Some philosophical science bullshit

There should be something smaller than quarks right? The existence of the phrase "There will always be a bigger fish" implies the existence of "There will always be smaller fish." So does this mean there should be something smaller than quarks that we cannot observe yet due to the fact that we dont have powerful equipment yet? Or does it just end there, quarks being the very base of everything?

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68

Rise, Grind, Banana Find Shirt $21.68

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68

  1. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Strings, apparently

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      What does strings even mean, im still new to broader shit like this so i may sound like a dumbass right now

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        don't pay any attention to it, its all fake and gay. its a bunch of schizo israelites engaging in glosolalia and trying to pretend they're too intelligent to be understood.

        https://i.imgur.com/zjwf5sg.jpg

        There should be something smaller than quarks right? The existence of the phrase "There will always be a bigger fish" implies the existence of "There will always be smaller fish." So does this mean there should be something smaller than quarks that we cannot observe yet due to the fact that we dont have powerful equipment yet? Or does it just end there, quarks being the very base of everything?

        it has been proved that the degeneracy limits of quarks aren't calculable, which means that there is no limit and quarks cannot be broken down further under any circumstance

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          I just did further research, quarks cannot be broken down yes, but many have had questions the same as mine, who knows for sure what if infinity truly is what makes everything up? There already are theories about something bigger than our universe and the existence of multiple of them, but we are proved incapable to break down what a quark is made of due to technological handicap. I dont really think we will get there soon but i do hope we find out soon.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Has all possible physical experiments been performed to prove that or is this more unfounded theoretical guesswork?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            High chance its theoretical guesswork, we dont have the technology yet to prove shit but we do know for a fact quarks are what make up neutrons and protons

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >don't pay any attention to it, its all fake and gay. its a bunch of schizo israelites engaging in glosolalia and trying to pretend they're too intelligent to be understood.
          if this was true it would be as limited and marginal as french existentialism. instead it has a spooky power to explain what shouldnt be explainable in a way that can be supported by experiment.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        String theory. Basically 12 dimensions of something lead to spacetime and quarks or fields.

        https://i.imgur.com/zjwf5sg.jpg

        There should be something smaller than quarks right? The existence of the phrase "There will always be a bigger fish" implies the existence of "There will always be smaller fish." So does this mean there should be something smaller than quarks that we cannot observe yet due to the fact that we dont have powerful equipment yet? Or does it just end there, quarks being the very base of everything?

        The bigger smaller fish, or turtles all the way down idea plays on no matter how far you go, you can just build on top of that. Even if quarks were the smallest, we'd just play with it to the point we'd make something smaller to our ends.

  2. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >There should be something smaller than quarks right?
    Your intellect

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Frick you
      But unmoron for a sec is it possible for something smaller than quarks? It is an elementary particle after all but i cannot begin to fathom how it does not have something making it up

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        > is it possible for something smaller than quarks?
        Sure. But we have no evidence for it.

  3. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >some guy makes an anecdote
    >because of this the opposite of the anecdote has to be true AND it demolishes physics
    Absolutely brilliant argument

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      In philosophy, one cannot exist without the other, that alone is the balance of the universe. So by nature there should be something smaller, we can only get so far through theories that it just ends at quarks, but in the case of what if IT WAS true that there was something smaller?

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        If you presume that a smaller thing exists then it logically follows that there's something smaller. It's quite easy to solve philosophy when it's like this.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Idk man, i just like to think, and i wonder what that smaller thing looks like too

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Check out

            [...]

            You don't have to pretend what you think is scientific there.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Wilco, but i might as well stay here cause im still scratching my head at whatever possible thing can make up a quark

  4. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I think that there is nothing limiting a photon from getting arbitrarily small.

  5. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    It seems absurd for there to be no last turtle, but it seems more absurd for there to actually be a last turtle.

  6. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    there already is a biggest fish tho op...

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      There could be something bigger too, so i dont see how we cant find something smaller.

      It seems absurd for there to be no last turtle, but it seems more absurd for there to actually be a last turtle.

      As much as the existence of a smaller turtle is absurd, it is only infinity that makes everything up; just like numbers, they never end, and they never also start from something completely, only focusing on one area then expanding upon, so the same could be true for our beings itself

  7. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous
  8. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    for practical purposes philosophy uses something called conceptual atoms

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Doesnt that just make up what a chemical is

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *