If you look at anything macroscopic there is alot of random details. Like the leaves on a road, or the cracks in a wall etc. Why don’t atoms have any random details? They are perfectly round with “points” (electrons) that circulate them. OK, they are not “perfect” but governed by quantum mechanical equations etc. But they seem so “unnatural” as everything macroscopic has rnadom details and atoms are perfect mathematical equations. True that even air and oceans don’t have any random details, but the details are in the random measurements of pressure and temperature. Maybe we can’t perceive the atom’s random details. Maybe something is wrong with our descriptions…
If you look at pictures of proteins and cells you can notice how much random details are there or even pictures of integrated circuits.
It’s like a DVD. It can contain a film with loads of random details but it’s largest common denominator is the bit, 1 or 0. So nature’s largest common denominator must be an invariant with no random details otherwise it would be composed of an infinite level of objects each possessing random details and no final invariant. Matter would be based on nothing then and there would be no physical laws at all.
And in fact atoms do have random details and matter is composed of an infinite number of levels each having random details all the way down to the plank level. Therefore there are no laws of physics and matter is based on nothing. That is why quantum physics is based on chance, “random” probabilities, to reflect this state of things.
Random details are all those intricate little quirks you see in everything around you, like the stones on a road, the casual tree alignments, cracks and all the quirky patterns of car seats and textiles etc. Look at anything very closely and you will see all kinds of odd details. The beauty of the universe is in those details. Now if these details are no longer present for the atom, then what is left is a perfectly abstract item or should I say a perfectly mathematical item. In fact when we abstract concepts we are IGNORING the details so we can manage them logically and mathematically. So if the atom is a purely mathematical item, it is no longer a material item and hence matter does not even exist. If those details are present for an atom, and I see no reason why they shouldn’t be since we are biased towards thinking the atom is just a set of equations, then the quirky odd details go on forever at all levels even at 10^-100000 mm and hence there are really no physical laws at all only approximations and “chaos”. So matter is based on nothing anyways.
On one hand the entire basic assumption of science is that we can simplify reality by ignoring the details and creating logical models. On the other hand, science does investigate exactly the many details that philosophers and artists have often ignored because considered “too low level and not worth the human spirit”. But we are simply within a quirk range of size levels where the simplification - ignoring details method of science seems to work, but at the many infinite smaller levels there are no simplifying principles and in fact there may be an infinite increase of complexity and chaos and science would actually be inverted in the sense that the simple is based on the infinitely complex.
atoms have no shape so they are not round, nor do they have a definite position or velocity so describing them as a point is skewed too. With electrons this is especially noticable (hence the ‘charge cloud’).
Also, as you should realise, atoms are divisible, and so the necleus consists of protons and neutrons held together by gluon interactions, the electrons are held at predictable ‘orbits’ by photon interactions (though quite often the outer ones do swap around with other atoms to create chemical bonds). Even the protons and neutrons can be divided into quarks.
This is not an ‘abstraction’ it just so happens that the universe is actually this way naturally. The nice, solid and detailed impression you get from the universe through your eyes is the real abstraction, and the mathematical models are the reality (and they ignore nothing).
So atoms are perfect mathematical equations. Matter is mathematics. So a completely simulated universe on a computer is just as real as ours. So reality is base on pure logic-mathematical systems and there are no other “metaphysical” aspects to matter-reality. Well then this reality is completely abstract and senseless, it is just a series of Feynman Integrals describing particle interactions. No, I think this is completely wrong, atoms have cracks on them, just like walls, and the level of details and complexities of the real world is infinite. What is at the center of an electron? what is the world like at 10^-100000000 mm size level ?
deary me. you use cupolas like spiderman on acid; you are roping things together spuriously and without consideration, and you really should paragraph.
perfect? perfect at what? dancing?
‘matter’ can be represented entirely by mathematics and thats not the same thing.
Of course, but its not so simple. We wouldnt be interacting with it naturally (would require some kinda Matrix style interface) but it would be an accurate model. Unfortunately of course, to be an accurate model the computer running the simulation would have to be at least as big as the thing it is simulating in order to be accurate.
And besides we could never gain absolutely accurate information to start the simulation from, and the simulation and the universe would start to diverge immediately cos of heisenburg uncertainty.
You misunderstand. All the rules and indeed the contents of the universe can conceivably be explained by physics, that is not to say the explanation can magically replace the reality which we perceive (without Matrix style equipment anyway) any more than being able to divide by two will make half your keyboard disappear.
Metaphysics is a seperate issue and thats too big a thing for me to attempt to convince you on. Suffice to say, some metaphysics is now physics (aspects of ‘beingness’, ‘time’ and ‘space’ are all now essential) and it is my belief that the rest of metaphysics will be subsumed by the growth in scientific knowledge as we discover new ways to experiment.
why do you believe this? Of course some physicists suspect this is the case, but the general opinion is that the current model is the smallest scale possible. It seems your beliefs are shaped by what you want to be true rather than what is actually most likely to be the case.
The first question is meaningless. The nature of an electron is such that it has no definite position or velocity, likewise it has no volume and no constituent parts, nor does it have a circumference or centre. About the only thing it does have is a very very small mass and an electromagnetic charge.
The second question i dont know, you’re better off asking a particle physicist but he may just tell you that you are being silly; as space is not infinitely divisible.
