Russell's Paradox: The Achille's Heel of Solipsism?

[Mumeishi]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
And not all that easy to describe/define, aside from that, the "illusory" is in respect of the idea of "solidity" inasmuch as the 'solidity' (of reality) is constructed from that/those "illusory" element(s)...energy.

You are giving energy a quality it does not have by calling it 'illusory'. 'Illusory' does not mean 'not solid'. Air is not illusory, nor is the food energy locked up in my dinner, nor a beam of light. To be illusory, we have to have a mistaken understanding of its true nature, so the 'illusory' aspect is really a state of mind relative to actuality - its not an intrinsic property of a thing like its mass or length or for that matter, energy content.

Some physicists might argue that energy is, if anything, the only thing that is real, although that's a bit too reductionistic for me.

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by Mumeishi
You are giving energy a quality it does not have by calling it 'illusory'. 'Illusory' does not mean 'not solid'. Air is not illusory, nor is the food energy locked up in my dinner, nor a beam of light. To be illusory, we have to have a mistaken understanding of its true nature, so the 'illusory' aspect is really a state of mind relative to actuality - its not an intrinsic property of a thing like its mass or length or for that matter, energy content.
Some physicists might argue that energy is, if anything, the only thing that is real, although that's a bit too reductionistic for me.

"Air is not illusory", humm, maybe because it is a "s-o-l-i-d" as for "a mistaken understanding of its true nature", well that is where I started, define it! cause there aren't to many really good definitions of just what energy actually is.

As for 'illusory', well, a radio wave (AM) just passed by your head!, did you see it?

 

[Mumeishi]

Air is a solid now is it? That's a new one to me.

Energy can be invisible to our unaided senses, that doesn't make it 'illusory', that makes it invisible (normally). Air can also be invisible, but it is not illusory either, it's a 'g-a-s'.

Energy. Energy is a property associated with a material body. Energy is not a material substance. When bodies interact, the energy of one may increase at the expense of the other, and this is sometimes called a transfer of energy. This does not mean that we could intercept this energy in transit and bottle some of it. After the transfer one of the bodies may have higher energy than before, and we speak of it as having "stored energy". But that doesn't mean that the energy is "contained in it" in the same sense as water in a bucket.
Misuse example: "The Earth's auroras—the northern and southern lights—illustrate how energy from the sun travels to our planet." —Science News, 149, June 1, 1996. This sentence blurs understanding of the process by which energetic charged particles from the sun interact with the Earth's magnetic field and our atmosphere to cause auroras.
Whenever one hears people speaking of "energy fields", "psychic energy", and other expressions treating energy as a "thing" or "substance", you know they aren't talking physics, they are talking moonshine.

In certain quack theories of oriental medicine, such as qi gong (pronounced chee gung) something called qi is believed to circulate through the body on specific, mappable pathways called meridians. This idea pervades the contrived explanations/rationalizations of acupuncture, and the qi is generally translated into English as energy. No one has ever found this so-called "energy", nor confirmed the uniqueness of its meridian pathways, nor verified, through proper double-blind tests, that any therapy or treatment based on the theory actually works. The proponents of qi can't say whether it is a fluid, gas, charge, current, or something else, and their theory requires that it doesn't obey any of the physics of known carriers of energy. But, as soon as we hear someone talking about it as if it were a thing we know they are not talking science, but quackery.

The statement "Energy is a property of a body" needs clarification. As with many things in physics, the size of the energy depends on the coordinate system. A body moving with speed V in one coordinate system has kinetic energy ½mV2. The same body has zero kinetic energy in a coordinate system moving along with it at speed V. Since no inertial coordinate system can be considered "special" or "absolute", we shouldn't say "The kinetic energy of the body is ..." but should say "The kinetic energy of the body moving in this reference frame is ..."
Energy (take two). Elementary textbooks often say "there are many forms of energy, kinetic, potential, thermal, nuclear, etc. They can be converted from one form to another." Let's try to put more sturcture to this. There are really only two functional categories of energy. The energy associated with particles or systems can be said to be either kinetic energy or potential energy.


The kinetic energy of a particle of mass m and speed v is ½mv2. The kinetic energy of a system of particles is ½MV2 where M is the system mass and V is the speed of its center of mass. One part of a system's kinetic energy may be thermal energy due to disordered motions and vibrations of particles, on the microscopic scale of molecules, atoms, and even smaller particles.
The potential energy of a system is always due to some other system exchanging energy with it by forces moving the system or parts of the system. Potential energy is a way of accounting for the work done by or on another system interacting with the system of interest. Gravitational potential energy is the work we must do against the force due to gravity to move an object to a new position. Once we have accounted for the effect of other systems we can treat our system as if it were "isolated", which is often convenient.
Systems may exchange energy in two ways, through work or heat. Work and heat are never in a body or system, they measure the energy transferred during interactions between systems. Work always requires motion of a system or parts of it, moving the system's center of mass. Heating does not require macroscopic motion of either system. It involves exchanges of energy between systems on the microscopic level, and does not move the center of mass of either system.

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by Mumeishi
Air is a solid now is it? That's a new one to me.
Energy can be invisible to our unaided senses, that doesn't make it 'illusory', that makes it invisible (normally). Air can also be invisible, but it is not illusory either, it's a 'g-a-s'.

Humm find that really curious that you didn't know that the Atoms (that comprise what we call a G-A-S) are SOLID(S) little things, QUITE SOLID, that's why we have phenomenon like "Wind Resistence" (reguardless of your physics teachers instructions to disreguard wind resistence)

As for your posting on energy, care to show the rest of us the link it comes from, (something about copyright law) it helps if you reference what you quote/cite.

