sci.physics.electromag

On Wed, 19 Mar 2008, PD wrote:

[cut]
> In this spirit, fields have properties just like baseballs and
> neutrinos and banana peels have: they carry momentum, charge(s),
> energy, and so on. Thus they are as real as baseballs and neutrinos
> and banana peels.
[cut]
> continuous treatment is completely consistent with observation.
> Because the choice of the observation is so tightly coupled with the
> properties being examined, the collection of properties may cast a
> changing or chimeric perspective on the underlying "reality" of the
> field. Since we can't really deduce any reality other than the
> properties we used to characterize it, we have to live with the
> chimera, and I don't really think that is an intolerable or
> fundamentally flawed world view.

I don't find it intolerable. It's interesting, even. Given that it seems
to be the best we can do at the moment, and perhaps forever, I don't see
it, as a world view, any more fundamentally flawed than the world itself.
Which is to say, not at all.

However, some might think it's a very negative philosophy, a
philosophy of ignorance. But, while, along with the fact that all theories
in physics are potentially subject to revision, it means that in some
fundamental sense, we know very little, to focus on this is to ignore the
very large amount that we do know. So what if there's always uncertainty?
That's opportunity to discover, revise, correct, and contribute!

--
Timo Nieminen - Home page: http://www.physics.uq.edu.au/people/nieminen/
E-prints: http://eprint.uq.edu.au/view/person/Nieminen,_Timo_A..html
Shrine to Spirits: http://www.users.bigpond.com/timo_nieminen/spirits.html