Indisputable Proof that Electrons Exist?

[nannoh]

Here's a quote about Neil Bohr's and Victor de Broglie's discoveries concerning the electron and how they found it associated with wave function.

The english from this site is really quite bad but please try to get what you can out of it with regard to the topic.

In the beginning of the 20th century Niels Bohr created the theory which described the behavior of the electron circulating around the atomic nucleus. But it didn't explain the cause of such behavior. It didn't explain (why the) electron can take only some define orbits - the stationery orbits. Many scientists worked over this problem.

In 1925 Louis Victor de Broglie (1892-1987) suggested that there is a wave connected with the moving electron. The length of that wave as he said is equal: where h is the Planck constant, p is the momentum of the electron. The allowed orbits of an electron are those which perimeters are equal (to) the multiplied length of the wave of the particle multiplied length of the wave.

The formula shows that the particle of smaller velocity and the smaller mass is characterized by longer wave length. Let's imagine the two examples:

The baseball ball of the mass of 0,14 kg is thrown by a pitcher with the velocity of 40 m/s, after placing the data to the formula we get the wave length equal 1,2*10-34 m. It isn't much, actually even using the most modern technologies you wouldn't see it.

On the other hand the electron moving with the velocity of 40 m/s has the wave length equal 1,8*10-5 m. Such waves can be observed.

Not long after they showed that the electron could be connected with the wave Heisenberg and Schrodinger described the waves mathematically. Their formulas explain very well the observed experimental facts.

Until then the scientists imagined the electron as a very small ball of a defined radius. The scientists of the 20th century gave the description of the electron showing it being a wave and created a corpuscular-wave picture of the electron. So the electron appeared to be both the small ball and the wave. It doesn't behave as the thinks of the macro scale and the laws governing that thinks are not through when talking about electron. of the particle.

from
http://library.thinkquest.org/19662/low/eng/electron-wave.htmlHere's a link from the same site titled

"THE EXPERIMENTS CONFIRMING THE WAVE STRUCTURE OF THE ELECTRON"

http://library.thinkquest.org/19662/low/eng/electron-wave-exp.htmlHere's a link about the electron as a wave (without too much math)

http://www.rodenburg.org/theory/y100.html

(On this site they use a corkscrew wave as an example or model of an electron. Then, of course, there are Google ads all over the site trying to sell - you guessed it - wine openers!)

 

[adilghanty]

electron...

This electron can be a single particle, it can make up bonds and form energy shells, it can be fired as a beam, and its flow can produce electrical energy. There may be other properties/attributes.

But how do we know that it is the same "thing" that does all of these? How do we know its not loads of different particles? How do we know that it's the electron that does all this?

 

[ZapperZ]

This electron can be a single particle, it can make up bonds and form energy shells, it can be fired as a beam, and its flow can produce electrical energy. There may be other properties/attributes.

But how do we know that it is the same "thing" that does all of these? How do we know its not loads of different particles? How do we know that it's the electron that does all this?

Because the properties of electrons PREDICT that we can do all of this. If I stick the properties of electrons either into Maxwell Equations or the Schrodinger Equation or QED, I can arrive at everything that we see the electrons should do. We don't need to reformulate other types of particles to describe those things that you mentioned.

Zz.

 

[adilghanty]

Electron

So does that then make an electron a particle or a wave?

 

[JordanGo]

Here's my question,

I agree with the fact that an electron is just the way we name it. But, how do we prove that what we call "electron" is the same thing that surrounds an atom to the "electron" that we use in our technology? Also, how do we know for sure that electrons do circulate around an atom? Maybe neutrons, protons and electrons do not even exist, it was just the easiest way we can explain it. Maybe we should take the time and sit down and rethink this through.

 

[disregardthat]

Of course they exist. We are calling "whatever we perceive as electrons" for electrons! By that, they must exist by necessity. However, if you try to take this further and say that "electrons must have the observed properties by necessity" you are wrong. First of all, "electrons" are nothing but what we perceive as electrons, and properties is a human concept we apply to perceived objects. Electrons have no intrinsic "properties". We give the electron its properties!

