Physics doesn't say anything exists

[Speakpigeon]

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

Say, particles. There are observations blah-blah-blah but nowhere are we certain, based on science, that there are particles. In other words, scientific premises, whatever they are exactly, do not allow us to deduce that particles exist as such, as opposed to anything that wouldn't be particles but would somehow result in the same observations being made by scientists. In other words still, the word "particle" is a place holder for something we don't know but is assumed to produce certain observations. Perhaps this notion of there being something doing this job is even fanciful?

So, anything exists at all according to science do you think?
EB

 

[ryan]

Science only assumes. It doesn't claim to be certain.

 

[skepticalbip]

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.

 

[Juma]

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

Say, particles. There are observations blah-blah-blah but nowhere are we certain, based on science, that there are particles. In other words, scientific premises, whatever they are exactly, do not allow us to deduce that particles exist as such, as opposed to anything that wouldn't be particles but would somehow result in the same observations being made by scientists. In other words still, the word "particle" is a place holder for something we don't know but is assumed to produce certain observations. Perhaps this notion of there being something doing this job is even fanciful?

So, anything exists at all according to science do you think?
EB

You confuses the question of existence with the question of how "things really are".

Physics definitely says that photons, quarks etc exists. Physics is about the behavior of theese, described by models.

 

[Lion IRC]

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...

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.

 

[Juma]

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

What? Philosophy of science is not about existence of particles.

 

[Lion IRC]

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

What? Philosophy of science is not about existence of particles.

What? Who said philosophy of science IS about "existence of particles"?

Please read what I actually wrote.

 

[Juma]

What? Philosophy of science is not about existence of particles.

What? Who said philosophy of science IS about "existence of particles"?

Please read what I actually wrote.

I did. didnt you realize what you referred in sceticalbips post?

 

[Lion IRC]

What?
I do NOT think or claim that philosophy of science is "about" the existence of particles.
I don't. I just don't. Full stop.

/me waves goodbye to the strawman.

 

[skepticalbip]

NO. Physicists don't say that, maybe some philosophers do...

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.

 

[fromderinside]

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.

So when we resolve the wave particle duality, come up with a unitary explanation. will particles and waves still exist then? I understand you might use the continued existence of Newtonian Physics as existing as explanation in the face of the more complete Einsteinian relativity. But, do we really think Newtonian physics explains the physical world? Or are we more interested in light being bent around the gravitational field of stars and galaxies which is not explained at all by Newtonian Physics. When quantum behavior is explained in the same context as relativistic behavior do we actually think we'll be using clocks as arbiters?

I mean are we really talking about metaphysics here? Aren't we actually talking about physical theory? Isn't metaphyscis reserved for that which isn't physical, perhaps emotional, maybe rational, but, certainly not physical nor observational.

 

[Lion IRC]

...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.

You mean if they didn't exist in this universe. Right?

I agree with you of course. But in metaphysics there could be other (as yet) undetected universes with other waves/particles we don't know about - which exist.

 

[Juma]

What?
I do NOT think or claim that philosophy of science is "about" the existence of particles.
I don't. I just don't. Full stop.

/me waves goodbye to the strawman.

Then what the fuck was your post #5 about!?

 

[Juma]

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.

So when we resolve the wave particle duality, come up with a unitary explanation. will particles and waves still exist then?

Of course. They are description of the behavior of the universe snd that will not change.

And nobody except you is talking about Newton here.

 

[Lion IRC]

What?
I do NOT think or claim that philosophy of science is "about" the existence of particles.
I don't. I just don't. Full stop.

/me waves goodbye to the strawman.

Then what the fuck was your post #5 about!?

No need to get worked up. I already knew that you didn't understand what I wrote.

skepticalbip quite rightly pointed out that physics/science is not about philosophy - the meaning of existence.

I was agreeing and adding that it is the philosophy OF science which makes both the noble quest and the findings of science meaningful.

 

[Juma]

Then what the fuck was your post #5 about!?

No need to get worked up. I already knew that you didn't understand what I wrote.

skepticalbip quite rightly pointed out that physics/science is not about philosophy - the meaning of existence.

I was agreeing and adding that it is the philosophy OF science which makes both the noble quest and the findings of science meaningful.

This still doesnt make sense. It is science itself that makes the findings of science meaningful.

 

[fromderinside]

So when we resolve the wave particle duality, come up with a unitary explanation. will particles and waves still exist then?

Of course. They are description of the behavior of the universe snd that will not change.

And nobody except you is talking about Newton here.

I'm only talking about newton here as a possible illustration for why one would keep wave/particle if that theory is replaced by one that more adequately describes physical reality that requires only one form.

So you are going to be surprised when time becomes irrelevant when considering the physical because change isn't at the core of physics? Isn't that a bit like saying because we have two ways of viewing energy (waves, particle) they are both true when when know such hasn't been so in past actualities?

I'm all in favor of keeping the parts of theory that still work well enough to get by. I just don't believe there are two forms of energy except in the mind of those who want order when what we have is probably chaotic.

I'm pretty sure that if one explanation works there will emerge an illustrative description that needs only one form.

 

[Juma]

Of course. They are description of the behavior of the universe snd that will not change.

And nobody except you is talking about Newton here.

So you are going to be surprised when time becomes irrelevant when considering the physical because change isn't at the core of physics? Isn't that a bit like saying because we have two ways of viewing energy (waves, particle) they are both true when when know such hasn't been so in past actualities?

I'm all in favor of keeping the parts of theory that still work well enough to get by. I just don't believe there are two forms of energy except in the mind of those who want order when what we have is probably chaotic.

I'm pretty sure that if one explanation works there will emerge an illustrative description that needs only one form.

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

 

[skepticalbip]

Of course. They are description of the behavior of the universe snd that will not change.

And nobody except you is talking about Newton here.

I'm only talking about newton here as a possible illustration for why one would keep wave/particle if that theory is replaced by one that more adequately describes physical reality that requires only one form.

So you are going to be surprised when time becomes irrelevant when considering the physical because change isn't at the core of physics? Isn't that a bit like saying because we have two ways of viewing energy (waves, particle) they are both true when when know such hasn't been so in past actualities?

I'm all in favor of keeping the parts of theory that still work well enough to get by. I just don't believe there are two forms of energy except in the mind of those who want order when what we have is probably chaotic.

I'm pretty sure that if one explanation works there will emerge an illustrative description that needs only one form.

There is one form that is accepted. It is called a wavicle. The distinction of particle or wave is only a convenience that is helpful for describing specific properties of that wavicle - such as describing a photon as a particle when discussing its particle-like properties or as a wave when discussing its wave-like properties.

 

[fromderinside]

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.