north
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 May, 2011 04:39 pm
@Cyracuz,
Cyracuz wrote:

The macro level is only our perception. What we percieve on the macro level and what happens on the micro level are the same things.


wrong , wrong , wrong , wrong
Cyracuz
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 May, 2011 04:43 pm
@north,
Oh... in the face of such compelling arguments such as "wrong , wrong , wrong , wrong", how can I not see the error... lol..

But seriously, are you suggesting that things we can percieve in the macrocosmos are not made of waves and particles? Where then do you propose waves and particles fit into the scheme?
north
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 May, 2011 04:50 pm
@Cyracuz,
Cyracuz wrote:

Oh... in the face of such compelling arguments such as "wrong , wrong , wrong , wrong", how can I not see the error... lol..

But seriously, are you suggesting that things we can percieve in the macrocosmos are not made of waves and particles? Where then do you propose waves and particles fit into the scheme?


oh the macro is made of the micro , no problem there , but as with a feather and a ton of feathers , the make-up is the same but the behaviour is far different

thats why our planet doesn't behave as an electron or a proton
Cyracuz
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 May, 2011 05:05 pm
@north,
Our planet behaves as waves and particles do when they are configured in such a way that we percieve it on the macrocosmic level as "planet".
north
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 May, 2011 05:09 pm
@Cyracuz,
Cyracuz wrote:

Our planet behaves as waves and particles do when they are configured in such a way that we percieve it on the macrocosmic level as "planet".


how so ?
Cyracuz
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 May, 2011 05:24 pm
@north,
Try to think of what you see as the brain's interpretation of the quantum realm.
north
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 May, 2011 05:27 pm
@Cyracuz,
Cyracuz wrote:

Try to think of what you see as the brain's interpretation of the quantum realm.


in what way ?
0 Replies
 
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 May, 2011 09:06 pm
@Cyracuz,
They participate, someone once told me, as wavicles.
Cyracuz
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 May, 2011 01:30 am
@JLNobody,
Do you mean as wave and particle both? My somewhat simplified understanding of it is that waves are probabilistic phenomenon, superpositions, that can collapse into particles or definite states. I may be wrong or thinking too simplistically.
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 May, 2011 08:11 pm
@Cyracuz,
In my ignorance I like the composite term because it connotes that waves and particles are essentially perspectives. The reality is one, but our angle of vision or thought makes them distinct.
0 Replies
 
JLNobody
 
  2  
Reply Thu 5 May, 2011 08:11 pm
@Cyracuz,
In my ignorance I like the composite term because it connotes that waves and particles are essentially perspectives. The reality is one, but our angle of vision or thought makes them distinct.
Cyracuz
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 May, 2011 03:40 am
@JLNobody,
Good point and worth remembering. My thought experiments sometimes lead me away from what I intuitively "know". Frequent "reality checks" are helpful.
0 Replies
 
north
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 May, 2011 09:53 pm

of course it is known that atoms do have a solid core , this was shown about 100yrs ago
0 Replies
 
north
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 May, 2011 10:23 pm
in 1907 Ernest Rutherford did the gold foil experiment

The gold foil scattering experiment

In Canada, Rutherford felt he was far away from the center of things. He longed to return to England where he would be closer to other physicists. In 1907, Arthur Schuster asked him to direct the physics laboratory at the University of Manchester. Rutherford gladly accepted the job.

At Manchester, Rutherford found a well-equipped laboratory. He also found a 25-year-old physicist named Hans Geiger. Geiger had been Professor Schuster's assistant. When Rutherford took over, Geiger agreed to stay and work with him on alpha particles.

Together, Rutherford and Geiger developed a detector that could count alpha particles. It was an early version of the Geiger-Mueller counter we use today.

Geiger used his counter to test a new way of detecting alpha particles. The new detector was a screen coated with zinc sulfide. Each time an alpha particle hit the screen, it would emit a tiny flash of light called a scintillation. In order to see the scintillations, Geiger had to peer at the screen through a microscope.

Now Geiger was ready to do an experiment. Rutherford had noticed that when a beam of alpha particles passed through a thin foil, its image on a photographic plate was blurred. The alpha particles were colliding with the atoms in the foil, and bouncing off at a small angle. When a beam of particles interacts with a target in this way, it is said to be scattered. Rutherford and Geiger hoped to learn something about atoms by counting the scattered particles.

Geiger got his alpha particles from a radioactive "source." To create a narrow beam of particles, Geiger placed his source behind a slit. Fifty-four centimenters from the slit he placed a zinc-sulfide detector. The alpha particles emerged from the slit and hit a spot in the center of the detector.

Geiger put a thin foil in front of the slit. The alpha particles went through the foil, but they did not come out in a narrow beam. They spread out like light from a flashlight.

Geiger moved his detector across the beam. At each new spot he counted the number of alpha particles hitting the screen. From his measurements he calculated the average angle of deflection of an alpha particle that had passed through the foil. It was very small, less than one degree from the center path.

At about this time, a student named Ernest Marsden joined Geiger at the lab. Geiger asked Rutherford to suggest a project for the young man. Rutherford told him to see if any of the alpha particles were being deflected by more than 90 degrees. That is, he was to see if any alpha particles were bouncing back toward the source.

A few days later, Geiger reported that Marsden had indeed observed alpha particles deflected by more than 90 degrees.

Rutherford was dumbfounded. From Geiger's measurements, he knew that the probability of small deflections adding up to more than 90 degrees was less than one in a billion. Yet when Geiger and Marsden counted alpha particles, they found that about one in 8000 was deflected by a large angle.

