That is because it is irrelevant. Atoms do not communicate. Ordinary causality is not communication.
And it isn’t communication either.
So you think atoms actually talk to each other, do you?
Whatever this discussion is, it isn’t philosophy.
I don’t say anything like that.
You are stabbing at straw men.
Please read the updated article, The hard problem of appreciating physical reality - Take Two (I’m working on an update, that actually provides some closure. Probably won’t be posted till tomorrow)
Oh no I’m not. You have literally based your argument on a claim that “atoms communicate”, and you are citing a source document that uses the metaphor “atoms talk to each other” as your evidence.
This is what you posted:
“Now, the problem gets very interesting if you have more than one atom,” says Yavuz. “The presence of other atoms modifies the decay of each atom; they talk to each other.”
So I am not attacking a strawman. I am attacking the very specific argument you are defending.
If you think I am attacking a strawman then you have got no idea what a strawman actually is, and if you do understand what a strawman is then you are arguing in bad faith.
The real problem here is that your opening post tries to psycho-analyse people who don’t agree with your position – you think people who understand the problem “can’t accept physical reality”. It turns out the opposite is true: the person who “can’t accept the reality of the Hard Problem” is you, and when your argument is exposed as nonsense (atoms really do not communicate, and once you accept that then your whole position collapses) you have chosen to double-down on the nonsense instead of admitting that your original argument doesn’t actually work.
1 Like
Why can’t I find it? “Communicate” is the term I’ve been using. I was ready to do some Mea culpas regard possibly using “talk” in an earlier version, but then a Google fact checking brought me this:
“Do physicist make it clear that atoms “communicate” with other atoms?”
And found this:
Atoms “communicate” with each other through quantum mechanics and electromagnetic fields, meaning the state or action of one atom can directly influence or correlate with another.
(University of Wisconsin–Madison)How Atoms Talk
Shared Electromagnetic Decays: When an atom absorbs light and its electron moves to a higher energy state, releasing that energy (decaying) causes it to emit a photon. If other atoms are nearby, their presence changes how that decay happens. They effectively alter each other’s behavior, acting as if they are talking to one another.
(University of Wisconsin–Madison)Electron Bridges: Recent quantum computing research from UNSW shows that atomic nuclei inside silicon chips can communicate over longer distances using spread-out electrons as a connecting telephone line.
(ScienceDaily)Quantum Entanglement: Entangled particles are linked so deeply that the physical state of one instantly dictates the state of the other, no matter the distance. Einstein famously called this connection “spooky action at a distance”, though it does not transmit standard data faster than light.
(Wikipedia)
My bold. “as if” means NOT LITERALLY.
Treating metaphors as if they were literal claims is not philosophy. It is bad sophistry.
Okay fair enough.
Thing is, I never said they were having a discussion. I also made it clear I was not implying any sense of self. Still the claim that atoms “communicate” is accurate. They are not having a discussion. They are not aware in any shape of form - that doesn’t not preclude them for “communicating” particles and “information”.
Please point out the flaw in what I’ve written in that paragraph?
No it isn’t. That claim is only accurate if you mistake metaphors for literal truths.
Atoms are in causal contact with each other. No “talking”, no" communicating". Just normal physical causality.
I plugged that into Google and received the following:
What the Quote Means
- No conscious intent: Atoms do not think, feel, or plan messages.
- Literal language: They do not use words or a human-style language.
What the Quote Misses
- Information exchange: Atoms constantly trade energy, light particles, and electrons.
- Physical forces: They react to each other through magnetic and electrical fields.
- Quantum links: Entangled particles change together instantly, no matter the distance.
- Data models: Scientists use information theory to describe how particles share states.
Calling the idea a pure metaphor ignores the real, measurable transfer of physical data that happens between particles.
To be clear my essay agrees with the first two statements.
Don’t know what else to say, except that my usage is not inaccurate.