Chronology Current Month Current Thread Current Date
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Prev] [Date Next]

Re: are fields real?

On Sat, 11 Mar 2000, Cliff Parker wrote:

... whatever "real" means.

Larry

This is a REAL important part of your question.

Hey, I was just haranguing someone about this yesterday. If we assume
that the real world is only accessable through our physics concepts
(mental models), and without them it is indecipherable noise, then IN A
SENSE, mental models are real, and the outside world is not. I mean, our
experience of reality is an experience of mental models, and all models
have limits and introduce bias. There is a real world out there, but we
can never make direct contact. We only see the output of our "filters".
We might believe that our filters only slightly distort reality, but
that's because we cannot remove them. Take off your "reading" glasses and
the stop signs suddenly look like "RYCB! Taking off ALL of our "glasses"
does not remove distortion, instead it reduces us to the perceptual state
of a newborn infant.

Some people emphasize the "realness" of the world, and this makes them
cling to individual models, as if the biased creations of those models
were the only reality (only photons are real, therefore fields are JUST an
abstract concept. Or sometimes the reverse.) They look for the "one
right answer." Modern schooling (i.e. TESTING) reinforces this viewpoint
tremendously. An A+ student is a "one right answer" expert.

Other people are on the opposite end of the spectrum, and practice "Zen
physics": seeing the perceived world as an illusion. For them, the
greater number of alternate models they can accumulate in their toolkits,
the better they can "see" reality. They know that neither fields nor
particles are "real," and only a toolkit where both fields and particles
can coexist will lead to a sane situation.

The two opposite philosophies cause endless warfare. HEAT IS A USEFUL
ENTITY! No, it's NOT REAL!!! CIRCULATION IS THE ONLY *PROPER* MODEL OF
AERODYNAMIC LIFT! ARRRG, DIE BLASPHEMER DIE! (Well, the latter part
*usually* only appears on the newsgroups.)

:)

"PHYS-L" is only a useful unifying concept for a multifaceted phenomenon
which resists single-viewpoint analysis. The same is true of "Bill
Beaty". Both are concepts, neither is real. Something is out there, but
we cannot see it directly, and we usually forget that when we use one
viewpoint/tool, we've put the other one back in the toolkit. Unless we
have several independant ways of looking at a piece of physics, we haven't
even begun to understand it (begun to "see" it,) but we cannot use all our
tools at once. This ends up making EM look like waves *OR* particles.

Which philosophy is better? Right answers certainly go far, and experts
in their use can do amazing things. However, creating NEW science is not
one of them. I think the focusing on grading/testing tends to hurt the
sciences by rewarding "one right answer" and selecting out "unhabitual
perceivers." The balance has shifted too far.

"Genius in truth means little more than the faculty of perceiving
in an unhabitual way." - William James


((((((((((((((((((((( ( ( ( ( (O) ) ) ) ) )))))))))))))))))))))
William J. Beaty SCIENCE HOBBYIST website
billb@eskimo.com http://www.amasci.com
EE/programmer/sci-exhibits science projects, tesla, weird science
Seattle, WA 206-781-3320 freenrg-L taoshum-L vortex-L webhead-L