Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

What are the implications of existence regarding plasma?

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

* * * Split from:  Is the Electric Universe theory a better integrated cosmological view? Tangential point. * * *
 

From the Thunderbolts:  A New Look at Near Neighbors Part One

The Electric Universe model takes a very different approach. There was no Big Bang, no distinct creation event, and the Universe is as it always was: 99.999% plasma. Over time, the cosmic plasma organized into cells, as plasma will do, separated by differences in matter and charge densities, bounded by double layers. Along the boundaries between these cells, filaments and sheets organized into Birkeland currents. The Universe self-organized due to the electromagnetic properties of plasma.

 

On Wikipedia is found:

The presence of a non-negligible number of charge carriers makes the plasma electrically conductive so that it responds strongly to electromagnetic fields. Plasma, therefore, has properties quite unlike those of solids, liquids, or gases and is considered a distinct state of matter. Like gas, plasma does not have a definite shape or a definite volume unless enclosed in a container; unlike gas, under the influence of a magnetic field, it may form structures such as filaments, beams and double layers. Some common plasmas are found in stars and neon signs. In the universe, plasma is the most common state of matter for ordinary matter, most of which is in the rarefied intergalactic plasma (particularly intracluster medium) and in stars. Much of the understanding of plasmas has come from the pursuit of controlled nuclear fusion and fusion power, for which plasma physics provides the scientific basis.

 

How applicable is plasma physics to existence as a whole?

'Existence' implies atoms with nucleon in tact and electrons within orbitals. OTH, plasma means a condition so hot that electrons and nucleons fly apart. Big difference.

Edited by dream_weaver
Link to post
Share on other sites

Frank said:

'Existence' implies atoms with nucleon in tact and electrons within orbitals. OTH, plasma means a condition so hot that electrons and nucleons fly apart. Big difference.

Absolute non-sequitor.... The concept existence applies to everything that exist. A perfect example of why physicist (and physics students) need philosophy of science.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Fortunately for those who study the physics of plasma, it still exists for them to study, which would be more in line with the implication intended by 'existence' to which you directed your reply,

'Existence' to me means 'possessing material properties'. Plasma, oth,  is a state in which matter is said not to exist because it's too hot.

Link to post
Share on other sites

re 'existants': even a quick google-up of the Stanfiord article on Objectivism will emplasize that the weak point of Rand's philosophy is her failure to expand on the typology of 'existants'

 

For example, do they include all mental constructs, rrgardless of the origin of either mind-dependent or independent? If not, then she's a hopeless idealist!

 

As for 'plasma', there are several accounts of its theoretical state with respect to math. One, by Landau, is  'pheniomenal', ostensibly dealing with observation.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Frank said:

re 'existants': even a quick google-up of the Stanfiord article on Objectivism will emplasize that the weak point of Rand's philosophy is her failure to expand on the typology of 'existants'

The meaning of existence and the question of the types of existents-ontology are two different questions.

Its true its not clear what Ms Rand would call an entity, but its very clear that she wanted to use existence as pertaining to all that is.

Edit:

Frank said:

'Existence' to me means 'possessing material properties'. Plasma, oth, is a state in which matter is said not to exist because it's too hot.

Are you actually claiming that an ionized gas contains no matter?!!!

Edited by Plasmatic
Link to post
Share on other sites

'Existence' to me means 'possessing material properties'. Plasma, oth,  is a state in which matter is said not to exist because it's too hot.

And if you wish to communicate here, you may have to expand your understanding. Yes, existence is identity, to be, is to be something, i.e., be comprised of material properties. Are you going to consider relational properties material? If we have two existents, presumably one is to the left, or above, or bears some relationship to the other.

Edited by dream_weaver
Link to post
Share on other sites

Frank said:

The meaning of existence and the question of the types of existents-ontology are two different questions.

Its true its not clear what Ms Rand would call an entity, but its very clear that she wanted to use existence as pertaining to all that is.

Edit:

Frank said:

Are you actually claiming that an ionized gas contains no matter?!!!

