- #71
Les Sleeth
Gold Member
- 2,262
- 2
Castlegate said:So in the interest of being what you are ... please speculate on.
Okay, you asked for it . . .
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=30762
. . . complete with diagrams. It's a long thread, but if you are interested in modeling with monistic concepts, you'll find plenty there.
For this thread I was asking others' opinions on if a neutral substance monism could be practical to modeling physical aspects of the universe. I referenced some great philosophers up front, such as Russell (who was also an empiricist), who did see potential for it. Yet no one has really ever given it a serious try as far as I know. That, and because I've already modeled with it in the above thread, is why I haven't gotten into it more here.
Castlegate said:Thats because we are talking in terms of a discreet quantity . . .
What does discrete quantities have to do with it? I've already accounted for that by suggesting that a neutral substance will appear discrete (in the sense of separate from its surroundings) if it is concentrated into a self sustaining system (e.g., an atom).
Moving finger spoke of zero point energy. We do know virtual particles pop in and out of existence due to some sort of energy tension (and further observed in the Casimir force) in the vacuum (which obviously isn't really a vacuum). What if that field could be concentrated enough at a point to form an atom? If so, then the atom emerges from that field yet is still one with it. What appears "discrete" is really just differentiated by concentration and oscillation of a "point" in the field . . . there is no real separation. These are monistic concepts.
Castlegate said:. . . which can have properties.
What properties does energy have besides causing movement and manifesting heat? How is it then, that it takes the form of mass which then becomes all the characteristics we know in this universe. From something simple comes something incredibly varied, so in terms of me proposing that same idea for substance monism, there is precedent.