Rutherford could think of only one explanation for Marsden's result. The alpha particles must be colliding with something small and heavy inside the atom.

Hantaro Nagaoka had been right. The atom's positive charge was concentrated in the center, with the electrons in orbit around it. The small, heavy center of the atom is called the nucleus, from the Latin word meaning kernel, or small nut.

0 Replies
 
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 May, 2011 10:50 pm
I suspect that some people who favor objectivism--the bias that our world is objective fact rather than subjective construction-- do so because for them "objective" means real while "subjective" means fictional.
On the other hand, subjectivists (idealists or mentalists) probably favor subjectivity because it is phenomenologically richer than are objectivist descriptions, often coldly phrased in arithmetical language.
But how can we conceptualize a world without reference to both objective and subjective facts? Not that we do so because the ontology of reality demands it, but because it's difficult for to think in terms of yin or yang.
north
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 May, 2011 11:00 pm
@JLNobody,
JLNobody wrote:

I suspect that some people who favor objectivism--the bias that our world is objective fact rather than subjective construction-- do so because for them "objective" means real while "subjective" means fictional.
On the other hand, subjectivists (idealists or mentalists) probably favor subjectivity because it is phenomenologically richer than are objectivist descriptions, often coldly phrased in arithmetical language.


Quote:
But how can we conceptualize a world without reference to both objective and subjective facts? Not that we do so because the ontology of reality demands it, but because it's difficult for to think in terms of yin or yang.


so this yin and yang is not the same as the objective and subjective reality ?
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Sat 1 Oct, 2011 10:03 pm
@north,
Sorry I did not answer this earlier--I lost track of the thread. Of course it's difficult to THINK of yin and yang at the same time; but we experience them simultaneously. But I think you're right: we need both concepts--objective and subjective reality--in order to make sense and talk ABOUT the world as we experience it. I repeat the principle that I attribute to John Searle: All of life as we know it is subjective experience, and that's an objective fact.
I would also argue that our subjective experience is of an objective world, but that world includes our so-called inner experience of it. Reality is an objective unity, but our subjective experience is in terms of its diversity--except for mystical "knowledge" of its essential unity.
0 Replies
 
G H
 
  1  
Reply Sun 2 Oct, 2011 10:07 am
@Cyracuz,
Quote:
Do scientists and contemporary philosophers believe that it is correct to think of objective reality, as opposed to reality percieved by humans?
If so, what is this reality like?

Independence from the manifestations of human sense does not mean independence from the constructs of human thought. There's no need for boot-thumping metaphysical reification of such revisable descriptive approaches -- it adds little apart from a soothing balm for transcendent realists.

"Real" is a status originally extracted from the external world, which is actually interpretative contact with yet another form of representation rather than with existence as non-knowledge. The objectivity of this extrospection is derived from the inability of one's will, by itself, to affect that exhibited or felt environment. The objective perspectives and models are derived from interpersonal observations, tests, and discussions about its content. And the perceptual independence of things is derived from their reliable behaviors of being visually, audibly, tactile-ly present and potent according to expectations and predictions.

Going beyond this empirical realism stance, to the transcendent realism about concepts and abstract schemes, is descended from the "intelligible" domain posited by ancient Greek philosophy. Of which only reason could apprehend such in some way, and linguistic or quantitative symbols were left to describe rather than provide a "concrete presentation" by perceptual content. This was before Kant undermined any accuracy or immutable proof about such noumena or their specific details with his critique of speculative reason.

When atoms and particles are detected and even manipulated by instruments, they are obviously made part of the empirical rather than just the theoretical "world", become things measured outside themselves whose appearance is dependent upon extrinsic relations . They acquire membership in the conventional "external world" of outer sense. But the endless confusion and debate over what they ultimately are (wavelike entities, oscillations of superstrings, entropic bits in holographic theory, products of Planck-scale geometry, etc.) simply illustrates the mere comforting facade of metaphysical realism about this zoo of appearances and abstract descriptions. As if through sheer authoritative declaration it will make one of those versions into THE static or immutable non-representation over future centuries of research.
north
 
  1  
Reply Sun 2 Oct, 2011 09:32 pm
@G H,

Quote:
Do scientists and contemporary philosophers believe that it is correct to think of objective reality, as opposed to reality percieved by humans?
If so, what is this reality like?


Quote:
Independence from the manifestations of human sense does not mean independence from the constructs of human thought. There's no need for boot-thumping metaphysical reification of such revisable descriptive approaches -- it adds little apart from a soothing balm for transcendent realists.


if I got you right , your saying that , even without Human sense , does not mean that the world is not without Human input ? thought ?

inotherwords the world , the Universe , is based on the existence of Human thought ?





G H
 
  2  
Reply Mon 3 Oct, 2011 12:06 pm
@north,
Quote:
if I got you right , your saying that , even without Human sense , does not mean that the world is not without Human input ? thought ? inotherwords the world , the Universe , is based on the existence of Human thought ?

Existence in general would be just that -- busy being whatever a knowledge independent, nonconscious, and nonphenomenal "be-ing" is supposed to be, rather than such representing and inquiring about itself on that vast, nonbiological scale. And it certainly would not be the interpretations, conceptions, doctrines, schemes, formal frameworks, and descriptive inventions that humans substitute for such a supposed existence that is independent of those and perceptual content. Again, supersensibly reifying those constructs of thought adds little apart from soothing transcendent realists or any radical epistemological realists that can't sleep at night unless their work or somebody else's work has an ontological status that goes beyond the experienced manifestations of it as papers, data on discs, lectures, etc.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 04/22/2021 at 06:06:46