Now, please tell me what "illusory" means to you. (cause your thinking that "Air is a G-a-s" and that that therefore tells us that it isn't comprised of solids is really Illusory on your part!)

And a P.S. your quote does nothing to resolve the idea of "Energy being illusory" Nothing at all!

 

[Canute]

Mentat

I think you're posting a lot of good sense.

As someone said earlier this issue is all about self-reference.If solipsism is true and the Universe is just consciousness self-referencing, then by reduction that self-reference becomes infinitely regressive until at the limit there's nothing there at all. This is the 'Emptiness' referred to in Buddhism, claimed to be all that is 'noumenal' at the limit. (Although I'd say that Buddhism is not quite solipsistic or idealist).

In this respect Jeebus's 'fuzzy sets', which transcend the truth and falsity values of two-value logic (formal axiomatic systems), give the right impression of 'emptiness' as a concept (rather than as an experience), for paradoxically it is also 'fullness'. Such contradictions are the very stuff of non-dual philosophy, which asserts that two-value logic, or dual thinking, must always end in contradictions and paradoxes like Russell's. I'd say that the evidence clearly backs up this assertion.

Zeno's paradox of the race between Achilles and the tortoise can also be used to arrive at the same conclusion. Perhaps all logical paradoxes do.

 

[Mumeishi]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
Humm find that really curious that you didn't know that the Atoms (that comprise what we call a G-A-S) are SOLID(S) little things, QUITE SOLID, that's why we have phenomenon like "Wind Resistence" (reguardless of your physics teachers instructions to disreguard wind resistence)

May I politely suggest that you brush up on your basic science. Solid is one of the three recognised states or phases of matter, the other two being liquid and gas. Sometimes plasma is included as a fourth state.
Is an atom solid? That is meaningless by the definition/description of solid given above since atoms are not made of matter, they comprise matter, they are not made of atoms. Also, atoms are not like little billiard balls, they are something like 99.99% (approximately) empty space with of a tiny dense nucleus of protons and neutrons and orbited by electrons. And these subatomic particles are not thought to be like little billiard balls either - electrons for example, are spread out in space like clouds or waves. So in what sense are atoms or air solid?

We have wind resistance because atoms have mass and thus momentum. Is that what you mean by 'solid'?

Solid, the physical state of matter in which samples maintain their shape and size. Some highly viscous liquids, such as cold molasses, flow so slowly that they seem to retain their size and shape and thus appear to be solids. X-ray examination, however, reveals an important difference in microscopic structure. Solids exhibit a regular arrangement of atomic, ionic, or molecular particles—solid objects have a crystalline structure. In contrast, the molecules of liquids are arranged irregularly—liquids have no crystalline structure. See Matter; Matter, States of.

From:
http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/refpages/RefArticle.aspx?refid=761571650

I'm getting quite frustrated. Why am I debating with you? You claim to have special insights into the relationship between physical and nonphysical, yet you don't even seem to have a grasp of basic high school level science.

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
As for your posting on energy, care to show the rest of us the link it comes from, (something about copyright law) it helps if you reference what you quote/cite.

Sorry, here's the link:
http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/glossary.htm#discrepancy

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
Now, please tell me what "illusory" means to you.

I already have. i told you that to me, 'illusory' meant that we have a misunderstanding of the nature of something. It refers to the relation between a psychological state or model and reality itself. Its not an intrinsic property. The dictionary is in agreement:

illusion
noun
1 [C or U] an idea or belief which is not true:
He had no illusions about his talents as a singer.
I'm under no illusions (= I understand the truth) about the man I married.
My boss is labouring under the illusion that (= wrongly believes that) the project will be completed on time.
2 [C] something that is not really what it seems to be:
A large mirror in a room can create the illusion of space.
The impression of calm in the office is just an illusion.
]

From:
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=39078&dict=CALD

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
(cause your thinking that "Air is a G-a-s" and that that therefore tells us that it isn't comprised of solids is really Illusory on your part!)

BS. See above

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
And a P.S. your quote does nothing to resolve the idea of "Energy being illusory" Nothing at all!

There is nothing to 'resolve'. There is no issue. I've given you a definition of energy in terms of properies of physical systems. There is nothing to suggest that energy is illusory. If you want to claim that, then you must first define whay YOU mean by illusory then provide evidence. And if your definition of 'illusory' is radically different from the one everyone else is using then we would be justified in questionioning whether it should apply.

 

[Mumeishi]

This is very interesting Canute,

Can you expand on this or refer me to some further reading?

Thanks

 

[Canute]

Originally posted by Mumeishi
This is very interesting Canute,

Can you expand on this or refer me to some further reading?

Thanks

There's a few topics rolled into one there so I don't know which one you mean exactly. If you search under Zeno, Goedel, Russell's paradox, then you'll get a lot of useful arguments around the implications for reality of self-reference and paradoxes. You could also try Penrose, Hofstedter, Popper, Kant etc. They all discuss self-reference and its implications. I think Wittgenstein also ended up with the same sort of conclusions through analysing language. Plato's metaphor of the shadows on the cave wall is also worth exploring.


On Mentat's connection of self-reference to solipsism and idealism you'll probably have to make your way, as with my connection to non-dual philosophy, although I think Penrose explores it a bit (in relation to 'God' I think) in 'Shadows of the Mind'.

Canute

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by Mumeishi
May I politely suggest that you brush up on your basic science. Go Ahead, I played a game with the Idea of "Solidity"...[/color] Solid is one of the three recognised states or phases of matter, the other two being liquid and gas. Sometimes plasma is included as a fourth state.