The electron is not a wave, and the electron is not a particle. The electron is not the current model of wave-particle duality we have today. These models only represent a limited aspect of our perception of electrons with respect to the measurement devices we use. We have no access to knowledge of what the electron really is - in fact; the very problem of this is meaningless. All science (we) can do is to increase our knowledge of "electrons" by putting our observations of them into a proper context. The electron "circle around the atom" because it is our model. The electron is defined through a "cloud of probabilities" because it is our model.

This is something entirely different than what the electron really is, and what the "exact relation" between the "real electron" and our defined properties of it. We only care about the perceived relations between our predefined properties which we give the electron (because we find them appropriate. We don' give the electron the property of "mood", or "wealth" because it is inappropriate, i.e. we find no reasonable interpretation which makes sense).

Our models of certain objects and phenomenas reflects our logical picture of them, and we seek internal consistency with respect to a certain context. In other words, we wish our set of interpretations in a given context to be internally consistent with themselves. When we observe behavior which doesn't match our preconceived notion, we need to change that logical picture to reach a new level of stability. This is a constantly ongoing process. The isomorphism between our interpretation and the object as it appears is the real "knowledge" we seek.

 

[vissarion.eu]

Of course it don't exist, but nobody will tell you it directly because scare of nothingnes, nothingnes will try to you show everything in such light, that everything looks to you as real, but it's not damn real, everything is based on imaginary/virtual/(mind primaral) world, where no any things like electrons nor any over particles, but it's trying simulate many possible variants of how laws can be to explain human existence and biological body or animal. Borh or whoever couldn't possibly so precisly guess nature model when was no any good measuring devices, nor they are now and all can be fake or somthing over, but me rather bothering too over fact, why nothingness is so blind described in philosophy like mind vs mattery, why not just nothing vs mattery? In this simulation from nothing science is based how to fool for example me, that everything exist.

 

[WaveJumper]

Electrons don't quite exist the same way chairs and tables can be said to exist. Fundamental 'particles' likely hold the ultimate truth about existence and reality. They are a kind of bridge between something and nothing(e.g. superpositional states).

What is "indisputable proof"? I am not aware that such a thing exists in philosophy.

 

[WaveJumper]

My friend and I came to wondering if there is indisputable proof that electrons exist?

Thou shalt not speak of what ye can't observe.

 

[disregardthat]

Electrons don't quite exist the same way chairs and tables can be said to exist.

They exist in the same way as chairs and tables with respect to the measurement/observation device which are being used. There are no fundamental difference between two perceived objects - the only difference is how they are perceived.

Fundamental 'particles' likely hold the ultimate truth about existence and reality. They are a kind of bridge between something and nothing(e.g. superpositional states).

This is a semi-religious positivist stance with no ground in reason. Particles (or how we perceive them) are only subjects to our perception, they won't hold any "ultimate truth" other than what we force upon them.

What is "indisputable proof"? I am not aware that such a thing exists in philosophy.

Define "proof". The appropriate "proof" in a given situation depends on the context. Certainly a mathematical "proof" won't suffice (or make sense!).

 

[vissarion.eu]

So in philosophy counciousnes also quite don't exist like chairs or tables, so what ir real and what ir not? What is diference between philosphy and electron? Couciousnes is only real thing in phylosophy, but say it's from nothing and electron have less or more some unchangable laws, but counciousnes also have less or more unchangable laws like psichology and like what you seeing colours and so on, you eating if not you daying some unchangable laws, but more dificult, but if combine electron with leptons and over particles and such particles can be infinity so then it's not any easier or not any more fundamental than just counciousnes itself. So maybe just not multiverse exist, but counciousnes and not this huge amount of particles, but couciousnes, but just those particles going into physicists counciousnes then they think that they are more fundamentul, but still it's rougthuly same. How many times there was tryings to cure some deases with quantum mechanic, but nor any of it was succesfull, but with such things only like real 3d operations or real experiments without any science.
Sorry for expansion.

 

[Kronos5253]

Well we can feel birds, we can hear birds, we can see birds, we can interact with birds.

When I touch a bird I know that I am touching it because I can see myself place my hand on it.

It's tough to have this kind of confidence when none of the major senses can actively detect an electron.

Now I'm not saying that I don't believe they exist - I understand how they apply to physics and how they can be detected and manipulated in experiments, but it just isn't the same gut feeling that I get when I see a bird and know that it is, indeed, a reality.

How do you know what reality really is? This is the philosophy section so let me get a little philosophical...

Our senses are just "electric" signals sent to our brain when our nervous system reacts with what we percieve as reality. Our reality is expressed soley through our senses. Without them we have no proof that anything exists. And our senses are extremely falliable. Magicians and tricksters prove that time and time again.

Yet how do you know any of it really exists? How do you know it's not just an illusion, and something is creating an "electric" signal to send to your brain telling you that it's there.

It's the same concept with the "ghost limb". People who lose limbs still feel like that limb is there, despite it being gone. If they close their eyes a lot of the time they still feel that it's there and they're moving it and touching things with it, despite the fact that it's gone. If you extend that notion to all of reality, how do you know anything really exists? You only know by your senses, but senses can very very easily be misinterpreted and fooled.

There is no concrete proof that reality exists, it's just an assumption based on the information we receive through our senses.

When I touch a bird I know that I am touching it because I can see myself place my hand on it.

What if you were blind? What if you close your eyes and touch the bird? How do you know that you're touching it? Prove to me that it exists.

Cogito ergo sum, "I think therefore I am", arose because of this problem. It's René Descartes' theory... "The simple meaning of the phrase is that if someone is wondering whether or not they exist, that is in and of itself proof that they do exist (because, at the very least, there is an "I" who is doing the thinking)" - wikipedia. But that's a theory.

 

[WaveJumper]

Electrons don't quite exist the same way chairs and tables can be said to exist.

They exist in the same way as chairs and tables with respect to the measurement/observation device which are being used. There are no fundamental difference between two perceived objects - the only difference is how they are perceived.

What?! Is this the first time you hear of there being a classical world(ruled by classical laws!) and a quantum world(ruled by quantum laws that apply to individual/very small number of particles)??
Would you say the chair you're sitting on, has no definite position and momentum?

Fundamental 'particles' likely hold the ultimate truth about existence and reality.

This is a semi-religious positivist stance with no ground in reason. Particles (or how we perceive them) are only subjects to our perception, they won't hold any "ultimate truth" other than what we force upon them.

Why comment something you clearly did not understand at all?

Define "proof". The appropriate "proof" in a given situation depends on the context. Certainly a mathematical "proof" won't suffice (or make sense!).

Why should I define "proof" when it was I who questioned the validity of the statement "indisputable proof"?

 

[disregardthat]

What?! Is this the first time you hear of there being a classical world(ruled by classical laws!) and a quantum world(ruled by quantum laws)??

How is this relevant? And how is this an argument? Our world is not necessarily rules by physical laws, and to suppose we know them is absurd. We are changing them all the time! Physical laws are only representing how we interpret the world in a scientific context.

Why comment something you clearly did not understand at all?

This is an especially weak argument. You have not even pointed out what you mean. It is not me who are proposing some "ultimate truth" in the particles we are observing.

You have not come with any arguments other than ad hominem in your last post.

 

[WaveJumper]

How is this relevant? And how is this an argument? Your suppressing technique is not impressing. Our world is not necessarily rules by physical laws, and to suppose we know them is absurd. We are changing them all the time! Physical laws are only representing how we interpret the world in a scientific context.

Is it relevant in as much as I can confidently say that "individual electrons don't exist in the same way as classical obejects do". This is the ABC of physics, if you don't want to stick to what we know from physics and science, what are you doing in a science forum?

Does the chair you are sitting on, have a definite position and momentum?

This is an especially weak argument. You have not even pointed out what you mean. It is not me who are proposing some "ultimate truth" in the particles we are observing. I think it is you who does not clearly understand.

Are you aware that the ontology of modern physics is riddled with paradoxes? I.e. somewhere between these paradoxes quite possibly lie important insights about reality. Why should put efforts in explaining everything word by word? Most folks here understand very well what i meant by there being a connection between what reality is and the true nature of the fundamental particles.

 

[disregardthat]

Is it relevant in as much as I can confidently say that "individual electrons don't exist in the same way as classical obejects do". This is the ABC of physics, if you don't want to stick to what we know from physics and science, what are you doing in a science forum?

Does the chair you are sitting on, have a definite position and momentum?

You proposed a fundamental difference, but these are only difference with respect to properties. I don't see how this is fundamentally different. Particles are also subjects to our perception just as chairs. "They don't exist in the same way as" is not equivalent to "They don't have similar properties". Or maybe that was what you meant? In that case, we obviously agree.

Are you aware that the ontology of modern physics is riddled with paradoxes? I.e. somewhere between these paradoxes quite possibly lie important insights about reality.

Of course, but the ultimate truth won't be found in the particles themselves. That is ridiculous. We may however reach a higher level of understanding by rejecting some of our previous beliefs. This may be accelerated by the blatant "contradictions" found in the properties of what we call particles. There are no real "paradoxes". Paradoxes arise when we have unreasonable expectations /false assumptions to our isomorphism between concepts and the perceived reality. We have thus much to learn from what we call paradoxes.

Why should put efforts in explaining everything word by word?

Relevance?

Most folks here understand very well what i meant by there being a connection between what reality is and the true nature of the fundamental particles.

This wording "The true nature of fundamental particles" reflects a misunderstanding. "Particle" is essentially a human concept with connected notions. What we observe have particle-like properties, and thus we call them particles. Or waves, that depends on the context. To seek the "true nature of fundamental particles" is futile. We have no access to any "true nature" of anything. "True nature" is an illusion. An object is not equivalent to its properties in a specific context.

 

[WaveJumper]

This wording "The true nature of fundamental particles" reflects a misunderstanding. "Particle" is essentially a human concept with connected notions. What we observe have particle-like properties, and thus we call them particles. Or waves, that depends on the context.

Huh? So you'd rather I said "fundamental wavefunctions"? How does that make sense, compared to "fundamental particles"? Before you can teach me what a 'particle' is, it'd be useful to understand what is meant by 'fundamental particle'.

To seek the "true nature of fundamental particles" is futile. We have no access to any "true nature" of anything.

Yet, this is exactly what science is striving for. An ever better model of describing phenomena and their correlations.

"True nature" is an illusion. An object is not equivalent to its properties in a specific context.

What is an object equivalent to, then? As far as human logic is concerned(i assume you don't use alien logic), an object is equivalent to its properties.

 

[disregardthat]

Huh? So you'd rather I said "fundamental wavefunctions"? How does that make sense, compared to "fundamental particles"? Before you can teach me what a 'particle' is, it'd be useful to understand what is meant by 'fundamental particle'.

I was referring to the problem of "true nature" which you speak of. Particles are not essential to my point. "particle" can be interchanged with any object. All objects, not only particles, are relative to the context in which they are treated. Its "true nature" is meaningless.

Yet, this is exactly what science is striving for. An ever better model of describing phenomena and their correlations.

This is wrong, science does not seek truth. Read this for example: http://dharma-haven.org/science/terrible-truth.htm to understand my point.

What is an object equivalent to, then? As far as human logic is concerned(i assume you don't use alien logic), an object is equivalent to its properties.

Is a football equivalent to the facts that it is round and soft? Is a stone equivalent to the facts that it is hard and cold? The thing is not equivalent to the properties we give them.

