In Quantum Mechanics (QM), an electron is a fundamental particle. (the name 'particle' is a bit of a misnomer, particles in QM are wave functions). — Treatid
If we were to create a universe, what are the simplest possible building blocks that we could use? — Treatid
Ideas. — RogueAI
An electron is directly a quantum of the quantum electron field, which field appears to be fundamental. — PoeticUniverse
The simplest fundamental would have no parts, which is fine, for elementary 'particles' would be rather stable arrangements of it, such as in QFT (Quantum Field Theory). — PoeticUniverse
Guess #1: A vacuum fluctuation.
What is the simplest possible component of change we could apply to that building block?
Guess #2: To make measurements with – interacting via – (massless) quanta. — 180 Proof
The second sentence is granted, but the first sentence is not immediately intelligible. Suggest review Robinson's "h" and reconsider. — alan1000
Guess #3: "The Big Bang" (i.e. planck-radius universe).Under what circumstances could an interaction (Quantum Fluctuation) be simple and constructible? — Treatid
An electron is directly a quantum of the quantum electron field, which field appears to be fundamental.
— PoeticUniverse
There is some ambiguity in your statement. Are you saying an electron is fundamental, or the quantum electron field?
In either case... Okay. And?
I don't know how to engage with your comment. I don't know if you are just expanding on the idea of fundamental properties in Quantum Mechanics or you are correcting a misapprehension you think I have.
Perhaps you are just adding your own snippet to the conversation.
My expectation from philosophy forums is a discussion of ideas. A dialogue.
Your expectation doesn't have to match mine. It just means I'm likely to bug you to expand on your point until I can see something I can engage with. — Treatid
The simplest fundamental would have no parts, which is fine, for elementary 'particles' would be rather stable arrangements of it, such as in QFT (Quantum Field Theory).
— PoeticUniverse
'Nothing' is certainly simple... but it isn't really a building block.
A field is hardly simple. You have an n-dimensional continuous field which can be infinitely sub-divided.
It took Russell hundreds of pages of dense mathematics just to get to 1+1=2. I'd have to look to see if there is any construction for real numbers.
It is true that Euclidean Geometry (and many non-Euclidean counterparts) take a field of some kind as a given.
In this sense, fields are certainly foundational/fundamental to large parts of mathematics and physics.
However, it isn't clear to me that Fundamental == Simple.
I'm not saying you are wrong - I'm saying you will have to do much more than mentioning the idea of fields to persuade me that fields constitute simple, let alone simplest. — Treatid
Guess #1: A vacuum fluctuation. — 180 Proof
Just for funsies. Are you thinking of a human building a physical universe from raw materials, or a god creating a dynamic world from scratch? For the human, no single element would ever be sufficient to produce something that is more complex than the original element. A pile of sand is just grains of rock particles, with nothing to hold them together, into a structural system. But concrete is loose sand bound together by a mineral matrix, the binder.If we were to create a universe, what are the simplest possible building blocks that we could use? — Treatid
Do you think the Hard Problem has been solved?
— RogueAI
It's a pseudo-problem .Scientifically, I think, embodied cognition explains much better the phenomenal subject (e.g. T. Metzinger, R.S. Bakker, A. Damasio, D. Dennett) than phenomenology itself does. — 180 Proof
Guess #3: "The Big Bang" (i.e. planck-radius universe). — 180 Proof
The idea of connections making up everything (like some sort of code that determines what particles are where) is attractive to me because every particle with mass must be made up of others unless mass is a trait like location and could be coded for by these connections. — Igitur
Having no parts is not 'Nothing'. The Fundamental can't have parts because those parts world be more fundamental; thus, the fundamental consists of only itself; — PoeticUniverse
Having no parts is not 'Nothing'. The Fundamental can't have parts because those parts world be more fundamental; thus, the fundamental consists of only itself; it does not get made and it cannot break, so there is no sub-dividing it. For example, a wave would be continuous and have no parts. Waves are also ubiquitous in physical nature. The Fundamental has to be the simplest, by the necessity shown above. We can also see this trend as we look more and more 'downward' — PoeticUniverse
An electron is temporary, as is all else but the permanent quantum fields. An electron can be annihilated by a positron, but electrons can persist awhile in the right emvironment. — PoeticUniverse
Just for funsies. Are you thinking of a human building a physical universe from raw materials, or a god creating a dynamic world from scratch? — Gnomon
But concrete is loose sand bound together by a mineral matrix, the binder. — Gnomon
Probably the bit (or qbit), right? 1 or 0, nothing more complex. Presumably, you can say everything about any of the other candidates (except perhaps ideas) with bits. — Count Timothy von Icarus
Can properties (e.g. position, momentum, spin, charge, mass...) exist independently of objects that have them (i.e. is a property a particular, or is a property necessarily an attribute of a particular?)If an electron is 'composed' of position, momentum, spin, charge and mass; aren't these properties more fundamental than the electron? — Treatid
I Googled the phrase "network of relationships" and found it most often applied to social relations between humans. But, on a universal or sub-atomic scale, the term might also refer to Positive & Negative interactions, or Attractive & Repellent behaviors, or Back & Forth exchanges of Energy. In every instance I could think of, relationships are not physical things, but as-if mental images, where the invisible bonds are imagined, not seen. Causal Energy/Force is invisible & intangible, so only its after-effects are detectable by human senses.But concrete is loose sand bound together by a mineral matrix, the binder. — Gnomon
Well... funnily enough. Given the binder, it is sufficient by itself.
