Philosophy Now Forum

Terrapin Station wrote:So then what would be the problem with positing irreducible particles?

Heard of superstrings?

HexHammer wrote:

Terrapin Station wrote:So then what would be the problem with positing irreducible particles?

Heard of superstrings?

So you think that the current standard model is wrong in that the supposed elementary particles--fermions and bosons--are actually comprised of superstrings. Then superstrings would be your elementary, irreducible particles . . . at which point I'd ask again: "So then what would be the problem with positing irreducible particles?"

Terrapin Station wrote:

HexHammer wrote:

Terrapin Station wrote:So then what would be the problem with positing irreducible particles?

Heard of superstrings?

So you think that the current standard model is wrong in that the supposed elementary particles--fermions and bosons--are actually comprised of superstrings. Then superstrings would be your elementary, irreducible particles . . . at which point I'd ask again: "So then what would be the problem with positing irreducible particles?"

I'm not sure you actually have a clue what you are saying.

OP babble about irreduceability, that stands in stark contrast to superstrings. So what I say that superstrings are unproven, yet to be proven.

HexHammer wrote:

Terrapin Station wrote:

HexHammer wrote:Heard of superstrings?

So you think that the current standard model is wrong in that the supposed elementary particles--fermions and bosons--are actually comprised of superstrings. Then superstrings would be your elementary, irreducible particles . . . at which point I'd ask again: "So then what would be the problem with positing irreducible particles?"

I'm not sure you actually have a clue what you are saying.

OP babble about irreduceability, that stands in stark contrast to superstrings. So what I say that superstrings are unproven, yet to be proven.

In other words, you didn't understand my comment (which is odd, because the ideas in it are quite simple), so instead of addressing anything I asked you, you take the psychological projection approach.

Terrapin Station wrote:In other words, you didn't understand my comment (which is odd, because the ideas in it are quite simple), so instead of addressing anything I asked you, you take the psychological projection approach.

See you don't have a freggin clue, the standard model doesn't exclude superstrings, therefore it's completely irrelevant with the standard model, thus you just speak straight out of your ass.

HexHammer wrote:

Terrapin Station wrote:In other words, you didn't understand my comment (which is odd, because the ideas in it are quite simple), so instead of addressing anything I asked you, you take the psychological projection approach.

See you don't have a freggin clue, the standard model doesn't exclude superstrings, therefore it's completely irrelevant with the standard model, thus you just speak straight out of your ass.

In the standard model, fermions and bosons are considered elementary particles, right?

Terrapin Station wrote:

HexHammer wrote:

Terrapin Station wrote:In other words, you didn't understand my comment (which is odd, because the ideas in it are quite simple), so instead of addressing anything I asked you, you take the psychological projection approach.

See you don't have a freggin clue, the standard model doesn't exclude superstrings, therefore it's completely irrelevant with the standard model, thus you just speak straight out of your ass.

In the standard model, fermions and bosons are considered elementary particles, right?

Yes, only because we haven't confirmed the findings of superstrings, which is yet only theoretical. When superstrings are found we have to rewrite the standard model.

You think the standard model is absolute, which it is not, it's onlybecause atom smashers like Cern, are slow finding the theorized particles that will change the model.

I'm just going to address one thing at a time (I started doing that a post or two ago actually, but hopefully we'll get back to other stuff:)

HexHammer wrote:You think the standard model is absolute.

Where are you getting that from? Where did I say anything even remotely resembling that?

Terrapin Station wrote:I'm just going to address one thing at a time (I started doing that a post or two ago actually, but hopefully we'll get back to other stuff:)

HexHammer wrote:You think the standard model is absolute.

Where are you getting that from? Where did I say anything even remotely resembling that?

Just admit that I'm right, instead of trying to dodge my point.

HexHammer wrote:

Terrapin Station wrote:I'm just going to address one thing at a time (I started doing that a post or two ago actually, but hopefully we'll get back to other stuff:)

HexHammer wrote:You think the standard model is absolute.

Where are you getting that from? Where did I say anything even remotely resembling that?

Just admit that I'm right, instead of trying to dodge my point.

Could you answer the question I asked? I'm not interested in playing a game.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

bahman wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote: Science just describes what is observable. I think the problem comes when people expect there to be explanations.
We can only expect reductionism to lead to a reduction in explanation. Why would it be otherwise?

The problem arises when reductionism does not lead to a reduction explanation so either the whole is more than sum of parts or parts behaves differently in a given situation, when an phenomena emerges.

What? You mean that you could never predict the properties of water by the combination of two atoms of hydrogen and one of oxygen - or do you have something more complex in mind?

Do you not think this is a failing of intelligence, information and knowledge rather than the methodology?

I am interested in the problem of mind which allows us to experience and to act freely.

There is lack of any evidence for superstring theory. Here's part of what Wikipedia has to say:

"Superstring theory is based on supersymmetry. No supersymmetric particles have been discovered and recent research at LHC and Tevatron has excluded some of the ranges.[2][3][4][5] For instance, the mass constraint of the Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model squarks has been up to 1.1 TeV, and gluinos up to 500 GeV.[6] No report on suggesting large extra dimensions has been delivered from LHC. There have been no principles so far to limit the number of vacua in the concept of a landscape of vacua.[7]

Some particle physicists became disappointed[8] by the lack of experimental verification of supersymmetry, and some have already discarded it; Jon Butterworth at the University College London said that we had no sign of supersymmetry, even in higher energy region, excluding the superpartners of the top quark up to a few TeV. Ben Allanach at the University of Cambridge states that if we do not discover any new particles in the next trial at the LHC, then we can say it is unlikely to discover supersymmetry at CERN in the foreseeable future.[8]"

PhilX

Terrapin Station wrote:

bahman wrote: Yes, consider the example mind and matter. Physicalists have failed to explain mind.

As I've noted before with this and similar comments, the issue here is what counts as an explanation and why.

It's worth noting that whatever counts as an explanation to an individual, if physicalism hasn't explained mind, then certainly no other ontological stance has either (unless one says something like, "What counts as an explanation to me is something that posits nonphysical existents").

Do you believe in free will? How that could be true if every state of matter is a function of previous state of matter.

HexHammer wrote:

bahman wrote: I am not baffled with every aspect of physics. I am a physicist.

That's a blatant lie! OP clearly shows you have no idea what you are talking about.

You say some particles are irreduceable, which give away your hapless ignorance!

You of course don't have an idea about what I am talking about.

bahman wrote: Do you believe in free will?

Yes.

How that could be true if every state of matter is a function of previous state of matter.

I've already told you a number of times that I'm not a realist on physical laws.

Aside from that, though, the received view of the sciences hasn't been strong determinism for physical phenomena in general for well over 100 years. That is not just due to quantum phenomena. It's due to stochastic phenomena in general. "Laplace's Demon" has been considered folly for a long time. Why that knowledge can't filter down and spread among the CompSci and engineering types who dominate Internet interaction areas like this I don't know.