 

[JordanGo]

Obviously you're not getting my point. I'm not saying they don't exist, neither saying they do. But, we shouldn't base proofs off of theories such as electrons. We should think outside this bubble and come up with something that maybe can make more sense other than electrons. It won't hurt to try.

 

[WaveJumper]

I was referring to the problem of "true nature" which you speak of. Particles are not essential to my point. "particle" can be interchanged with any object. All objects, not only particles, are relative to the context in which they are treated. Its "true nature" is meaningless.

"The true nature of fundamental particles" is a correct statement in the context of the OP(e.g. whether electrons exist prior to observation/measurement). There is nothing wrong with it. There is also absolutely nothing wrong with the statement:

"electrons don't exist the same way classical objects do"

This is wrong, science does not seek truth. Read this for example: http://dharma-haven.org/science/terrible-truth.htm to understand my point.

On the contrary. Science is striving for truth, whether there is truth to be had is another topic.

Is a football equivalent to the facts that it is round and soft? Is a stone equivalent to the facts that it is hard and cold? The thing is not equivalent to the properties we give them.

Yes, of course a stone is its properties revealed to us. All you could ever know is the information we receive through our senses. As far as we(humans) are concerned, information about reality is reality. Within our experience, all the properties of an object are ALWAYS the object itself. And you are mistaken, the properties of an electron are the electron(even if you can't conceptualise it).

 

[disregardthat]

"The true nature of fundamental particles" is a correct statement in the context of the OP(e.g. whether electrons exist prior to observation/measurement). There is nothing wrong with it. There is also absolutely nothing wrong with the statement:

"electrons don't exist the same way classical objects do"

So basically you could say that a stone does not exist the same way dirt does? This is an odd way of differentiating between properties. I still refer to my last comment on it.

On the contrary. Science is striving for truth, whether there is truth to be had is another topic.

"Truth" as in "pragmatic truth" is changing all the time. This is the kind of truth we are searching for, and always renewing. Truth is dependent on context. Every statement is true in some context. Everything is relative. "Ultimate truth", or "objective truth" is an illusion. It is not "to be had"; it is meaningless to say that it exists regardless of our inability to reach it. Truth is what we force upon nature to comprehend it, it is not inherent to nature itself. I recommend that you read the article I linked to, it explains in detail.

All you could ever know is the information we receive through our senses.

Of course, but that does not imply equivalence.

And you are mistaken, the properties of an electron are the electron(even if you can't conceptualise it).

No, there are infinitely many ways of interpreting information. The conceptual connections we make with our observations are ambiguous and many, and different interpretations are often inconsistent with each other.

 

[russ_watters]

Here's my question,

I agree with the fact that an electron is just the way we name it. But, how do we prove that what we call "electron" is the same thing that surrounds an atom to the "electron" that we use in our technology? Also, how do we know for sure that electrons do circulate around an atom? Maybe neutrons, protons and electrons do not even exist, it was just the easiest way we can explain it. Maybe we should take the time and sit down and rethink this through.

Did you read the first handful of posts in this thread? They explained it pretty clearly:

An electron is a word - a name. The definition of that word is a list of properties. An object that has the properties in that list fits the definition, so it is, by definition, an "electron".

It really is no more complicated than that. People who want to "sit down and rethink this" tend to overthink something that really isn't that complicated.

Obviously you're not getting my point. I'm not saying they don't exist, neither saying they do. But, we shouldn't base proofs off of theories such as electrons. We should think outside this bubble and come up with something that maybe can make more sense other than electrons. It won't hurt to try.

The theory we have works exquisitely well and is responsible for all modern electronics including that computer you used to type that post! It would be counterproductive to try to find something different when we already have something that works so well! Yes, as a matter of fact, it would hurt to try!

 

[JordanGo]

Magpie...

