An electron is a posit?

But that is the whole point. What is a particle? Some point out in space? The entire idea of a particle is being put under question by quantum mechanics. The term "particle" is proving inadequate at even the atomic level! Look up wave-particle duality and the double slit experiment if you want to better understand where I'm coming from.

Yes.

"My cat" is a term that refers to my cat. My cat is not an abstraction.
"My concept of my cat" is a term that refers to my concept of my cat.
My cat and my concept of my cat are not the same thing. One purrs; the other doesn't


"Particles" is a term that refers, and it neither refers to something that is abstract nor does it refer to something that is conceptual.

"My concept of particles" is a term that refers, and it refers to something that is not physical.

Particles and my concept of particles are not the same thing. One can be measured; the other can't.

---------- Post added 02-25-2010 at 05:22 PM ----------



Does quantum mechanics teach us that particles do not exist?

Yes.

"My cat" is a term that refers to my cat. My cat is not an abstraction.
"My concept of my cat" is a term that refers to my concept of my cat.
My cat and my concept of my cat are not the same thing. One purrs; the other doesn't


"Particles" is a term that refers, and it neither refers to something that is abstract nor does it refer to something that is conceptual.

"My concept of particles" is a term that refers, and it refers to something that is not physical.

Particles and my concept of particles are not the same thing. One can be measured; the other can't.

Abstraction is the process or result of generalization by reducing the information content of a concept or an observable phenomenon, typically to retain only information which is relevant for a particular purpose. For example, abstracting a leather soccer ball to the more general idea of a ball retains only the information on general ball attributes and behaviour, eliminating the characteristics of that particular ball.

Does quantum mechanics teach us that particles do not exist?

If only people would distinguish between words and things, that might be such a good start that the momentum would carry them forward to further clarification, and the confusion that now prevails could be eventually cleared up. But that first step, the distinction between the word and the thing is somehow so daunting, that it doesn't seem to happen.

If the observable phenomenon we call a "particle" is correctly described as a "wave", then X does not exist as Y, we thought something was X (a particle) and it was actually Y (a wave).

How exactly does one compare a cat to a particle? A grouping of particles is an abstraction of the "observable phenomenon" 'cat'. Cats are made up of what has been called particles, but the question now being presented is whether or not a cat is actually made up of waves.

That is a current question in QM, because we would be replacing X with the more correct Y. So particles wouldn't exist, but waves would.

---------- Post added 02-25-2010 at 05:06 PM ----------



What is a particle if it refers to a wave? It is a concept is it not? A concept that refers to something that exists, a wave. That is the point, if a particle does not exist, then it would be a concept referring to something else that does.

Am I missing something?

*EDIT* It would be like saying "my concept of a wave is a particle". */EDIT*

In science they exist as useful concepts, there is no metaphysical claim of existence though.

Particles do not refer to anything, anymore than chairs refer to anything. Particles are not symbols, and only symbols can refer to something else. Now, the word "particle" (notice the inverted commas indicating that I am talking about a word) is a symbol, and it can refer to something. It refers to particles (if there are such things). Of course, if there are no particles, then the word, "particle" (again, notice the inverted commas) fails to refer to anything at all. That doesn't mean that particles would be concepts. Since there are no particles, particles would not be anything at all, for there would be no particles to be anything. "Particle" (again, note the inverted commas) if it referred to nothing, would not suddenly become a wave. How could a word become a wave? What you must mean is that the term, "particle" refers to nothing, and the term, "wave" does refer to something. That is, there are no particles, but there are waves. Isn't that what you really mean to say. Not that the term, "particle" has become a wave. That really makes no sense.

You have to distinguish between words or concepts on the one hand, and things on the other. If you do not, then total confusion is the result.
Unicorns do not exist. Does that mean that unicorn are concepts, and therefore that unicorns do exist? You cannot mean that. Unicorns cannot both not exist and exist.

I think you summed it up nicely.

If only people would distinguish between words and things, that might be such a good start that the momentum would carry them forward to further clarification, and the confusion that now prevails could be eventually cleared up.

