Philosophy Forum

Read Topic
Reply

Particles and Circles... What gives!

Philosophy Forum
» Metaphysics
» Particles and Circles... What gives!

Get Email Updates • Email this Topic • Print this Page

In explaining the universe and saying that matter is made of particles, and that photons are particles (and waves too, but that's beside the point), and how the big bang is expanding like a circle... and so on...

I just begin to wonder, do we apply Occam's Razor in explaining and measuring the universe as we unfold it inevitably? Are particles just the way the universe is because they are the simplest? And then what about waves? In unfolding the universe more, can we not apply occam's razor to waves?

Did we not have philosophers from way WAY back who intuitively theorized that matter was made up of particles and one(s) who thought was made up of waves? I honestly forget the names, perhaps some knowledge could enlighten me on this?

@Holiday20310401,

When I was studying Applied Science at Queen's University in Canada, I remember being taught that, "There are no such things as scientific facts. There are only theories, opinions, and generalizations." The "generalizations" are the simplifications made under the Occam's Razor interpretation. But wikipedia suggests that Occam's Razor is not about simplification. Occam's Razor propounds that an explanation be free of elements that have nothing to do with the phenomenon (and the explanation).
But Quantum Physics theories suggest that all entities are aways exchanging information about their energy changes with all other resonant entities in the universe. It has been estimated that my human body receives 4 billion bits of information per second. So, in reality, it is impossible for us to know the influence which billions of "actions" have on a particular observed "reaction". (ref. the "Chaos Theory") At the moment, our abilities to understand require that we make over-simplifications about the existence and properties of "particles" and "waves". Considering the estimated capabilities of our brains, humankind is still in a very primitive stage of development.
I am awed by the potentials of humankind and feel privileged to be participating in our development.

@mindlink,

I have often wondered if we are all made of some fantastic song of the gods.When a certain note is played it plucks at your soul, your very essence.These waves may be complicated themes of chords and harmonics that create matter through pure vibrating energy.This creator may just have said "i am the word and the word is god" a deep vibrant chord that rings through us all.Who knows?

@Holiday20310401,

Holiday20310401 wrote:

In explaining the universe and saying that matter is made of particles, and that photons are particles (and waves too, but that's beside the point), and how the big bang is expanding like a circle... and so on...

I just begin to wonder, do we apply Occam's Razor in explaining and measuring the universe as we unfold it inevitably? Are particles just the way the universe is because they are the simplest? And then what about waves? In unfolding the universe more, can we not apply occam's razor to waves?

Did we not have philosophers from way WAY back who intuitively theorized that matter was made up of particles and one(s) who thought was made up of waves? I honestly forget the names, perhaps some knowledge could enlighten me on this?

I think you are confusing matter with light. Different people (apparently independently) theorized that light was either wave or particle.

@Theaetetus,

What I'm getting at is why does it seem Occam's Razor is the intrinsic backbone as to how the universe unfolds to our general knowledge?

@Holiday20310401,

Holiday20310401 wrote:

What I'm getting at is why does it seem Occam's Razor is the intrinsic backbone as to how the universe unfolds to our general knowledge?

So what would you include ? how more complex do you want it to be?

@xris,

Well I'm just wondering why, you see.

We understand complexity is relative, and, in actuality does not exist (obviously, but good to point out for this discussion).

It's just odd that occam's razor applies itself to the micro world in which we do not have a direct, experiential perspective of, yet it does not apply itself (well I guess in a meager, variant, flamboyant sort of way, sure) in the macro perception; that is, the perception we get in our daily lives. The normal environment.

So Occam's Razor seems to have this independent side, yet at the same time, the defining of it is very much subjective. Are we not seeing a problem here, in my understanding perhaps?

This suggests that in actuality, all gauges of perception in terms of length I suppose you could call it, be that of micro, nano, macro, etc, are all really the same if a subjective context is able to apply itself to an indirect perspective.

@Holiday20310401,

Light is both waves and particles. The existence of waves is proved by the refractive effect of the prism; the existence of particles by our detection thereof (they're called photons, by the way). It seems overly complicated to me, but until someone suggests a simpler solution, the Razor, insofar as I know, still holds.

@hammersklavier,

Does anybody here not see the problem. Yes I know light is considered both particles and waves.

@Holiday20310401,

Holiday20310401 wrote:

Does anybody here not see the problem. Yes I know light is considered both particles and waves.

Its wavy particles man..vibrations or bits vibrating, who knows ?...till we know who cares..The closer we look the less clear it becomes..its all an illusion....This could be my next hit single..Rock or ballad ??

@xris,

I'm more concerned about the Razor which I've pointed out the problem on post #7.

@Holiday20310401,

Holiday20310401 wrote:

Well I'm just wondering why, you see.

We understand complexity is relative, and, in actuality does not exist (obviously, but good to point out for this discussion).

It's just odd that occam's razor applies itself to the micro world in which we do not have a direct, experiential perspective of, yet it does not apply itself (well I guess in a meager, variant, flamboyant sort of way, sure) in the macro perception; that is, the perception we get in our daily lives. The normal environment.

So Occam's Razor seems to have this independent side, yet at the same time, the defining of it is very much subjective. Are we not seeing a problem here, in my understanding perhaps?

This suggests that in actuality, all gauges of perception in terms of length I suppose you could call it, be that of micro, nano, macro, etc, are all really the same if a subjective context is able to apply itself to an indirect perspective.

