The discussion centers around the implications of Russell's Paradox for the philosophical concept of Solipsism. Participants explore whether the paradox presents a logical challenge to Solipsism, which posits that only one's mind is certain to exist. The conversation includes technical explanations of Russell's Paradox, its relation to set theory, and the nature of the mind in the context of Solipsism.
Participants do not reach a consensus on whether Russell's Paradox poses a significant challenge to Solipsism. Multiple competing views are presented regarding the relationship between the mind, sets, and the implications of the paradox.
The discussion highlights limitations in the definitions and assumptions regarding sets, the mind, and the nature of existence. There are unresolved questions about the applicability of traditional logic versus alternative frameworks in addressing these philosophical issues.
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.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.
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.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.
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...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]
Originally posted in reality by Moi
Humm, atoms are comprised of Protons, and the Protons "Expectancy of duration of Solidity" is roughed out at 10somewhere'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?Originaly posted by Mumeishe
(SNIP)[/color] Atoms are not 'solids', this has been explained to you twice now. (SNoP)[/color]
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!
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...
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 10somewhere'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?
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...HummmOriginally 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.
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.
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
Aside from that, it is a fundamental particle in an Atom.
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.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).
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?
Cheese, you are condescending
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...
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...
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.
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.
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
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!
Have a nice evening...and please, don't waste any of your time...
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...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.
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...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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)...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.
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...
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...
Originally posted by Mumeishi
What was the subject of this thread again?
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
followed by;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'
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...Originally posted by Mumeishi
Let's move on...please.
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
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?
What is it that is ultimately irreducible?