• Gregory

    I agree that the physical field is real and that our imagery of quantum fields have no relation to what they look like to "God". A real field or meadow IS a quantum field that is not isolated by science. What an isolated atom looks like I have no idea
  • Gnomon
    I agree that the physical field is real . . . What an isolated atom looks like I have no ideaGregory
    May I suggest that the imaginary mathematical fields of Physics represent an invisible Ideality underlying Reality. The fields themselves are abstract & ideal, definitions with no actual physical properties, only mathematical values. Yet physicists treat them as-if the models are real --- as-if the map is the terrain. :smile:

    PS___Mathematics is itself an abstraction of reality, minus all the physical stuff.

    Ideality :
    In Plato’s theory of Forms, he argues that non-physical forms (or ideas) represent the most accurate or perfect reality. Those Forms are not physical things, but merely definitions or recipes of possible things. What we call Reality consists of a few actualized potentials drawn from a realm of infinite possibilities.
    BothAnd Blog Glossary,

    Here's a magnified photo of a single atom. How would you describe it in words?
  • Gregory

    We can't smell, taste, hear, or touch an atom so it's hard to say what it is in itself. We would have to be much smaller ourselves to know.

    Ideally or the physical? That question is what philosophy is all about
  • Gnomon
    Ideally or the physical? That question is what philosophy is all aboutGregory
    True. Philosophy is about Ideas, while Physics is about "real" things. The original hypothetical concept of a modern Atom was a miniature solar system. Then it was portrayed as a tiny cloud of electrical potential. Now, that foggy fuzz (virtual particle) is imagined as an empty place in space (abstract field) where electro-magnetic events may or may not happen. But, regardless of the philosophical postulations, scientists continue to manipulate things they can't see, for practical purposes. It's like the concept of Energy, no one knows what it is, but only what it does. Theorists are shooting in the dark, while empiricists are making the darkness jump through hoops. :nerd:

    The term “atom” was coined in ancient Greece and gave rise to the school of thought known as “atomism”. However, this theory was more of a philosophical concept than a scientific one.
  • Gregory

    The atom now has been found through experimentation, thru the senses. Empiricism comes in different forms. Most agree that taste is in the tongue and not in the apple. So some will say tasting gives knowledge, and others not. I don't see how reason can prove something external to the universe since we are equipped to understand while within the universe
  • Gnomon
    I don't see how reason can prove something external to the universe since we are equipped to understand while within the universeGregory
    There are two basic meanings of "to prove" : 1. by evidence or 2. by argument. Scientists prove the existence of invisible physical objects, like neutrinos, by inference from circumstantial evidence, such as wispy trails left behind in a cloud chamber by unseen motes of matter. Philosophers prove the "existence" of metaphysical concepts, like Qualia, by logical syllogisms, derived from observations of behavior, or from intuitive axioms.

    We cannot scientifically prove anything "external to the physical universe", such as Metaverses, Parallel Worlds, or a pre-bang magical Inflationary Instant. Those are imaginary or hypothetical, abstract mathematical extrapolations from known characteristics of the sensible aspects of Nature. That's because, unlike animals, humans can imagine things that do not exist in this place & time -- that are not Real, but Ideal. And philosophers, especially, specialize to hypothesize about unseen (hyper-sensory) things that are preter-natural. For example, the Greek theory of minuscule Atoms, was not a scientific observation, but a seemingly logical necessity to explain the physical objects we can see & touch. And intelligent people believed in such unseen things for several thousand years, based on inference, not evidence.

    In a similar manner, some ancient & modern philosophers have deduced the logical necessity for a First Cause (or Creator) that exists external to the Effect or Creation. It's simply a matter of mental framing. If you look closely at a billiard table, you will see balls of hard stuff, moving around and interacting, as-if they had a mission. But only if you widen your scope to look external to the table, will you see the original Cause of that seemingly deliberate behavior : a pool shooter, with the intention of moving those balls into pockets without actually touching them.

    "Potential" and "Contingency" are concepts, not real here & now things. They are rational inferences from many observations over extended time. All we can say is that such Qualia must exist in some sense, if we are to make sense of the dynamic world around us. Is that proof enough for you . . . as a philosopher? :nerd:

    Neutrino :
    The neutrino is perhaps the best-named particle in the Standard Model of Particle Physics: it is tiny, neutral, and weighs so little that no one has been able to measure its mass. . . . . Theorists predicted the neutrino’s existence in 1930, but it took experimenters 26 years to discover the particle.

    Preternatural : beyond what is normal or natural.

    To infer : to form an opinion from physical or logical premises


  • Gnomon
    Gnomon, which, IME, renders your "Enformationism" mere pseudo-science rationalized by sophistry (i.e. cherry-picked citations from scientific literature that only rationalize and do not corroborate your so-called "theories").180 Proof
    You accuse me of "sophistry" whenever I make philosophical arguments instead of providing conventional scientific facts to prove my point. You also portray me as a Mystic, because I talk a lot about Meta-Physics instead of Physics. As I have noted before, if this was a Physics forum, your imputation might have merit. But since we are dialoging on The Philosophy Forum, your assertions miss their mark. And they seem more like "Sophistry" (rhetoric of persuasion focused on winning arguments instead of converging on Truth). So, there. I can lob labels too. But name-calling is not a philosophical argument. :joke:

    PS__Are you expecting me to give-up and say "uncle"? Labels & Liables may tar my reputation, but they will never break my "spirit". :wink:

    Philosophy vs Sophistry - What's the difference? :
    difference between philosophy and sophistry. is that philosophy is an academic discipline that seeks truth through reasoning rather than empiricism while sophistry is cunning, sometimes manifested as trickery.
  • Gregory

    Instead of a first cause as a substance, I believe in the world as an entity that had a first motion. A first motion results in the next and so on, an eternal free fall of causality
  • Gregory

    I would add that the universe doesn't have to see for us to see (and have purpose)
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.