Moderator: Flannel Jesus
felix dakat wrote:Seems we all agree that whether there is an absolute smallest particle or an infinity of ever smaller particles is a matter of speculation at this point. That's all I'm saying.
anon wrote:felix dakat wrote:Seems we all agree that whether there is an absolute smallest particle or an infinity of ever smaller particles is a matter of speculation at this point. That's all I'm saying.
I agree. But I'm taking it a bit further - the very idea of "particles" may correspond to our own limitations rather than to some hypothetical mind-independent reality. Is there even such a thing as a "particle"?

felix dakat wrote:anon wrote:felix dakat wrote:Seems we all agree that whether there is an absolute smallest particle or an infinity of ever smaller particles is a matter of speculation at this point. That's all I'm saying.
I agree. But I'm taking it a bit further - the very idea of "particles" may correspond to our own limitations rather than to some hypothetical mind-independent reality. Is there even such a thing as a "particle"?
Right...could be just a wave.


felix dakat wrote:Anyway science demands that a theory be testable. When stuff gets really small, it acts like particles under some conditions and like a wave under others. there are limits to our ability to measure position and velocity of really small stuff simultaneously. If you multiply the uncertainty about the position of really small stuff by the uncertainty of its momentum, the result can never be smaller that a certain fixed quantity. Any smaller and it seems either position or momentum falls out. We can't have a little galaxy the planets of which are nowhere can we? You may say that these apparent limitations are merely conceptual, but unless someone comes up with a conceptual model that works theoretically and is testable aren't we just whistling in the wind?
We can't have a little galaxy the planets of which are nowhere can we?
anon wrote:felix dakat wrote:Anyway science demands that a theory be testable. When stuff gets really small, it acts like particles under some conditions and like a wave under others. there are limits to our ability to measure position and velocity of really small stuff simultaneously. If you multiply the uncertainty about the position of really small stuff by the uncertainty of its momentum, the result can never be smaller that a certain fixed quantity. Any smaller and it seems either position or momentum falls out. We can't have a little galaxy the planets of which are nowhere can we? You may say that these apparent limitations are merely conceptual, but unless someone comes up with a conceptual model that works theoretically and is testable aren't we just whistling in the wind?
I don't know. What made people sail west of Gibraltar? William Herschel was convinced there were men living on the moon. Some dreams are realized, some aren't. Some theories are useful, some aren't. But when the idea of usefulness is used as an argument against dreaming... well, that's the beginning of the end for science. You just end up with Lysenkoism.We can't have a little galaxy the planets of which are nowhere can we?
Sounds like you're taking Rasava's poetics pretty literally!

felix dakat wrote:anon wrote:felix dakat wrote:Anyway science demands that a theory be testable. When stuff gets really small, it acts like particles under some conditions and like a wave under others. there are limits to our ability to measure position and velocity of really small stuff simultaneously. If you multiply the uncertainty about the position of really small stuff by the uncertainty of its momentum, the result can never be smaller that a certain fixed quantity. Any smaller and it seems either position or momentum falls out. We can't have a little galaxy the planets of which are nowhere can we? You may say that these apparent limitations are merely conceptual, but unless someone comes up with a conceptual model that works theoretically and is testable aren't we just whistling in the wind?
I don't know. What made people sail west of Gibraltar? William Herschel was convinced there were men living on the moon. Some dreams are realized, some aren't. Some theories are useful, some aren't. But when the idea of usefulness is used as an argument against dreaming... well, that's the beginning of the end for science. You just end up with Lysenkoism.We can't have a little galaxy the planets of which are nowhere can we?
Sounds like you're taking Rasava's poetics pretty literally!
If you figure out a way to sail into the infinitely small or the infinitely large in this life time I salute you.
I can't walk through walls, either. But that doesn't mean walls aren't permeable!
]rasava wrote:Felix:
Science aims to be the "view from nowhere" but even it can't escape at least a smidgeon of social influence. And that's not necessarily a bad thing, because it's often our experience which helps us model facts better.
I can't walk through walls, either. But that doesn't mean walls aren't permeable!
It means they aren't permeable by you. [ Anon attempting to walk through a wall => ]
hooper wrote:But, no, no matter how many times you contest your
head against the wall, the wall wins.

Return to Science, Technology, and Math
Users browsing this forum: No registered users