An electron is a posit?

@Alan McDougall,

Alan McDougall;134344 wrote:

OK please give an exact description of an electron, its shape, size location and density

What has that to do with my question? Again, were there electrons in the Middle Ages?

0 Replies

@Alan McDougall,

Alan McDougall;134344 wrote:

OK please give an exact description of an electron, its shape, size location and density

Alan, this would be an equation, and it would in some respects always be an approximation.

But no matter how approximate, it is a fair bet that neither you or I would understand the math :bigsmile:

---------- Post added 03-02-2010 at 03:30 PM ----------

although I better had retract that, for all I know you might well understand the math. But I know that I don't.

0 Replies

@fast,

It seems to me that we can only think in posits. We cannot think the continuous. We think digitally. So we are limited in our exploration of noumena, or the natural reality behind our unavoidable positing.

0 Replies

@fast,

Thought requires an object. This is of major importance. Actually if you look at the evolutionary development of consciousness, it stands to reason why this should be the case. You can parse the whole history of materialism as the attempt to locate the ultimate thing. Whereas Pythagoras sought relationships and ratios, not objects. All massive generalisations of course but hey entry is free....

1 Reply

@jeeprs,

jeeprs;134897 wrote:

Thought requires an object. This is of major importance. Actually if you look at the evolutionary development of consciousness, it stands to reason why this should be the case. You can parse the whole history of materialism as the attempt to locate the ultimate thing. Whereas Pythagoras sought relationships and ratios, not objects. All massive generalisations of course but hey entry is free....

Yes! That's exactly what I mean by thought being digital. It's always and only digital. We cannot think continuity. And this seems very significant to me. Also like the source of number, which is nothing but the word "being"(to speak metaphorcally, or non-mathematicaly) imagined on a spectrum, and recombined with itself. Our ten digits are the minimum differentiation necessary, when coupled with a positional value system and well defined notation.
I think this is why pi is irrational....

0 Replies

@fast,

but another interesting point is why irrational numbers are called 'irrational'. Wasn't this because the Platonic model felt that the ideal realm always consisted of perfect shapes and whole numbers? So the existence of ratios such as pi really bothered them. I seem to recall they are also called 'surds' which is short for 'absurd numbers'.

The other point, however, is much more like a neo-Buddhist analysis of the shortcomings of discursive consciousness.

1 Reply

@Bones-O,

[QUOTE=Bones-O!;134172]The issue here is that you (and in general many) think that if an electron is a wave, it is not a particle. This is wrong: it simply isn't (necessarily) a point-particle. More generally in particle physics, a particle is a fundamental, non-divisible unit, irrespective of its spatial distribution. An electron is such a particle with characteristic charge, rest mass and spin: these are what define an electron. The fact that you can't cut an electron into two is what makes it a fundamental particle.[/QUOTE]

I don't know what to think, but based on what you just said, I'm supposing that if an electron is a non-divisible unit, then it's a fundamental particle, and if it's a fundamental particle, then it's a fundamental particle even if it so happens to be a wave; hence, it could be both.

1 Reply

@fast,

fast;136105 wrote:

I don't know what to think

You're not alone in that. Nobody knows what to think about QM.

Incidentally, Bones IS a physicist (I happen to know from previous dialogues.)

1 Reply

@jeeprs,

jeeprs;136153 wrote:

You're not alone in that. Nobody knows what to think about QM.

Incidentally, Bones IS a physicist (I happen to know from previous dialogues.)

Not even quantum physicists?

0 Replies

@fast,

Especially quantum physicists. Most people would assume that they understand it, whereas, they know that they don't.

1 Reply

@jeeprs,

jeeprs;136164 wrote:

Especially quantum physicists. Most people would assume that they understand it, whereas, they know that they don't.

I think there are different standards for people not knowing what to think about QM. In the sense that quantum physicists do know what to think about QM, you and I, and no one on this forum knows what to think, nor are we likely to.

1 Reply

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;136171 wrote:

I think there are different standards for people not knowing what to think about QM. In the sense that quantum physicists do know what to think about QM, you and I, and no one on this forum knows what to think, nor are we likely to.

I always like Richard Feynman quotes for this:

"Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts"
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool".
"If you thought that science was certain - well, that is just an error on your part."
"It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong"
"I think I can safely say, Nobody understands quantum theory"

0 Replies

@jeeprs,

jeeprs;134906 wrote:

but another interesting point is why irrational numbers are called 'irrational'. Wasn't this because the Platonic model felt that the ideal realm always consisted of perfect shapes and whole numbers? So the existence of ratios such as pi really bothered them. I seem to recall they are also called 'surds' which is short for 'absurd numbers'.

The other point, however, is much more like a neo-Buddhist analysis of the shortcomings of discursive consciousness.

Plato was right. I just realized that pi is not truly a number, but only a logarithm. Irrational numbers are a contradiction in terms. Pi is no more transcendental than the infinite is infinite. Neither can be thought. Both can only be experienced as open-ended logarithms. It is not logical to speak of that which does not exist. The digits of pi we have not computed are not yet numbers. Are not yet known and not yet truly nameable, for the name of numbers are themselves logarithms, as Wittgenstein demonstrates. THere is one number, and one operator. The rest is pragmatic invention, for convenience! I sh*t you not. Pi is a perfect metaphor for human existence, as it is the imposition of number on spatial continuity (a perfectly straight diameter piercing the perfect circles center....)

Discursive consciousness...yes..and all thinking is essentially discursive, as all thinking is the negation of accident in order to posit essence. It's not that all experience is discursive, but one cannot speak of the continuous. One can paint or sing or dance, but never speak....ommmm comes closest perhaps...silence closer.

0 Replies

An electron is a posit?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know