so apparently poor boltzmann hung himself because of philosophers

[black magick hustla]

goddamn you philosophers. look what you did. the poor old man's kinetic theory was being attacked by philosophers and they directed him to read hegel. then he hung himself. its all your fault

[Leo]

i heard his lover cheated on him

[black magick hustla]

i am just kindof joking but according to wikipedia the rejection of boltzmanns atomism was made on philosophical grounds and it angered boltzmann so much that he started reading up on philosophy, and apparently some people directed him to hegel and he thought hegel was nuts. its a very popular theory that one of the reasons he hung himself was because people wouldnt accept his atomism

[Leo]

i also am joking, everyone knows scientists don't have lovers :lol:

well that's not true, einstein had lovers...

anyway, i think this poor fella was just depressed about life and thats why he killed himself...

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

This should be in Chit Chat.

[Hit The North]

I'm leaving it put, on the basis that after some of the bruising and interminable arguments we have in this forum about bloody dialectics and fucking Friedrich Nietzsche, we could do with a laugh.

A gold star to Marmot for starting it. :)

Let's destroy philosophy with humour.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

As I said: this should be in Chit Chat, no matter how much it brightens up your dreary life.

[Hit The North]

Tough shit, toots.

[Pogue]

The real question is: Empiricism or rationalism? Or perhaps the Kantian synthesis?

[Hit The North]

No the real question is how you've managed to accumulate so many reputation points with this weak ass shit you pedal.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

BTB:


Tough shit, toots.

Well, I agree; it is tough sh*t that your life is so dreary it takes a Chit Chat thread like this to brighten it up.


No the real question is how you've managed to accumulate so many reputation points with this weak ass shit you pedal

In full scatological mode, I see.

[Hit The North]

Eh?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

BTB:


Eh?

Well done; you see you can post something that does not mention sh*t or ass*s.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/scatological

[Pogue]

No the real question is how you've managed to accumulate so many reputation points with this weak ass shit you pedal.

I dunno 'toots', must be how I have such a charming style and don't suddenly leap on people over the net because my BDSM session got cancelled for the second week running.

[Hit The North]

How did you know about that?

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

Wikipedia cites those objecting to his theory on "philosophical grounds" are primarily being individuals known in the scientific community. Essentially, the philosophy of science was critical of his viewpoint which was, essentially, a belief without confirmation.

Post-facto judgments are easy. Who is to say that Boltzmann didn't fail to communicate his viewpoint convincingly enough? Maybe atoms weren't a logical conclusion based on evidence at the time or - at least - evidence that Boltzmann was able to communicate effectively. We often have ideas that are true, but we are unable to convey them to others.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

In fact, there were very good reasons to question Atomism until the work of Einstein and Jean Perrin twenty or so years later:

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00000856/01/PSA_'02-NEEDHAM.doc

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Baptiste_Perrin

These days, of course, no one belives in atoms (except, perhaps, in elementary Chemistry) -- everything material appears in ionic form, as a molecule or as part of a probabilty distribution (in a field), etc.

[Glenn Beck]

its a very popular theory that one of the reasons he hung himself was because people wouldnt accept his atomism

what a dweeb

[black magick hustla]

In fact, there were very good reasons to question Atomism until the work of Einstein and Jean Perrin twenty or so years later:

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00000856/01/PSA_'02-NEEDHAM.doc

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Baptiste_Perrin

These days, of course, no one belives in atoms (except, perhaps, in elementary Chemistry) -- everything material appears in ionic form, as a molecule or as part of a probabilty distribution (in a field), etc.

Actually, we do. Noble gases come in stable atoms. This computer is shite so I cannot look for the pic but there is a pic of the letters IBM written with individual neon gas atoms. (neon is a noble gas). Look it up.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

what a dweeb

Us leftists better all kill ourselves. Nobody is accepting our revolutionary theories. And I mean come on! Surely communism would have more implications than atomism. If anyone should be killing themselves in despair, it's all us leftists.

Of course, we are such a great bunch of individuals motivated by a love of humanity that we'd never deny the world of our greatness. :D

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Marmot:


Noble gases come in stable atoms. This computer is shite so I cannot look for the pic but there is a pic of the letters IBM written with individual neon gas atoms. (neon is a noble gas). Look it up.

Well, even the alleged 'atoms' of the Noble gases are just probability distributions in Hilbert (or even Banach) space.

However, I am not sure you are up-to-date on the debate in fundamental physics here:

Check this out:

Castellani, E. (1998) (ed.), Interpreting Bodies. Classical And Quantum Objects In Modern Physics (Princeton University Press).

