Stars, atoms and electrons are concepts in the same way a ball is: they represents something in reality in a more human friendly or Abstract way, (=conceptual element) that what they are i.e a star is a collection ofv10^128 particles, some of them under going nuclear fussion, a ball is a generslization of plasticity bearing objects of the size that are used by Humans to play
Is there a more adequate definition of what makes a concept that represents physical entities?
And, are these concepts ultimately scientific and independent of human-centered conceptions about reality?
Concepts are abstract entities; in chemistry, for example, we try to explain the world that surrounds us and its transformations through models, since we cannot perceive the atomic/molecular ultramicro reality directly with our senses.
I believe that physical quantities, like Time, Length, Mass... are concepts that help us apprehend the world we live in. Also, I think these concepts could be described in a more precise way. For instance, we know that some of them, like speed are finite and not additive (according to SR). So, what about other entities like space and time? I think they share these properties too. What do you think?
My very crude answer (I am a scientist, not a philosopher): If the question is reduced to "Are concepts ultimately scientific and independent of human-centered conceptions about reality?", it means that you accept that there are ideal concepts in the philosophical sense of idealism. The opposite of idealism is materialism, which states that there is no absolute ideas, just human concepts that are evolving through science.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Phytochemistry
- Extracts