I was alluding to his burden to make a case, not claiming it to be logical necessity. Sorry if my informal language was misleading. — Relativist

Ah--no problem. I thought you were saying you saw it as a logical (or at least metaphysical) necessity.

And yet it also gets many things right, and therefore it is reasonable to accept much of it as true. — Relativist

OK, I agree with that, physicists get many things right.

QFT is widely accepted by physicists, so if your metaphysics is not consistent with it, you have a burden to show that your assumptions are more likely to be true than QFT. — Relativist

Uh, wait, you're mixing physics with metaphysics here. Any physics ought to be consistent with accepted physics, but why ought metaphysics be consistent with physics? Metaphysics is a distinct subject from physics. If you think that one ought to be consistent with the other, then the burden is on you to demonstrate this. And why shouldn't physics alter their theories to be consistent with metaphysics instead of the inverse, which you are suggesting, that metaphysics ought to be made consistent with physics? I've already told you why physics is obviously wrong, it is rife with contradiction. So my burden has been released. Bye, bye.

You had asserted: "The fundamental particle is the foundation for physical existence, and the field mathematics can be used to represent the possibility for particles, not the real existence of particles."

I pointed out that QFT theorizes that quantum fields, not particles, are fundamental; particles are disturbances in a field (quanta). This paper states:

In its mature form, the idea of quantum field theory is that quantum fields are the basic ingredients of the universe, and particles are just bundles of energy and momentum of the fields. In a relativistic theory the wave function is a functional of these fields, not a function of particle coordinates. Quantum field theory hence led to a more unified view of nature than the old dualistic interpretation in terms of both fields and particles.

QFT explains wave-particle duality. If you treat particles as fundamental, you abandon this explanation and therefore require an alternative explanation. QFT explains the behavior of particle interactions with Schroedinger wave equations. Abandoning the core principle that "field is fundamental" reopens explanatory problems that are treated as already closed by QFT.

I sense you might be trying to claim that fields are just mathematical entities, but this doesn't address field behavior that does not fit a particle paradigm. Perhaps you're only treating classical objects (the stuff of the macro world) as truly "physical" - but this is question begging because the particles themselves are best explained as field quanta.

why ought metaphysics be consistent with physics? Metaphysics is a distinct subject from physics. — Metaphysician Undercover

Metaphysics aims to account for what exists. The best science tells us that quantum fields exist, and they behave per quantum field theory. If you don't account for quantum fields, then your metaphysics is at best incomplete, at worst - it is incoherent.

Metaphysics also deals with causality. QFT describes causality better than any other paradigm. If your metaphysics can't account for the success of QFT, your metaphysics is worthless.

I've already told you why physics is obviously wrong, it is rife with contradiction. — Metaphysician Undercover

You still have to account for what physics gets right. If you treat particles as fundamental, you will get even more wrong than physics does.

And yet it also gets many things right, and therefore it is reasonable to accept much of it as true. — Relativist

I think in this sentence is the crux of many of these discussions. This just shows a faith in the ability of science. To be clear, I think that belief is reasonable- and there is nothing at all wrong with that. I just don't see it as a superior faith belief than theism. I just think it is very common to treat science, and faith in science's ability as the same concept. And they are not.

Metaphysics aims to account for what exists. The best science tells us that quantum fields exist, and they behave per quantum field theory. If you don't account for quantum fields, then your metaphysics is at best incomplete, at worst - it is incoherent. — Relativist

I can very easily account for quantum field theory. It is a complex arrangement of mathematical equations established for the purpose of an attempt to reconcile the fundamental inconsistency between the theory of special relativity, and the empirical observations of quantum mechanics. This inconsistency manifests as the contradiction of wave/particle duality. Since quantum field theory is nothing but a mathematical attempt to cover up a fundamental, underlying contradiction, it is nothing but deception

So you may claim that quantum field theory is "the best science", but it is only "the best" in the sense of its ability to best deceive us, by obscuring this underlying contradiction. Better science would address the contradiction directly, and remove the offending theories, instead of hiding the fundamental contradiction behind a veil of mathematics, and appearance of reconciliation. No amount of effort and mathematical magic can establish the compatibility of a contradiction, it must be dealt with at the source, restructuring the principles which cause it. The attempt to obscure contradiction behind mathematics is nothing more than deception.