Now all of this...[/color] Is an atom solid? That is meaningless by the definition/description of solid given above since atoms are not made of matter, they comprise matter, they are not made of atoms. Also, atoms are not like little billiard balls, they are something like 99.99% (approximately) empty space with of a tiny dense nucleus of protons and neutrons and orbited by electrons. And these subatomic particles are not thought to be like little billiard balls either - electrons for example, are spread out in space like clouds or waves. So in what sense are atoms or air solid?

We have wind resistance because atoms have Is defeated by Honesty, your admission to the recognition that atoms are solid [/color] mass and thus momentum. Is that what you mean by 'solid'? See above...intro...[/color]

I already have. i told you that to me, 'illusory' meant that we have a misunderstanding of the nature of something. It refers to the relation between a psychological state or model and reality itself. Its not an intrinsic property. The dictionary is in agreement:

As I understand 'illusory' it is "having the nature of an illusion" energy is a bit like that, electricity in a wire sort of thing, can't see it, just like the EMR qualities of atoms, illusory...[/color]

There is nothing to 'resolve'. There is no issue. I've given you a definition of energy in terms of properies of physical systems. There is nothing to suggest that energy is illusory. If you want to claim that, then you must first define whay YOU mean by illusory then provide evidence. And if your definition of 'illusory' is radically different from the one everyone else is using then we would be justified in questionioning whether it should apply.

I had said 'Air was illusory' because it still retains the quality of a solid in it's atomic comprisal, (that is a misunderstanding of its nature, falls into the category, but not really really strongly...I admit that too...) don't believe that one, HS science?? try finding the energy levels required to break one (an atom) into the little pieces you would wish to debate upon the arrangements of...

Nature of 'energy' is defined, in Science, (and society) just don't think it's the best one yet...maybe...maybe not...

 

[Mumeishi]

Originally posted by Canute
There's a few topics rolled into one there so I don't know which one you mean exactly. If you search under Zeno, Goedel, Russell's paradox, then you'll get a lot of useful arguments around the implications for reality of self-reference and paradoxes. You could also try Penrose, Hofstedter, Popper, Kant etc. They all discuss self-reference and its implications. I think Wittgenstein also ended up with the same sort of conclusions through analysing language. Plato's metaphor of the shadows on the cave wall is also worth exploring.


On Mentat's connection of self-reference to solipsism and idealism you'll probably have to make your way, as with my connection to non-dual philosophy, although I think Penrose explores it a bit (in relation to 'God' I think) in 'Shadows of the Mind'.

Thanks, I've come across some of these ideas before and would like to pursue them in more depth. One thing that I'm not certain of is whether these epistemological problems are pointing to a profound, zen-like insight into the nature of reality or whether they are an inconsequential by-product of one system imperfectly modelling another ('objective') system.

 

[Canute]

Originally posted by Mumeishi
Thanks, I've come across some of these ideas before and would like to pursue them in more depth. One thing that I'm not certain of is whether these epistemological problems are pointing to a profound, zen-like insight into the nature of reality or whether they are an inconsequential by-product of one system imperfectly modelling another ('objective') system.

Good point. I suspect most people assume that they are inconsequential. However it's worth noting that there are no such problems and paradoxes in non-dual systems. Even Mentat's problem of reconciling Russell's paradox with solipsism is resolved.

 

[Mentat]

Mr.Robin Parsons,
I'm not sure if Mumeishi's link dealt with this point, but I think your error (on the point of "solidity") comes from the misconception that atoms are solid masses. This is not the case. A solid mass is something wherein the particles making it up stay together in rigid formation (or nearly rigid formation). This is not the case with an atom, since: 1) An atom's electrons (as well as the quarks in each hadron, to some extent) move about rather freely; and 2) Quantum weirdness comes into play much more strongly at this size, and thus no hadron or electron can be said to be in one place at any given time.

There is no solidity here. In fact, it could reasonably be argued that nothing ever really is "solid" but that solidity is an illusion that only works on huge beings (like humans) who very rarely have to deal with uncertainty or the fluidity of all subatomic particles.

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by Mentat
Mr.Robin Parsons,
I'm not sure if Mumeishi's link dealt with this point, but I think your error (on the point of "solidity") comes from the misconception that atoms are solid masses. This is not the case. A solid mass is something wherein the particles making it up stay together in rigid formation (or nearly rigid formation). This is not the case with an atom, since: 1) An atom's electrons (as well as the quarks in each hadron, to some extent) move about rather freely; and 2) Quantum weirdness comes into play much more strongly at this size, and thus no hadron or electron can be said to be in one place at any given time.

There is no solidity here. In fact, it could reasonably be argued that nothing ever really is "solid" but that solidity is an illusion that only works on huge beings (like humans) who very rarely have to deal with uncertainty or the fluidity of all subatomic particles.

WOW, and you work/live at this level all of the time?, the level where atoms do NOT represent solids, cause buddy you live in a world completley un-known and unknowable to the rest of all humanity.

If you believe that it isn't a solid, Pleeeease PROVE IT go bang you head on some "Atomic" concrete (A cement wall works fine!) and come back here and tell me it isn't solid!

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by mentat
(SNIP)[/color] There is no solidity here. In fact, it could reasonably be argued that nothing ever really is "solid" but that solidity is an illusion that only works on huge beings (like humans) who very rarely have to deal with uncertainty or the fluidity of all subatomic particles. (SNoP)[/color]

Humm, what about the Alpha particle, know to humanity to the the MOST bound (state) arrangement of nuclie know to humanity, representing a SOLID, two protons, two neutrons, and you couldn't bust it apart if you tried, save having a powerful enough particle accelerator handy...

