more from this thinker | more from this text
Full Idea
A physicist once told me that of course a gold atom was a piece of gold, and a physical chemist has assured me that the smallest possible piece of gold would have to be composed of sixteen or seventeen atoms.
Gist of Idea
Is one atom a piece of gold, or is a sizable group of atoms required?
Source
Peter van Inwagen (Material Beings [1990], 01)
Book Ref
Inwagen,Peter van: 'Material Beings' [Cornell 1995], p.17
A Reaction
The issue is at what point all the properties that we normally begin to associate with gold begin to appear. One water molecule can hardly have a degree of viscosity or liquidity.
| 17399 | Elements don't survive in compounds, but the 'substance' of the element does [Mendeleev] |
| 17559 | Is one atom a piece of gold, or is a sizable group of atoms required? [Inwagen] |
| 7036 | The real natural properties are sparse, but there are many complex properties [Heil] |
| 17476 | Elements survive chemical change, and are tracked to explain direction and properties [Hendry] |
| 17477 | Defining elements by atomic number allowed atoms of an element to have different masses [Hendry] |
| 17398 | 19th C views said elements survived abstractly in compounds, but also as 'material ingredients' [Scerri] |
| 17418 | It is now thought that all the elements have literally evolved from hydrogen [Scerri] |
| 21200 | An 'element' is what cannot be decomposed by chemistry [Martin,BR] |
| 17467 | Isotopes (such as those of hydrogen) can vary in their rates of chemical reaction [Weisberg/Needham/Hendry] |