I sense you might be trying to claim that fields are just mathematical entities, but this doesn't address field behavior that does not fit a particle paradigm. Perhaps you're only treating classical objects (the stuff of the macro world) as truly "physical" - but this is question begging because the particles themselves are best explained as field quanta. — Relativist

Because they are mathematical entities, fields are not directly observable. Fields are mathematical equations designed to deal with the appearance of particles. QFT is the model, the empirical observations of particles is what is being modeled Therefore "field behaviour" is a misnomer, it just refers to how human beings must adjust their models to deal with the appearances of particles. Fields are manipulated by physicists, they do not actually have any independent behaviour.

You still have to account for what physics gets right. If you treat particles as fundamental, you will get even more wrong than physics does. — Relativist

You haven't provided me with any examples of what physics has gotten right yet, so I have nothing to deal with in that department. I see a fundamental problem which is a failure of physical theories to produce a proper relation between energy existing as waves, and energy existing as moving particles. The physical theories have provided no medium for the existence of waves, and therefore cannot account for the transferral of energy from the particle into the medium (as a wave) and vise versa. To replace the medium with "fields", as if fields have some sort of ontological existence is just to obscure this problem.

Since quantum field theory is nothing but a mathematical attempt to cover up a fundamental, underlying contradiction, it is nothing but deception — Metaphysician Undercover

Quantum mechanics, special relativity, and QFT have been remarkably successful at making predictions. How is that "deceptive"?

Better science would address the contradiction directly, and remove the offending theories, instead of hiding the fundamental contradiction behind a veil of mathematics, and appearance of reconciliation.

QFT DOES resolve wave-particle duality. Since you believe particles are fundamental, how do you explain the dualistic results of double-experiments? QFT mathematically explains the results, and the implication is that this is due to the nature of the stuff (e.g. photons) that is being measured. You are free to account for this meta physically, but if your metaphysics just ignores it, then your metaphysics is falsified.

Because they are mathematical entities, fields are not directly observable. Fields are mathematical equations designed to deal with the appearance of particles. QFT is the model, the empirical observations of particles is what is being modeled. — Metaphysician Undercover

Field EQUATIONS are mathematical entities, and since they accurately predict behavior, they must be describing something that is actually there. If not actual fields, then what?

Fields are manipulated by physicists, they do not actually have any independent behaviour — Metaphysician Undercover

The manipulation of fields has results that are predicted by QFT, such as confirming standard model of particle physics. I'll grant QFT is just a model that can be treated as purely instrumentalist without necessarily buying into the description. I wouldn't object to that, but it would lead to two reasonable options: 1) agnosticism regarding the nature of what QFT is describing; 2) an alternative model that accounts for QFT success. You don't seem to be doing either, since you just toss out the entire theory so you can propose a fiction.

You haven't provided me with any examples of what physics has gotten right yet, — Metaphysician Undercover

Here:
Quantum electrodynamics (QED), quantum field theory of the interactions of charged particles with the electromagnetic field. It describes mathematically not only all interactions of light with matter but also those of charged particles with one another. QED is a relativistic theory in that Albert Einstein’s theory of special relativity is built into each of its equations. Because the behaviour of atoms and molecules is primarily electromagnetic in nature, all of atomic physics can be considered a test laboratory for the theory. Some of the most precise tests of QED have been experiments dealing with the properties of subatomic particles known as muons. The magnetic moment of this type of particle has been shown to agree with the theory to nine significant digits. Agreement of such high accuracy makes QED one of the most successful physical theories so far devised.

And yet it also gets many things right, and therefore it is reasonable to accept much of it as true. — Relativist

I think in this sentence is the crux of many of these discussions. This just shows a faith in the ability of science. To be clear, I think that belief is reasonable- and there is nothing at all wrong with that. I just don't see it as a superior faith belief than theism. I just think it is very common to treat science, and faith in science's ability as the same concept. And they are not. — Rank Amateur

Accepting scientific theory as true doesn't entail faith, it just implies that one can justifiably believe them. But scientific theories must be treated as tentative because they are merely the inference to the best explanation, and the history of science shows that what is CURRENTLY the best explanation tends to change as more information is gathered. I'd be interested in seeing a theist propose a biblical God as inference to best explanation for something.