I understand what you mean, I think you got a little personal about the whole thinking situation, but I admit, you're thinking outside this little bubble everyone lives in. And you prove my point exactly. I'm not trying to prove that electrons do not exist, neither try to prove they do exist. All we need to do is not to stop about the possible and not to confirm the theories of electrons. Let's keep our minds open and keep thinking about all the possibilities.

 

[disregardthat]

It really is no more complicated than that. People who want to "sit down and rethink this" tend to overthink something that really isn't that complicated.

There is no such thing as "overthinking". Nothing can be "overthunk"

Examining concepts is the most important thing we can do, and not blindly accept everything which commonly is understood in the appropriate context. The examination of concepts in not necessarily for scientific purposes, but for philosophical ones. And science is blind without philosophy.

 

[magpies]

Well with that in mind... Might I suggest that it is possibly the shape of the electron that gives it its propertys? Like size and form be it sphere or pancake.

 

[disregardthat]

Well with that in mind... Might I suggest that it is possibly the shape of the electron that gives it its propertys? Like size and form be it sphere or pancake.

How would you define "shape" for an electron?

 

[magpies]

are you joking? do you know what a shape is?

 

[disregardthat]

are you joking? do you know what a shape is?

Shape is a geometric concept. How would you define the geometric shape of an electron? The electron can in some sense be seen as a point particle, in some sense a wave. In some sense none of these models are appropriate. These "shapes" (if you can call it that) depends on the measurement device being used. The electron is thus not perceived in any apparent shape.

Most of important of all is, of course, that "shape" is not an intrinsic property of any object. (It can be argued that "shape" is to a certain degree fundamental to our interpretation of nature. This is another matter) It is just a certain way of perceiving some of them. When we have realized/created an isomorphism between our geometrical concepts and perceived objects we find do useful consistency. It is an unreasonable expectation to expect that this isomorphism is universally valid. An especially unreasonable expectation is to believe that objects can be defined through these concepts.

 

[magpies]

Oh ok I am sorry I didnt realize it was a point particle there for having no mass or size.

 

[WaveJumper]

So basically you could say that a stone does not exist the same way dirt does? This is an odd way of differentiating between properties. I still refer to my last comment on it.

No, you are playing stupid games. Both stone and dirt behave to the same set of physical laws. Single electrons and your bath tub do not. Their properties are not just somewhat different, they have little in common.

"Truth" as in "pragmatic truth" is changing all the time. This is the kind of truth we are searching for, and always renewing. Truth is dependent on context. Every statement is true in some context. Everything is relative. "Ultimate truth", or "objective truth" is an illusion. It is not "to be had"; it is meaningless to say that it exists regardless of our inability to reach it. Truth is what we force upon nature to comprehend it, it is not inherent to nature itself. I recommend that you read the article I linked to, it explains in detail.

I don't care for such Hindu nonsense. Here is an excerp from your website(links to crackpot and religious sites is forbidden):


"One idea I have is to use them for healing. Anyone with a disease such as AIDS or cancer, whether or not they have any understanding of Dharma, can use the prayer wheel for meditation and healing..."


"Tibetan prayer wheels (called Mani wheels by the Tibetans) are devices for spreading spiritual blessings and well being. Rolls of thin paper, imprinted with many, many copies of the mantra (prayer) Om Mani Padme Hum, printed in an ancient Indian script or in Tibetan script, are wound around an axle in a protective container, and spun around and around. Typically, larger decorative versions of the syllables of the mantra are also carved on the outside cover of the wheel.
Tibetan Buddhists believe that saying this mantra, out loud or silently to oneself, invokes the powerful benevolent attention and blessings of Chenrezig, the embodiment of compassion.
Viewing a written copy of the mantra is said to have the same effect -- and the mantra is carved into stones left in piles near paths where travelers will see them. Spinning the written form of the mantra around in a Mani wheel is also supposed to have the same effect; the more copies of the mantra, the more the benefit."


http://dharma-haven.org/tibetan/prayer-wheel.htm


Is this your source of truths?

All you could ever know is the information we receive through our senses.

