31–40 of 40 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's no such thing as tables or chairs What do you mean?
As in, if you look at any accepted theory of physics, neither tableness nor chairness appear.
That probably just means our theory of physics (that only explains 4% of the observable universe) is wrong.
There's certainly plenty of common misunderstanding in this, uh, field!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There’s nothing “real” in physics. Everything is a model, and every model is necessarily flawed—otherwise would imply a provably correct, complete formal description of the actual-really-“real”. To obtain that even in theory we would have to observe the real from the outside, which we by definition cannot: we’re necessarily part of what we’re describing, so if we could look at it from the outside all we would get the…
If the model is wrong but pointing out the shape of the real thing that governs everything, it’s still an interesting question as to why anything is being so perfectly governed.
“Are fields real?” is not a bad question! It can’t be answered within the framing of scientific method, but it brings into focus the bigger question of what “being real” might mean.
Are fields real though? If so, they point to a mathematical reality that is non physical.
There’s nothing “real” in physics. Everything is a model, and every model is necessarily flawed—otherwise would imply a provably correct, complete formal description of the actual-really-“real”. To obtain that even in theory we would have to observe the real from the outside, which we by definition cannot: we’re necessarily part of what we’re describing, so if we could look at it from the outside all we would get the…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's no such thing as tables or chairs What do you mean?
If someone sticks a cushion on a beer crate and sits on it, is it a chair? Opinions differ.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It really depends on what you mean by real. Many philosophers have adopted the stance that if a concept provides a useful way to talk about reality, it's real. There's no such thing as tables or chairs, but we consider them real because doing so is useful. By the same token particles are real because they are a really useful way to subdivide reality, even though their appearance is just a consequence of field theory.
There's no such thing as tables or chairs What do you mean?
It’s one of the points I disagreed with him on (his line between “exists” and “not exists” seems arbitrary, like he is forcing a particular layer of abstraction), and it somewhat undermined his bigger argument about the nature of the self in Reasons and Persons.
In some ways, France is more real than people comprising it. In almost every way, a chair is more real than particles or fields that it can be modeled as.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There’s nothing “real” in physics. Everything is a model, and every model is necessarily flawed—otherwise would imply a provably correct, complete formal description of the actual-really-“real”. To obtain that even in theory we would have to observe the real from the outside, which we by definition cannot: we’re necessarily part of what we’re describing, so if we could look at it from the outside all we would get the…
I’m not convinced it’s impossible to model reality from the inside of reality. It’s conceivable to have a model that logically necessitates a reality, maybe with some kind of meta-mathematical bootstrapping mechanism, and some way to prove that your model reality is the same reality as we’re in (eg just as all turing-complete machines are equally powerful, all realities with some properties are equally real).
I don’t see why your approach is not subject to the same limitations.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's no such thing as tables or chairs What do you mean?
If someone sticks a cushion on a beer crate and sits on it, is it a chair? Opinions differ.
Beercrashion: the tendency of some specific wooden structures to serve a peripheral function to some creatures as a comfortable buffer between them and the surface beneath them often called ground.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As in, if you look at any accepted theory of physics, neither tableness nor chairness appear.
Nor does life appear, but that is real. That probably just means our theory of physics (that only explains 4% of the observable universe) is wrong.
Are there fields plural or is there one field singular? My latest check of QFT is that there are 37 fields. This leads me to believe: - There is only 1 undiscovered fundamental field - There are multiple gods and each complains about there being too many fields and how much simpler universe management would be if there was just 1 field and then https://xkcd.com/927