= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
SilasBarta comments on Were atoms real? - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (156)
Not real at the fundamental level, correct, but real in the relevant sense for certain levels of abstraction, and (satisfying the criteria Anna Salamon gave and the and the Level 2 standard I gave) capable of plugging in to other models of reality.
Well, the most famous opposition to atomic theory (famous to me at least) came from Ernst Mach of Mach's Principle. Seems like applying his positivism to quantum physics tells you that only the wave-function and the Born rule "are real". Atoms just give us a convenient way to approximate these rules for predicting experience.
Reductionism sequence. Now.
Edit: Okay, maybe later.
Nice edit. :P