Maybe all particles are basically massless. Maybe them interacting renders mass. — EugeneW

This would be very strange, because "interactions" are explained in terms of the fundamental property of mass, inertia, according to Newton's first law. Now you are proposing a type of "interaction" which is completely free from Newton's first law. This would mean "interactions" involving no mass, the consequences of which, mass and its primary feature inertia, are created from nothing ("nothing" being whatever things that are not subject to Newton's first law).

Well, they have unreal properties. Or rather, non-intuitive properties. — EugeneW

Yes. But that paradoxical description reminds me of the bible verse : "by their fruits ye shall know them". In the case of sub-atomic particles -- especially Virtual particles -- we only know them by their properties. So, if their properties are "unreal" or "non-intuitive", why call them "real". That seems to undermine our commonsense understanding of Reality. I suspect that they are treated as-if real, because the logical alternative label would be "Ideal". And that name could imply a ghostly figment of imagination. Hence not kosher for a scientific concept.

However, I prefer to think of Ideal Concepts in terms of Information Theory. Not just Shannon's reductive definition of empty carriers of abstract data, but the more general notion of "Information" as meaning in a mind. From that perspective, a Virtual Particle would be the mathematical definition of a possible thing in terms of Potential physical properties. But "possibility" is not a physical state, it's a mental inference. And I'm trying to make sense of that not-quite physical state as a philosophical concept.

It seems that a Virtual Particle exists only in a statistical sense, as a fractional or uncertain reality : e.g. 50% probability of being detected under specified conditions. In more vernacular terms, VP exists as a prediction of a future state. In it's current un-real state, it is not measurable. So, I conclude that VP exists only as an idea in the mind of a mathematician. And it's that Ideal state that I'm trying to label as "non-physical reality". The idea of VP certainly exists in our world, but it has no physical properties. What would you call that non-physical Mental kind of existence? :smile:

What is Information? :
Information is stimuli that has meaning in some context for its receiver.
https://searchsqlserver.techtarget.com › definition › infor...

Probability is a mathematical language used to discuss uncertain events and probability plays a key role in statistics.
https://www.stat.uci.edu/what-is-statistics/

Ideality :
In Plato’s theory of Forms, he argues that non-physical forms (or ideas) represent the most accurate or perfect reality. Those Forms are not physical things, but merely definitions or recipes of possible things. What we call Reality consists of a few actualized potentials drawn from a realm of infinite possibilities.
1. Materialists deny the existence of such immaterial ideals, but recent developments in Quantum theory have forced them to accept the concept of “virtual” particles in a mathematical “field”, that are not real, but only potential, until their unreal state is collapsed into reality by a measurement or observation. To measure is to extract meaning into a mind. [Measure, from L. Mensura, to know; from mens-, mind]
2. Some modern mathematicians find that scenario to be intriguingly similar to Plato’s notion that ideal Forms can be realized, i.e. meaning extracted, by knowing minds. For the purposes of this blog, “Ideality” refers to an infinite pool of potential (equivalent to a quantum field), of which physical Reality is a small part.
BothAnd Blog Glossary

Mathematical platonism is any metaphysical account of mathematics that implies mathematical entities exist, that they are abstract, and that they are independent of all our rational activities.
https://iep.utm.edu/mathplat/

Well, if a number of massless particles form a bound state, you have concentrated energy, i.e. mass.

I think that to properly interact, real particles have to tap into the pool (by means of their charge) of potential changes in motion. Because the motions involved are infinite the virtual pool has to deliver infinite possibilities of momenta and energy (or positions and times). Virtual particles encompass all energies and momenta needed for the interaction at hand. :smile:

Because the motions involved are infinite the virtual pool has to deliver infinite possibilities of momenta and energy (or positions and times). Virtual particles encompass all energies and momenta needed for the interaction at hand. :smile: — EugeneW

I don't understand your use of "momenta". Momentum requires mass. All these virtual particles with infinite possibilities, doesn't produce any mass.

Virtual photons can transfer momentum and energy. Independently (not on mass shell).

