The logical fallacy of logic.

[MonDie]

 

I think you mean affect, but things that arguably don't exist can affect our experience of reality. Try your argument with a child who is convinced there are monsters under the bed. They don't exist, bet they affect his/her reality. Anyway, Ophiolite summed it up quite nicely with the quote: The map is not the territory.

 

Phonons do not exist on their own. They are a calculational convenience. As with electric and magnetic fields, quantum states, etc. To paraphrase David Mermin (from the May '09 Reference Frame in Physics Today), are you a continuous field of operators on an infinite-dimensional Hilbert space?

 

I'm give up.

[MonDie]

 

I think you mean affect, but things that arguably don't exist can affect our experience of reality. Try your argument with a child who is convinced there are monsters under the bed. They don't exist, bet they affect his/her reality. Anyway, Ophiolite summed it up quite nicely with the quote: The map is not the territory.

 

Phonons do not exist on their own. They are a calculational convenience. As with electric and magnetic fields, quantum states, etc. To paraphrase David Mermin (from the May '09 Reference Frame in Physics Today), are you a continuous field of operators on an infinite-dimensional Hilbert space?

 

I think I somehow missed the second half. Did you add it in later?

 

Obviously it is the child's idea of the monster that is affecting him, and that idea exists. Anyway your physics is losing me since my physics is limited to what I learned in chemistry and astronomy textbooks. I'm going to have one more unresearched, crazy, maniacal philosophical speculation?

 

It seems odd to ask whether an adjective has referents, but many adjectives can be made into nouns. Green is a property, and green things are a kind of thing. Conversely, to determine whether a thing exists I must have some properties by which to identify it. However to say that what exists is the thing which possesses the properties can give the impression that e.g. a boat would still exist even if it were no longer a boat, which is clearly wrong since it would mean that boats could exist in the absence of anything boat-like. I suggest that the word "exist" merely makes into an adjective the properties that define the noun. "Do boats exist?" really means "Is anything boat-like?" "Anything" is of course any instance of properties. Given that we understand the world empirically, detecting sensory properties, it questionable whether we can conceive of a thing apart from its properties.

Edited December 7, 2015 by MonDie

[swansont]

 

I think I somehow missed the second half. Did you add it in later?

 

Obviously it is the child's idea of the monster that is affecting him, and that idea exists. Anyway your physics is losing me since my physics is limited to what I learned in chemistry and astronomy textbooks. I'm going to have one more unresearched, crazy, maniacal philosophical speculation?

 

It seems odd to ask whether an adjective has referents, but many adjectives can be made into nouns. Green is a property, and green things are a kind of thing. Conversely, to determine whether a thing exists I must have some properties by which to identify it. However to say that what exists is the thing which possesses the properties can give the impression that e.g. a boat would still exist even if it were no longer a boat, which is clearly wrong since it would mean that boats could exist in the absence of anything boat-like. I suggest that the word "exist" merely makes into an adjective the properties that define the noun. "Do boats exist?" really means "Is anything boat-like?" "Anything" is of course any instance of properties. Given that we understand the world empirically, detecting sensory properties, it questionable whether we can conceive of a thing apart from its properties.

 

Does green exist as a physical object? Can you hand me green, and nothing but green? Not something that happens to be green, like Kermit the frog (you would be handing me a frog; that is the thing that exists), but green and only green?

[studiot]

 

An electron hole is the absence of an electron, but it's easier to model as a positive charge

 

 

Easy bro, there's oles and then there's ole's.

 

If you have a bar of absolutely pure silicon and remove an electron toy have a positively charge ole and the bar has a net positive charge.

 

If you have a bar of silicon doped with one atom of boron, you have an ole' but the bar remains electrically neutral.

 

Sorry my Spanish is not really that good.

 

Edited December 7, 2015 by studiot

[MonDie]

 

Does green exist as a physical object? Can you hand me green, and nothing but green? Not something that happens to be green, like Kermit the frog (you would be handing me a frog; that is the thing that exists), but green and only green?

 

It's grammatically invalid to hand you an adjective, but I argue that the adjective/noun distinction is artificial. I convey the same information whether I say that you're green or say that you're a green thing.

If I handed you Kermit, I would be handing you a green thing.

[Ophiolite]

 

Does green exist as a physical object?

