Does solidness exist?

Yes or no? It's a simple question. — Watchmaker

When you put it like this, this question will land you in hot water with some philosophers. A better way to ask would be: Is anything solid?

The obvious answer, which I think is the right one, is: Yes, of course! This would be the right answer if you mean "solid" in the usual sense. If you mean it in an idiosyncratic or specialist sense, then you need to be more specific.

I understand electrons aren't solid, but what of protons and neutrons, et al? Are there really tiny dense indivisible b-b's that make up matter. It seems that everything I read about this, implies that ultimately nothing is really solid. — Watchmaker

Here you seem to be asking: is the usual sense of solidity applicable to microscopic entities postulated by fundamental physics? And the equally obvious answer is: Of course not! But what implications does this have towards mind-body dualism? None that I can see.

some you educated folks on here. — Watchmaker

Why, there are only some folks that are edutated here? The rest are not?

the usual sense of solidity — SophistiCat

I was about to say, the concept of "solidness" has weak solidity.

Solidity is a phase of matter. It's observably distinct from the other phases. Think of an ice cube melting and then boiling off into vapor. So yes, it exists. Subatomic particles can not be solids, liquids, or gasses. They can only be parts of the phase.

Example: no one water molecule is a liquid or a solid, etc. Phases of matter are emergent phenomena. The phases describe relationships between molecules. Ice is less dense than water because of a crystalline structure that only obtains when the energy of the molecules is low enough that they aren't moving past one another. Lots of physical properties are like this, for example, resonance.

I think the mistake here is assuming that the properties of the large scale collections of microscopic things we see as the objects of everyday experience exist for microscopic objects just the same, but on a smaller scale. Protons as "bbs" is a good example of a bad analogy. BBs generally don't exhibit wave-like behavior for example; the analogy fails. It might be better to think of all such particles as local excitations of a field, but other analogies exist because none of our analogies work perfectly.

Very large and very small things behave differently than the medium sized objects we evolved to interact with. Phases are an example of where the analogy breaks down because phases are the macroscopic appearance of large numbers of relationships between microscopic things.

Arguably, only these relationships exist and "objects" are just a cognitive shorthand evolution led us to, a way of compressing huge amounts of information into actionable intel for survival.

From what I can gather from the OP,

1. Solidness is some kinda physical-defining property.

2. Fundamental particles aren't solid.

Ergo,

3. Fundamental particles aren't physical.

4. The mind is, if physical, something that hasta do with fundamental particles.

Ergo,

5. The interaction problem?, what interaction problem?

Arguably, only these relationships exist and "objects" are just a cognitive shorthand evolution led us to, a way of compressing huge amounts of information into actionable intel for survival — Count Timothy von Icarus

I wouldn't go so far as saying that only relationships exist, as it seems to me that if relationships exist, we must logically assume the existence of some things that the relationships relate. By definition of what a relation/relationship is.

So objects (things) exist, and they enter in relationships, which also exist.

This said, according to Kant, we can only access relations. Our senses connect objects with us; perception is a type of relation, and it can only be a relation. Therefore, following Kant, we cannot access the thing in itself but only phenomena, which are a type of relationship.

The interesting point is that, even if objects (things) exist, we cannot access them but through some type of relationship. So for us, only relationships exist, in a way. Everything is relative, nothing is absolute, at least in our perception of the world.

It would no longer be the immaterial mind interacting with and acting upon the physical body. It would be the immaterial mind interacting with the immaterial compositions of matter. — Watchmaker

I think you have a point, but I'm not sure. I would like to rephrase in terms of the aristotelian duality between matter and form.

For Aristotle, a form cannot exist without some matter, it has to be the form of something (contrary to Platonic forms, which are purely ideal), and matter cannot exist without taking some form, some shape. There is no shapeless matter. At however level you look at it you will find structures, symmetries, shapes. Relations therefore. I think we can see symmetry, for instance, as a reflexive relationship (a relationship of something to itself).

So for Aristotle, matter and form coexist in a duality.

If I am correct, your intuition, replaced in this framework, would be that our mind is itself a structure, a set of relationships. Our mind is a form. And as such, it can naturally and logically access forms in the world around it, and it can shape the world around it.

This seems to dispose of the interaction problem, a strong objection to substance dualism (which says that the soul and the body are substances of contrary natures, yet they somehow causally influence each other...).