Just so you know, an entire branch of physics postulates that you can’t distinguish between an electron or another, or between a photon and or another etc. : it’s called statistical physics, and it works very well…
Now that I think about it, the indistinguishability of identical particles in statistical mechanics is so weird it practically demands an equally bizarre non-local theory like quantum mechanics to explain it.
So what is the difference between a representation of something and that something ? A representation is a description which is also the same as a perception of an object. Our senses only provide a representation or description of an object, not the object. So any one to one mapping of anything to anything can be a valid representation of an object which for all practical purposes becomes the object because the set of sensory perception of an object is indistinguishable from the object. But objects have an infinite amount of detail.
The difference between the object and its representation is pretty much - in my mind - the difference between a map and the actual territory. For example : I can much faster climb a mountain on a map than on the actual moutain itself…
Representation implies necessarly to narrow your view at some properties of the object itself… If you don’t, you don’t have a representation : you have the object.
And so our senses are providing us with a large and detailed map of objects, but are not providing the objects as such. So these objects have an infinite amount of detail that we will never perceive because our senses simplify, abstract and ignore the details so as to present us with a clean and “logically” usable representation of reality. We only see descriptions of reality, not reality, so atoms do have cracks and random details only we will never be able to perceive them.
Then our mind and brain and “arbitrary” logic structure of our mind-language further simplify and exclude the infinite details of reality.
Imagine you were attempting to observe the finer structure of a star system, but that the only tool available to you is to fire jupiter sized planets at it. You would observe that the star system contained a certain amount of mass, potential energy, and angular momentum. You would postulate that, perhaps, there is a finer structure to it. You may even cause other planets to fire out of the star system, vindicating that hypothesis. Perhaps you would come up with approximate statistical laws of gravity which would approxamately describe the motion of the planets around the star.
Could you tell anything about the surface of the planets, or asteroids, or moons with such equipment available? No.
So, there may be finer structure to matter. We are limited, at the moment, by the accuracy of our instruments and the energy of reactions that we can use to probe this finer structure. Planet earth, when probed by a jupiter sized planet bouncing off of it, would look like a massive dot.
No. It’s a bit technical, but if atoms and electrons were not strictly similar, none of our technology, and even probably our bodies and universe, would work… The fact that you are unable to consider all details at once means that you are not god. That’s all it means. It does not imply science is mere bullshit of men bored with their wives who would play this strange games. The simple fact that we are having this conversation, thanks to internet, depends on the fact that all electrons are identical.
If space is not infinitely divisible, then it is made up of constituent parts which must be smaller than say 10^-100 mm. But then it will be these constituent parts that are infinitely divisible or else they would be made up of other smaller constituent parts. These fundamental invariant parts must resemble the BIT or a monolithic slabe of void or something, as such their characteristics may be the same at all size levels, but they may also be like fractals with infinite detail. I think the idea of a larger item composed of smaller items breaks down at a certain size level and a smaller item ends up being composed of a larger item (example: an atom contains (“is made up of”) the molecule it is in) or an atom is composed of the box containing it. Either way, space is infinitely divisible, so we have many cracks at 10^-100000000 mm.
An interesting idea is that the sizes are circular so that at 10^-10000 mm we find the fine structure contains the universe all over again and so on for all the infinite size levels. So it would be universe->earth->atom->slab->same universe again->same earth (maybe different?)->atom->slab etc. forever.
not true, different representations can be done in different mediums and are therefore not the same form, but still carry the same information.
Why must objects have infinite detail?
If our experience cannot possibly relate it to us, then why must it exist? How can it be said to exist at all?
really ad hoc there.
suffice to say, space is still not infinitely divisible, and if you want to call the smallest units of space its ‘constituent parts’ then fine, but they still arent divisible.
All ‘size levels’ DO NOT respond alike, the classical world and the quantum world are so different it is not even amusing.
Atoms ARE NOT billiard balls with nice coloured gradients on them and motion blur lines. The universe at belowe this level is best understood as the interaction of information, not nice concrete balls.
Let me repeat: they ARE ABSOLUTELY NOT the same.
You can speculate that quarks are actually points consisting of an entire universe or whatever if you like, but you have no reason to think so. Its just as likely that quarks are made up of small humanoids with large ears who like gold pressed latinum.
If you want to continue to argue for it (presumably without bringing in some new evidence), just be aware that you are just making noises and not arguments that other people can respond intelligently to.
I think we need to understand the connections between “objective”, “subjective”, and “perfection”. (CAUTION: Definitions May Vary.)
Objectively, matter has a “perfect math”. I think it is wise to consider this “math” in a non-anthropomorphical way. For example, they are probably equations without an “equal sign”. Ya know how we say “X + Y = Z” or some such thing. “Objective math” is probably just a “X + Y” statement that doesn’t equal itself to anything else. (That was an attempt at an anthropomorphical description of a non-anthropomorphical thing).
Second, a simulated “universe” also has an objective reality to it (again, in a non-anthropomorphical way). It has a “perfect math” of its own, whatever it is (even if it is subjectively, anthropomorphically perceived as flawed).
Even the simulations in our own brains have an objective perfection.
But third, I don’t think we should assume that the “objective math” between real matter and simulated matter is the same. Actually, I’d suggest that they are always different.
So while I’m OK with attributing an objective “perfection” to “maths” wherever they might exist; I’m skeptical of any attempt to unify them as similar.