Quote: On the other hand, when we speak of an object with the descriptive qualities we typically do, we are describing a phenomenon that exists and does so whether we are looking at it or not. In terms of QM, there many different interpretations so I wouldn't draw a whole lot on any particular one, as idealists often seem to do, but I like the interpretation that particles do not have a definite location until interacted with. That doesn't mean that a field is non-physical, it means that we can only describe its activity in terms of our formalized system.Dealing with QM challenges the imagination severely. I strongly think that those who say they understand QM and parade out formulae don't really get it. (This is not directed at anyone in particular by the way)
If a particle has no definite location, then in what sense does it exist? I'd argue that it represents information-- information about a future relationship or constraint. I would not say a QM field is a "thing," since it has no definable shape, volume, or location (afaik). It is not existent, but is rather a description of what could be existent if "called upon" to be resolved.
In a physical monism, fields are like mysterious ghosts. That's one of the reasons I like idealism: you don't need to orient an idea in space, or establish its volume. You just need to know what potential relationships a "particle" represents.