I'm arguing for the independent existence of God from time in terms of God being equivalent to the Greatest Conceivable Being. — adhomienem

Of course. Time is just an attribute of this physical world.

Michael Ossipoff

I think one needs to be specific in what we mean when we use the term "scientific theory". This from wiki but it will do.

A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world that can be repeatedly tested and verified in accordance with the scientific method, using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and evaluation of results. Where possible, theories are tested under controlled conditions in an experiment.[1][2] In circumstances not amenable to experimental testing, theories are evaluated through principles of abductive reasoning. Established scientific theories have withstood rigorous scrutiny and embody scientific knowledge.[3]

Gravity is a scientific theory, evolution is a scientific theory. I am not in anyway an expert and I may well be wrong, but I do not think QED rises to this level. It may well be a theory, and it may be based on science, but I do think it has yet met the criteria to call it a scientific theory, which has a more precise meaning.

If I am correct, your acceptance of it as true, is as faith based as my theism. Again, there is not a thing wrong with that. It is just an awareness that one can easily get in front of the actual science, based on a strong belief in science.

If I am correct, your acceptance of it as true, is as faith based as my theism. — Rank Amateur

Let's test that.

I trust the instrumentalism of quantum mechanics and quantum field theory - the calculations seem to work. I have no emotional attachment to this belief. If an alternative theory (X) came about with equivalent explanatory scope, I'd alter my belief to "either QFT or alternative X" is true. Is your belief in God like this? I doubt it. I expect you'd continue to believe in God even if there were an alternative with equivalent explanatory scope. Many theists go even further, asserting they'd believe unless God were absolutely disproven. The latter is the most committed type of faith; the former is still more committed than I to my belief about QFT. It is these commitments that distinguish faith from mere belief.

generally I think the usual process is to ask what the other position is, and then argue against it. But your way does save a great deal of time.

.

Quantum mechanics, special relativity, and QFT have been remarkably successful at making predictions. How is that "deceptive"? — Relativist

I already explained how QFT is deceptive, and the fact that you think fields are real things is evidence of the deception. What does prediction have to do with this anyway?

But making successful predictions is a good tool to aid one's capacity to deceive, so I don't see how making predictions is evidence that it's not deception. I could tell you deceptively, that a dragon carries the sun in its mouth, every night from the western horizon to the eastern horizon in the morning. My prediction that the sun will be there in the morning aids my capacity to deceive. The fact that I can predict where and when the sun will be on the horizon tomorrow morning doesn't mean that I know how it got there. And if I use this prediction to support my claim that I know how it got there, when I do not, I am practising deception. Therefore prediction is very useful in deception.

QFT DOES resolve wave-particle duality. — Relativist

Wave-particle duality is contradictory, plain and simple. The same energy cannot travel from one place to another as a wave and also as a particle, that's contradiction, it would have to be one or the other, or something completely different. The fact that you think QFT resolves wave-particle duality is evidence that the deception has been successful.

Since you believe particles are fundamental, how do you explain the dualistic results of double-experiments? — Relativist

I already told you, the theories involved are deficient. They need to be examined, the deficient aspects exposed and discarded. By the way, I don't really believe that particles are fundamental, my point was that physics treats particles as fundamental. It does not treat fields as fundamental, like you claim, because QFT is the model, and the particles are the things modeled. So physics does not treat fields as fundamental, despite the fact that some people like you claim that fields must be fundamental.

Field EQUATIONS are mathematical entities, and since they accurately predict behavior, they must be describing something that is actually there. If not actual fields, then what? — Relativist

Field equations accurately predict the appearance of particles. Therefore what they are describing "that is actually there", is the appearance of particles.

You don't seem to be doing either, since you just toss out the entire theory so you can propose a fiction. — Relativist

I'm not proposing any alternative model so I am not proposing a fiction. I am stating the obvious, that the entire theoretical structure of QFT revolves around a fundamental contradiction, wave-particle duality. What is required is to expose the simple deficiencies in the theories which produce this contradiction (principally the special theory of relativity), not to produce other, very complex theories (QFT) in an attempt to cover up the contradiction.