"Local excitations of a field" sounds immaterial to me. Is it not? A field of what exactly?

Willing participants.

I have solid proof that liquid is a gas! :snicker:

Sure. We are typing on a keyboard and looking at a screen, you can touch it after all, your fingers don't go through it.

We should keep in mind that we are speaking about different levels of existence. When we hear that there is a lot of "empty space" in atoms, we are talking about nature observed from a very particular point of view.

What's a good description in one view, will not always be so on another view. Perhaps the one exception that looks to me to apply to all aspects of reality is temporality.

That is, we might be better off in thinking about objects as particular phases of events, than anything else. But, people have different views on the issue.

Space isn't empty, it's filled with fields associated with the fundemental forces. When you look closely at seemingly empty space you see all sorts of virtual particles popping into existence. Quantum fluctuations mean the fields are constantly creating particles, but these come in pairs that annihilate each other. Non-virtual particles that stick around are greater excitements of the fields.

It is immaterial. Materialism is an old (and dead) doctrine as far as science is concerned. Matter is not always conserved. It is created and destroyed. Energy is (mostly) conserved and can create matter or be released from it. Some experimental findings threaten this conservation, and it appears that the conservation of energy can be violated at the Planck scale at very high energy levels where the weak force is concerned.

Quarks, the main building blocks of "matter," the things with mass we experience, spontaneously pop out of nothing if you clear space to make it more empty. This is done by shooting gold nuclei at each other at near the speed of light. The "heat" this produces is a billion times hotter than the surface of our sun. This clears space making it more empty. Empty space is actually more unstable than filled space, and so from this void quark condensate materializes. There are actually a number of condensates that act like this.

These very small things do not behave like objects we are familiar with. It would be ridiculous to think you could smash a Toyota and a Ford together at high speeds and form a Chevy, but this sort of thing happens all the time in particle physics.

There are varying takes on what this says about reality. Perhaps reality really is composed of some amorphous, poorly defined thing called physical entities. Others suggest that reality is primarily composed as mathematical objects, in part because quarks and other elementary building blocks can only be described this way. Others say that information is the primary ontological primitive and observers generate the universe through observation, which forces quantum scale qbits that preserve a modal excluded middle to spawn classical bits that we experience in the world.

I don't think this line of reasoning is going to solve the Hard Problem. If we show physical things are somehow "immaterial" we still have the problem of how we can predict so much of what goes on in our shared external space, but can't figure out where first person experience emerges from.

I like information theoretic models a lot, and I'm reading Max Tegmark's mathematical model right now, but even with these the Hard Problem remains, if in an altered form. If what we call the physical creates first person experience, then it does so in a wild way. Brains are like magicians. You can study then using all sorts of imaging techniques, try to follow their every movement, and through some sleight of hand they always seem to produce something we can't explain.

I think that's about all that can be said for now. This might open the door for dualism, idealism, or panpsychism, or it could also be that we're just several levels away from understanding what the "objective external world" is actually like, and this is why the problem is insoluble. Or, maybe the optimists are right and it really is just the complexity of neutral networks that give rise to experience and we just need more computational power. I highly doubt this last one. For one, interstellar scale networks rival the brain in complexity. Does that mean chains of galaxies form a mind, a mind that take millions of years to finish a thought?

Solidness as we conceptually thought prior to atomic theory does not exist, except maybe under extreme gravity like a neutron star. When people first learn that the table is mostly empty space held together by electromagnetic bonds, they're surprised.

What's even more surprising is that we could theoretically walk through a wall if our molecules aligned themselves just right. There is an extremely low probability of that happening, but it's not impossible. Under the classical conception of solidness, it would be impossible.

It does seem to imply the notion of infinity, does it not? How far can something that is solid in the absolute sense, be infinitely divided? — Watchmaker

I'll chuck in the pre-Socratics. Thales thought everything was made of water. He also thought that everything was 'full of gods', by which he might have meant something parallel to 'will' or 'mind'. Heraclitus said 'Everything is in flux'. Parmenides and Zeno raised the question of matter being infinitely divisible or not. I think you might be a Thalesian. Nobody promotes Thales much these days. He's seen as a pioneer who stuck a flag in the philosophical territory but didn't survive to cultivate the land or build cities.