The little revolution I'm trying to foster is regarding the necessity of the bits between structure.
A network of relationships doesn't require us to define what the relationships are binding. The structure of the relationships is enough by itself. — Treatid
"This is what we observe" is in no way equivalent to "this is why we observe...." — Treatid
Reasonable answer - but I'm going to disagree.
In order to build a computer, the bits have to have specific relationships. There has to be structure between individual bits.
So while bits are notionally simple, by the time you can build anything with them you have stealth included some assumed structure. The bits+structure is less than trivial (simplest).
There is still the potential for a very simple system - but without an explicit statement of the structure, I'm inclined to think you are hiding more complexity than you realise within your implicit assumptions.
Regarding a simple universe: a single particular. Depending on one's preferred ontology, could be:
- a property (existing independently)
- an object with zero properties
- an object with exactly one property (if particulars necessarily have at least one property). — Relativist
In every instance I could think of, relationships are not physical things, but as-if mental images, where the invisible bonds are imagined, not seen. Causal Energy/Force is invisible & intangible, so only its after-effects are detectable by human senses. — Gnomon
The ‘why’ is bound up with the qualitative structure of the theory which explains and organizes the observation. As one theoretical explanation is overthrown for another, the ‘why’ changes along with it. — Joshs
I think that, properly understood, information theoretic understandings of physics and metaphysics are anti-reductive, since context defines what a thing is, rather than vice versa. — Count Timothy von Icarus
In a certain sense, I think the "entire context" matters for fully defining constituent "parts" role in any universe, and this might preclude things' being "building blocks" at all in the normal sense. — Count Timothy von Icarus
The ‘why’ is bound up with the qualitative structure of the theory which explains and organizes the observation. As one theoretical explanation is overthrown for another, the ‘why’ changes along with it.
— Joshs
Except that can't be correct.
"Because I said so." "Because God decreed it." "Because it does."
Physics runs into the same infinite recursion as asking what caused the universe. At each stage there is still the question "what caused that cause?". — Treatid
Complex dynamical systems exhibit nonlinear effects and a type of causality called causal spread, which is different from efficient causality. The interactions and connectivity required for complex systems to self-organize are best understood through context-sensitive constraints
If an electron is 'composed' of position, momentum, spin, charge and mass; aren't these properties more fundamental than the electron? — Treatid
QFT treats particles as excited states (also called quantum levels) of their underlying quantum fields, which are more fundamental than the particles. — Wiki
What is the simplest possible building block? What is the simplest possible component of change we could apply to that building block? — Treatid
An electron is not composed of other particles. ... If an electron is 'composed' of position, momentum, spin, charge and mass; aren't these properties more fundamental than the electron? — Treatid
My personal worldview is ultimately Holistic and Monistic. But when we begin to "describe" the world, in language or math, it is necessary to make "distinctions". Reductive Science is all about naming & knowing particular things. But Holistic Philosophy is about wisdom & understanding of All things. Structure is interrelationships between things that bind them into a knowable Whole. Substance is the indivisible essence of a thing, which makes it a knowable concept. Real is what we interact with physically, Ideal is what we imagine metaphysically. :smile:↪Gnomon
I'd like to get into what we can and can't describe. In the meantime I'm hoping the above diatribe gives you some insight into why I don't immediately accept your distinction between ideal, real, structure and substance. — Treatid
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.