An electron is a posit?

Supposing there are no particles and only waves, does this imply that electrons do not exist, or does it imply that the definition of the word, "electron" needs to be changed? Something exists, whether it be a particle, a wave, or something else, and we are using the word, "electron" to refer to whatever it is that exists, but if there are no particles, and if the word, "electron" includes "particle" as part of its definition, then either it's a referring term that fails to refer thus electrons do not exist, or electrons do exist but the word, "electron" has an inferior definition. I think.

Supposing there are no particles and only waves, does this imply that electrons do not exist, or does it imply that the definition of the word, "electron" needs to be changed? Something exists, whether it be a particle, a wave, or something else, and we are using the word, "electron" to refer to whatever it is that exists, but if there are no particles, and if the word, "electron" includes "particle" as part of its definition, then either it's a referring term that fails to refer thus electrons do not exist, or electrons do exist but the word, "electron" has an inferior definition. I think.

Supposing there are no particles and only waves, does this imply that electrons do not exist, or does it imply that the definition of the word, "electron" needs to be changed? Something exists, whether it be a particle, a wave, or something else, and we are using the word, "electron" to refer to whatever it is that exists, but if there are no particles, and if the word, "electron" includes "particle" as part of its definition, then either it's a referring term that fails to refer thus electrons do not exist, or electrons do exist but the word, "electron" has an inferior definition. I think.

This highly credentialed French physicist applies the disciplines of quantum field theory and philosophy to refute assumptions commonly held by scientists, philosophers, and lay people about what is "real," and to sort out such views as are consonant with experimental data.

In my opinion, we can't know whether particles or waves exist outside/beneath our conceptions. It seems to me that particles and waves are human concepts which are used because they help us create/apply equations that predict the results of experiments. Both particles and waves are mental models/concepts/abstract objects. It may be that the "underlying reality" they are supposed to describe is similar to particles and waves, but the human mind is stuck/blessed with certain automatic limitations. Our minds seem to be hardwired to divide qualia into "independent objects." If we become aware of this, we can speculate that the reality behind our automatic processing is unknowable in-itself.

Can you tell me what you are referring to when you say "they"? It sounds like you are saying, "It may be that the 'underlying reality' [that particles and waves] are supposed to describe is similar to particles and waves, [...]".

Sure. I mean that they (the concepts of particles and waves) may describe/represent something like themselves...but for us, particles and waves are only our human concepts imposed on an essentially unknowable reality (noumena.) The reason this "underlying reality" is unknowable is because we automatically, whether we want to or not, impose a structure on reality. We can't "see outside" of this structure. Kant attempted to isolate (abstract/conceptualize) this structure. It's "transcendental" because it's prior to experience. It's always already happened. Or so Kant argues and I find him persuasive. (I'm still studying him, so forgive me if I err....)

6.375 Just as the only necessity that exists is logical necessity, so
too the only impossibility that exists is logical impossibility.


6.3751 For example, the simultaneous presence of two colours at the same
place in the visual field is impossible, in fact logically impossible,
since it is ruled out by the logical structure of colour. Let us think
how this contradiction appears in physics: more or less as follows--a
particle cannot have two velocities at the same time; that is to say, it
cannot be in two places at the same time; that is to say, particles that
are in different places at the same time cannot be identical. (It
is clear that the logical product of two elementary propositions can
neither be a tautology nor a contradiction. The statement that a point
in the visual field has two different colours at the same time is a
contradiction.)

Is the same true about whether some animal is a cat or a dog? We don't know the underlying reality there either, I suppose.

reMinded me of electrons...TLP



---------- Post added 02-28-2010 at 11:29 PM ----------


Yes, the same is true. We can have "truer and truer " (more useful and more useful: pragmatism!) descriptions but never, for certain, the "whole truth." We just Kant touch this.

I guess then that the only issue is whether there is an underlying reality about cats and dogs that science cannot know about. Somehow, I doubt it.

6.363 The procedure of induction consists in accepting as true the
simplest law that can be reconciled with our experiences.


6.3631 This procedure, however, has no logical justification but only a
psychological one. It is clear that there are no grounds for believing
that the simplest eventuality will in fact be realized.


6.36311 It is an hypothesis that the sun will rise tomorrow: and this
means that we do not know whether it will rise.


6.37 There is no compulsion making one thing happen because another has
happened. The only necessity that exists is logical necessity.


6.371 The whole modern conception of the world is founded on the
illusion that the so-called laws of nature are the explanations of
natural phenomena.


6.372 Thus people today stop at the laws of nature, treating them as
something inviolable, just as God and Fate were treated in past ages.
And in fact both are right and both wrong: though the view of the
ancients is clearer in so far as they have a clear and acknowledged
terminus, while the modern system tries to make it look as if everything
were explained.

To doubt doubt, in this case, is to embrace gullibility. The "laws" of science are not explanations but mathematical descriptions of tendencies.

How about the laws of science? I mean without the quotes around them? I thought that the law of falling bodies explained why bodies fall at a certain rate. Was I misinformed. Like Bogart about spas in the Sahara Desert?

Law[4] is a system of rules, usually enforced through a set of institutions.[5] It shapes politics, economics and society in numerous ways and serves as a primary social mediator of relations between people.

"Law" is a metaphor. Also, induction isn't logically justified, not strictly.

Do you think that this comment of yours is relevant to my post? Why? You mean that we now have to embark on the justification of induction? What the hell has that to do with it? And what has "law" is a metaphor (whatever that means) to do with it. Do you think this way in ordinary life? Everything is a mish-mash?

Supposing there are no particles and only waves, does this imply that electrons do not exist, or does it imply that the definition of the word, "electron" needs to be changed? Something exists, whether it be a particle, a wave, or something else, and we are using the word, "electron" to refer to whatever it is that exists, but if there are no particles, and if the word, "electron" includes "particle" as part of its definition, then either it's a referring term that fails to refer thus electrons do not exist, or electrons do exist but the word, "electron" has an inferior definition. I think.

An electron is not an object it is a fundamental mathematical equation

So, before anyone had a mathematical equation that described the electron (say in the Middle Ages) there were no electrons?

The fact that you can't cut an electron into two is what makes it a fundamental particle.

An electron is not an object it is a fundamental mathematical equation