2 ms·

If you genuinely find that interpretation of my statement plausible then I don't really have anything to add.

• thaumasiotes 6y ago
  Here's your statement: > And it's pretty disingenuous to go out of your way to take quarks to mean what he called atoms just so you can claim he's wrong. You can try to identify atoms by his description of them, in which case you'd have to choose fundamental particles. But you've already explicitly chosen to interpret Democritus' "atoms" as identical with our "atoms", despite the fact that they do not exhibit any of the characteristics Democritus described. What can I conclude except that you think Democritus, in the past, named his concept after ours, in the future?