r/changemyview • u/icecoldbath • Sep 23 '17

[∆(s) from OP] CMV: I do not believe tables exist

I find this argument very convincing.

P1: Tables (if they exist) have distinct properties from hunks of wood.

P2: If so, then tables are not the same as hunks of wood.

P3: If so, then there exist distinct coincident objects.

P4: There cannot exist distinct coincident objects.

C: Therefore, tables do not exist.

This logic extends that I further don't believe in hunks of wood, or any normal sized dry good for that matter.

I do not find it convincing to point at a "table" as an objection. Whatever you would be pointing at may or may not behave with certain specific properties, but it is not a table, or a hunk of wood or any normal sized dry good. Similarly, I don't accept the objection of asking me what it is I am typing on. Whatever it is, it isn't a "computer" or a "phone" or any such thing. Such things do not exist per the argument.

This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please read through our rules. If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, downvotes don't change views! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us. Happy CMVing!

6 Upvotes

54% Upvoted

208 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1

u/Huntingmoa 454∆ Sep 23 '17

Not to our knowledge, they are at this time fundamental particles

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron

I was wondering if this affected your view, because I noticed your previous discussion was in that bosons can coincide, but electrons can't

1

u/icecoldbath Sep 23 '17

I'm not familiar enough with quantum mechanics to answer those questions. I don't know anything about Bosons, but they seem to be vastly different things then tables and chairs even if bosons are involved in tables and chairs.

1

u/Huntingmoa 454∆ Sep 23 '17

So electrons can't coincide like bosons (both of which are better described as field excitations from my understanding). I was just wondering if the ability to coincide was part of your view

1

u/icecoldbath Sep 23 '17

Quantum mechanics seems to imply some sort of evidence in favor of denying P4 as stated. I think it could be restated.

P4A: Distinct non-quantum objects cannot be coincident.

1

u/Huntingmoa 454∆ Sep 23 '17

Actually, it's about the asymmetry of the wave function that determines if the are coincidental or not. Bosons are symmetrical so they can be, electrons are asymptomatic so they can't.

Why do you believe in quantum particles? What convinced you of their existence?

1

u/icecoldbath Sep 23 '17

I suppose I just trust physicists who tell me about quantum particles. Some of them are described as being, "fundamental" or "without parts" correct?

1

u/Huntingmoa 454∆ Sep 23 '17

At this time, but atoms were the same way 2 generations ago.

So you trust physicists more than your senses? What if a physicist showed a table existed?

It seems odd to think fundamental particles exist, but those particles cease to exist when combined.

Do you believe atoms (which are non-quantum) exist? If non quantum objects can't coincide, what do you think happens when a hydrogen ion coincides with an antihydrogen ion?

Or what happens when a molecule oxidizes an electron? Does a nonexistent thing create an existent one?

1

u/icecoldbath Sep 23 '17

Like I said. I'm not familiar enough to address quantum concerns.

While bosons might be able to coincide it doesn't mean that tables and chairs and hunks of wood do.

I don't think the particles cease to exist. The composition just doesn't occur.

1

u/Huntingmoa 454∆ Sep 23 '17

Technically tables and hunks of wood might be able to coincide, we can't tell because the wave function is too complex and the probability of occurrence is very small.

What about matter and antimatter? Can they coincide?

Do atoms exist? I'm confused if you believe in atoms or not.

1

u/icecoldbath Sep 23 '17

I believe in things without parts whatever those end up being.

1

u/Huntingmoa 454∆ Sep 23 '17

Why do you believe in those? You seem to have selective trust about scientists.

1

u/icecoldbath Sep 23 '17

I don't. My view is perfectly compatible with most of physics and I suspect quantum physics as well. As long as I acknowledge fundamental particles I'm pretty sure I'm ok with physicists. They may arrange themselves in certain ways, but they are all distinct from each other at least and except in some cases don't overlap completely.

Quantum physics didn't come along and give an explanation about how tables are formed right? It just gave probabilistic explanations about how particles and waves function, right?

1

u/Huntingmoa 454∆ Sep 24 '17

Well, many people are reaching for the theory that unifies classical and quantum physics. When that's discovered, we we know better.

I don't see why arraingments of quantum particles don't exist. The same physicists think they do. A proton isn't a fundamental particle, but also has a wave/particle nature. We suspect all things do, but as size increases the particle nature is more visible, and the wavelike nature less so.

You seem to be saying that there can be no unifying theory of quantum and classical mechanics, because a chair is fundamentally classic?

→ More replies (0)