Quantum mechanics, special relativity, and QFT have been remarkably successful at making predictions. How is that "deceptive"? — Relativist
I already explained how QFT is deceptive — Metaphysician Undercover

The only alleged deception you've stated is wave particle duality. That's pretty silly, because QFT does not assume wave particle duality.

it would have to be one or the other, or something completely different — Metaphysician Undercover

Indeed, and that's exactly what QFT says. So there's not actually a contradiction. I made the mistake of taking you seriously when you mentioned contradictions in physics. There ARE some contradictions in physics - where general relativity breaks down, and quantum theory doesn't apply. I assumed that's what you were talking about. My bad.

But making successful predictions is a good tool to aid one's capacity to deceive, so I don't see how making predictions is evidence that it's not deception. — Metaphysician Undercover

Successful predictions provide a good reason at least to accept an instrumentalist understanding of QFT. The success of a theory in this respect is the exact opposite of a deception.

I already told you, the theories involved are deficient. They need to be examined, the deficient aspects exposed and discarded. — Metaphysician Undercover

The only "deficiency" you've identified is your incorrect assumption that it entails wave-particle duality.

By the way, I don't really believe that particles are fundamental, my point was that physics treats particles as fundamental.

Particles are the building blocks of matter, but the known particles are within the standard model of particle physics. Quantum field theory provides the mathematical framework for the Standard Model, describing the dynamics and kinematics.

Field EQUATIONS are mathematical entities, and since they accurately predict behavior, they must be describing something that is actually there. If not actual fields, then what? — Relativist


Field equations accurately predict the appearance of particles. Therefore what they are describing "that is actually there", is the appearance of particles. — Metaphysician Undercover

It accounts for both the appearance and disappearance of particles. If you dispense with fields, matter/energy is not conserved. Without fields, there's no explanation for vacuum energy.

I'm not proposing any alternative model so I am not proposing a fiction. I am stating the obvious, that the entire theoretical structure of QFT revolves around a fundamental contradiction, wave-particle duality.

So your entire claim seems to hinge in a misconception of yours.

The only "deficiency" you've identified is your incorrect assumption that it entails wave-particle duality. — Relativist

QFT doesn't entail wave-particle duality, it assumes it, as a premise. And if your claim is that QFT renders the particle unreal, and the wave as the only real aspect, then you still have the contradiction of a wave without a medium, and so an inability to say what a particle is (other than a particle). As I said, QFT doesn't resolve the contradiction of wave-particle duality, it only obscures it, hides it behind complex mathematics.

So your entire claim seems to hinge in a misconception of yours. — Relativist

Perhaps you're right, but you have yet to demonstrate that. So it's just an arbitrary and completely unsupported claim.

There ARE some contradictions in physics - where general relativity breaks down, and quantum theory doesn't apply. I assumed that's what you were talking about. My bad. — Relativist

Yes there are many different contradictions in modern physics. At least we agree on something.

QFT doesn't entail wave-particle duality, it assumes it, as a premise. And if your claim is that QFT renders the particle unreal, and the wave as the only real aspect, then you still have the contradiction of a wave without a medium, and so an inability to say what a particle is (other than a particle). As I said, QFT doesn't resolve the contradiction of wave-particle duality, it only obscures it, hides it behind complex mathematics. — Metaphysician Undercover

That's simply not true. Particles are real, but they are not independent billiard balls floating in nothingness. A particle is a wave packet, a segment of the field (often referred to as a "ripple" in the field) - so there's no fundamental duality. The "medium" is the quantum field. Movement of the particle consists of the "ripple" traversing the field:



In the above, the rope is analogous to a field, and the ripple is a particle. (If particles were free standing entities, it would beg the question of a medium). This is why the momentum and position of a particle cannot be measured with infinite precision, as one would expect if it were analogous to a billiard ball. Since a particle is actually a wave, the measurement will be some uncertain point on the wave (imagine measuring the amplitude and wavelength of the above rope ripple). The perceived "duality" is a consequence of measurement.

This is, of course, a realist interpretation of QFT, and therefore it is metaphysical. But it's consistent with the math. You don't have to accept realism, but if your ontology conflicts with the math of QFT (the math that produces the correct predictions) then your ontology clearly conflicts with reality and is falsified.

In the above, the rope is analogous to a field, and the ripple is a particle. (If particles were free standing entities, it would beg the question of a medium). — Relativist

A rope is a physical medium, within which a wave can travel . A wave can only exist in a medium. It's not particles which beg the question of a medium, a particle could move through empty space. It's the wave that begs the question of a medium. By claiming that the particle is not a particle, but a "wave packet", you need a substance for the wave to propagate in, as well as many other problems such as why a wave would move as a packet..

