Are atoms inanimate?

[ourlivinguniverse]

Are atoms inanimate?

Is it possible to prove whether:

–  Atoms are inanimate objects which respond to a priori forces

OR

–  Atoms are material systems which respond spontaneously to their energetic environment

This might seem an esoteric question, but it has fundamental implications for the way we see the universe around us.

The former statement is consistent with materialistic philosophy, that which we’ve inherited from the Victorians. But the latter would seem to be the direction of travel that quantum mechanics is taking us in. If the latter holds, then all forces of nature are the consequence of the behaviour of matter and not the consequence!

Is it possible to prove one or the other?

url deleted

[iNow]

It’s only possible to prove math and spam. All other assertions are provisional. 

[exchemist]

1 hour ago, ourlivinguniverse said:

 

Are atoms inanimate?

Is it possible to prove whether:

–  Atoms are inanimate objects which respond to a priori forces

OR

–  Atoms are material systems which respond spontaneously to their energetic environment

This might seem an esoteric question, but it has fundamental implications for the way we see the universe around us.

The former statement is consistent with materialistic philosophy, that which we’ve inherited from the Victorians. But the latter would seem to be the direction of travel that quantum mechanics is taking us in. If the latter holds, then all forces of nature are the consequence of the behaviour of matter and not the consequence!

Is it possible to prove one or the other?

ourlivinguniverse.com

You will need to explain why the two options are different. To me they look the same. 

[swansont]

!

Moderator Note

From rule 2.7

Advertising and spam is prohibited. We don't mind if you put a link to your noncommercial site (e.g. a blog) in your signature and/or profile, but don't go around making threads to advertise it

(IOW, don’t include your site’s link in posts)

 

[AIkonoklazt]

Don't have to prove anything; Just look at what the term refers to. Dictionary definitions basically say that atoms are inanimate.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/inanimate

[StringJunky]

I concur with exchemist, there isn't any meaningful difference between the statements; just different words encompassing the same idea.

Edited January 6 by StringJunky

[ourlivinguniverse]

Classic physics suggests that atoms, and all particles, are simply objects which are influenced by forces applied to them.

If you change your frame of reference to see particles as material systems responding spontaneously to their energetic environment, then there is no need to imagine any a priori forces. All the forces that we observe would then arise as the consequence of the behaviour of matter and not the cause. 

For the last 100 years quantum mechanics has been trying to persuade us to look at the universe differently from our very wedded materialistic philosophy associated with classic physics. Perhaps we're missing something.

If you see particles as systems responding spontaneously to their energetic environment, then wave-particle duality becomes trivial.

[joigus]

On 1/5/2024 at 11:00 PM, exchemist said:

You will need to explain why the two options are different. To me they look the same. 

Maybe what the OP means is something like quantum mechanics overrules the law of cause and effect?

But I concur with you and @StringJunky that the initial proposition wasn't a proper either/or setting.

 

[exchemist]

1 hour ago, ourlivinguniverse said:

Classic physics suggests that atoms, and all particles, are simply objects which are influenced by forces applied to them.

If you change your frame of reference to see particles as material systems responding spontaneously to their energetic environment, then there is no need to imagine any a priori forces. All the forces that we observe would then arise as the consequence of the behaviour of matter and not the cause. 

For the last 100 years quantum mechanics has been trying to persuade us to look at the universe differently from our very wedded materialistic philosophy associated with classic physics. Perhaps we're missing something.

If you see particles as systems responding spontaneously to their energetic environment, then wave-particle duality becomes trivial.

There is no difference between the two, really. Potential is just the integral of a force over a distance. Atoms are inanimate either way.

[MigL]

I really don't understand your definition of 'inanimate' or 'animate'.