Many of the articles in this collection go through the problems associated with classical particle theory.

Here is the publisher's blurb:


Bewildering features of modern physics, such as relativistic space-time structure and the peculiarities of so-called quantum statistics, challenge traditional ways of conceiving of objects in space and time. Interpreting Bodies brings together essays by leading philosophers and scientists to provide a unique overview of the implications of such physical theories for questions about the nature of objects. The collection combines classic articles by Max Born, Werner Heisenberg, Hans Reichenbach, and Erwin Schrodinger with recent contributions, including several papers that have never before been published.

The book focuses on the microphysical objects that are at the heart of quantum physics and addresses issues central to both the "foundational" and the philosophical debates about objects. Contributors explore three subjects in particular: how to identify a physical object as an individual, the notion of invariance with respect to determining what objects are or could be, and how to relate objective and measurable properties to a physical entity. The papers cover traditional philosophical topics, common-sense questions, and technical matters in a consistently clear and rigorous fashion, illuminating some of the most perplexing problems in modern physics and the philosophy of science.

The contributors are Diederik Aerts, Max Born, Elena Castellani, Maria Luisa Dalla Chiara, Bas C. van Fraassen, Steven French, Gian Carlo Ghirardi, Roberto Giuntini, Werner Heisenberg, Decio Krause, David Lewis, Tim Maudlin, Peter Mittelstaedt, Giulio Peruzzi, Hans Reichenbach, Erwin Schrodinger, Paul Teller, and Giuliano Toraldo di Francia.

Endorsement:

"The collection as a whole, as well as the introduction by the editor, forcefully make the case that there is a wide range of interesting and unique issues raised by contemporary physical theories for the traditional problems associated with the nature of physical objects."--Ronald Anderson, Boston College

http://press.princeton.edu/titles/6352.html

And these on-line articles:

The fate of 'particles' in quantum field theories with interactions (http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00004038/), D. Fraser (2008).

Locality, Localization, and the Particle Concept: Topics in the Foundations of Quantum Field Theory (http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00000346/)
Halvorson, H. (2001).

Are Rindler Quanta Real? Inequivalent Particle Concepts in Quantum Field Theory (http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00000073/)
Clifton, R., and Halvorson, H. (2000).

The problem is that in this area, at this level, we are dealing with a world we find it hard to conceptualise; no one knows yet what to conclude, or even the right questions to ask.

This is not likely to change.

One thing is for sure, the old idea that there are 'atoms' out there is dead and buried (except we regard the word 'atom' as shorthand for much of the above -- a bit like 'force' is shorthand for 'exchange of momentum').

[black magick hustla]

That is really interesting, I might order the book.

However, if we have an ontology like that wouldn't it mean that everything is just a giant probability curve? Because, from what I know of nuclear physics, nuclear particles like protons and neutrons are so big that with some modifications you can approximate them as objects that fit in classical mechanics. The electrons are so small that it is necessary to solve the schrodinger equation and treat them as wavefunctions but the nuclei inside an atom is better treated as classical objects.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

The real question is what Rosa does that allows her so much time to read things. I suppose most of us could read a lot more if we made efficient use of our time.

[Bright Banana Beard]

The real question is what Rosa does that allows her so much time to read things. I suppose most of us could read a lot more if we made efficient use of our time.

The sad part is that her criticism writing is 100 times of what pro-diamat would say. Maybe the next Rosa will fix it. Not that I meant to hurt her, but to demand to cleanup the pool mess so I can study it clearly.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Marmot:


However, if we have an ontology like that wouldn't it mean that everything is just a giant probability curve? Because, from what I know of nuclear physics, nuclear particles like protons and neutrons are so big that with some modifications you can approximate them as objects that fit in classical mechanics. The electrons are so small that it is necessary to solve the schrodinger equation and treat them as wavefunctions but the nuclei inside an atom is better treated as classical objects.

Well, this is just the modern version of the age-old question (which has been running since ancient Greek times): At a fundamental level, is nature continuous or discrete? Scientists change their minds on this every couple of generations or so (indeed, this quandary underlies the clash between Relativistic Physics and Quantum Mechanics -- which is why no one has been able to marry these two theories), and no doubt this will continue into the indefinite future. [Why? See the end of this post.]

