An electron is a posit?

Most of us will agree, I think, that we do not experience objects directly

This is the part of the matter I still cannot comprehend.

What is "experience objects directly", in contrast with how I experience objects in every day life? Someone else said it another way - "the object in itself", or something like that. What does that mean, and why do you not think I am experiencing the object directly, or "in itself"?

I think you should give this a reading.

The Problems of Philosophy - Bertrand Russell, Chapter 1.

This is the part of the matter I still cannot comprehend.

What is "experience objects directly", in contrast with how I experience objects in every day life? Someone else said it another way - "the object in itself", or something like that. What does that mean, and why do you not think I am experiencing the object directly, or "in itself"?

We do not experience electrons directly, in that we know they exist inferentially, through their "traces". Some philosophers believe the same is true of ordinary material objects like chairs and tables. There are various arguments for that view. Famous among these is the "argument from illusion", the "time-lag argument", and various arguments from the physiology of perception, are also used. A good antidote for some of these arguments (especially the first) is, Sense and Sensibilia, by J.L. Austin. Wittgenstein's famous (or notorious) private language argument (from his Investigations) is a general swipe at the general notion that what we "really" observe are private objects like sense-data, and the like, from which we infer public objects.

Well, my initial response is that I don't agree with any of that.

But I'll keep an open mind, and attempt to see where Reconstructo and these philosophers are coming from. I know of the time-lag argument and the private language argument. I'll look at the others you mention.

Any particular section you have in mind?

We know with certainty that electrons exist. Why or how do we know? Because of indirect observations.

Here is an article that argues that electrons are not particles:

"What's normal about renormalization?"

I would say that we know well-enough (with sufficient certainty) that our mental-model of "electrons" is useful for the prediction and control of certain aspects of human experience.

But does it argue there are no electrons? That would be relevant to the thread, of course.

In science and engineering, a black box is a device, system or object which can (and sometimes can only) be viewed solely in terms of its input, output and transfer characteristics without any knowledge of its internal workings

It argues that electrons don't exist as a particle. It says they are a waveform. I think this amounts to the claim that they don't exist, at least in the familiar way of a small dot whizzing around the nucleus.

And if there were no electrons, then why do you think that would be true? Coincidence?

It argues that electrons don't exist as a particle. It says they are a waveform. I think this amounts to the claim that they don't exist, at least in the familiar way of a small dot whizzing around the nucleus.

Well, my initial response is that I don't agree with the notion that we don't experience chairs directly.

But I'll keep an open mind, and attempt to see where Reconstructo and these philosophers are coming from. I know of the time-lag argument and the private language argument. I'll look at the others you mention. And the one Emil showed me.

It argues that electrons don't exist as a particle. It says they are a waveform. I think this amounts to the claim that they don't exist, at least in the familiar way of a small dot whizzing around the nucleus.

The funny thing is, I've never had a problem with electrons not being particles. I figured out long ago that they must be in a different state or arrangement than particles. How did I determine that?

I used photons to come to the conclusion.

If photons are particles then light would have to have an infinite amount of photons to cover space. Think about it.

If a photon is a particle and it travels in straight lines then given enough distance from the source of photons would create areas in which a photon would not cover. However; when we view light over great distances we do not see blank or dark areas where no photons are, but how could this be if photons are particles, it would mean there are an infinite amount of them stacked closely together each streaming just tiny degrees off center so that the light fills up equal proportions over vast distances.

I have proposed long ago that photons are not particles but instead they are bubbles of waves that stretch and spread out in space equally in all directions. Light is like a bubble.

Since I came to this conclusion, it is easy for me to make electrons bubbles too with all the same functionality that they have. It accounts for jumps to higher valence shells. It also accounts for unknown position or known motion. If an electron is as like a bubble then it can also jump across the universe instantly as well as occupy the same two points in spacetime even if those two points are billions of light years from each other. Also if electrons are bubbles, it means that atoms can share electrons which they do sometimes. This is something that a particle would have a difficult time doing. How can two atoms share a particle, which atom does the eletron orbit? How does it know to orbit one and not the other. But if they are bubbles they can encompass both particles simultaneously and it does not need to determine which to follow.