Not solid? right? (according to you and Mumeishi) then re-define 'mass' please as one of the simplest qualities of 'mass' is that it can be measured, hence represents an "Occupation of a delineated space" (and is energetically resistive to having that delineated space 'incurred' upon) by something that qualifies as a solid/matter...

Please, fix the problem you are creating...

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Plus, as I have just posted in the "Reality" thread, {adressing Mumeishe)...this...

Originally posted in reality by Moi

Originaly posted by Mumeishe
(SNIP)[/color] Atoms are not 'solids', this has been explained to you twice now. (SNoP)[/color]

Humm, atoms are comprised of Protons, and the Protons "Expectancy of duration of Solidity" is roughed out at 10^{somewhere's in the fourties...(like me, he hee)} Years! like about three times the current age of the Universe, roughly! and wasn't it your definition of "solid" that stated it "held it's shape"(?) is this Solid enough for you to accept the Idea of Solidity?

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
WOW, and you work/live at this level all of the time?, the level where atoms do NOT represent solids, cause buddy you live in a world completley un-known and unknowable to the rest of all humanity.

If you believe that it isn't a solid, Pleeeease PROVE IT go bang you head on some "Atomic" concrete (A cement wall works fine!) and come back here and tell me it isn't solid!

A cement wall is not an atom, please reply directly to my reasoning.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
Humm, what about the Alpha particle, know to humanity to the the MOST bound (state) arrangement of nuclie know to humanity, representing a SOLID, two protons, two neutrons, and you couldn't bust it apart if you tried, save having a powerful enough particle accelerator handy...

Not solid? right? (according to you and Mumeishi) then re-define 'mass' please as one of the simplest qualities of 'mass' is that it can be measured, hence represents an "Occupation of a delineated space" (and is energetically resistive to having that delineated space 'incurred' upon) by something that qualifies as a solid/matter...

Please, fix the problem you are creating...

You are creating a problem, where it does not need to be. So what if you can't split apart an alpha particle? It is still not a rigid mass (nothing is at the quantum level). In fact, you seem to think it's composed of point particles...shame on you. "The rest of humanity", as you put it, seems to have discovered that quarks are also waves...where've you been?

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
Plus, as I have just posted in the "Reality" thread, {adressing Mumeishe)...this...

Humm, atoms are comprised of Protons, and the Protons "Expectancy of duration of Solidity" is roughed out at 10^{somewhere's in the fourties...(like me, he hee)} Years! like about three times the current age of the Universe, roughly! and wasn't it your definition of "solid" that stated it "held it's shape"(?) is this Solid enough for you to accept the Idea of Solidity?

A proton isn't even a fundamental particle. Quarks, OTOH, are, and they don't hold their positions rigidly, by any stretch of the imagination.

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by Mentat
A proton isn't even a fundamental particle. Quarks, OTOH, are, and they don't hold their positions rigidly, by any stretch of the imagination.

And the (amount of) time that they 'Exist' is...? and when integrated into protons they build, what? structure? rigidity? the "Illusion" thereof, solidity, with respect to time...Hummm

Aside from that, it is a fundamental particle in an Atom.

 

[phoenixthoth]

a solipsistic manefesto?

From Magick by Aliester Crowley:

I am a God, I very God of very God; I go upon my way to work my will; I have made matter and motion for my mirror; I have decreed for my delight that Nothingness should figure itself as twain, that I might dream a dance of names and natures, and enjoy the substance of simplicity by watching the wanderings of my shadows. I am not that which is not; I know which knows not; I love that which loves not. For I am Love, whereby division dies in delight; I am Knowledge, whereby all parts, plunged in the whole, perish and pass into perfection; and I am that I am, the being wherein Being is lost in Nothing, nor deigns to be but its Will to unfold its nature, its need to express its perfection in all possibilities, each phase a partial phantasm, and yet inevitable and absolute.
I am Omniscient, for naught exists for me unless I know it. I am Omnipotent, for naught occurs save by Necessity my soul's expression through my will to be, to do, to suffer the symbols of itself. I am Omnipresent, for naught exists where I am not, who fashioned space as a condition of my consciousness myself, who am the center of all, and my circumference the frame of my fancy.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
And the (amount of) time that they 'Exist' is...? and when integrated into protons they build, what? structure? rigidity? the "Illusion" thereof, solidity, with respect to time...Hummm

That last option: an Illusion.

Aside from that, it is a fundamental particle in an Atom.

No it's not. Hadrons of quarks and the orbiting leptons are fundamental (which means the most elementary of particles).

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by Mentat
That last option: an Illusion. One that apprently according to you? brings with it No solidity, but wait Hey you CAN bang your head into a concrete wall, and it is solid, so how does all that mushyness result in solid things?[/color]

No it's not. Hadrons of quarks and the orbiting leptons are fundamental Cheese, you are condescending [/color](which means the most elementary of particles).

Funny last time I look Protons were considered Fundamental particles cause to be a particle it needs last some time, you know, exist!...the quarks, once removed from within a "proton" decompose quite quickly, their true nature being one of instablity, it is only in the Harmonic resonance of a protonic arrangement that stability is achieved.

BTW Just cause they's mushy outside of a proton doesn"t prove that when acting as one as a proton that they are still mushy, their collective resonant harmonic could easily be working together to afford/generate the stability, that Protons demonstrate.

If you don't believe in solid, you live in a dream world...

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
One that apprently according to you? brings with it No solidity, but wait Hey you CAN bang your head into a concrete wall, and it is solid, so how does all that mushyness result in solid things?

I didn't say that "solidity" didn't exist, but that atoms are not solid. There's a huge difference, since I already defined "solid" as a state of many particles held in rigid formation.

