The discussion revolves around the process of proving the existence of particles, particularly electrons, and the philosophical implications of such discoveries in physics. Participants explore how experimental data leads to the conceptualization of particles and question the assumptions underlying these models.
Participants express a range of views on the justification for the existence of particles, with no consensus reached. Some agree on the importance of addressing assumptions in particle discovery, while others challenge the validity of the methods used to infer particle existence.
Participants highlight limitations in understanding the transition from experimental data to theoretical models, noting that assumptions and definitions play a critical role in this process. There is an acknowledgment of the complexity involved in defining particles and the potential for misinterpretation of scientific concepts.
He did accept that trees exists, but not electrons. Hard to imagine that he will change viewpoint due to squirrels..Drakkith said:Electrons are as real as the squirrels in my back yard
This has been already discussed. It is sematincs.Iloveyou said:the electron is an invention and not a discovery
Electrons are not inventions, so your context is wrong.Iloveyou said:If according to the context mentioned above, the electron is an invention and not a discovery, then the thingness does not apply to electrons..
Squirrels are inventions for sure. Never seen one.Drakkith said:Electrons are not inventions, so your context is wrong.
And with that we are done here.Iloveyou said:the thingness does not apply to electrons