Momentum is a property of a body with mass. Photons have no mass. Photons do not transfer momentum.

Yes, so it seems. But their energy is their momentum. A virtual photon can have independent values of both though. That's why it's called virtual.

Virtual photons can transfer momentum and energy. Independently (not on mass shell). — EugeneW

I found that statement puzzling. But, I'm not qualified to comment on such technicalities that are way over my head. So, I Googled the first phrase above, and got this article on various "virtual" questions. It shows a Feynman diagram of a "a virtual photon, which transfers momentum from one to the other." Yet that "tidy" explanation is followed by a "but" clause.

The impression I got was that Actual particles act like bullets (to transmit momentum), but Virtual particles seem to transfer momentum in some other manner. The physical bullet metaphor is intuitive, but the non-physical non-bullet analogy is a mystery to me. It implies that a VP is like a bullet, except when it's not. You seem to be more knowledgeable on VP topics. Can you elucidate? :smile:

Some Frequently Asked Questions About Virtual Particles :
This is a seemingly tidy explanation. Forces don't happen because of any sort of action at a distance, they happen because of virtual particles that spew out of things and hit other things, knocking them around. But this is misleading. Virtual particles are really not just like classical bullets.
https://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Quantum/virtual_particles.html

Energy, Momentum and Mass-Shell :
Let us state here clearly, to avoid confusion, that when we speak of the mass of a particle we always mean the mass measured when the particle is at rest, not the apparent mass when it moves at high energy.
http://www.hep.fsu.edu/~wahl/artic/physics/VeltmanPartphys/9789812563026_0005.pdf
Q--- Does a Virtual Particle have rest mass?

Reposted from the Infinity & Nonphysicalism thread

There are no actual infinities; there are no physical infinities. In other words, our minds, having developed the idea of infinity, nonphysical, itself must be, either in part or in whole, nonphysical. — Agent Smith

When you say "there are no actual infinities" I assume you mean that we space-time humans have no sensory experience of unboundedness. Everything in our evolving world is finite & temporary. That's why the notion of spacelessness & timelessness seemed absurd to early philosophers. However, as a useful mathematical concept, we no longer have a problem with the idea of Infinity, or of Zero : nothingness.

Similar absurd, but serviceable, ideas are also encountered in Quantum Theory. For example, a Virtual Particle can be substituted for a Real Particle in calculations. So, some physicists will confidently assert that a VP is just as "real" as an ordinary particle. I guess they mean that a non-physical bit of mind-stuff is mathematically interchangeable with a physical speck of matter. Yet, they may not accept some non-mathematical philosophical notions (e.g. metaphors) as equivalent, in a thought experiment, to a physical object.

"Infinity" and "Virtual Particle" are both abstract non-physical mental metaphors serving as a stand-in for Real Things. Likewise, Plato's notion of "Forms", somehow existing in an Ideal Realm, is metaphorical. It's useful as a philosophical tool for understanding the difference between Potential Perfection and Actual Imperfection. But, in what sense does an Idea exist? It's like Potential Voltage of a battery, impotent until put into circulation, i.e. a circuit from Possible to Actual. The notion of "Eternal Forms" may seem non-sensical, unless you take the concept of Potential seriously.

That's why Materialists think, "if it's not physical, it's literally inconsequential". But they seem to forget the power of Potential. An idea locked in a mind, may be useless. But once in circulation, as a Meme, an idea (whose time has come) may be more powerful than Putin's armies. Am I correct, in assuming that you had something like that in mind by labeling the "idea of infinity" as "non-physical"? "Infinity" is an unrealized Platonic Form, which serves as a repository of Potential for "Time", which has not always existed. :smile:

PS___Sorry, because of the on-going "Non-Physical" thread, I may have gone-off your un-bounded map in a different direction. :wink:

“Nothing else in the world…not all the armies…is so powerful as an idea whose time has come.” – Victor Hugo,

