frank harley, on 29 May 2014 - 2:35 PM, 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.
That is an incorrect interpretation of existence.
frank harley, on 27 May 2014 - 2:40 PM, said:
* * * 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:
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.