Cheese, you are condescending

Look who's talkin'! You are the last person who should lecture me about condescension when every post you've ever directed at me has been dripping with sardonic comments.

Funny last time I look Protons were considered Fundamental particles cause to be a particle it needs last some time, you know, exist!...the quarks, once removed from within a "proton" decompose quite quickly...

"Quite quickly"...and that's not existing for "some time"?

BTW Just cause they's mushy outside of a proton doesn"t prove that when acting as one as a proton that they are still mushy, their collective resonant harmonic could easily be working together to afford/generate the stability, that Protons demonstrate.

If you don't believe in solid, you live in a dream world...

Don't waste my time, prove it or drop it. I could just as easily have said "if you believe that atoms are solid you are living in a dream world", but this gets us nowhere.

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by Mentat
I didn't say that "solidity" didn't exist, but that atoms are not solid. There's a huge difference, since I already defined "solid" as a state of many particles held in rigid formation.
there's that Ego...P.S. what if I disagree with your definition of a solid, and stick with what it has always been, you know 'Solid' as in it 'lasts' (holds its shape) for a long time, like a Proton does...[/color]

Look who's talkin'! You are the last person who should lecture me about condescension when every post you've ever directed at me has been dripping with sardonic comments.
Hummm, actually only following you...just less...[/color]
"Quite quickly"...and that's not existing for "some time"? Which is why I had asked you if you knew how long, but you evaded responce to the question...[/color]

Don't waste my time, prove it or drop it. Prove what? that the Universe Speaks 'Solid', it's done! and I have NO NEED to prove what has already been proven! By 'Others' BTW, I just know of there work...[/color] I could just as easily have said "if you believe that atoms are solid you are living in a dream world", but this gets us nowhere.

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by Mentat
I didn't say that "solidity" didn't exist, but that atoms are not solid. There's a huge difference, since I already defined "solid" as a state of many particles held in rigid formation.

But on page 6 you said, and I "quote" you

Originally posted by mentat
Mr.Robin Parsons,
I'm not sure if Mumeishi's link dealt with this point, but I think your error (on the point of "solidity") comes from the misconception that atoms are solid masses. This is not the case. A solid mass is something wherein the particles making it up stay together in rigid formation (or nearly rigid formation). This is not the case with an atom, since: 1) An atom's electrons (as well as the quarks in each hadron, to some extent) move about rather freely; and 2) Quantum weirdness comes into play much more strongly at this size, and thus no hadron or electron can be said to be in one place at any given time.

There is no solidity here. In fact, it could reasonably be argued that nothing ever really is "solid" but that solidity is an illusion that only works on huge beings (like humans) who very rarely have to deal with uncertainty or the fluidity of all subatomic particles.


__________________
"He who joyfully marches in rank and file has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would suffice."

-Albert Einstein

so...apparently you don't behave "solidly" as you completely contradict yourself!

Have a nice evening...and please, don't waste any of your time...

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
But on page 6 you said, and I "quote" you



so...apparently you don't behave "solidly" as you completely contradict yourself!

Solidity can indeed be an illusion, if you take the solidity of atoms as indicative of the actual nature of solids. Since I do not make this assumption I can allow for the existence of solidity, but not in atoms.

Have a nice evening...and please, don't waste any of your time...

A nice evening to you also (I'm getting off-line now), and forgive my comment about wasting my time, but I just couldn't take the level of sarcasm you'd been using. Sarcasm only gives the idea that you don't care about what you are saying, and are arguing for the sake of arguing. If this is not true of you then I apologize for my misconception, and advise you to lower the level of sarcasm so as not to mislead someone else into my same mistake.

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by Mentat
Solidity can indeed be an illusion, if you take the solidity of atoms as indicative of the actual nature of solids. Since I do not make this assumption I can allow for the existence of solidity, but not in atoms. Humm, well, I had agreed with the idea of it being 'illusory' inasmuch as it is, simply put, "bound energy" but clearly the binding of that energy speaks of the nature of reality, and thus demonstrates to us its concept of solidity (unchanging shape over time, AND impact resistant) in a manner as to make it clear enought to us that it is in an 'upheld' position, supposted by the evidence that the universe itself provides us...[/color]



A nice evening to you also (I'm getting off-line now), and forgive my comment about wasting my time, but I just couldn't take the level of sarcasm you'd been using. Sarcasm only gives the idea that you don't care about what you are saying, and are arguing for the sake of arguing. If this is not true of you then I apologize for my misconception, and advise you to lower the level of sarcasm so as not to mislead someone else into my same mistake.

Generally I use very little sarcasm perhaps you read it there when it isn't, perhaps I get it that way and don't realize it (?), one way or the other, both! apology accepted, (Thanks!) and offered! inasmuch as even though you demonstrate learning beyond your years, I still have an unfair advantage in that very same realm, age, not your fault, not really mine either, but it is an "unfairness" just the same...

 

[Mumeishi]

Originally posted by phoenixthoth
From Magick by Aliester Crowley:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am a God, I very God of very God; I go upon my way to work my will; I have made matter and motion for my mirror; I have decreed for my delight that Nothingness should...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And here I thought you was a Christian. Crowley is cetainly an interesting character. Do you find this philiosphy persuasive?

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Cited from; TheMcGraw-Hill Multimedia Encyclopedia of Science & Technology
Version 2.0
Copyright © 1998 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc All rights reserved
DynaText Copyright © 1990-1997 Inso Corporation.