If you say that 'existence' means 'all that exists' and yet you fail to (ontologically) distinguish mind-dependent from mind-independent existants, you're created a bad infinity; the mind can conjure up an infinite number of entities.

 

Yes, i'm aware that standard textbook- cum- Wiki defines ionized gas (plasma) as one of the four states of matter.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you say that 'existence' means 'all that exists' and yet you fail to (ontologically) distinguish mind-dependent from mind-independent existants, you're created a bad infinity; the mind can conjure up an infinite number of entities.

 

Yes, i'm aware that standard textbook- cum- Wiki defines ionized gas (plasma) as one of the four states of matter.

Frank, all knowledge is mind-dependent - and knowledge of entities is all we have.  Democracy (or any other abstraction) exists, and is every bit as real as this keyboard that I'm typing on.  You claim that Plasmatic fails to "ontologically" distinguish between the two is because you've adopted an ontology view that is false.

Edited by New Buddha
Link to post
Share on other sites

Frank, all knowledge is mind-dependent - and knowledge of entities is all we have.  Democracy (or any other abstraction) exists, and is every bit as real as this keyboard that I'm typing on.  You claim that Plasmatic fails to "ontologically" distinguish between the two is because you've adopted an ontology view that is false.

If keyboards and democracy are equally 'real' then there's a poverty of distinction between thoughts, sociasl constructs, and material.

 

Re plasma, of course it's an existant in the sense that ionized gasses exist. Here on earth, however, that's not the natural state:

 

In other words, truth or falseness is not the issue.Rather, ontologies should offer disctinctions that are in some way meaningful, as the word implies--the best, or 'fist' way to divide things up.

 

To say, therefore, that everything is mind-dependent is a rejection of the ontological issue altogather.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"If keyboards and democracy are equally 'real' then there's a poverty of distinction between thoughts, sociasl constructs, and material."

 

You are missing the point.  Our KNOWLEDGE of keyboards and democracy are both abstractions (concepts).

I can't disagree. Rather, if that's all there is to the randian/epistemological issue regarding concepts, then i'm afraid you're the talking hore with nothing interesting to say. In other words, you're not doing 'pholossophy', but rather using philosophical-sounding language to describe the commonly-held notion that we create mind-onjects. Rather ilke putting lipstick on a pig.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Our point is that nothing that IS, whether an abstraction or an external existent, is a non-existent.

 

Plasma cannot BE and not exist... that's utter nonsense and I think you agree.

 

 

The point about abstractions is that they exist not in the same way as external existents, they exist as mental contents.

 

Plasma, is not an abstraction.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Our point is that nothing that IS, whether an abstraction or an external existent, is a non-existent.

 

Plasma cannot BE and not exist... that's utter nonsense and I think you agree.

 

 

The point about abstractions is that they exist not in the same way as external existents, they exist as mental contents.

 

Plasma, is not an abstraction.

Well, i believe thatthe original question was , "What are the implications of existence re plasma? So if your answer is that plasma is an 'existant' just like anything else, you've mooted the question itself.

 

Better asked, then, would  be "Plasma is what type of existant"? At tempratures far too hot for the natural world of earth to survive, gasses ionize. This indicates that said 'fourth state' of astrophysical matter is not a 'life-existant', so to speak.

Link to post
Share on other sites

frank harley, on 29 May 2014 - 2:35 PM, said:snapback.png

'Existence' to me means 'possessing material properties'. Plasma, oth,  is a state in which matter is said not to exist because it's too hot.

That is an incorrect interpretation of existence.

 

frank harley, on 27 May 2014 - 2:40 PM, said:snapback.png

* * * Split from:  Is the Electric Universe theory a better integrated cosmological view? Tangential point. * * *
 

'Existence' implies atoms with nucleon in tact and electrons within orbitals. OTH, plasma means a condition so hot that electrons and nucleons fly apart. Big difference.