But it's consistent with the math. You don't have to accept realism, but if your ontology conflicts with the math of QFT (the math that produces the correct predictions) then your ontology clearly conflicts with reality and is falsified. — Relativist

As I said, the ability to predict doesn't concern me, it is irrelevant, because it can be used just as easily to support falsehood as it can be used to support truth. The point is that you can make accurate predictions with an incorrect understanding, and incorrect model, of what is happening. The ability to predict says very little about the correctness of the model. Thales successfully predicted a solar eclipse with a model which had the sun, moon, and planets, orbiting the earth. The ability to predict indicates that one applies mathematics in a way which is adequate for making the prediction, it does not indicate that the person understands the phenomenon predicted, nor does it indicate that the model correctly represents the phenomenon. That's why model-dependent realism is popular amongst some, it allows them to say that the correctness of the model is not an issue. Therefore the model might be full of contradictions, and have glaring problems, but so long as it fulfills the conditions, prediction etc., it might just as well be considered as the correct one.

"a particle could move through empty space."
Make a case for this.

As I said, the ability to predict doesn't concern me, it is irrelevant, because it can be used just as easily to support falsehood as it can be used to support truth.

You're missing my point. The measurements are indisputably factual, and the success of the predictions needs to be accounted for. If your metaphysics cannot account for it, then it has a fatal flaw.

You're missing my point. The measurements are indisputably factual, and the success of the predictions needs to be accounted for. If your metaphysics cannot account for it, then it has a fatal flaw. — Relativist

That's nonsense. There is an uncertainty principle which indicates that the measurements are indisputably not factual. That's what the Fourier transform indicates, some measurements cannot be made. If the measurements cannot be made, then whatever it is which takes the place of these measurements cannot be indisputably factual measurements, but are the opposite of this. Furthermore, if you cannot state correctly what it is that is being measured, you cannot claim that the measurements are indisputably factual. What does a wave-function measure?

The capacity to make correct predictions does not require correct measurements, it only requires statistics and probabilities. That's the point with the example of Thales prediction of a solar eclipse. Thales' models of orbits were completely wrong, so he clearly did not have factual measurements, yet he could predict the solar eclipse.

There is an uncertainty principle which indicates that the measurements are indisputably not factual. That's what the Fourier transform indicates, some measurements cannot be made. If the measurements cannot be made, then whatever it is which takes the place of these measurements cannot be indisputably factual measurements, but are the opposite of this. — Metaphysician Undercover

That's absurd. Of course measurements are factual! A measurement is made, and it has certain values. There's an a priori degree of uncertainty in what one measurement will yield, but there's certainty about the distribution of repeated measurements. If your ontology is inconsistent with these results then your ontology is falsified.

I have not read the comments in this read that were posted after your reply to me, so I apologize if I bring up anything that you have already responded to in a separate post.

The GCB would not have a limited attention — adhomienem

This is a difficult concept to grasp, but I'll grant that it seems possible. However, assuming you are speaking about the Christian God, there are many examples of that God in the Bible displaying specific attention and having emotions. This does not necessarily refute your statement; God could have gained this ability or began using this ability that he always had after the beginning of the universe. If that is true, then it seems that, at least after the universe began, God does change. Or, if you contend that God always experiences all emotions, then biblical descriptions of God experiencing emotion are meaningless. You may have no problem granting that implication - I just thought it was worth pointing out.

Without the existence of clocks, time would be immeasurable according to your definition. Immeasurable time, then, leads us back to the same question I posed earlier — adhomienem

I think you misunderstand what I mean by my proposed definition of time - time is not simply the measurement taken by a clock. It is the fundamental unit which a clock can measure. Likewise, length is not just the numbers on a ruler, even though rulers measure length. Length does not disappear when rulers disappear. Time does not disappear when clocks disappear.

I agree that we run into problems attempting to understand timelessness when we ourselves are bound by time. — adhomienem

I'd like to contend that, because we have no way of perceiving anything outside of time and we also have no factual examples of a being existing outside of time, we cannot discover anything meaningful about a being outside time through mere discussion. As every experience that any human has ever had has occurred through the lens of time, we have no way of perceiving something outside of that lens.