Scientists do not think that electrons exist? I think you are quite wrong. Electrons are not useful concepts, for electrons are not concepts at all. Do you mean the concept of electron is a useful concept? I agree. But why do you think that it is only a useful concept. The concept of elephant is also a useful concept. But the concept of elephant is not only a useful concept. It happens to refer to a large animal, native to both Africa and Asia. Why cannot the concept of electron be useful, but also refer to small particles (or waves). The fact that it is useful doesn't mean that it is only useful. Scientist think that electron theory is true. But electron theory implies there are electrons. Therefore, scientists think that electron theory is true. Another comparison. Germ theory is very useful. But aren't there germs.

To claim discovery you have to get over a level of uncertainty that what you are seeing isn't just random noise or other particles.

I agree with you. But the problem is, as Kant has shown, that things only exist as concepts. A thing is the unity of substance in a nexus of causality. We cannot speak of things except in terms of human concepts. The concept and the thing are not so different than you suppose. I think what you mean by things is things-in-themselves, but as I have already mentioned: this is either a paradoxical or a limiting concept. "Things-apart-from-concepts" is itself a concept, and therefore paradoxical. Please really think about this.

Ok, then I see what you mean. The issue I guess is that people will continue to use the term particle, because the concept of a particle is useful, even if it refers to no thing.

Does "things exist only as concepts" mean, "there are concepts of things, but no things"?

But I think that people can know about them in principle, if not in fact. As for example, I believe that it is possible that no one will ever know about extra-terrestrials, or whether such things exist. But, I believe that it is possible in principle to know about such things. Thus, ETs are not, things in themselves as I understand that phrase.

By the way, how do you agree with me? Certainly, you disagree with me.

But the problem is, as Kant has shown, that things only exist as concepts.

to say that the fact that the mind of the knower makes the a priori contribution does not mean that space and time or the categories are mere figments of the imagination. Kant is an empirical realist about the world we experience; we can know objects as they appear to us. He gives a robust defense of science and the study of the natural world from his argument about the mind's role in making nature.

From a Darwinian point of view, our mind is probably doing this in ways that contribute to our survival.

Since we have been cobbled together by (unguided) evolution, it is unlikely, he thinks, that our view of the world is overall accurate; natural selection is interested in adaptive behavior, not in true belief. But Dawkins fails to plumb the real depths of the skeptical implications of the view that we have come to be by way of unguided evolution. We can see this as follows. Like most naturalists, Dawkins is a materialist about human beings: human persons are material objects; they are not immaterial selves or souls or substances joined to a body, and they don't contain any immaterial substance as a part. From this point of view, our beliefs would be dependent on neurophysiology, and (no doubt) a belief would just be a neurological structure of some complex kind. Now the neurophysiology on which our beliefs depend will doubtless be adaptive; but why think for a moment that the beliefs dependent on or caused by that neurophysiology will be mostly true? Why think our cognitive faculties are reliable?

Steady on. I am not a Kant scholar, but I don't think this is quite right. I think Kant was a realist as illustrated by the following quote:

Actually, philosopher of religion Alvin Plantinga has a very good argument about this:

It would be hard to believe that the term, "germ" would have been useful even if it turned out there were no germs. The term "phlogiston" did not turn out to be useful, because it turned out that there was no such thing as phlogiston.

I worded that in a bad way. Thingness is conceptual. Things as things only exist conceptually. For instance, we see a dog. Is this dog separate from its environment or not? Is it really an independent thing? What does it mean to be a thing? A thing is framed conceptually. To contrast an object from its environment is to dichotomize qualia. Object and non-object. A physical scientist would have trouble finding empty space between an "object" and its "environment." (environment is also already an object, or we could not speak of it.) We can only speak of objects, to oversimplify. Of the world-in-itself we cannot speak with certainty. Is it singular, plural? But these are human impositions. Quantity is a human matter.

Yes, Kant was a realist, and so am I. But his limiting concept (noumena) is the logical/conceptual ground of objectivity.

---------- Post added 02-26-2010 at 04:29 AM ----------

Hey Scotty - as you are well versed in the science of the matter, what about this idea of 'virtual particles' that they talk about. That sounds pretty intriguing. Got any info on what they might be? (if 'be' is not too strong a word.)