Possibly:

(Blackadder - Lord Percy discovers Green)

[swansont]

It's grammatically invalid to hand you an adjective, but I argue that the adjective/noun distinction is artificial. I convey the same information whether I say that you're green or say that you're a green thing.If I handed you Kermit, I would be handing you a green thing.

That's completely beside the point. The issue is what is real, and the distinction between physical and conceptual realness.

[MonDie]

That's completely beside the point. The issue is what is real, and the distinction between physical and conceptual realness.

You seem to think that what's real is only the substrate, for example the fundamental particles. Wouldn't you acknowledge that by saying there is a hole, I am describing something real that has a hole? I am arguing that that empirically that real thing is nothing apart from its hole, or its color, or its size. It's real because it has those properties, and without those properties it would not be real because it would not be itself.

[swansont]

You seem to think that what's real is only the substrate, for example the fundamental particles. Wouldn't you acknowledge that by saying there is a hole, I am describing something real that has a hole? I am arguing that that empirically that real thing is nothing apart from its hole, or its color, or its size. It's real because it has those properties, and without those properties it would not be real because it would not be itself.

That's just it, though - I'm not talking about the something that has the hole. The hole does not physically exist on its own. It's merely a conceptual shortcut to describing something else.

[MonDie]

That's just it, though - I'm not talking about the something that has the hole. The hole does not physically exist on its own. It's merely a conceptual shortcut to describing something else.

If the hole doesn't exist apart from the surrounding material, then it is a property of the hole that it is surrounded by material. Can a bowl exist if not surrounded by (relatively) empty space? Similar dilemmas arise elsewhere. A law or principle is as much what it permits as what it restricts. A permission may be imposed on a background of restrictions, or vice versa.

Your variables must have at least two possible values for you to superimpose anything on them. It's not obvious why any value should be considered the value that exists.

Edited December 8, 2015 by MonDie

[Endy0816]

An analogy would be tube in vacuum with a series of liquid drops traveling through it. I can logically name the voids between the drops, antidrops. I can go into great detail on an antidrop's properties. Take away either the tube or the liquid though and the antidrops are no more.

 

I think the Wiki does a decent job trying to get this point across:

 

In summary, quasiparticles are a mathematical tool for simplifying the description of solids. They are not "real" particles inside the solid. Instead, saying "A quasiparticle is present" or "A quasiparticle is moving" is shorthand for saying "A large number of electrons and nuclei are moving in a specific coordinated way."

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quasiparticle#General_introduction

[MonDie]

An analogy would be tube in vacuum with a series of liquid drops traveling through it. I can logically name the voids between the drops, antidrops. I can go into great detail on an antidrop's properties. Take away either the tube or the liquid though and the antidrops are no more.

 

I think the Wiki does a decent job trying to get this point across:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quasiparticle#General_introduction

Insulting remark removed

I could also fill the tube with water, and the drops would be no more. Both the drops and the antidrops are patterns superimposed on a set of variables. Perhaps these variables are the coordinates of the particles, or the distances between particles, or a P(empty/full) variable that pertains to each unit of space - I don't know - but it's not obvious why any variable value should be the one that exists except as an arbitrary determination, nor is it an obviously important determination when the superimposed patterns are far more interesting than the individual values.

Edited December 8, 2015 by hypervalent_iodine

[arc]

 

I think I somehow missed the second half. Did you add it in later?

 

Obviously it is the child's idea of the monster that is affecting him, and that idea exists. Anyway your physics is losing me since my physics is limited to what I learned in chemistry and astronomy textbooks. I'm going to have one more unresearched, crazy, maniacal philosophical speculation?

 

It seems odd to ask whether an adjective has referents, but many adjectives can be made into nouns. Green is a property, and green things are a kind of thing. Conversely, to determine whether a thing exists I must have some properties by which to identify it. However to say that what exists is the thing which possesses the properties can give the impression that e.g. a boat would still exist even if it were no longer a boat, which is clearly wrong since it would mean that boats could exist in the absence of anything boat-like. I suggest that the word "exist" merely makes into an adjective the properties that define the noun. "Do boats exist?" really means "Is anything boat-like?" "Anything" is of course any instance of properties. Given that we understand the world empirically, detecting sensory properties, it questionable whether we can conceive of a thing apart from its properties.

 

I can't count how many times I have heard a wife describe her husband's boat as; "a hole in the water that you throw money into."

[Endy0816]

You could take exceedingly careful measurements(or not so much if the liquid was something like oil) and show that they haven't really gone anywhere.

