Philosophy Now Forum

Giygas wrote: ↑Tue Mar 11, 2025 4:40 am The Planck length is the smallest space conceivable that mathematics and physics allow for.

Chat GPT - history of the smallest thing? wrote: Ancient World: Atoms as the Smallest Units

Greek philosophers like Democritus (~400 BCE) proposed that everything is made of tiny, indivisible particles called atoms (from atomos, meaning uncuttable).

No experiments—just philosophical reasoning. He thought if you kept cutting something, you'd eventually reach a point where it couldn't be divided further.

17th–19th Century: Atoms Become Scientific

Scientists began to accept atoms as real things, especially with John Dalton's atomic theory (~1803), which suggested each element is made of a unique type of atom.

At this point, atoms were still considered the smallest units of matter.

1897: Discovery of the Electron

J.J. Thomson discovered the electron, a particle within the atom.

This shattered the idea of atoms being indivisible. Now atoms were known to have internal structure.

Early 20th Century: The Atomic Nucleus

Ernest Rutherford (1911) discovered the nucleus inside the atom (via gold foil experiment).

The atom was mostly empty space, with electrons orbiting a dense central nucleus.

1930s: Protons and Neutrons

The nucleus was found to be made of protons and neutrons.

These became the new "smallest things."

1960s–1970s: The Quark Era Begins

Experiments (like deep inelastic scattering) revealed that protons and neutrons are made of smaller particles: quarks.

Quarks and leptons (like electrons) became the new fundamental building blocks.

The Standard Model of particle physics was born.

Today: Elementary Particles

As of now, the smallest known particles are quarks, leptons, and bosons (like the photon and Higgs boson).

These are considered point-like—meaning they have no known size or substructure.

Beyond Today: Strings and Theories

Theoretical physics suggests there may be smaller things still:

String theory proposes that particles are tiny vibrating strings, possibly at the Planck length (~10−3510−35 meters).

But we don’t yet have experimental evidence for this.

Giygas wrote: ↑Tue Mar 11, 2025 4:40 am The most compelling question in all of philosophy and science is how and why does existence of any kind... exist?

Giygas wrote: ↑Tue Mar 11, 2025 4:40 am I pondered this question for decades and never made much progress until recently. My preliminary theory is based upon a scientific fact and an epistemological insight.

The Planck length is the smallest space conceivable that mathematics and physics allow for.

Giygas wrote: ↑Tue Mar 11, 2025 4:40 am So by definition this means that there is no such thing as a space that is infinitely small which would equate to a value of zero and hence be nothing.

Giygas wrote: ↑Tue Mar 11, 2025 4:40 am
This implies that there simply is no such thing as nothing.

Giygas wrote: ↑Tue Mar 11, 2025 4:40 am It's an imaginary concept. So therefore existence of at least a Planck space is intrinsic.

However this space is so unimaginably tiny that it is ever so close to nothing. There would be basically (perhaps completely) no information about this singularity point that could be known other than the fact that it exists.

Giygas wrote: ↑Tue Mar 11, 2025 4:40 am This is where the epistemology comes into play. The information about the smallest possible space would be like its one and only physical and mathematical property. It is as close to infinitely small as possible but not zero. The one bit of information would be that the Planck length space exists. Nothing more could be known in theory. If all you know is that you know (virtually) nothing, you would still know one thing.

I call my theory "spaceinformation". It is not complete and requires further analysis. There are no alternative theories except for Max Tegmark type multi-level multiverse theory and that too has questions that are left uncertain.

Does anyone have any thoughts or input?

Impenitent wrote: ↑Tue Mar 11, 2025 5:25 pm I don't think so... he's saying that in answer to the unanswerable question of reason behind existence is the fact that existence occurs - that is, dealing with what exists is more important than questioning the reason why it exists...

focusing on human measurements as the apex of humanity is an idea as old as humanity itself...

how many Planck lengths in a light year?

how much fertilizer is necessary to cover this acre of corn?

some focus will feed you...

(I'm not saying that all questioning is bad- I am saying that some questioning is luxurious...)

