Formal Logic and Scientific Method

Since my last post, I came up with three more possible cofigurations of particles for a universe with a minumum possible length:

#1

----o


o

---

o

#2

o


----o


o

#3

o

---

o


----o


o

---

o

This brings the total number of possible configurations to eleven, but the maximum number of particles allowed in the universe under this assumption is still five (or infinite if and only if the particles are arranged in a straight line).

Still, the assumption of a minimum possible length contradicts our observations of the universe, since the universe contains far more than just five particles.

Suppose we assume there exists a smallest particle, then I'm still stuck with the question what it looks like when it is being cut in half. What does its matter look like? Since it is the smallest particle, it cannot contain other particles, so its composition remains a mystery. Perhaps everything is wave-like and cannot be resolved as a particle. But for wave phenomena, we need a medium. What medium? (*sigh*)

These issues look like the family game Monopoly: I find myself returning to the point of departure over and over again ...

nderosa,

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">This leads me to conclude that a theoretical over reliance on deduction is a weak link in any scientific method, and not essential to the actual process of acquiring scientific knowledge, which relies on both deduction and induction as it properly should. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

I'm not sure whether over reliance on deduction is a weak link in the scientific method, but rather the tendency to elevate a particular premise to an absolute truth. That is to say that a bad premise is likely to be the key suspect of deficient theories. For example, SR and GR deploy mathematically consistent logic, but these theories mean nothing if the postulates are factually not true. No?

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by jrich</i>
<br />1234567890,

Does your finite divisible universe also require that matter have some smallest size? Is there a smallest particle?


JR
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

I have this question too, if there is a smallest particle the divisibility would have to be in interger multiples, or?

I like Jan's wave idea and thinking in terms of plasma. There would be an infinity of divisibility in the plasma (an aether) when homogenious and without dynamics. But, in order for dynamics to occur there would have to be defined multiples for interaction and complexity. There plasma would have to have or acheive differential charge as well in order for dynamics to occur.

So maybe both assumptions are correct, depending on the context of the debate.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Suppose we assume there exists a smallest particle, then I'm still stuck with the question what it looks like when it is being cut in half. What does its matter look like? Since it is the smallest particle, it cannot contain other particles, so its composition remains a mystery.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">If we have a smallest particle. Shouldn't it be made of nothing? Since there is nothing smaller? If we have a smallest particle. How could it be possible to cut it in half? How could one examine the smallest particle and expect anything more than what it is - One solitary particle.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Perhaps everything is wave-like and cannot be resolved as a particle. But for wave phenomena, we need a medium. What medium? (*sigh*) <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Yer hitting the nail on the head. I don't see the need for a medium. All you need is more waves. They are the medium.

Skarp,

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">I don't see the need for a medium<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

I stumbled a little bit over the wave issue and it just didn't come out right. What I wanted to say is that waves without a medium do not make much sense to me. I still see a wave as the collective motion of objects. But if <i>everything</i> is wave-like, then this would imply that there is no such thing as a smallest particle. For let the smallest particle be wave-like, then this particle must be the collective motion of other particles. Hence, a contradiction with the smallest particle assumption. There can be no smallest particle. []