The problem with protons and neutrons is, of course, that they are not fundamental 'particles'; according to the Standard Model they are made up of quarks (as I am sure you know). Which, naturally, raises the question: are quarks 'particles' or just probability distributions (perturbations in the field)? If the former, then what are quarks made of (it can't be undifferentiated 'matter' ('atomless gunk' as some have called it), since that just postpones the problem); if the latter, then everything is made of, well, nothing...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gunk_(mereology)

There is in fact no solution to this 'problem', as Kant pointed out over 200 years ago.

[One might translate Kant's argument into modern, Wittgensteinian terms in the following way: since philosophers and scientists have been projecting mathematical objects onto nature now for over two thousands years (imagining they were studying the world, when they were really studying the misconceived projection of their own inventions), it is no surprise that they couldn't settle on whether nature is discrete or continuous. (This mirrors the problems they have interpreting the nature of, say, Real Numbers; they seem to be both discrete and 'continuous'.) So, this 'problem' has been a direct result of what Wittgenstein described as 'language going on holiday'. Such 'metaphysical problems', are, as he pointed out, a consequence of theorists projecting onto nature the forms by means of which they endeavour to understand it (almost as if someone were to imagine that since every picture of the world has an edge to it, so must the world).

Indeed, this is a rather involved version of the hypothetical problem that might be generated by someone who thought there were real things called 'feet' and 'inches' (or 'metres' and 'centimetres') in nature, but then wondered what these were made of, but who would then not listen to anyone who pointed out the absurdity of what they were doing.]

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Dooga:


The real question is what Rosa does that allows her so much time to read things. I suppose most of us could read a lot more if we made efficient use of our time.

In fact, I have been reading this stuff for longer than most RevLefters have been alive; so you lot should not feel so bad about this.

--------------------------

BR:


The sad part is that her criticism writing is 100 times of what pro-diamat would say. Maybe the next Rosa will fix it. Not that I meant to hurt her, but to demand to cleanup the pool mess so I can study it clearly.

I am sorry, but I could not follow this.

[Bright Banana Beard]

Dooga:
I am sorry, but I could not follow this.
Your @nti-diamat website explains my point, you need to organize and it too huge to read anything at all.

[Pogue]

How did you know about that?

Good response, I lol'd.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

BR:


Your @nti-diamat website explains my point, you need to organize and it too huge to read anything at all.

Look, 'Das Kapital' (even if you don't count 'Theories of Surplus Value') is many times longer than all my essays put together. So are the Collected Works of Lenin, Plekhanov and many other Marxists.

I intend to be completely thorough, so my essays have to be long. Indeed, whenever I try to be brief, DM-fans complain about my 'superficiality'.

And, my site is organised -- there are Quick Links, detailed links, beginners essays, introductory essays, summary essays...

What more do you need?

[Hit The North]

What more do you need?

Some kind of conclusion?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

^^^Not even Marx got as far as that.

[ZeroNowhere]

Us leftists better all kill ourselves. Nobody is accepting our revolutionary theories. And I mean come on! Surely communism would have more implications than atomism. If anyone should be killing themselves in despair, it's all us leftists.
Unfortunately, us commies apparently have too much ability to tolerate Hegel for this to happen. Whether we can tolerate the Hegelians is another story (I can very much imagine Chris Arthur and Geert Reuten driving people to suicide. Kliman is pretty cool, though.)

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

^^^I'm locked in an anti-dialectics debate with Kliman right now:

http://marxisthumanistinitiative.org/2009/05/05/brief-comments-on-the-relationship-between-marxism-and-the-hegelian-dialectic/

[ZeroNowhere]

^^^I'm locked in an anti-dialectics debate with Kliman right now:

http://marxisthumanistinitiative.org/2009/05/05/brief-comments-on-the-relationship-between-marxism-and-the-hegelian-dialectic/
Good luck with that. Still, I respect the guy regardless of Hegelism, since he generally, unlike Arthur and Reuten, doesn't use Hegel to prove his points. Also because his economic works are pretty great.

[heiss93]

So reading Hegel drove him to suicide?

[mikelepore]

Actually, we do. Noble gases come in stable atoms. This computer is shite so I cannot look for the pic but there is a pic of the letters IBM written with individual neon gas atoms. (neon is a noble gas). Look it up.

If you liquify or vaporize them, most elements are monatomic, except H2, N2, O2 and group 17 (the halogens). A molten metal in a mill is made of individual atoms tumbling around. At room temperature, only the noble gases, and I think mercury.

I don't understand Rosa's comment. I've never heard anyone say that atoms in a covalent lattice are not to be called atoms -- is that terminology newer than my ancient education? I'm aware that purists say that ionic solids like NaCl, as well as dissociated in solution, are not atoms, but "ionized atoms" is heard more often.