Proving the Existence of Particles: An Exploration

[bob012345]

According to the context I mentioned. The tree is in the world and the electron is not.

Electrons topple trees every day through lightning.

 

[Iloveyou]

Electrons topple trees every day through lightning.

Electrons as mathematical models describe that process, they don't act on the tree...
As I said, I could be missing something here and instead of bringing that up, I'm getting resistance.
This is the whole reason I've been talking about the distinction between invention of mathematical models vs discovery. The implications are tremendous.

 

[Dale]

Mathematical structures don't exist in the world, they are useful tools describing the world. Math does not act on the world. With that in mind, it is not without meaning, just as electrons are not without meaning. It is meaning itself, but meaning doesn't act as a physical object in the world.

Yes, everyone understands that. We are not Goons.

 

[DaveC426913]

Electrons as mathematical models describe that process, they don't act on the tree...

No. Electrons as physical objects knock over trees.

They have been doing that since long before (hundreds of millions of years before) humans came along to describe what they're doing, and would have done so for a long time to come even if we had not invented math to describe them.

 

[Iloveyou]

No. Electrons as physical objects knock over trees.

They have been doing that since long before (hundreds of millions of years before) humans came along to describe what they're doing, and would have done so for a long time to come even if we had not invented math to describe them.

For those hundreds of millions of years we didn't have this mathematical construct and it also occured. The mathematical construct describes well the behavior, yes, but it does not act on the tree.

 

[Iloveyou]

Yes, everyone understands that. We are not Goons.

Never said you are. Not pointing to new knowledge.

 

[DaveC426913]

For those hundreds of millions of years we didn't have this mathematical construct and it also occured. The mathematical construct describes well the behavior, yes, but it does not act on the tree.

That's exactly what I said.

The point being: electrons exist independent of our mathematical descriptions of them.

 

[Dale]

Never said you are.

Are you sure? It really seems like you think we are confusing the map with the territory, like the Goons. If you understand that we are not, then what remains to discuss here?

 

[jbriggs444]

If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck and no known evidence has it behaving as anything other than a duck then any worry that it might not be a duck is idle until such time as a new experiment is proposed.

 

[bob012345]

For those hundreds of millions of years we didn't have this mathematical construct and it also occurred. The mathematical construct describes well the behavior, yes, but it does not act on the tree.

We are capable of both having a mathematical description of a thing and recognizing the thing itself acting in nature.

 

[malawi_glenn]

Mathematical structures don't exist in the world

That is a philosophical statement. We actually do not know this, and it is not something that can be scientificly discovered either. If you want to read about somthing that is on the opposite side of that spectrum, read "our mathematical universe" by Max Tegmark. It is just semantics. Force is also just a mathematical description concering an abstract "interaction" between two objects that can change their velocity in propotion to their mass (in classical physics that is). Does forces really exists? Who knows, and who cares? Forces are very nice to use when describing phenomema and that is what physics is about.

This thread is not a scientific discussion, it is a (pseudo)philosophical discussion.
If want some reading material about the philosophy of science and physics and the scientific method, I am happy to give you some. Not that I am sure that would change your mind but it might help you understand why physicsts work the say they do.

 

[Iloveyou]

Are you sure? It really seems like you think we are confusing the map with the territory, like the Goons. If you understand that we are not, then what remains to discuss here?

The context of my question and the implications that I have mentioned.
In terms of physics you are indeed more knowledgeable. In my lack on knowledge I would not be satisfied with another knowing, that's not why I posted. I adressed my understanding within limited knowledge and the concerns of it, mathematical models not being physical entities that strike down trees.

 

[Dale]

mathematical models not being physical entities that strike down trees.

Yes, nobody but you is suggesting that anyone believes otherwise.

 

[Iloveyou]

That is a philosophical statement. We actually do not know this, and it is not something that can be scientificly discovered either. If you want to read about somthing that is on the opposite side of that spectrum, read "our mathematical universe" by Max Tegmark. It is just semantics. Force is also just a mathematical description concering an abstract "interaction" between two objects that can change their velocity in propotion to their mass (in classical physics that is). Does forces really exists? Who knows, and who cares? Forces are very nice to use when describing phenomema and that is what physics is about.

This thread is not a scientific discussion, it is a (pseudo)philosophical discussion.
If want some reading material about the philosophy of science and physics and the scientific method, I am happy to give you some. Not that I am sure that would change your mind but it might help you understand why physicsts work the say they do.

Before theory of gravity, gravity still was an unnamed force. The mathematical aspect is the descriptive definition. The description has never acted. When you act, it is not your name that is acting.
I hope this overly simple statement doesn't offend you. My question was simple, I've maintained simplicity...

 

[phinds]

Jeez, how long is this <expletive deleted> going to go on ?

 

[Dale]

The description has never acted. When you act, it is not your name that is acting.

Yes, nobody but you is suggesting that anyone believes otherwise.

Can we please move on? This is getting repetitive.

 

[malawi_glenn]

Before theory of gravity, gravity still was an unnamed force. The mathematical aspect is the descriptive definition. The description has never acted. When you act, it is not your name that is acting.

How is that a proof that mathematical structures do not exist in the world?

Does not humans exists?

Jeez, how long is this <expletive deleted> going to go on ?

Wondering the same.

This guy is not here to learn about science that's for sure.

 

[phinds]

This guy is not here to learn about science that's for sure.

Exactly.

 

[Drakkith]

Electrons are as real as the squirrels in my back yard, just harder to see and easier to describe with math. And note that math is simply a very refined language, so any problems you have with math being used to describe something you should also have with english, french, or any other language.

mathematical models not being physical entities that strike down trees.

And the word 'squirrel' doesn't live in the tree in my yard. But the 'thing' that the word describes does.

 

[Iloveyou]

Electrons are as real as the squirrels in my back yard, just harder to see and easier to describe with math. And note that math is simply a very refined language, so any problems you have with math being used to describe something you should also have with english, french, or any other language.

And the word 'squirrel' doesn't live in the tree in my yard. But the 'thing' that the word describes does.

If according to the context mentioned above, the electron is an invention and not a discovery, then the thingness does not apply to electrons.

 

[malawi_glenn]

Electrons are as real as the squirrels in my back yard

He did accept that trees exists, but not electrons. Hard to imagine that he will change viewpoint due to squirrels..

 

[malawi_glenn]

the electron is an invention and not a discovery

This has been already discussed. It is sematincs.

Take the Higgs boson for instance. Invention or discovery? Why not both?

 

[Drakkith]

If according to the context mentioned above, the electron is an invention and not a discovery, then the thingness does not apply to electrons..

Electrons are not inventions, so your context is wrong.

 

[malawi_glenn]

Electrons are not inventions, so your context is wrong.

Squirrels are inventions for sure. Never seen one.

 

[Dale]

the thingness does not apply to electrons

And with that we are done here.

Thank you everyone for your participation. This has been a good thread that has gone as far as it could