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

  • Thread starter Mentat
  • Start date
  • #51
199
0
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.
 
  • #52
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?
 
  • #53
199
0
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 transfered 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.
 
  • #54
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!
 
  • #55
1,515
0
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' refered 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.
 
  • #56
199
0
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:
Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary

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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #57
199
0
This is very interesting Canute,

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

Thanks
 
  • #58
1,515
0
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
 
Last edited:
  • #59
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"... 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...... 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 mass and thus momentum. Is that what you mean by 'solid'? See above...intro....

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, cant see it, just like the EMR qualities of atoms, illusory...

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 beleive 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...........
 
  • #60
199
0
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.
 
  • #61
1,515
0
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.
 
  • #62
3,762
2
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.
 
  • #63
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!
 
  • #64
Originally posted by mentat
(SNIP) 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)
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..........
 
  • #65
Plus, as I have just posted in the "Reality" thread, {adressing Mumeishe)......this........

Originally posted in reality by Moi
Originaly posted by Mumeishe
(SNIP) Atoms are not 'solids', this has been explained to you twice now. (SNoP)
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?
 
  • #66
3,762
2
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.
 
  • #67
3,762
2
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?
 
  • #68
3,762
2
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?
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.
 
  • #69
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.
 
  • #70
1,569
2
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.
 
  • #71
3,762
2
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).
 
  • #72
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?

No it's not. Hadrons of quarks and the orbiting leptons are fundamental Cheese, you are condescending (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, ya 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......
 
  • #73
3,762
2
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, ya 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.
 
  • #74
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.......

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.........
"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.......

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..... 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.
 
  • #75
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.......
 

Related Threads on Russell's Paradox: The Achille's Heel of Solipsism?

  • Last Post
Replies
18
Views
3K
  • Last Post
6
Replies
133
Views
24K
  • Last Post
Replies
19
Views
4K
Replies
18
Views
21K
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
32
Views
11K
  • Poll
  • Last Post
3
Replies
59
Views
9K
  • Last Post
4
Replies
91
Views
12K
Replies
28
Views
8K
Top