Does the Atom Prove Anaximander's Apeiron Theory?

MountainDwarf

Does the fact that the atom is infinite in the way that everything is made up of them mean that Anaximander is right? Are these things even the same thing?

If they are the same we have to say that nature is infinite. And if nature is infinite then I'm not sure where to go with this discussion. If something is infinite it has a divine property (if you want to call it that). This makes things interesting if applied to philosophy of religion because it gets close to equating humanity or nature with divinity. The only path I know of that teaches something even close to this is Paganism.

I am not a monist, but then again I have to explain the atom since I am not. I find that much of my life is spent challenging my beliefs. Which I know is better than stagnantly embracing whatever.

So, rabbit trail. :joke: Please comment and question with me. :smile:

Deleted User

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

MountainDwarf

↪tim wood

Sorry, I just thought that cells were on the atomic level and they reproduce, die, and regenerate all the time.

In essence the cell never dies out even though individual cells die.

Deleted User

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

MountainDwarf

↪tim wood

The way I see it is if life is inevitable so is death, and death is inevitable. The question you propose is much more interesting seeing as none of us know what it's like to be in a state of non-existence, we're here. I guess I always wonder why. If there is no good reason for why we're here then what keeps all of us from checking out? That's a head scratcher.

Deleted User

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

MountainDwarf

Well, we kind of do, don't we? We sleep, and some of use have other experiences of unconsciousness. — tim wood

Dreams? Those are experiences not of unconsciousness but of subconsciousness. I feel that we come from different philosophical planets. Who would you say influences you the most?

Ego dies. It's somewhat comforting to think that with ego goes all the thing that matter to ego. — tim wood

I agree. Death is a mysterious, dark, beautiful thing.

god must be atheist

What's the Ape-Iron theory? In my estimate Anaximander lived in the Bronze age, and had no knowledge of iron; and definitely no knowledge of the classification of animal species in which a class or order or family or whatever is called Ape.

So I am still baffled, because the Opening Post promised to open up the way to show how the existence of atoms proves the Ape-Iron theory, which theory was actually not mentioned, or the proof, or what Ape-Iron actually is.

This was a let down, a disappointment, but I'll live.

Deleted User

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

Pfhorrest

↪god must be atheist

Fun fact: iron working wasn’t unknown in the bronze age, it’s just that bronze was a better metal, but people switched to iron when bronze became prohibitively expensive.

god must be atheist

I humbly ask the users of this site to speak / write in English. If they use a word that is not in English, but it is in the vocabulary of the professional language of philosophy, then I humbly ask those users to:
1. Alert readers that this is a well-defined word in philosophy use;
2. and possibly give a meaning to it (unless it is tedious to do so.)

god must be atheist

So, okay, well, then, what is this apeiron theory? What is its starting point, argument and conclusion? We still don't know, we, the great unwashed who use this site.

Pfhorrest

↪god must be atheist

Short version is that back when presocratic philosphers were arguing that “all is fire” or “all is air” and so on, Anaximander introduced the idea that everything is indeed made of one substance, but it’s not one of those traditional elements or anything else with which we are familiar, because those are all forms of this same one, undefined (or “boundless”) stuff that underlies all of them.

This was the earliest era of philosophy where a lot of things were really speculative so whatever arguments Anaximander had are not as important as just the fact that he proposed this possibility.

I think the modern physicalist conception of everything being made of energy taking different forms matches pretty well with Anaximander’s “aperion”, myself.

But I can’t make sense of the rest of the OP.

jgill

This is distantly connected with wave/particle duality in physics. But when an electron, for example, is detected, it is detected as a particle. Whereas its wave form is a probability wave detected by slit experiments. Does everything "exist" as a wave form? Yes, I suppose, but at larger sizes that's not a useful approach. (Calling a real, live physicist if there is one around this forum - correct me!) :chin:

god must be atheist

↪Pfhorrest

Thanks, PFH.

Does the Atom Prove Anaximander's Apeiron Theory?

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions