Seeing red

[The Grand Nudger]

I'll do you one better than giving you a number.  Don't know how useful it would be, as an insufficient explanation...we'd merely be arguing over fantasy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Point_particle

In quantum mechanics, there is a distinction between an elementary particle (also called "point particle") and a composite particle. An elementary particle, such as an electron, quark, or photon, is a particle with no internal structure, whereas a composite particle, such as a proton or neutron, has an internal structure (see figure). However, neither elementary nor composite particles are spatially localized, because of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. The particle wavepacket always occupies a nonzero volume. For example, see : The electron is an elementary particle, but its quantum states form three-dimensional patterns.

b-mine.

This, however, is an irrelevance, because your criticisms do not arise from any misunderstandings of qm that you clearly have.  It's a bit farther down that that.....right at the very bottom, you might say.  Isn't it?  

Lay aside the claim that materialism is insufficient and subsumed by idealism.  Then we'll be able to refer to these explanations coherently.  We could merely suggest that stuff exists....and is made out of ideas.  Couldn't we?  That we're currently doing research at the layer of "stuff"...and have only, possibly, glimpsed at the layer of "existence".In fact I'm certain that you have suggested this, albeit it your own chosen words, and the only reason it was an unproductive line of inquiry was in relation to it's incoherence in light of the aforementioned claim.


Or, you can stick to your guns and continue having a dispute with me over what -must-, then, be fantasy..............................you are essentially attempting to get to some truth of the matter,on the issue of whether or not a giant spigot accounts for rain.   Even the base idiocy of such a position, if it could be shown(and I;m sure it could be), would not be informative.....because it is fantasy and thusly completely uninformative with regards to any underlying reality.  Why then, would you refer to it yourself?  Why would you take it be be informative? Why subsume it?  We've got it dead wrong from the bottom to top - this isn't how stuff works, no matter what's it made of.