Of course, but that does not imply equivalence.

What exactly does it imply? That your computer is a Demon behaving like a computer, perfectly matching a computer's properties? Do you doubt that your GF/wife is truly a female? It could be Batman manifesting as a female, or even worse, a male porn star with the properties of your wife(and science cannot refute this).

And you are mistaken, the properties of an electron are the electron(even if you can't conceptualise it).

No, there are infinitely many ways of interpreting information. The conceptual connections we make with our observations are ambiguous and many, and different interpretations are often inconsistent with each other.

If you want to return to reality(which is mandatory for having a meaningful debate), adopt the stance that the way our brains interpret information is the correct way and embrace commonly accepted scientific facts(not just Hindu healing, all-knowing crackpottery).

 

[disregardthat]

No, you are playing stupid games. Both stone and dirt behave to the same set of physical laws. Single electrons and your bath tub do not. Their properties are not just somewhat different, they have little in common.

Actually, it is you who are playing games. To say that they "exist differently" is an absurd way of wording it. The difference is only in their properties, which are governed by "different set of physical laws" as you describe. This is only semantics.

I don't care for such Hindu nonsense. Here is an excerp from your website(links to crackpot and religious sites is forbidden):

This made me laugh. I linked to an article which didn't pose anything. It was merely a critique of the stance some people have to the concept of "truth". To call a critique crackpottery is pathetic. The article have no religious material whatsoever.

"One idea I have is to use them for healing. Anyone with a disease such as AIDS or cancer, whether or not they have any understanding of Dharma, can use the prayer wheel for meditation and healing..."


"Tibetan prayer wheels (called Mani wheels by the Tibetans) are devices for spreading spiritual blessings and well being. Rolls of thin paper, imprinted with many, many copies of the mantra (prayer) Om Mani Padme Hum, printed in an ancient Indian script or in Tibetan script, are wound around an axle in a protective container, and spun around and around. Typically, larger decorative versions of the syllables of the mantra are also carved on the outside cover of the wheel.
Tibetan Buddhists believe that saying this mantra, out loud or silently to oneself, invokes the powerful benevolent attention and blessings of Chenrezig, the embodiment of compassion.
Viewing a written copy of the mantra is said to have the same effect -- and the mantra is carved into stones left in piles near paths where travelers will see them. Spinning the written form of the mantra around in a Mani wheel is also supposed to have the same effect; the more copies of the mantra, the more the benefit."


http://dharma-haven.org/tibetan/prayer-wheel.htm

Again, this has nothing to do with the article I linked to. The website contains a collection of articles and essays. They are not linked to each other in the way you try to make it look like. By the way, it's Buddhism, not Hinduism.

Is this your source of truths?

I find it ironic that you say it is a "source of truths" when the article is a critique of your notion of truth. No, it is not my source of truths. By the way, the site doesn't pose "truths" at all. If you read how your quotation is worded, you'll see that. For example: "Viewing a written copy of the mantra is said to have the same effect", and "Spinning the written form of the mantra around in a Mani wheel is also supposed to have the same effect; the more copies of the mantra, the more the benefit.". You should understand that these are not claims of truth, but descriptions of use by some. There is a gigantic difference, I hope you can see it.

What exactly does it imply? That your computer is a Demon behaving like a computer, perfectly matching a computer's properties? Do you doubt that your GF/wife is truly a female? It could be Batman manifesting as a female, or even worse, a male porn star with the properties of your wife(and science cannot refute this).

What does this has to do with anything? To say that the thing is not equivalent to its properties has nothing to do with such pessimistic practical skepticism. If you believe so, you have not understood a thing of what I mean.

If you want to return to reality(which is mandatory for having a meaningful debate), adopt the stance that the way our brains interpret information is the correct way and embrace commonly accepted scientific facts(not just Hindu healing, all-knowing crackpottery).