 

What measurement can we take to find what has become of my antidrops?

 

 

I have to wonder how confused first contact will become if we ever run into a species that lacks the concept of holes.

[MonDie]

The mods make it look meaner than it was.

 

I suppose you could just reverse score a measure of water to measure antiwater. If we're only talking volume, then zero in your measure indicates the tube is empty whereas zero in mine indicates it's full. Moles would be trickier since I'm not sure there's a ceiling density.

Edited December 8, 2015 by MonDie

[swansont]

If the hole doesn't exist apart from the surrounding material, then it is a property of the hole that it is surrounded by material. Can a bowl exist if not surrounded by (relatively) empty space? Similar dilemmas arise elsewhere. A law or principle is as much what it permits as what it restricts. A permission may be imposed on a background of restrictions, or vice versa.

Your variables must have at least two possible values for you to superimpose anything on them. It's not obvious why any value should be considered the value that exists.

 

A law or principle isn't a physical object, either. And a bowl exists and is a bowl even if it's buried in sand.

[Phi for All]

Is it logical to treat properties of an object the same as the object itself? The ability to combust at around 300C marks a difference between wood and rock, such that if we add that much heat and enough oxygen, the wood will burn but the rock won't. We can change the conditions and the properties change as well; add more heat and the rock will burn, or add water and the wood won't.

 

It seems like a hole is a conditional property of an object. Its value relies completely on the value of the object to define itself. Also, if I dig a hole in the ground, but then fill it back in with the same dirt, there's no hole, but if I dig the hole and fill it back in with concrete, does the hole in the ground still exist (or is that just semantics)? If I dig the hole and it fills up with water, is it a hole or a puddle? What is it if I fill it in with pudding?

 

As swansont mentioned, if a bowl is buried in the sand, filled but not serving its intended purpose, it's still a bowl. But if I'm trying to cross the desert and I find the bowl, and change the conditional properties of the hole by using the bowl to shade my head from the brutal heat, does the bowl become a hat?

[swansont]

 

As swansont mentioned, if a bowl is buried in the sand, filled but not serving its intended purpose, it's still a bowl. But if I'm trying to cross the desert and I find the bowl, and change the conditional properties of the hole by using the bowl to shade my head from the brutal heat, does the bowl become a hat?

 

Regardless, it still exists as a real, physical object. But it's then providing shade, which is not a real, physical object.

[studiot]

Is it logical to treat properties of an object the same as the object itself? The ability to combust at around 300C marks a difference between wood and rock, such that if we add that much heat and enough oxygen, the wood will burn but the rock won't. We can change the conditions and the properties change as well; add more heat and the rock will burn, or add water and the wood won't.

 

It seems like a hole is a conditional property of an object. Its value relies completely on the value of the object to define itself. Also, if I dig a hole in the ground, but then fill it back in with the same dirt, there's no hole, but if I dig the hole and fill it back in with concrete, does the hole in the ground still exist (or is that just semantics)? If I dig the hole and it fills up with water, is it a hole or a puddle? What is it if I fill it in with pudding?

 

As swansont mentioned, if a bowl is buried in the sand, filled but not serving its intended purpose, it's still a bowl. But if I'm trying to cross the desert and I find the bowl, and change the conditional properties of the hole by using the bowl to shade my head from the brutal heat, does the bowl become a hat?

 

Good questions +1

 

The question of the reality of shade is also a good one.

Even the english language, which is normally pretty good at these things, struggles to categorise this one.

Is shade a concrete or abstract noun?

Edited December 8, 2015 by studiot

[Phi for All]

 

Regardless, it still exists as a real, physical object. But it's then providing shade, which is not a real, physical object.

 

My observations in the desert show that I can hold shade in my bowl only when it's upside down. When I turn the bowl right side up, all the shade evaporates. Shade must be anti-light. Very logical.

 

This is different than when I try to fill the bowl with fire or lightning, which I fail at every time.

[cladking]

I believe all these questions are primarily semantics; what's real is real and we are merely using words, that are mostly constructs, to communicate this reality. A hole full of dirt is the same thing as a hole fullof concrete except for the difference between disturbed dirt and and concrete. A shadow is real and can be measured and defined (penumbra etc) by its blackness or the total obscured light. Without the light a true "shadow" can not exist. It can become a blast shadow and maintains its ability to stop projection.

