Recent content by Iloveyou

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

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...

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...

Never said you are. Not pointing to new knowledge.

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.

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 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.

According to the context I mentioned. The tree is in the world and the electron is not. An example is, velocity is useful and measurable, but I can't say velocity acted on the leaf.

Then according to the context mentioned, the description, the electron, could not act on the world, hence this point is very important in describing the world...

If I asked a religious person about his beliefs and asked a question and he then he proceeded to answer in his set of sacred concepts. I would naturally ask about the meaning of the concepts. Expecting consistency, would it not be reasonable? If he turned towards shutting down my query because...

I don't disagree at all. I love math myself. What I'm saying is by encountering the word wet, you won't get wet. Words and concepts hold information, but they are not actors within the world they describe. I strongly believe that what I'm saying has huge relevance to my understanding of physics.

In this case my point is, math does not act on the world. We use math, we use electricity. We use concepts such as electrons, but in the context of what I am saying, they would be unable to act on the world because the qualities they posess is the content of the information they store as...

I get what your saying, but what we in terms of evidence observe or discover is not the electron, but its attributes. Most of these attributes being discovered prior to its invention. I'm not at all saying I have a problem with the invention of an electron, it is useful when it is kept in its...

He invented the concept, obviously he wasn't the one to discover it. We can say it being semantics or not, but if it is inconsistent semantically, that would be an issue, no? If I dismissed meaning as mere philosophy, I would be lead into confusion. If I study something, must I not first know...

I agree with what you said 100%, but my whole point is that in the wording of the electron being discovered (rather than invented), the map is confused as the territory, no?