Heard of superstrings?Terrapin Station wrote:So then what would be the problem with positing irreducible particles?
Problem of emergent phenomena
Re: Problem of emergent phenomena
- Terrapin Station
- Posts: 4548
- Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
- Location: NYC Man
Re: Problem of emergent phenomena
So you think that the current standard model is wrong in that the supposed elementary particles--fermions and bosons--are actually comprised of superstrings. Then superstrings would be your elementary, irreducible particles . . . at which point I'd ask again: "So then what would be the problem with positing irreducible particles?"HexHammer wrote:Heard of superstrings?Terrapin Station wrote:So then what would be the problem with positing irreducible particles?
Re: Problem of emergent phenomena
I'm not sure you actually have a clue what you are saying.Terrapin Station wrote:So you think that the current standard model is wrong in that the supposed elementary particles--fermions and bosons--are actually comprised of superstrings. Then superstrings would be your elementary, irreducible particles . . . at which point I'd ask again: "So then what would be the problem with positing irreducible particles?"HexHammer wrote:Heard of superstrings?Terrapin Station wrote:So then what would be the problem with positing irreducible particles?
OP babble about irreduceability, that stands in stark contrast to superstrings. So what I say that superstrings are unproven, yet to be proven.
- Terrapin Station
- Posts: 4548
- Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
- Location: NYC Man
Re: Problem of emergent phenomena
In other words, you didn't understand my comment (which is odd, because the ideas in it are quite simple), so instead of addressing anything I asked you, you take the psychological projection approach.HexHammer wrote:I'm not sure you actually have a clue what you are saying.Terrapin Station wrote:So you think that the current standard model is wrong in that the supposed elementary particles--fermions and bosons--are actually comprised of superstrings. Then superstrings would be your elementary, irreducible particles . . . at which point I'd ask again: "So then what would be the problem with positing irreducible particles?"HexHammer wrote:Heard of superstrings?
OP babble about irreduceability, that stands in stark contrast to superstrings. So what I say that superstrings are unproven, yet to be proven.
Re: Problem of emergent phenomena
See you don't have a freggin clue, the standard model doesn't exclude superstrings, therefore it's completely irrelevant with the standard model, thus you just speak straight out of your ass.Terrapin Station wrote:In other words, you didn't understand my comment (which is odd, because the ideas in it are quite simple), so instead of addressing anything I asked you, you take the psychological projection approach.
- Terrapin Station
- Posts: 4548
- Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
- Location: NYC Man
Re: Problem of emergent phenomena
In the standard model, fermions and bosons are considered elementary particles, right?HexHammer wrote:See you don't have a freggin clue, the standard model doesn't exclude superstrings, therefore it's completely irrelevant with the standard model, thus you just speak straight out of your ass.Terrapin Station wrote:In other words, you didn't understand my comment (which is odd, because the ideas in it are quite simple), so instead of addressing anything I asked you, you take the psychological projection approach.
Re: Problem of emergent phenomena
Yes, only because we haven't confirmed the findings of superstrings, which is yet only theoretical. When superstrings are found we have to rewrite the standard model.Terrapin Station wrote:In the standard model, fermions and bosons are considered elementary particles, right?HexHammer wrote:See you don't have a freggin clue, the standard model doesn't exclude superstrings, therefore it's completely irrelevant with the standard model, thus you just speak straight out of your ass.Terrapin Station wrote:In other words, you didn't understand my comment (which is odd, because the ideas in it are quite simple), so instead of addressing anything I asked you, you take the psychological projection approach.
You think the standard model is absolute, which it is not, it's onlybecause atom smashers like Cern, are slow finding the theorized particles that will change the model.
- Terrapin Station
- Posts: 4548
- Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
- Location: NYC Man
Re: Problem of emergent phenomena
I'm just going to address one thing at a time (I started doing that a post or two ago actually, but hopefully we'll get back to other stuff:)
Where are you getting that from? Where did I say anything even remotely resembling that?HexHammer wrote:You think the standard model is absolute.
Re: Problem of emergent phenomena
Just admit that I'm right, instead of trying to dodge my point.Terrapin Station wrote:I'm just going to address one thing at a time (I started doing that a post or two ago actually, but hopefully we'll get back to other stuff:)Where are you getting that from? Where did I say anything even remotely resembling that?HexHammer wrote:You think the standard model is absolute.