 

Words are simple tools for communication but words can get in their own way and impede communication. Words are concepts used to describe reality. Unfortunately neither language nor science is still tied directly to reality so such things are hard to see.

[Phi for All]

A hole full of dirt is the same thing as a hole fullof concrete except for the difference between disturbed dirt and and concrete.

 

How long does the "dirt disturbing" process take? I'm assuming it's measured by time, since I could easily compact the dirt I put back so it didn't appear "disturbed". It's not a texture thing, right?

 

I think there's a BIG difference between a hole in the ground full of dirt (which isn't a hole anymore), and a hole in the ground filled with concrete (discrete concrete). I think you're the one constructing artificial semantic differences.

[cladking]

 

How long does the "dirt disturbing" process take? I'm assuming it's measured by time, since I could easily compact the dirt I put back so it didn't appear "disturbed". It's not a texture thing, right?

 

I think there's a BIG difference between a hole in the ground full of dirt (which isn't a hole anymore), and a hole in the ground filled with concrete (discrete concrete). I think you're the one constructing artificial semantic differences.

 

What's the difference between disturbed dirt and concrete? If you plant seeds on the dirt they miught grow but they won't grow on the concrete. If you plant a body under the concrete it might keep someone from finding it or it might cause it to be the first place searched by police. A tree growing adjacent the hole will prefentially put roots into the disturbed dirt but will never grow into the concrete. If you fall on itr the dirt would be softer. Essentially there's no difference in the nature of the hole except to the degree it's filled with air, water, or any material. Each will have a different effect and this effect will change as time goes by and as conditions vary.

 

Of course this reality goes beyond words. In every case you can use other constructs, other words, to describe it and you can use words that take other perspectives. Rather than a round hole full of concrete it can be described as a pillar of concrete flush on the soil. The means by which this came to exist can be described as well; the falling concrete shaft buried itself flush in the soil. But these realities are still different. Falling concrete will compress the soil in which it buries itself while a hole dug and filled with concrete doesn't do this. We can use words to describe any condition but they will often be misunderstood sionce each listener assigns meaning to the words as they appear. This process never works perfectly because words have so many definitions, connotations, and shades of meaning. We merely believe we understand one another yet each listener takes his own meaning. This understanding and misunderstanding is irrelevant to the reality. The words are mere constructs to try to communicate ideas.

There are an infinity of ways to say this same thing. There exists concrete within a given radius of a vertical line extending below ground level.

The world exists around a cylinder of concrete flush with the ground at a given point.

We simply tend to see things from an infinite distance. We describe reality in terms of its effect on experiment taking a perspective from infinite distance. We see reality similarly to how we see a blueprint which is why the rules for drawing prints are the way they are. There is no one "right" way to see reality and reality has appearances outside of experimental results. The world is real for dogs just as it is for concrete. Dogs experience the reality and concrete does not.

 

How long does the "dirt disturbing" process take? I'm assuming it's measured by time, since I could easily compact the dirt I put back so it didn't appear "disturbed". It's not a texture thing, right?

 

 

 

 

It depends entirely and strictly on your definitions because terms are constructs. The dirt can never become truly undisturbed just as a bell can never be unrung. Some clays can become rock hard again in as little as 40 years. Since clay is relatively homogenous it's quite legitimate to suggests it ceases to be disturbed in 40 years. But some test exists, will exist, or could exist which might show it's been disturbed even after the sun grows cold.

[studiot]

Sigh.

 

I really thought we had got back on track discussing General Philosophy in a proper sort of way.

 

The world we percieve as reality is not neatly pigeonholed in a clearly defined scientific manner; it packed with grey areas.

Philosophy allows us to discuss these grey areas in a way that science does not.

 

But squabbling over 'semantics' is not acknowledging these grey areas and addressing them.

[swansont]

I believe all these questions are primarily semantics; what's real is real and we are merely using words, that are mostly constructs, to communicate this reality. A hole full of dirt is the same thing as a hole fullof concrete except for the difference between disturbed dirt and and concrete. A shadow is real and can be measured and defined (penumbra etc) by its blackness or the total obscured light. Without the light a true "shadow" can not exist. It can become a blast shadow and maintains its ability to stop projection.

 

Words are simple tools for communication but words can get in their own way and impede communication. Words are concepts used to describe reality. Unfortunately neither language nor science is still tied directly to reality so such things are hard to see.

 

If science is not tied directly to reality, then how can the things represented by the terms defined by science be considered real?