to its existence, then you certainly are using a different meaning for existence. It isn't what I mean by existence, isn't what science means by existence, and isn't what is meant by the common usage of the term.

Do you mean that if a particle is too small to see directly without instrumentation then it doesn't exist? If so, that is a damned weird definition, it would mean that viruses don't exist.

My point is that Qantum Physics doesn't contain equations proving particles. For example, although it's been assumed by scientists for a while that bubble chambers showed the trajectory of actual particles, physicists now accept that it is merely compatible with this possibility, i.e. it's also very possible that there are no particles at all, only bubbles that pop up along a particular curve merely because that curve is just the most probable location for the bubbles to show up. I understand this is now the standard view. And QM being the general framework for other theories, such as particle physics, whenever physicists in particle physics talk about particles, this is only a matter of speaking for them, a short cut. They know there may be not particle as such. There's no good basis in theory to claim there are particles (although one believes what one believes, but it's no longer science, merely an irrational belief stemming from a Neanderthal brain).
EB

It seems that you are arguing semantics, not "reality". What is your definition of "exist". Do you accept that there is an external reality separate from our sense of it and understanding of it?

If you don't accept an external reality then nothing exists but concepts our minds create. If you do accept an external reality then the universe exists independent of our mind and what we know of it is our mental interpretations of our sensory inputs.

I assume the second and so does science - there is an external reality and I understand it through imagery provided by my senses and mind. So particles exist independent of our sensing and understanding of them. The fact that my mental model of a particle doesn't align well with my understanding of the macro world is irrelevant to the question of its existence. It exists independent of my understanding of it.

 

[modernPrimitive2]

It seems that you are arguing semantics, not "reality". What is your definition of "exist". Do you accept that there is an external reality separate from our sense of it and understanding of it?

If you don't accept an external reality then nothing exists but concepts our minds create. If you do accept an external reality then the universe exists independent of our mind and what we know of it is our mental interpretations of our sensory inputs.

I assume the second and so does science - there is an external reality and I understand it through imagery provided by my senses and mind. So particles exist independent of our sensing and understanding of them. The fact that my mental model of a particle doesn't align well with my understanding of the macro world is irrelevant to the question of its existence. It exists independent of my understanding of it.

It may very well be semantics. There is an external "something" that appears to us (via instrumentation) as a particle / wave. Hence there is a layer of abstraction between the sensing / cognition of the particle and the particle as a thing-in-itself. The thing-in-itself may or may not be dramatically different from what we perceive. We can't know. It's an epistemological limitation.

 

[skepticalbip]

It seems that you are arguing semantics, not "reality". What is your definition of "exist". Do you accept that there is an external reality separate from our sense of it and understanding of it?

If you don't accept an external reality then nothing exists but concepts our minds create. If you do accept an external reality then the universe exists independent of our mind and what we know of it is our mental interpretations of our sensory inputs.

I assume the second and so does science - there is an external reality and I understand it through imagery provided by my senses and mind. So particles exist independent of our sensing and understanding of them. The fact that my mental model of a particle doesn't align well with my understanding of the macro world is irrelevant to the question of its existence. It exists independent of my understanding of it.

It may very well be semantics. There is an external "something" that appears to us (via instrumentation) as a particle / wave. Hence there is a layer of abstraction between the sensing / cognition of the particle and the particle as a thing-in-itself. The thing-in-itself may or may not be dramatically different from what we perceive. We can't know. It's an epistemological limitation.

That has no bearing on the question of whether or not physics says that particles exist. Physics absolutely does say that particles exist, even though they don't claim to fully understand their nature. I suggest you re-read the OP.

 

[modernPrimitive2]

It may very well be semantics. There is an external "something" that appears to us (via instrumentation) as a particle / wave. Hence there is a layer of abstraction between the sensing / cognition of the particle and the particle as a thing-in-itself. The thing-in-itself may or may not be dramatically different from what we perceive. We can't know. It's an epistemological limitation.

That has no bearing on the question of whether or not physics says that particles exist. Physics absolutely does say that particles exist, even though they don't claim to fully understand their nature.

Ah ok, now we're finally on the same page....and it took that much to get here. LOL.

So that then is the fundamental disconnect because as I said in other threads materialism is the belief that matter is the fundamental substance of reality. But if physicists don't fully understand the nature of particles as you have stated, then how can one be a materialist (ie: posit that particles are fundamentally a "substance")?

 

[Juma]

That has no bearing on the question of whether or not physics says that particles exist. Physics absolutely does say that particles exist, even though they don't claim to fully understand their nature.

Ah ok, now we're finally on the same page....and it took that much to get here. LOL.

So that then is the fundamental disconnect because as I said in other threads materialism is the belief that matter is the fundamental substance of reality. But if physicists don't fully understand the nature of particles as you have stated, then how can one be a materialist (ie: posit that particles are fundamentally a "substance")?

Because that is what the evidense shows makes up our reality.
There are no sign of anything else.

 

[skepticalbip]

That has no bearing on the question of whether or not physics says that particles exist. Physics absolutely does say that particles exist, even though they don't claim to fully understand their nature.

Ah ok, now we're finally on the same page....and it took that much to get here. LOL.

So that then is the fundamental disconnect because as I said in other threads materialism is the belief that matter is the fundamental substance of reality. But if physicists don't fully understand the nature of particles as you have stated, then how can one be a materialist (ie: posit that particles are fundamentally a "substance")?

Physics doesn't assume (as you apparently do) that something has to be fully understood by us humans for it to exist. Humanity could vanish this afternoon and the universe would continue on just as it is.

"Mind stuff" has nothing to do with the universe, only an internal concern for those concerned about it.