-Imp

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Wed Mar 26, 2025 10:53 am If all is energy, perhaps the existence of nothing is possible in the presence of life forms. Certainly, meaning does not exist but to consciousness.

Ben JS wrote: ↑Sat Apr 19, 2025 10:18 am

Giygas wrote: ↑Tue Mar 11, 2025 4:40 am The Planck length is the smallest space conceivable that mathematics and physics allow for.

Our tools for understanding reality break down past the limit of the planck length (to my minimal understanding),
it is not a barrier of reality - it is a barrier of our current tools.

Ben JS wrote: ↑Sat Apr 19, 2025 10:18 am It is possible space has far more detail than we'll ever be able to see - in both the very small, and the very large.

For example, the observable universe is not the limit to the universe - it is the limit to what we know how to observe.
The same applies to the planck length, things smaller, if there are meaningful things - are beyond our current capacity to discern.

Ben JS wrote: ↑Sat Apr 19, 2025 10:18 am

Chat GPT - history of the smallest thing? wrote: Ancient World: Atoms as the Smallest Units

Greek philosophers like Democritus (~400 BCE) proposed that everything is made of tiny, indivisible particles called atoms (from atomos, meaning uncuttable).

No experiments—just philosophical reasoning. He thought if you kept cutting something, you'd eventually reach a point where it couldn't be divided further.

17th–19th Century: Atoms Become Scientific

Scientists began to accept atoms as real things, especially with John Dalton's atomic theory (~1803), which suggested each element is made of a unique type of atom.

At this point, atoms were still considered the smallest units of matter.

1897: Discovery of the Electron

J.J. Thomson discovered the electron, a particle within the atom.

This shattered the idea of atoms being indivisible. Now atoms were known to have internal structure.

Early 20th Century: The Atomic Nucleus

Ernest Rutherford (1911) discovered the nucleus inside the atom (via gold foil experiment).

The atom was mostly empty space, with electrons orbiting a dense central nucleus.

1930s: Protons and Neutrons

The nucleus was found to be made of protons and neutrons.

These became the new "smallest things."

1960s–1970s: The Quark Era Begins

Experiments (like deep inelastic scattering) revealed that protons and neutrons are made of smaller particles: quarks.

Quarks and leptons (like electrons) became the new fundamental building blocks.

The Standard Model of particle physics was born.

Today: Elementary Particles

As of now, the smallest known particles are quarks, leptons, and bosons (like the photon and Higgs boson).

These are considered point-like—meaning they have no known size or substructure.

Beyond Today: Strings and Theories

Theoretical physics suggests there may be smaller things still:

String theory proposes that particles are tiny vibrating strings, possibly at the Planck length (~10−3510−35 meters).

But we don’t yet have experimental evidence for this.

Notice a pattern?
Our current understandings are expected to change.

I feel a mistake we often make,
is thinking our current scientific understandings are the definitive answers -
when history tells us, there's no reason to suspect our current era isn't another stone along the path.
And science isn't about declaring ultimate truths,
rather speaking in terms of probability / likelihood.

Age wrote: ↑Mon Apr 21, 2025 11:22 am

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Wed Mar 26, 2025 10:53 am If all is energy, perhaps the existence of nothing is possible in the presence of life forms. Certainly, meaning does not exist but to consciousness.

Is there 'consciousness' in non-human animals?

If yes, then does 'meaning' exist to the 'consciousness' in them?

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Mon Apr 21, 2025 12:58 pm

Age wrote: ↑Mon Apr 21, 2025 11:22 am

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Wed Mar 26, 2025 10:53 am If all is energy, perhaps the existence of nothing is possible in the presence of life forms. Certainly, meaning does not exist but to consciousness.

Is there 'consciousness' in non-human animals?

If yes, then does 'meaning' exist to the 'consciousness' in them?

I believe consciousness belongs to all living things. Anything that can fear for its life is conscious, including cockroaches.

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Mon Apr 21, 2025 12:58 pm Biology is the measure and the meaning of all things. There are many patterns of differing organisms, but only one essence to our common carbon-based biology.