- Terrapin Station
- Posts: 4548
- Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
- Location: NYC Man
Re: Problem of emergent phenomena
Could you answer the question I asked? I'm not interested in playing a game.HexHammer wrote:Just admit that I'm right, instead of trying to dodge my point.Terrapin Station wrote:I'm just going to address one thing at a time (I started doing that a post or two ago actually, but hopefully we'll get back to other stuff:)Where are you getting that from? Where did I say anything even remotely resembling that?HexHammer wrote:You think the standard model is absolute.
Re: Problem of emergent phenomena
I am interested in the problem of mind which allows us to experience and to act freely.Hobbes' Choice wrote:What? You mean that you could never predict the properties of water by the combination of two atoms of hydrogen and one of oxygen - or do you have something more complex in mind?bahman wrote:The problem arises when reductionism does not lead to a reduction explanation so either the whole is more than sum of parts or parts behaves differently in a given situation, when an phenomena emerges.Hobbes' Choice wrote: Science just describes what is observable. I think the problem comes when people expect there to be explanations.
We can only expect reductionism to lead to a reduction in explanation. Why would it be otherwise?
Do you not think this is a failing of intelligence, information and knowledge rather than the methodology?
-
- Posts: 5621
- Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2014 7:39 am
Re: Problem of emergent phenomena
There is lack of any evidence for superstring theory. Here's part of what Wikipedia has to say:
"Superstring theory is based on supersymmetry. No supersymmetric particles have been discovered and recent research at LHC and Tevatron has excluded some of the ranges.[2][3][4][5] For instance, the mass constraint of the Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model squarks has been up to 1.1 TeV, and gluinos up to 500 GeV.[6] No report on suggesting large extra dimensions has been delivered from LHC. There have been no principles so far to limit the number of vacua in the concept of a landscape of vacua.[7]
Some particle physicists became disappointed[8] by the lack of experimental verification of supersymmetry, and some have already discarded it; Jon Butterworth at the University College London said that we had no sign of supersymmetry, even in higher energy region, excluding the superpartners of the top quark up to a few TeV. Ben Allanach at the University of Cambridge states that if we do not discover any new particles in the next trial at the LHC, then we can say it is unlikely to discover supersymmetry at CERN in the foreseeable future.[8]"
PhilX
"Superstring theory is based on supersymmetry. No supersymmetric particles have been discovered and recent research at LHC and Tevatron has excluded some of the ranges.[2][3][4][5] For instance, the mass constraint of the Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model squarks has been up to 1.1 TeV, and gluinos up to 500 GeV.[6] No report on suggesting large extra dimensions has been delivered from LHC. There have been no principles so far to limit the number of vacua in the concept of a landscape of vacua.[7]
Some particle physicists became disappointed[8] by the lack of experimental verification of supersymmetry, and some have already discarded it; Jon Butterworth at the University College London said that we had no sign of supersymmetry, even in higher energy region, excluding the superpartners of the top quark up to a few TeV. Ben Allanach at the University of Cambridge states that if we do not discover any new particles in the next trial at the LHC, then we can say it is unlikely to discover supersymmetry at CERN in the foreseeable future.[8]"
PhilX
Re: Problem of emergent phenomena
Do you believe in free will? How that could be true if every state of matter is a function of previous state of matter.Terrapin Station wrote:As I've noted before with this and similar comments, the issue here is what counts as an explanation and why.bahman wrote: Yes, consider the example mind and matter. Physicalists have failed to explain mind.
It's worth noting that whatever counts as an explanation to an individual, if physicalism hasn't explained mind, then certainly no other ontological stance has either (unless one says something like, "What counts as an explanation to me is something that posits nonphysical existents").
Re: Problem of emergent phenomena
You of course don't have an idea about what I am talking about.HexHammer wrote:That's a blatant lie! OP clearly shows you have no idea what you are talking about.bahman wrote: I am not baffled with every aspect of physics. I am a physicist.
You say some particles are irreduceable, which give away your hapless ignorance!
- Terrapin Station
- Posts: 4548
- Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
- Location: NYC Man
Re: Problem of emergent phenomena
Yes.bahman wrote: Do you believe in free will?
I've already told you a number of times that I'm not a realist on physical laws.How that could be true if every state of matter is a function of previous state of matter.
Aside from that, though, the received view of the sciences hasn't been strong determinism for physical phenomena in general for well over 100 years. That is not just due to quantum phenomena. It's due to stochastic phenomena in general. "Laplace's Demon" has been considered folly for a long time. Why that knowledge can't filter down and spread among the CompSci and engineering types who dominate Internet interaction areas like this I don't know.