No. Most emphatically, no. It does not. Unfortunately, you are completely mislead. Firstly on the level of physics, there are many more particles than electrons, neutrons and protons. In addition, particle physics has no implications what so ever on philosophy! Even if we discover something physical that isn't even made of fundamental particles, it would not imply anything about existence. Existence is a philosophical concept available to all men at all times. No particle or plasma physics knowledge required. But anyway, plasma is electrons, protons and neutrons. Merely completely delocalized. And it most certainly does have properties! Plasma is like the fourth phase of matter, only instead of atoms being further delocalized, the actual parts of the atoms are. Besides, even under your definition of 'material properties' plasma has 'material properties'. Also, plasma has been known about for a very long time. Electric universe is a different thing, and I think it's better than the current theory.

frank harley, on 27 May 2014 - 2:40 PM, said:snapback.png

Plasma, oth,  is a state in which matter is said not to exist because it's too hot.

No, no, no, no, no. This is pure rationalism, but I also think you are honestly mislead.

 

Look at the above statement. Plasma is a state of matter. A state of matter that doesn't exist.

 

Matter that doesn't exist.

 

Does that make any sense? No. The state makes no difference. You're saying because the electrons, neutrons and protons aren't in the configuration of an atom they don't exist! That is utterly absurd! I guess electromagnetic waves don't exist either? And what about the neutrons used to split an atom in an atomic bomb? Nope, non-existent.

 

Now if you're saying that atoms don't exist in plasma, that is utterly true! But atoms and existence are completely different matters.

 

Rationalism is taking words and rearranging them without any regard for actual objective reality and the contextual meaning behind the words. Objectivists are very prone to this. I know because this is something only within the past few months realized I was guilty of! Peikoff is a great help with over coming this. I still catch myself doing it.

 

Calling plasma a state of matter in physics is not strictly correct. That's what they mean. Context is so important. Phases pertain to the way atoms are arranged. But something ceasing to exist because it is 'too hot'. That makes no sense. Hotness is the amount of energy! Temperature is the average kinetic energy of the atoms! So once they are moving fast enough, they come apart, and cease to be atoms, therefore the entire thing goes *poof* out of existence? No :) It's like saying, the statue was there, but now it has been destroyed; it is ruble. The statue doesn't exist, therefore what made it up doesn't exist. Configuration versus actual physical existents.

Edited by dream_weaver
Link to post
Share on other sites

I qualified my definition of 'existant' in a previous post: what we would find on earth in a state conducive to earth-ly existence.

 

Arguably, an 'existant' can also mean any thought-object, whether verifiable in terms of reality or not. As previously stated, i found this definition to be totally, worthlessly redundant for the unambiguous expression , 'thought object'.

 

Otherwise, of course, plasma is the fourth state of matter in a strict sense defined within a Physics text.

Yet you wrote: :Calling plasma a state of matter in physics is not strictly correct". Even Wiki will say you're wrong. any physics text, as well.

 

Have i therefore missed your own reasoning as to why said references are wrong?

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Now if you're saying that atoms don't exist in plasma, that is utterly true! But atoms and existence are completely different matters.

 

Could you mean "But atoms, versus a state of electrons, protons and neutron as plasma, are two distinct forms of existence."?

 

And if you wish to communicate here, you may have to expand your understanding. Yes, existence is identity, to be, is to be something, i.e., be comprised of material properties. Are you going to consider relational properties material? If we have two existents, presumably one is to the left, or above, or bears some relationship to the other.

frank harley, do you intend to side-skirt this?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Could you mean "But atoms, versus a state of electrons, protons and neutron as plasma, are two distinct forms of existence."?

 

frank harley, do you intend to side-skirt this?

In terms of QM, a relational state is frequently all that's known. For example, although  'electrons' are said to exist as matter of convenience, all we empirically know are spectral lines of absorbtion, phase states, etc. In other words, we assume a materiality based upon-- and causal of-- observed effects.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 months later...

Reality is real.

Existence exists.

A is A.

 

Puzzling over the philosophical implications of states of matter is a bit like trying to figure out when a 'soul' inhabits a fetus. E=m*c*c 

 

'Objective' reality is a complete package. Just because we have yet to discern all it's states and rules, does not change it's relationship with philosophy. 

Edited by Skylab72
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...