Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Curt
climber
Gold Canyon, AZ
|
|
This was made clear by my friend Josh over at JPL who said there was no such thing or object or stuff called a photon. A photon is simply energy/radiation. Put differently, there is no such "thing" as a photon that HAS radiation. There is only the radiation. You can call radiation a thing, because we can measure it, but what we are measuring is not some object that has a property. We are measuring the property itself.
Long time listener. First time caller. This is not so simple. In terms of its behavior, a photon can also be described just as accurately as a particle. This was proven by the Davisson-Germer experiments at Bell Labs that led to the Nobel Prize in physics by demonstrating wave-particle duality.
As an interesting aside, Lester Germer was a long-time Gunks climber.
Curt
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Nov 7, 2016 - 07:18pm PT
|
Actually, MH2, I think ALL objects are composed of the same non-stuff, no matter what the tentative object is.
Don't take my word for it. Check this vid out that discusses quantum fields, and listen to the end, when Art Hobson is quoted as saying, "There are no particles, they're only fields."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wgA_0Kxb1fg
Much of this harks back to the question: What isn't physical, which implies that reality is entirely physical. So we ask, what does "physical" actually mean?
Strictly speaking, physical is defined as:
adjective
1.
of or relating to the body as opposed to the mind.
2.
of or relating to that which is material:
the physical universe; the physical sciences.
3.
noting or pertaining to the properties of matter and energy
Even the very definition of "physical" separates body (physical) from mind (not itself-physical). Then we see that physical does not apply to some physical thing, but rather to properties "relating to that which is material," a term that has no definition save for properties.
In other words, there just might not be any stuff "there" at all, but rather, only properties which are NOT composed of stand-alone, independent stuff that has any inherent or non-contingent nature.
This might square with Hobbs statement that there is no stuff, only fields. Or put differently, there are no things that HAVE properties, there are only properties (granted our senses tell us otherwise). Or as my friend Josh says, there is no object or thing that HAS radiation, there is simply radiation.
Obviously this goes against common sense and intuition. When we say, X has a property called spin, we automatically ask "What spins."
A possible experiential correlate to this is that there is no stand-alone "I" or observer who experiences any thing. There is only experience.
That is a blurted out version. Someone else with more time and insight might be able to articulate this with much more clarity.
|
|
jgill
Boulder climber
The high prairie of southern Colorado
|
|
Which comes first? The instantiations upon which categories are built; or categories into which instantiations are subsumed? (MikeL)
This question passes from philosophical noodling to practical reality at times. I knew of a young PhD math student who worked diligently towards his thesis on a highly interesting class or category of functions for a year or so. When he brought in the results of his investigations his advisor asked him to provide an example of such functions. As it turned out his category was an empty set.
In other words, the stuff, the matter, the objects that we usually think of as causing or giving rise to this or that are not stand alone objects that have properties, they are apparently simply properties that themselves have none of the non-contingent stuffness that we think and imagine they have (JL)
To me this statement encapsulates an error in classification, what is called a Category Mistake. You want the macro and the micro worlds to belong to the same category. I don't think they do.
|
|
MH2
Boulder climber
Andy Cairns
|
|
Actually, MH2, I think ALL objects are composed of the same non-stuff, no matter what the tentative object is.
Then it seems good to move past any question about what an object IS, as a fundamental inquiry, and try to learn how it interacts with other objects, no longer trying to ask what smaller stuff the stuff is made of.
|
|
jgill
Boulder climber
The high prairie of southern Colorado
|
|
"It depends on what your definition of 'is' is." (POTUS)
Good point, Andy. The quest for no-thingness is fatally flawed.
No one knows what a field as spoken of in physics actually is. But they do know what it does. In math a vector field is a simple concept. I diddle with them in the complex plane frequently.
That’s not Jung’s or depth psychologists’ view of the unconscious
Yes, and their ongoing success would invalidate my conjecture.
|
|
PSP also PP
Trad climber
Berkeley
|
|
Yes questing is flawed.
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Southern Arizona
|
|
Jgill: As it turned out his category was an empty set.
As might all.
No one knows what a field as spoken of in physics actually is. But they do know what it does.
