(January 31, 2015 at 5:32 pm)bennyboy Wrote: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.
I'd suggest (strongly) that a particle has a definite position and momentum.
The Uncertainty Principle states that we cannot measure either with arbitrary accuracy without disturbing the other, i.e. we can't know both with certainty.
There is no field other than as a mathematical abstraction in a conscious mind.
No woo is required.
Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
