Fundamental Questions about Atoms

In summary: And please don't start a thread on any other alternative theories? They are generally not scientifically testable, so they don't fit in the science forums. There are plenty of other forums where you can discuss those theories - one that is advertised on the site is the "against the mainstream" forum.I am not a mod, but I have been around long enough to know what is and is not allowed on these forums. I am just trying to save you some grief and frustration. Please don't keep starting threads that will be closed.I am not that great at expressing my ideas, so I've been struggling with this and having a bit of an existential crisis. I could really use some reassurance.In summary,
  • #1
Sciencelad2798
46
2
TL;DR Summary
How is it even possible for atoms to function like they do?
I can't help but find the concept of atoms a bit weird. If everything is made of atoms, and atoms are mostly empty space, couldn't that be evidence towards simulation theory? If we can never actually touch anything, and everything is just "levitating" on a force field, couldn't that also be evidence? I am not great at expressing my ideas, I've just been struggling with this, having kind of an essential crisis and could use some reassurance.
 
  • Skeptical
Likes weirdoguy
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Sciencelad2798 said:
Summary:: How is it even possible for atoms to function like they do?

I can't help but find the concept of atoms a bit weird. If everything is made of atoms, and atoms are mostly empty space, couldn't that be evidence towards simulation theory?
First, atoms are not mostly empty space. They are entirely filled with strong fields.

Second, no, why would it be evidence towards simulation theory? Again, remember what constitutes evidence as described previously.

By the way, I notice that this is your second thread basically looking at some theoretical prediction and asking if it is evidence towards simulation theory. There really is no evidence for simulation theory because it is not actually a theory in the scientific sense. I.e. you cannot use "simulation theory" to calculate a probability for any observation. So there will not be anything that can possibly be described as evidence towards simulation theory. It simply is not the type of idea for which evidence can even exist. This type of idea is often described as “not even wrong”
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes Motore, jim mcnamara, russ_watters and 2 others
  • #3
Note also that the forum rules specifically disallow discussions of simulation hypotheses, basically for the reasons that @Dale states above.

So please don't start another thread on the subject? Please?
 
  • Like
Likes Dale and russ_watters

Similar threads

Replies
21
Views
4K
Replies
18
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
4K
Replies
12
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
1K
Replies
4
Views
1K
Replies
3
Views
1K
Back
Top