2 is unsupported,t say the least . Spatial separation is clearly relational.. and clrarly physical, in that it objectively mrasureablr and quantifiable. The only objection would be the folk-physics objection that the physical is *stuff*.
>No matter how you conceive of the atoms—as probability clouds, states of space, fields—the question arises: why don’t the atoms simply “pass through” each other
If you conceive of it in terms of quantum mechanics, the answer is obvious: the pauli exclusion principle means that the electrons...which define the "size" of the atom, since the nucleus is tiny...cannot occupy the same state.. the electron orbitals either have to bounce off each other, or both atoms fuse into a new mutual state, a H2 molecule. No casual "passing through" is allowed.
"Physical interaction always ends up appealing to laws, rules, or principles—inherently abstract things that specify what happens when A relates to B in a particular way."
You are pointing out that the Pauli Exclusion Principle is, in fact, *not* a principle, *nor* does it specify how two particles interact when relating to each other a particular way.
Thank you for the very intelligent and thought-through response.
What would this mean? How could physical objects be part of a physical universe but their interactions are not part of the physical universe?
My world is full of physical things interacting. If the syllogism is sound, this is an illusion. Either there are physical objects that do not interact physically, or there are not even any physical objects and everything is an illusion.
I can't quite wrap my head around this. It seems less absurd to say that i perceive the appearance of phsyical objects interacting physically, but i do not have a full explanation of how this works.
> So at some point, physical interaction always ends up appealing to laws, rules, or principles ...
What if that's not quite true? What if physical interactions *don't* appeal to laws, rules, or principles ... but *humans* trying to explain them *do* appeal to those things.
Why do physical objects have to appeal to anything as an explanation? Explanations are a property of consciousness, no? Does physical matter *require* consciousness in order to do whatever it is that physical matter does?
Humans require consciousness for our abstractions, but does this human need necessarily constrict the physical matter that is observed?
>But are the premises true?
2 is unsupported,t say the least . Spatial separation is clearly relational.. and clrarly physical, in that it objectively mrasureablr and quantifiable. The only objection would be the folk-physics objection that the physical is *stuff*.
>No matter how you conceive of the atoms—as probability clouds, states of space, fields—the question arises: why don’t the atoms simply “pass through” each other
If you conceive of it in terms of quantum mechanics, the answer is obvious: the pauli exclusion principle means that the electrons...which define the "size" of the atom, since the nucleus is tiny...cannot occupy the same state.. the electron orbitals either have to bounce off each other, or both atoms fuse into a new mutual state, a H2 molecule. No casual "passing through" is allowed.
Consider learning physics.
Ah, now I understand. So when I said:
"Physical interaction always ends up appealing to laws, rules, or principles—inherently abstract things that specify what happens when A relates to B in a particular way."
You are pointing out that the Pauli Exclusion Principle is, in fact, *not* a principle, *nor* does it specify how two particles interact when relating to each other a particular way.
Thank you for the very intelligent and thought-through response.
Sarcasm not helpful.
“all interaction is non-physical”
What would this mean? How could physical objects be part of a physical universe but their interactions are not part of the physical universe?
My world is full of physical things interacting. If the syllogism is sound, this is an illusion. Either there are physical objects that do not interact physically, or there are not even any physical objects and everything is an illusion.
I can't quite wrap my head around this. It seems less absurd to say that i perceive the appearance of phsyical objects interacting physically, but i do not have a full explanation of how this works.
> So at some point, physical interaction always ends up appealing to laws, rules, or principles ...
What if that's not quite true? What if physical interactions *don't* appeal to laws, rules, or principles ... but *humans* trying to explain them *do* appeal to those things.
Why do physical objects have to appeal to anything as an explanation? Explanations are a property of consciousness, no? Does physical matter *require* consciousness in order to do whatever it is that physical matter does?
Humans require consciousness for our abstractions, but does this human need necessarily constrict the physical matter that is observed?
Spitballin' ...