Doesn’t this declaration strike you as even slightly odd? “We know does, but we don’t know what does.” You might admit that this is a strange way of talking, even more so of seeing.
What you seem to be saying here is that you are aware of some dynamics, but you don’t know the entities of which the dynamics express or present. Don’t you think that’s a funny / strange way to express or present what could be otherwise known as “being?” How far away are you from simply calling everything that you perceive as “energy” or “appearance,” and leave it as that?
I mean, the “being” of entities is a pretty big concern, no?
For me, this is the problem with the proof of materiality through the replicability of research studies. They purport to prove the conception of an entity but only by its dynamics and properties. But the link between the conception of an entity and its expression / behavior is not established. We see appearances, and we can agree among each other that there are appearances, but we don’t know of what.
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Nov 8, 2016 - 09:08am PT
|
To me this statement encapsulates an error in classification, what is called a Category Mistake. You want the macro and the micro worlds to belong to the same category. I don't think they do.
---------
We all know the pitfalls of trying to apply the small to the big. But the point is, reductionism doesn't acknowledge these catagories. Reductionism never says - we can only go down so far and then our methods are no longer viable. You can explain that away many ways, but we are not really looking at catagories, per se, but reality in the round.
And Dingus, you are still whiffing on this one, IMO, believing that energy and matter are the same thing. Do a little reading and you'll see that mass is a very misleading term. What do you think the man meant when he said, "There are no particles, only fields." Or when Josh Schoolcraft said, "There is no such thing as a photon that HAS radiation. There is only radiation."
The point is that we live in a world of objects that are not composed of independent, stand-alone stuff at all.
Another fascinating point here, perhaps the most curious of them all, is the difference between what something is, and what "it" does. Mike brought up the crux of it. In doing science on what an assumed thing does, we presuppose that there is actually a thing there that DOES this or that, that has this rest mass, this velocity, this charge, etc. I have heard some say that science does not ask what something is, rather what something does, the implication being that either an assumed object IS what it does, and no more, or that if science only directed their attention to what objects were, an answer would be forthcoming. Fact is, all reality is a moving target, and no one can answer the "what" question because there are no fixed things to begin with, and the properties we call energy and matter are neither things or separate from each other.
In other words, asking what some thing IS, is a trick question because it implies there is some thing there in the first place, some observer-independent, stand-alone, non-contingent stuff or entity which in fact is not "there" in the way our senses tell it is is there. I have a hunch that asking what a field is runs into the same challenges. We can call it a thing for convenience, but it seems to defy the definitions of a classical external object.
BTW, very good post, Mike.
|
|
Curt
climber
Gold Canyon, AZ
|
|
"There is no such thing as a photon that HAS radiation. There is only radiation."
As I pointed out earlier, photons are particles--and vice-versa.
Curt
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
Modern materialistic scientists remove a nut and bolt from a machine and then study it to see what makes it work.
They'll spend lifetimes studying the nut and bolt.
They never find out it's required to make the whole cosmic manifestation to operate correctly.
They only see a nut and a bolt and have rooms full of data on a nut and a bolt and spend lifetimes talking about the nut and bolt.
Who made the nut and bolt?
It's not important to the gross materialists, only the nut and bolt is important!
|
|
i-b-goB
Social climber
Wise Acres
|
|
"As ye have received Christ Jesus the Lord."
Colossians 2:6
The life of faith is represented as receiving--an act which implies the very opposite of anything like merit. It is simply the acceptance of a gift. As the earth drinks in the rain, as the sea receives the streams, as night accepts light from the stars, so we, giving nothing, partake freely of the grace of God. The saints are not, by nature, wells, or streams, they are but cisterns into which the living water flows; they are empty vessels into which God pours his salvation. The idea of receiving implies a sense of realization, making the matter a reality. One cannot very well receive a shadow; we receive that which is substantial: so is it in the life of faith, Christ becomes real to us. While we are without faith, Jesus is a mere name to us--a person who lived a long while ago, so long ago that his life is only a history to us now! By an act of faith Jesus becomes a real person in the consciousness of our heart. But receiving also means grasping or getting possession of. The thing which I receive becomes my own: I appropriate to myself that which is given. When I receive Jesus, he becomes my Saviour, so mine that neither life nor death shall be able to rob me of him. All this is to receive Christ--to take him as God's free gift; to realize him in my heart, and to appropriate him as mine.