I might be a little dense here you might have to help..complex or simple we must choose what is the essense? is there an underlying theory that covers our problem for all events ?? Is that your question?

@xris,

Let me try an explanation about particles and waves.

When we talk, our brain sends electro-chemical signals to our vocal chords, which causes them to vibrate and alternatively shove a few particles of air against each other, then suck them back in the opposite direction. The actual particles of air move very slowly and may not go very far, but the information about the particle movements -- the waves of compression and decompression -- travel about 600 miles per hour through the air, about six times faster than the maximum speed at which a particle of air can travel through air.

At the receiving end, our eardrum collapses the energy which is in the wave, and converts it to electro-chemical signals, sent to the receiver's brain and interpreted as "sound". The particles of air moved by the sender's vocal chords did not reach the receiver's ear. Only information about the changes of energy of the particles of air (waves) reached the receiver's ear. The only way we can detect the presence of a sound wave is to convert the energy of the wave into another energy form for which we have detectors.

Similarly, it has been suggested that, although the speed of a "particle" of light (a photon) may be 186,000 miles per second, information about the energy changes of the photon (waves of light) are estimated to travel at the speed of light to the power of 10 (c^10). When some kind of receiver collapses the energy in a wave of light, the energy is converted into a detectable photon.

@mindlink,

I understand all this already. I'm talking about the particle as it is. Particles and waves are so very simple, and a wave is really just a circle.

There is some perception involved with differentiating waves from particles. I mean, look at wave collapse. But that's beside the point. It is almost like I'm asking from perceiving the universe (as is in reality anyways), why circles and spirals? And then you apply the Razor and does that make it all better, does it resolve anything? No, it just leads me to even more very interesting questions.

@mindlink,

I thought the problem was is ,is it a photon or is it wave of energy ? oh dear i am confused..Energy is it a photon on the move if energy is matter where does energy become matter and when does matter become energy..or is matter displayed as energy vibrating to form matter.No one can say when matter becomes energy or energy is matter..their both the same but when and how ?? It must be simple but where is this razor ..???:perplexed::perplexed::perplexed:

@xris,

Occam's Razor propounds that an explanation be free of elements that have nothing to do with the phenomenon (and the explanation).

Simplisticly, one could explain any phenomenon as an Act of God.

But, from a state of consciousness like Consciousness-Without-An-Object, comes the realization that every energy form in the universe, from the smallest atomic particle to the largest galaxy, interacts with every other energy form in the universe with similar resonant characteristics. A complete explanation for any phenomenon involves energy changes in every element in the universe.

So, to embrace the entire complexity of elements involved in any phenomenon, one would have to say that the phenomenon is an Act of God.

@mindlink,

mindlink wrote:

Occam's Razor propounds that an explanation be free of elements that have nothing to do with the phenomenon (and the explanation).

Simplisticly, one could explain any phenomenon as an Act of God.

But, from a state of consciousness like Consciousness-Without-An-Object, comes the realization that every energy form in the universe, from the smallest atomic particle to the largest galaxy, interacts with every other energy form in the universe with similar resonant characteristics. A complete explanation for any phenomenon involves energy changes in every element in the universe.

So, to embrace the entire complexity of elements involved in any phenomenon, one would have to say that the phenomenon is an Act of God.

But what if you dont believe in god..is it redundant ? should we eject the razor is it blunt?

@xris,

Should reality be redundant or not though?

I don't feel it should be but ofcourse, there is no 'should' I suppose in this concept.

@Holiday20310401,

Xris: There are as many definitions of God as there are religions, and possibly as many definitions of God as there are people. If you can't find a definition of God that works for you, then make one up. That's what I did.

Holiday: The physical sciences tend to define reality as that which can be detected/measured by one or more of the five physical senses: hearing, seeing, smelling, tasting and touching. Some metaphysical persons define reality as the underlying energies which create the "illusions" of physicality. What is your particular understanding of reality? Would you be prepared to adjust your concept of reality to fit your own experiences?

@mindlink,

mindlink wrote:

Xris: There are as many definitions of God as there are religions, and possibly as many definitions of God as there are people. If you can't find a definition of God that works for you, then make one up. That's what I did.

Oh God... Let's not get God involved here.

mindlink wrote:

Holiday: The physical sciences tend to define reality as that which can be detected/measured by one or more of the five physical senses: hearing, seeing, smelling, tasting and touching. Some metaphysical persons define reality as the underlying energies which create the "illusions" of physicality. What is your particular understanding of reality? Would you be prepared to adjust your concept of reality to fit your own experiences?

Yes I used reality as the word instead of saying actuality, because since Occam's Razor should be a subjective concept, I am restricted to use the context of reality, and not actuality (objective reality sort-to-speak)

What I am saying is that Occam's Razor appears to have objective proportions which suggests a multitude of possibilities. I don't however, see how God is one of them without equally willing to accept the flip side to the coin that its all created in the mind anyways.

Occam's Razor may not even quite be the right term for it may be out of context on quite what I'm trying to get at, thus the confusion. Maybe, circles do not imply simplicity at all? Maybe that very assumption I made is conpletely flawed. No form has a subsistent quality of being simple or complex, because those contexts are obviously subjective. But that matters not for I have kept within the context of reality, and not actuality.

Thus I am a little stuck on how to continue from here...

Philosophy Forum
» Metaphysics
» Particles and Circles... What gives!

Read Topic
Reply

Philosophy Forum

Particles and Circles... What gives!

Quick Links

My Account

able2know