Philosophy Now Forum

Noax wrote: You need to actually read some of those posts by Conde Lucanor which are quite appicable to this issue. Since you seem to be baffled by every aspect of physics, perhaps you might actually try to learn from somebody rather than just reject every post that is made in reply to your threads.

So one irreducible particle cannot behave like a liquid, but a bunch of them can. Is this so baffling? Do we now need to posit an immaterial realm of liquidness to restore sanity?

One particle doesn't have a temperature property either, but a bunch of them does.

bahman wrote:We know that matter can be divided into its parts. We know that the act of division cannot go into infinitum. Lets define indivisible parts as irreducible particles. We know that each irreducible particle has some very well defined attributes. This means that we can explain the properties of matter in term of its constitutes. We know that matter behaves well in certain regime (external parameters) but suddenly an emergent phenomena pops up from nowhere when we change the regime.

We know that there are world view that suggest that the whole is more than sum of the parts, holism for example, but they don't provide any systematic framework that help us to understand the whole. These world views simply leave us in state of ignorance and to my opinion they are useless and absurd.

The only solution which comes to my mind is that particles could behave differently depending on situation. In simple word we cannot define a particle by a simple set of attributes.

Your thoughts?

...there are world view that suggest that the whole is more than sum of the parts, holism for example, but they don't provide any systematic framework that help us to understand the whole. These world views simply leave us in state of ignorance and to my opinion they are useless and absurd.

bahman wrote:We know that matter can be divided into its parts. We know that the act of division cannot go into infinitum. Lets define indivisible parts as irreducible particles. We know that each irreducible particle has some very well defined attributes. This means that we can explain the properties of matter in term of its constitutes. We know that matter behaves well in certain regime (external parameters) but suddenly an emergent phenomena pops up from nowhere when we change the regime.

We know that there are world view that suggest that the whole is more than sum of the parts, holism for example, but they don't provide any systematic framework that help us to understand the whole. These world views simply leave us in state of ignorance and to my opinion they are useless and absurd.

The only solution which comes to my mind is that particles could behave differently depending on situation. In simple word we cannot define a particle by a simple set of attributes.

Your thoughts?

creativesoul wrote:

bahman wrote: We know that matter can be divided into its parts. We know that the act of division cannot go into infinitum. Lets define indivisible parts as irreducible particles. We know that each irreducible particle has some very well defined attributes. This means that we can explain the properties of matter in term of its constitutes. We know that matter behaves well in certain regime (external parameters) but suddenly an emergent phenomena pops up from nowhere when we change the regime.

We know that there are world view that suggest that the whole is more than sum of the parts, holism for example, but they don't provide any systematic framework that help us to understand the whole. These world views simply leave us in state of ignorance and to my opinion they are useless and absurd.

The only solution which comes to my mind is that particles could behave differently depending on situation. In simple word we cannot define a particle by a simple set of attributes.

Your thoughts?

You're conflating that which is emerging with the set of necessary preconditions(elemental constituents) which facilitate that. I suspect that that is an unavoidable consequence of working from a physicalist/monist conceptual framework. No meaningful distinction is being drawn between 'mind' and matter. At least, that's the impression I'm left with. I could be wrong.

creativesoul wrote: I took exception - in particular - to the following...

...there are world view that suggest that the whole is more than sum of the parts, holism for example, but they don't provide any systematic framework that help us to understand the whole. These world views simply leave us in state of ignorance and to my opinion they are useless and absurd.

There are world-views that do provide a systematic framework to understand the whole. As a result of my knowing that much, I also know that the last bit of the first statement quoted directly above is false as a direct result of being in direct contradiction to everyday states of affairs.

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?

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.

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

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

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!

Terrapin Station wrote:

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'd say there aren't elementary particles in the (current) standard model?

HexHammer wrote:

Terrapin Station wrote:

HexHammer wrote: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'd say there aren't elementary particles in the (current) standard model?

Not saying that.