Salvation may be described as the blind receiving sight, the deaf receiving hearing, the dead receiving life; but we have not only received these blessings, we have received Christ Jesus himself. It is true that he gave us life from the dead. He gave us pardon of sin; he gave us imputed righteousness. These are all precious things, but we are not content with them; we have received Christ himself. The Son of God has been poured into us, and we have received him, and appropriated him. What a heartful Jesus must be, for heaven itself cannot contain him!
CHARLES SPURGEON
|
|
MH2
Boulder climber
Andy Cairns
|
|
How far away are you from simply calling everything that you perceive as “energy” or “appearance,” and leave it as that?
Why is energy is in quotes? If I call everything energy, won't you just ask me to define energy or otherwise say what energy is?
The labels like 'energy' are just heuristics. They help us to talk and learn about objects in the world around us. We ourselves are part of that world. We learn about ourselves by trial and error in our early years.
It is the dynamics of and interactions and connections among the objects we perceive that give us our only clues to what they are. How else could you learn about the world?
Take a baseball and hit it with a bat. The path of the ball will be a parabola. We know that from finding patterns in the way things work. We don't know it from deep study of what a baseball is, a bat is, or a parabola is.
|
|
MH2
Boulder climber
Andy Cairns
|
|
Who made the nut and bolt?
Rawl?
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
Before anything can be created, made, moved or animated a consciousness stream must first be there ......
|
|
MH2
Boulder climber
Andy Cairns
|
|
asking what some thing IS, is a trick question
True.
Other trick questions:
What is your name?
What day is this?
What is the capitol of Mauritius?
What is a trick question?
Those esoteric masters had a good sense of humor.
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Southern Arizona
|
|
MH2: . . . labels like 'energy' are just heuristics. They help us to talk and learn about objects in the world around us.
You know what a heuristic is, right? It too is a label for what is not known. It’s just a model, a rule of thumb. Heuristics help us to talk about appearances.
Learning . . . well, that’s another question. One can argue without contradiction that the learning concerns narratives. However, a narrative is a cry away from “what is” in any complete, final, or accurate way.
You say you’re learning about the world. I suggest you’re learning about appearances.
Appearances tend to be superficial. If they are, and if you would admit that they are, then what possible hypothesis would you next consider?
Try playing along; it’s kind of a thought experiment. If all you can honestly claim is that there are appearances—that they appear in consciousness (that you might think is yours)—then what would you next consider?
What is a reality that could be at best described as merely appearances?
Put it together: appearances and consciousness. One shows up with the other, . . . all . . . the . . . time.
Largo: . . . all reality is a moving target, and no one can answer the "what" question because there are no fixed things to begin with, and the properties we call energy and matter are neither things or separate from each other.
. . . what he said.
|
|
jgill
Boulder climber
The high prairie of southern Colorado
|
|
But the point is, reductionism doesn't acknowledge these catagories. Reductionism never says - we can only go down so far and then our methods are no longer viable. (JL)
At a point reductionism fails, and "knowledge" of what lies beyond becomes a matter of speculation or faith it seems. Arguments that lead in principle down to emptiness, do so by a shift of categories:
"According to the generalized uncertainty principle (a concept from speculative models of quantum gravity), the Planck length is, in principle, within a factor of 10, the shortest measurable length – and no theoretically known improvement in measurement instruments could change that." (Wiki)
But you've moved on to other aspects of physical theory.
I have a hunch that asking what a field is runs into the same challenges. We can call it a thing for convenience, but it seems to defy the definitions of a classical external object (JL)
Of course, you're speaking of a field in physics, where the definition of a field may be that it IS what it DOES. On the other hand, in math a (vector) field is easily defined in an abstract sense.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
all reality is a moving target, and no one can answer the "what" question
Only holds for the impersonalists and is incomplete.
All Ulitmate reality has personality and individuality ......
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!