You are creating a strawman which you find easy to beat on. To call the article crackpottery and "Hindu healing" is nonsense. It does not in any way disregard science as the search for knowledge and understanding of nature - it is the notion of truth it is criticizing. If you had read it and understood it, you'd see that it doesn't criticize science at all!

Actually, the following:

the way our brains interpret information is the correct way

illustrates just how wrong you are. (my emphasis) You have no idea how intricate and complicated our brains are, and what a fundamental part the contextual relativity of language has to do with our thought and understanding of the world.

You seem blinded in you naturalistic view.

 

[qraal]

The Brain has well known cognitive and decision-making faults that cognitive science has revealed, so "the way our brains interpret information is the correct way" is altogether too strong a statement. Surely you know that WaveJumper?

 

[WaveJumper]

Actually, it is you who are playing games. To say that they "exist differently" is an absurd way of wording it. The difference is only in their properties, which are governed by "different set of physical laws" as you describe. This is only semantics.

No it is not. You need to update your physics knowledge. No one on this planet knows what an electron is. And I mean absolutely NO ONE. We know its properties, we can calculate its charge, mass and momentum but mix them with its other properties(dynamics, 'collapse', entanglement, etc.) and you have an entity that makes no sense. There are various attempts to explain those properties, but the results of all those attempts sound from crazy to ridiculous. It's definitely not semantics, though you are now desparate to push it into that pseudo-philosophical corner. Wouldn't it be much easier for you to save your face and admit that you did not understand my statement that single electrons don't exist the same way as your bath tub does?

This made me laugh. I linked to an article which didn't pose anything. It was merely a critique of the stance some people have to the concept of "truth". To call a critique crackpottery is pathetic. The article have no religious material whatsoever.

This drivel stated the limitations of science and on the next page, it offered salvation and curing of AIDS through meditation. I agree that this is not not nonsense, it's pure, unadulterated tripe.

I find it ironic that you say it is a "source of truths" when the article is a critique of your notion of truth. No, it is not my source of truths. By the way, the site doesn't pose "truths" at all. If you read how your quotation is worded, you'll see that. For example: "Viewing a written copy of the mantra is said to have the same effect", and "Spinning the written form of the mantra around in a Mani wheel is also supposed to have the same effect; the more copies of the mantra, the more the benefit.". You should understand that these are not claims of truth, but descriptions of use by some. There is a gigantic difference, I hope you can see it.

Makes no sense to me.

What does this has to do with anything? To say that the thing is not equivalent to its properties has nothing to do with such pessimistic practical skepticism. If you believe so, you have not understood a thing of what I mean.

This is probably the 20th time i am asking - What is the thing equavalent to, if not its properties? I will type this question until you stop evading it and give an answer.

You are creating a strawman which you find easy to beat on. To call the article crackpottery and "Hindu healing" is nonsense. It does not in any way disregard science as the search for knowledge and understanding of nature - it is the notion of truth it is criticizing. If you had read it and understood it, you'd see that it doesn't criticize science at all!

It proposes curing AIDS through meditation(while on the previous page detailing the weakness of science that the authors see). Should i say anything more?

Actually, the following:

the way our brains interpret information is the correct way

illustrates just how wrong you are. (my emphasis) You have no idea how intricate and complicated our brains are, and what a fundamental part the contextual relativity of language has to do with our thought and understanding of the world.

You seem blinded in you naturalistic view.

No. It illustrates that reading comprehension is not one of your strengths. Why did you crop the sentence, when anybody could see that the whole statement was:

If you want to return to reality(which is mandatory for having a meaningful debate), ADOPT the stance that the way our brains interpret information is the correct way

If you don't know what "adopt" means, look it up:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/adopt

 

[WaveJumper]

The Brain has well known cognitive and decision-making faults that cognitive science has revealed, so "the way our brains interpret information is the correct way" is altogether too strong a statement. Surely you know that WaveJumper?

You too, look up 'adopt'.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/adopt

 

[Math Is Hard]

Locked. This thread has degraded into childish bickering.