(titled; "Quarks")[/color]
The basic constituent particles, of which "elementary" particles are now believed to be composed. Theoretical models built on the quark concept have been very successful in explaining and predicting many phenomena in particle physics. Please I am NOT trying to "rub anything in", by simply to ensure that the "Current Thought Path" is clear...[/color]

...Followed by this informative look at 'time'...[/color]
A successful experiment must have: (1) a very high-intensity incident proton beam to produce a sufficient amount of J particles for detection; and (2) the ability, in a billionth of a second, to pick out the J/psi ® e- e+ pairs amidst billions of other particles through the detection apparatus.

and empirically this restriction was found to lead to a suppression of the decay rate resulting in a long lifetime and narrow width.

Understandably, in these kinds of studies the idea of a billionth of a second as 'Long' is quite acceptable as (If I recall it right) some of them have lifetimes in the orders of 10^-40 (thereabouts) of a second...so a billionth is 'long', in comparision, but in comparision to the particle it forms, the proton, well..."stable" particle is the word that replaces 'solid' particle, but then 'stability' is "The ability to maintain shape", so is 'solidity', 'impact resistive' is simply a "Bonus upon the proving" that the article in question is indeed rather 'solid', and in the terms we humans can relate to, for I (too?) have knowledge of just what "hitting your head on a piece of concrete" really feels like, "Solid" is a good description, I had thought (too)...

Reality contains solids...An "illusion" generated by/in the 'Light' (EMR)

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
Humm, well, I had agreed with the idea of it being 'illusory' inasmuch as it is, simply put, "bound energy" but clearly the binding of that energy speaks of the nature of reality, and thus demonstrates to us its concept of solidity (unchanging shape over time, AND impact resistant) in a manner as to make it clear enought to us that it is in an 'upheld' position, supposted by the evidence that the universe itself provides us...

Impact-resistance may indeed be produced, but that doesn't make something solid (at least, not by definition). Solid is a state of matter. It is a state in which the particles that make up this "solid" entity must hold rigid formation. Now, while an atom could be deemed "unchanging in shape" (barring decay and such things) and "impact-resistant", it still cannot be deemed "solid", because the definition of "solid" requires more out of it.

Generally I use very little sarcasm perhaps you read it there when it isn't, perhaps I get it that way and don't realize it (?), one way or the other, both! apology accepted, (Thanks!) and offered! inasmuch as even though you demonstrate learning beyond your years, I still have an unfair advantage in that very same realm, age, not your fault, not really mine either, but it is an "unfairness" just the same...

I appreciate that you are being reasonable about this. One problem though: What in the world does age have to do with it?

 

[Mentat]

As to your other post (the one just above my previous one), my response is:

1) Just because he called them the constituent parts of "elementary particles" doesn't mean that that's how they are usually referenced. In any pop-sci book you can check out (any current one, anyway) they will tell you that the elementary particles are quarks and leptons. In fact, if you were to go to a site on the internet that displays the Standard Model, they'd tell you the same thing.

2) I don't get the point about how long a proton lasts. What are you trying to say?

 

[Mumeishi]

What was the subject of this thread again?

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Mumeishi
What was the subject of this thread again?

I was thinking the same thing, but I wasn't going to say anything since I'm sort of enjoying this side-track...

Mr.Robin Parsons could start a new thread on the subject of solidity, if he wanted, since I want to re-direct this thread soon.

 

[Mumeishi]

Good idea. Perhaps Mr Parsons could call the new thread

'Why the scientific community and dictionary definition of 'solid' are wrong'

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally found at this http://www.webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary" , Websters Dictionary
(Definition of 'Solid' as found under "Noun")[/color]
2 a : a substance that does not flow perceptibly under moderate stress, has a definite capacity for resisting forces (as compression or tension) which tend to deform it, and under ordinary conditions retains a definite size and shape

 

[Mumeishi]

Let's move on...please.

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by Mumeishi
Good idea. Perhaps Mr Parsons could call the new thread
'Why the scientific community and dictionary definition of 'solid' are wrong'

followed by;

Originally posted by Mumeishi
Let's move on...please.

Follow your own advise please.....because when (and now you warrant the offence as you are attempting to place words in my mouth, that come from you, NOT me!) an "Idiot" pretends to do someone elses's thinking for them, well what they really see is simply the inside of themselves...and BTW justify 'idiot'? the first quote does that, well...you do it to yourself...

P.S. You'll notice that the dictionary definition follows what I have been saying, and I notice you cannot prove otherwise, either...nothing more then a (very) poor loser, with the inclusion of the obviousness of the sadness that you don't seem to even be concerned in finding the answer, but more defending what you have been taught by "others"...how sad, and un-Scientific...

 

[Canute]

If one takes a strictly reductionist view of matter how does one avoid concluding that it's made out of nothing? What is it that is ultimately irreducible?

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
Originally found at this site, Websters Dictionary
(Definition of 'Solid' as found under "Noun")
2 a : a substance that does not flow perceptibly under moderate stress, has a definite capacity for resisting forces (as compression or tension) which tend to deform it, and under ordinary conditions retains a definite size and shape

Fine, and this most certainly doesn't apply to an atom (or even a proton, for that matter). Look at the definition, and put it up against what I've been saying about quantum Uncertainty and fluidity of quark movement...

"A substance that does not flow perceptibly under moderate stress"...a proton (and, more importantly, a quark) does flow perceptibly under moderate stress. Remember, at the quantum level there are no real "particles" but "wavicles" which behave both as particles and as waves.

"has a definite capacity for resisting forces which tend to deform it"...surely you're not going to say that the collapse of the wave-function of a fundamental particle, under rather minute stress (in quantum terms) still allows it to meet this criterion.

"and under ordinary conditions retains a definite size and shape"...size, maybe; but shape?! No way.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Canute
If one takes a strictly reductionist view of matter how does one avoid concluding that it's made out of nothing?

