Old Man Posted February 27, 2021 Report Share Posted February 27, 2021 7 hours ago, Cancer said: BTW, there's an article in Quanta magazine about oddities in proton structure that have made the popular press recently. Mary Alberg, featured in that article, is in the same institution and department I'm in. None of that was mentioned in my advanced particle physics class. On the one hand I feel cheated. On the other hand I wouldn’t have wanted to answer exam questions about it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cancer Posted February 28, 2021 Report Share Posted February 28, 2021 I never took particle physics, and the "November Revolution" (discovery of the J/psi and validation of the quark model) happened only two years before I took my first quantum course. So there's lots of stuff I never learned. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazza Posted February 28, 2021 Report Share Posted February 28, 2021 On 2/26/2021 at 3:13 PM, Cancer said: No, but I am willing to take others' word for it. I ask as substance in a technical sense is one of Aristotle’s categories, and another is quantity. Ie substance is ontology/natural philosophy which is unexpected from a scientist. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Man Posted February 28, 2021 Report Share Posted February 28, 2021 18 hours ago, Cancer said: I never took particle physics, and the "November Revolution" (discovery of the J/psi and validation of the quark model) happened only two years before I took my first quantum course. So there's lots of stuff I never learned. jeff Particle physics was the class where I really started to question the sanity of the universe. Does it run on rules? Yes, but those rules are wack. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cancer Posted March 1, 2021 Report Share Posted March 1, 2021 The idea that lots of particle interactions happen in processes where the universe is essentially kiting a check to itself ... can be disturbing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazza Posted March 1, 2021 Report Share Posted March 1, 2021 13 hours ago, Old Man said: Particle physics was the class where I really started to question the sanity of the universe. Does it run on rules? Yes, but those rules are wack. Oh, the universe is way saner/insaner as you move up ontological “levels”. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L. Marcus Posted March 2, 2021 Report Share Posted March 2, 2021 The Universe has dentists in it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pariah Posted March 2, 2021 Author Report Share Posted March 2, 2021 The number of dentists, compared to the volume of the observable universe, is so negligibly tiny as to be effectively zero. Ergo, any dentists you might happen to observe don't actually exist; they're simply figments of your imagination. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cancer Posted March 2, 2021 Report Share Posted March 2, 2021 It also implies that an antiparticle of the dentist exists. In this particular situation, it might be appropriate to adopt jargon from Dirac's original theory and call those "holes". Pariah 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazza Posted March 2, 2021 Report Share Posted March 2, 2021 According to science, dentist don’t exist, neither do scientists. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cancer Posted March 2, 2021 Report Share Posted March 2, 2021 You seem to be weak on the empirical nature of modern science. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazza Posted March 2, 2021 Report Share Posted March 2, 2021 You seem to not know ontology, or the everyday world. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starlord Posted March 2, 2021 Report Share Posted March 2, 2021 I bet existence doesn't exist either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazza Posted March 2, 2021 Report Share Posted March 2, 2021 Existence actually exists. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cancer Posted March 2, 2021 Report Share Posted March 2, 2021 ... but not provably. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Man Posted March 2, 2021 Report Share Posted March 2, 2021 Isn't it more likely that existence is a simulation? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cancer Posted March 2, 2021 Report Share Posted March 2, 2021 ... How many cases are in your monte carlo simulation? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazza Posted March 2, 2021 Report Share Posted March 2, 2021 24 minutes ago, Cancer said: ... but not provably. Only if one is using a method based on empirical positivism measuring quantity alone. Existence, like actuality, are outside the scope of science. They both come under ontology. 23 minutes ago, Old Man said: Isn't it more likely that existence is a simulation? A simulation of inexistence? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cancer Posted March 2, 2021 Report Share Posted March 2, 2021 Quote In the in-person version of this course, I have always given a standard final exam in Finals Week. I always provide a sample exam from previous years as a study aid with about a week of classes remaining. I have uploaded one version of the final from 2019; it is linked above. We do not have exams in this class this quarter; this is provided simply to tease you with the delights you are missing out on. You will recognize a couple of the questions, as some went into homework assignments given this quarter. Nominally, you'd get 110 minutes to complete this exam. You would have the use of three 8.5-by-11 pages of notes (both sides) and a small box with arrows on it to indicate the magnetic force right hand rule. On this exam, the maximum possible score was 140 points. The actual high score was 114, mean was 75, low score 35. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Man Posted March 2, 2021 Report Share Posted March 2, 2021 4 hours ago, Bazza said: A simulation of inexistence? Does a simulation count as existence? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cancer Posted March 3, 2021 Report Share Posted March 3, 2021 11 hours ago, Bazza said: Existence, like actuality, are outside the scope of science. They both come under ontology. Obviously you have put your dictionary face down. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazza Posted March 3, 2021 Report Share Posted March 3, 2021 10 hours ago, Old Man said: Does a simulation count as existence? Depends how you categorise simulation. if it is a thing-in-itself, then yes it has existence; if it is a property* of a thing-in-itself then its existence depends on the thing-in-itself. Further inquiry would lead to what kind of thing, the thing-in-itself is, which would be the essence or nature of the thing is. the essence then would determine the form the thing takes in the matter/material, ie the form gives the shape/pattern to the material (as in a statue). The three main categories of properties of the thing, are quantity (as it can be measured, hello physics), quality, and this thing's relation to other things. *property, technical term is 'accident'. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Man Posted March 3, 2021 Report Share Posted March 3, 2021 What if we're a simulation in a simulation? What if it's simulations all the way down? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazza Posted March 3, 2021 Report Share Posted March 3, 2021 5 minutes ago, Old Man said: What if we're a simulation in a simulation? What if it's simulations all the way down? Then we are getting to change, actuality and potentiality. Werner Heisenberg wrote: Quote If we compare this situation with the Aristotelian concepts of matter and form, we can say that the matter of Aristotle, which is mere “potentia,” should be compared to our concept of energy, which gets into “actuality” by means of the form, when the elementary particle is created. (Physics and Philosophy p. 134) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
archer Posted March 3, 2021 Report Share Posted March 3, 2021 On 3/2/2021 at 12:15 PM, Bazza said: Existence actually exists. Can you prove that without using existence as part of its own proof? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.