The swerve of the atom, furthermore is another flash of brilliance, — Agustino
When atoms move straight down through the void by their own weight, they deflect a bit in space at a quite uncertain time and in uncertain places, just enough that you could say that their motion has changed. But if they were not in the habit of swerving, they would all fall straight down through the depths of the void, like drops of rain, and no collision would occur, nor would any blow be produced among the atoms. In that case, nature would never have produced anything — Lucretius, De Rerum Natura
That makes absolutely no sense. What if it was round? Then there would be no "top", "bottom", etc. because these are relative to a frame of reference, and an objective frame of reference can only be provided by asymmetries in the shape of the particle. But spherical particles would have no asymmetries. They would have no parts - no top, no bottom, no distinctions.But if something was indivisible, how could it have top, bottom, left and right? Those are precisely 'divisions' or 'parts'. — Wayfarer
Nah, it's basically the same, just more detailed. Democritus was basically right. The uncertainty principle and probability wave are the swerve. Inability to predict.The notion of Democritus of 'atoms and the void' is stricly binary, atom=1, void=0, but the 'probability wave' and 'uncertainty principle' have torpedoed that — Wayfarer
That makes absolutely no sense. — Agustino
The swerve of the atom, furthermore is another flash of brilliance, which is much alike the "weird" quantum mechanics effects that science is only now discovering. If anything, all this should make them awe-inspiring, and more philosophical interest should go towards investigating their methods of using reason, which clearly yielded astounding results. — Agustino
He's something like a practical atheist without, in this letter at least, being a genuine atheist. Perhaps he was quietly an agnostic who saw the use of the gods or of God as an image, or perhaps he thought the world needed a cause (deism, etc.).First believe that God is a living being immortal and blessed, according to the notion of a god indicated by the common sense of mankind; and so believing, you shall not affirm of him anything that is foreign to his immortality or that is repugnant to his blessedness. Believe about him whatever may uphold both his blessedness and his immortality. For there are gods, and the knowledge of them is manifest; but they are not such as the multitude believe, seeing that men do not steadfastly maintain the notions they form respecting them. Not the man who denies the gods worshipped by the multitude, but he who affirms of the gods what the multitude believes about them is truly impious. — Epicurus
So? How does this imply that indivisibility is inconceivable? How does this imply that if the atom has spatial properties it must be divisible?In any case, a spherical object of any kind is not dimensionless because a sphere can only be defined in terms of the distance of the surface from the centre. — Wayfarer
There are solutions to those problems offered by Epicureans through the ages. The heat atoms get reflected or absorbed temporarily in the voids between other atoms.There are many obvious conundrums with Lucretius atomism apparent even to the untrained. For instance, he claimed that 'heat atoms' flowed out from the sun and hit the earth. The obvious question is, what happens to all of them when they land? Why don't we have to clear the driveway of expended 'heat atoms' before driving out in the morning? — Wayfarer
:-} I did read it, and found that it is nothing but Heisenberg inserting his favorite biases without even arguing why. It's so silly. "Uhh fundamental reality is pure mathematics" - yeah sure, give me a break. But other than that, I'll reply to the appeal to authorities more educated than us with another authority:For viewpoint of one who is more educated than either of us on this very question, have a geez at Heisenberg's essay The Debate Between Plato and Democritus. (Spoiler alert: comes out against Democritus.) — Wayfarer
There are solutions to those problems offered by Epicureans through the ages — Agustino
No one doubts the moon is real, and it’s just a particle when viewed from far enough away. How is it any different from a photon registered in a photodetector? So, even if I can’t prove it, it seems reasonable that photons, electrons, quarks, neutrinos, and Higgs bosons are for real.
:-} I highly doubt Heisenberg would pass Philosophy 101. If his "philosophy" is like that essay he has no chance. As for Heidegger, he may pass Philosophy 101, but he would certain fail in Newtonian mechanics 101 (forget quantum mechanics 101).I honestly don't think Stenger would pass Philosophy 101, whereas Heidegger, apart from having helped devise quantum mechanics, is also philosophically astute. — Wayfarer
And am I to take that for truth? Am I not to look at their writtings and confirm whether what you're telling me is the truth? And if so, then I have looked at Heisenberg's writing that you offered, and it doesn't sound philosophically astute at all. It's more like propaganda.Bohr, Schrodinger and Heisenberg were all highly educated and philosophically astute. — Wayfarer
I honestly don't think Stenger would pass Philosophy 101, whereas Heidegger, apart from having helped devise quantum mechanics, is also philosophically astute. — Wayfarer
Does that go to show that Heidegger is weak as a philosopher, or that you're weak as a teacher of philosophy? :PIt depends on who the professor is. Heidegger as a student, writing as he's famous for, when I was teaching Intro to Philosophy courses, wouldn't have passed. — Terrapin Station
And does this statement also depend on who is assessing it? >:)Depends on who is assessing it, obviously. — Terrapin Station
How quaint, that sounds like a good definition for truth no? :-*stuff with no possibility of different views? — Terrapin Station
I didn't forget it, but I can still hear the TV you know...Don't skip step (6) — Terrapin Station
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.