E.i.N.S. --> "...how does one avoid concluding that it isn't made of anything".

These to statements are semantically equivalent, but I don't want any confusion. There is no thing called "nothing", and thus there isn't anything that is made out of such a thing. However, if something is truly fundamental the it wouldn't be made out of anything (and could thus, and only thus, be said to be "made of nothing").

What is it that is ultimately irreducible?

If there is something that is ultimately irreducible, then it isn't "nothing". Remember that, please; too many arguments have been started over this point in the past.

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by Mentat
Fine, and this most certainly doesn't apply to an atom (or even a proton, for that matter). Look at the definition, and put it up against what I've been saying about quantum Uncertainty and fluidity of quark movement...
"A substance that does not flow perceptibly under moderate stress"...a proton (and, more Way LESS importantly, as the "Model for exemplary solidity" is the PROTON, NOT the quark! [/color] importantly, a quark) does flow perceptibly under moderate stress. Remember, at the quantum level there are no real "particles" but "wavicles" which behave both as particles and as waves.

"has a definite capacity for resisting forces which tend to deform it"...surely you're not going to say that the collapse of the wave-function of a fundamental particle, under rather minute stress (in quantum terms) still allows it to meet this criterion. Words in my mouth?, NO! I said PROTON! the above is proven FASLE in respect of Protons inasmuch as the energies required to "bust em up", But maybe you just don't know anything about that...[/color]

"and under ordinary conditions retains a definite size and shape"...size, maybe; but shape?! No way. Are you still talking about quarks? or Protons? in this statement, cause if your saying shape in a proton is changing over time, please PROVE IT![/color]

EDIT P.S. The reference to "Flow perceptibly" is a distinguishement from "fluidity" which is not to be confused with 'deformation' from impact(s)...even a Quark Does not "flow" as a "fluid" more likened to a gel...sticky...

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
followed by;

Follow your own advise please.....because when (and now you warrant the offence as you are attempting to place words in my mouth, that come from you, NOT me!) an "Idiot" pretends to do someone elses's thinking for them, well what they really see is simply the inside of themselves...and BTW justify 'idiot'? the first quote does that, well...you do it to yourself...

P.S. You'll notice that the dictionary definition follows what I have been saying, and I notice you cannot prove otherwise, either...nothing more then a (very) poor loser, with the inclusion of the obviousness of the sadness that you don't seem to even be concerned in finding the answer, but more defending what you have been taught by "others"...how sad, and un-Scientific...

Watch the personal remarks, please. They're never warranted and were only produced ever since the side-tracking (partially my own fault ) of the this thread...which is why Mumeishi would be asking us to "move on".

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by mentat
Watch the personal remarks, please. They're never warranted and were only produced ever since the side-tracking (partially my own fault ) of the this thread...which is why Mumeishi would be asking us to "move on".

A small piece of advice, please direct your remarks at the person initiating the event, maybe you hadn't noticed (as per friendship) but it is mumeishe's "ridcule" that started this, your remark about "what has age to do with it" didn't help either, but does tell me what you do know about it...(by your hand)...

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
EDIT P.S. The reference to "Flow perceptibly" is a distinguishement from "fluidity" which is not to be confused with 'deformation' from impact(s)...even a Quark Does not "flow" as a "fluid" more likened to a gel...sticky...

You see how this is all that showed up when I hit "quote"? That's because you typed within the quote-box again...please don't do that, it makes it very hard to respond coherently.

As it is, the proton may be your model for solidity, but a while ago it was the atom, and it isn't really relevant either way. Neutrons have been shown to posses exactly those "wavicle" properties as the fundamental quarks have, except at a less noticable level. Protons must be the same (though I don't personally know for sure if experiments have been conducted on the proton).

I never mentioned the ability to "bust up" a proton, but the ability to deform it. Ever heard of "decay"?

Last, but not least, when I remarked about its "shape" I was talking about the fact that the proton may be a hadron of point particles, or it may be a hadron of vibrating strings. It (the whole proton (though that's like speaking of "the whole solar system" as a separate entity from "planets revolving around star", IMO)) also "changes" form to be a "wave" in some experiments, while it shows up as a "particle" in other experiments (again, this is an assumption, but it is based on having actually read about the experiments done on Neutrons which are hadrons too).

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
A small piece of advice, please direct your remarks at the person initiating the event, maybe you hadn't noticed (as per friendship) but it is mumeishe's "ridcule" that started this, your remark about "what has age to do with it" didn't help either, but does tell me what you do know about it...(by your hand)...

Mumeishi didn't initiate the insults, and my opinion on that is not biased, but based on having looked back to make sure...he only said that we should move on.

And what does my comment about age have to do with it? I didn't insult you. In fact, I could have been (though I wasn't) insulted by the implication, on your part, that I must be less intelligent than you simply because I'm younger than you.

Indeed, an older person has had more opportunity to become wise, but that just makes it all the more inexcusable that so many haven't. It doesn't mean that a younger person has had no opportunity to gain wisdom, and it doesn't mean that they haven't taken better advantage of this opportunity than someone thrice their age.

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by Mentat
Mumeishi didn't initiate the insults, and my opinion on that is not biased, but based on having looked back to make sure...he only said that we should move on. And what I would really like to know (possible the Mentors too) is how he kept it from registering the EDIT!...cause if you look at my posting, just below his "Lets move on", you will see that I had Captured his Ridicule of me (Insult) so his having edited his post "Sans notation", well really suspicious, don't you think? nevermind I can no longer trust him for anything he types on these pages unless I keep copies of every single thing, OYE he ain't worth it![/color]
EDIT: Oooops, my mistake he deleted the insulting one, I got it now...[/color]

And what does my comment about age have to do with it? I didn't insult you. In fact, I could have been (though I wasn't) insulted by the implication, on your part, What part, the part where I apologised to you?[/color] that I must be less intelligent than you simply because I'm younger than you. Insecure? why don't you try reality, nothing to do with intelligence, But with "KNOWLEDGE" as that is a time dependant aquisitional 'thing', so age, does make a (for your sake I put "potential") difference.[/color]

Indeed, an older person has had more opportunity to become wise, Start back at "knowledgable" please...wisdom's another thing altogether)[/color] but that just makes it all the more inexcusable that so many haven't. It doesn't mean that a younger person has had no opportunity to gain wisdom, and it doesn't mean that they haven't taken better advantage of this opportunity than someone thrice their age.

For you to be able to take advantage of the opportunities that I have had in my lifetime, you would need live 47 years. Just because you can "take better advantage then someone thrice their age" (IF that's true) doesn't mean you have caught up to them, even if you went at twice my pace, you would still be behind me, I have had 47 "opportunity years", if you were working at twice my pace you would have had 30, three times my pace and you are still short at 45...get it?

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Heck I even got the error/EDIT wrong, mumeishi's ridicule, it's still there...
But while I am here, I had gone looking and found this...
(as I do want for accuracy)

Originally found at http://hep.bu.edu/~superk/pdk.html" site..

Because the exchanged particle is so heavy, the proton lifetime predicted by grand unification models is extremely long... about 20 orders of magnitude longer than the age of the universe!

No events have been observed and a limit on the lifetime has been set to be over 10^(33) years

the bottom statement coorelates to other sites "times" for proton decay, the 10³³ years, others range it at 6.5 x 10³¹ years, but clearly, a long duration particle.

Clearly I had had it wrong when I had stated that it was in the 10^{to the 40's something} as it is some time shorter then that...

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
For you to be able to take advantage of the opportunities that I have had in my lifetime, you would need live 47 years. Just because you can "take better advantage then someone thrice their age" (IF that's true) doesn't mean you have caught up to them, even if you went at twice my pace, you would still be behind me, I have had 47 "opportunity years", if you were working at twice my pace you would have had 30, three times my pace and you are still short at 45...get it?

You obviously missed the point.

First off, I wasn't referring to myself when I said the "take better advantage than someone thrice their age" comment.

Secondly, you have not taken advantage of every chance to gain more knowledge that you've been presented with in your life, and thus your age is not a good marker for how hard I have to work to catch up with you.

Lastly, wisdom is indeed different than knowledge, but most people think that both come with age, so I use them interchangeably in this context. I know that knowledge is an aquisitional thing, but if you spend very little time reading (and I'm not saying you do) for 47 years, but just let the time pass you by, while I'm learning more and more each day (this part is true), then I will indeed surpass you in knowledge. There's nothing wrong with that. If you did take advantage of every opportunity to gain knowledge throughout your lifetime (or even went at the same pace that I've been going at) then you'd be far beyond me...but have you really worked that hard? If you have, I commend you. If you haven't, then I request that you not comment on my age.

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by Mentat
First off, I wasn't referring to myself when I said the "take better advantage than someone thrice their age" comment. Ahem, any reference to age, once introduced as it has been in this conversation, which (BTW) is about to cease, is taken as "in reference to the conversations direction". (that a Normal practise for most people) I would have thought you 'capable enough' to recognize thusly, and NOT try to use debating tactics with me, again, but...[/color]

Secondly, you have not taken advantage of every chance to gain more knowledge that you've been presented with in your life, and thus your age is not a good marker for how hard I have to work to catch up with you. It was an e-x-a-m-p-l-e to make the point that, (BY YOUR ADMMISSION) you hadn't understood, or so you said...[/color]

Lastly, wisdom is indeed different than knowledge, but most people think that both come with age, so I (Erroneously, as they are not interchangable, one is a product of the other...maybe!)[/color] use them interchangeably in this context. I know that knowledge is an aquisitional thing, but if you spend very little time reading (and I'm not saying you do) for 47 years, but just let the time pass you by, while I'm learning more and more each day (this part is true), then I will indeed surpass you in knowledge. There's nothing wrong with that. If you did take advantage of every opportunity to gain knowledge throughout your lifetime (or even went at the same pace that I've been going at) then you'd be far beyond me...but have you really worked that hard? If you have, I commend you. If you haven't, then I request that you not comment on my age.

You can never, in the entirety of your lifetime, surpass the 'minutia' of the "time of my life" as the "time of your life" must exceed the "time of my life" to accomplish that, after that, we begin into the realms of "Quality of knowledge" and importantly "Application(s) of Knowledge"...Oh yes, please try to remain true to your 'stated form', as you are the one who had told me he made "no conclusions" right?? cause I've seen a few since then.

The older person always "knows more" as they have been alive longer, after that 'quality' counts! Quality of the 'Knowing' that they acquire in simply being alive.

As for your last "two" lines, I don't know, neither do you, my comment on your age, if yourecall, was in the acceptance and the offering of apologies, and my acknowledgment (honesty) that I could recognize that this is an "unfairness", me debating, with you because of My Age, the rest, your defensiveness, well get over it mentat ( ) there are lots of people out there, and NO ONE has an absolute corner on the market for "Smarts".

After all, Smart people Intelligent people, Knowledgable people, and even Wise people (an Oxymoron? he hee ) share what they know, that sort of flattens the curvatures that have been getting smaller and smaller with the increasing populations...

 

[Canute]

Well I'm older still, and my opinion is that it's possible to be wrong at any age, one just become able to do it with better arguments as time goes on, and in emergencies can always resort to being patronising.