"Solidity" is directly and immediately relative to the strength and rigidity of the molecular bonds of the material in question. Molecules of iron form very strong and rigid bonds, which explains why you won't fall through a steel floor. The bonds between iron oxide molecules, on the other hand, though rigid, are quite weak, which explains why you will fall through a rusty floor. The bonds between molecules of dihydrogen oxide are incredibly flexible but very strong, which explains why you can dive into a swimming pool without hurting yourself (hopefully!).

The molecular bonds of polyethylene are extremely stong, but not very rigid, which explains why "polythene" is flexible but so difficult to tear apart.

There are physics and chemical definitions of what "solid" means and that's how it's used, but if we're thinking purely critically of the meaning of the word, it becomes just like "free will" that can be used to describe me choosing to get a coffee even though there's no real free will.

In this regard, no, there's nothing really solid, only slower and slower movement of matter to a point where some matter basically gonna stay the same until heat death.

It's these senses of 'solid' that Watchmaker is thinking of, I suspect:

"a. Not hollowed out: a solid block of wood.
b. Being the same substance or color throughout: solid gold.
c. Having no gaps or breaks; continuous: a solid line of people; worked for a solid week.
d. Acting together; unanimous: a solid voting bloc."

thefreedictionary.com

So this idea seems to be of an an adulterated continuum, that isn't made up of smaller bits and is everywhere the same stuff. Something along those lines. Is that what you meant Watchmaker?

Possible candidates: space, consciousness

Space at least seems to be compressible in some sense. Does that rule it out?

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum.

I understand electrons aren't solid, but what of protons and neutrons, et al? Are there really tiny dense indivisible b-b's that make up matter. It seems that everything I read about this, implies that ultimately nothing is really solid. — Watchmaker

My poor understanding is that protons and neutrons are actual matter. In turn, they are composed of subatomic particles like quarks. Quarks, as far as we know, are the end of the line. If all the little "b-b's" were just floating around, nothing would be solid or have any form. As it happens, the little "b-b's" that make up protons and neutrons, and they in turn, are bound together by the strong force. Atoms are bound together by the electrostatic force which is responsible for matter being solid and having form. There are two other fundamental forces, the weak force and gravity. Gravity also holds things together -- which is how planets, stars, and galaxies maintain their form. I'll pass on the nature of the weak force.

The reason for my question relates to dualism and the problem of the immaterial soul/mind interacting with the physical body. There seems to be a disconnect there for many people. It's said by many that this is a logical problem.

However, if it's true that nothing is really solid, that all matter is ultimately immaterial, then wouldn't that solve this interaction problem? It would no longer be the immaterial mind interacting with and acting upon the physical body. It would be the immaterial mind interacting with the immaterial compositions of matter. — Watchmaker

What is matter? Never mind. What is mind? Never matter. That's baloney!

The disconnect between mind and matter comes from a "spiritual" view of the world. The brain is clearly material and material processes produce our minds. Hence, the mind is material. The idea of "mind" as a something disconnected from matter is just hocus pocus. Adding soul to mind just makes the magic more complicated.

How far can something that is solid in the absolute sense, be infinitely divided? — Watchmaker

It can't.

No 'thing' is solid, if by 'solid' you mean that it has some essence or substance at its heart. This was observed by Kant. It is shown by the philosophical 'problem of attributes'. In the Upanishads this is explained as the 'voidness';of things. I'd be surprised if any serious philosopher or scientists thinks physical objects are solid. The nearest to solid these days is 'fields on fields'. . .

The disconnect between mind and matter comes from a "spiritual" view of the world. The brain is clearly material and material processes produce our minds. Hence, the mind is material. — BC

It's a good job that philosophers usually think more deeply than this. Have you not heard of the 'other minds' problem. It wouldn't arise if minds were material. .

Press two north poles of two magnets together. You will feel (close your eyes) something solid between the magnets. Solidity is only energy fields pushing/pulling each other.

It seems to me that if anything has extension, or is solid, then it must be infinitely divisible. But I don't see why that's a problem.

It’s not a problem because our sense of touch is still able to feel the solidity of everyday objects.

Solidity after all is just a type of highly dense gas in its solid form, the fact that we’re able to feel it confirms that solidness and matter do exist.

But even if one was to doubt it one could simply bring up the matter energy equivalence that states that energy = matter

You see how educated people twist themselves in knots trying to answer a simple question? There is no "solid". There is no matter or fields or particles. It's all just a dream. Idealism solves so much and asks so little.