Recently I took a class at university called “Systems analysis”, and that was when I fully realized everything we create is a model around a system. So, based on experiments, we know “something” exists, and based on the properties we describe it, and give it a name. So we have electrons. But even though we describe them, we don’t really know what they are. Which as a scientist and future researcher, this is a scary idea because how can I think about the behavior of things I can’t see? Almost any hypothesis is valid since I am free to imagine whatever model I want. How do I know I am on the right track when working with forces I can’t see?

Take the duality of light for example. We created 2 models (waves and photons) of this phenomenon. Not because the light actually behaves differently depending on the situation, but because the models complement each other, meaning that they are incomplete individually.

We humans don’t really fully understand anything, we just grasp things using mathematical models, which are often incomplete. It’s somewhat scary.

If A causes B to do C then we're good, aren't we?

OP: You're going down the rabbit hole.

Quote:Do electrons exist?

Yes.  Yes, they do.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ofp-OHIq6Wo

Boru

(April 5, 2019 at 6:26 pm)wyzas Wrote: OP: You're going down the rabbit hole.

What have scientists done to solve this? CERN is probably the best example. We do experiments because we need them. Nobody can’t sit and simulate the interaction of molecules at high speeds.

Quote:What have scientists done to solve this?

Do you have access to the internet?

Boru

(April 5, 2019 at 7:35 pm)Macoleco Wrote:

(April 5, 2019 at 6:26 pm)wyzas Wrote: OP: You're going down the rabbit hole.

What have scientists done to solve this? CERN is probably the best example. We do experiments because we need them. Nobody can’t sit and simulate the interaction of molecules at high speeds.

You seem to be stuck on "seeing". Can you physically experience electrons, or other non visible phenomena, in other ways? If you can, they exist, and are more than just a model.

(April 5, 2019 at 5:58 pm)Macoleco Wrote: Take the duality of light for example. We created 2 models (waves and photons) of this phenomenon. Not because the light actually behaves differently depending on the situation, but because the models complement each other, meaning that they are incomplete individually.

It's even worse than that.  Light in fact DOESN'T behave differently as it passes through a double slit.  It remains in an ambiguous state called "superposition" which means it's both and neither.  It's when an observer interacts with it that it settles on which form it took.  Take the quantum eraser effect:

I’ve given up having any objective criteria for what it means for something to "exist". All definitions end up being circular.

Like you say, all we can do is model to the best of our ability. We give names and attribute behaviour to parts of our models. If they can help us to predict future events in some way, then they are useful. But really all we're doing is trying to trace a drawing we can never see properly with big fat lines.

(April 6, 2019 at 3:12 am)robvalue Wrote: I’ve given up having any objective criteria for what it means for something to "exist". All definitions end up being circular.

Like you say, all we can do is model to the best of our ability. We give names and attribute behaviour to parts of our models. If they can help us to predict future events in some way, then they are useful. But really all we're doing is trying to trace a drawing we can never see properly with big fat lines.

Well put.

Modern physics is my reason for choosing idealism over materialism-- the semantics of material as "stuff" are so stretched that its seems we're just tracing big fat lines over big fat lines.