The Absurdity of Infinity :
don’t let anyone tell you that mathematics models the real world exactly, or is an empirical science, or, at its core, is an “applied” subject. It simply isn’t, and never will be.
https://wanderingmathematician.wordpress.com/2018/08/10/the-absurdity-of-infinity/

THE CASE AGAINST INFINITY :
mathematicians should abandon the use of infinity in making calculations in favor of a
more logically consistent alternative. . . . Fortunately, such a concept is available to us—a concept called indefiniteness.
https://philpapers.org/archive/SEWTCA

CYCLIC TIME . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . BEGININGLESS & ENDLESS INFINITY

THE CASE AGAINST INFINITY :
mathematicians should abandon the use of infinity in making calculations in favor of a
more logically consistent alternative. . . . Fortunately, such a concept is available to us—a concept called indefiniteness. — Gnomon

Try considering "infinity" in this way Gnomon. It is a principle established for the purpose of allowing us to measure anything, or everything. There can be no quantity greater than what we can count, because we allow the numbers to continue indefinitely. Further, any quality which can be quantified, such as spatial extension, size, will be measurable, because we allow this principle, that numbers can extend beyond any physical thing. Therefore any, and every physical thing is deemed as measurable, because of this principle, numbers are infinite.

Now in modern mathematics, axioms have been produced which attempt to make infinity itself something which can be measured. But since "infinite" is correctly attributed to the tool by which we measure, allowing anything and everything to be measurable, and we now make it a thing being measured, we effectively create a thing which cannot be measured, infinity itself. Infinity is something which the mathematical axioms pretend to measure, but which really cannot be measured (this is the sophistry of the mathemagjicians).

That infinity cannot be measured is demonstrable logically. The first proposed infinite measuring system, the natural numbers for example, would require a larger infinite measuring system, to measure it. This would thwart the first infinite measuring system's capacity to measure anything, with the proposition that there is something larger, which by definition, it cannot measure, i.e. the system larger than the infinite system, proposed as the means to measure the infinite system. Now the meaning and purpose of "infinite", as the tool which can measure anything, is lost, because we now assume that the infinite numbers cannot measure everything, because there is something bigger which measures it.

This produces the principle that there is always something bigger than the measuring system applied, something which cannot be measured by that measuring system, a bigger measuring system, and our measuring capacity to measure everything, has been thwarted. We have posited the principle that our measuring system is not big enough, by allowing that it can, itself, be measured by a bigger system. So this is a new feature of any measuring system, subject to that axiom, it can be measured by a bigger system. Therefore we always have to come up with a new system to measure the last. So there is always a need to produce bigger and bigger infinities in an attempt to measure everything, and we proceed toward an infinite regress of larger and larger infinities, measuring systems. In reality, the definition of "infinite" has been altered, to switch it from a principle which allows us to measure anything, to make it something which can be measured, when we haven't provided ourselves with the tool to measure it. And of course this is self-defeating.

You think therefore a nonphysical reality exists.
It is the seed that springs forth physical reality
It is the place that people dwell when they stress about things or have ideas about things
It is the place where the imagination is God and nothing is more powerful than it.

What's your avatar? I love it!

Try considering "infinity" in this way Gnomon. It is a principle established for the purpose of allowing us to measure anything, or everything. There can be no quantity greater than what we can count, because we allow the numbers to continue indefinitely. — Metaphysician Undercover

In that sense, "Infinity" may be used in a similar manner to "Googolplex", or my tongue-in-cheek usage of "Zillions". :joke:

A googolplex is the number 10googol, or equivalently, 10(10100) or 1010,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 .

Zillions :
an extremely large number of people or things.

Since the OP cannot answer this , I'll have to fend for myself just for the sake of this discussion (with myself):

"Non-physical", to my mind, suggests some X that cannot be modelled or measured and which lacks any causal relation – interaction – with every physical Z.

"Reality", to my mind, suggests some subject/pov/language/gauge-invariant (i.e. objective) causal system.

I just can't shake the oxymoronic sense of the term "non-physical reality" proposed in the OP, and therefore the 6 pages of mostly incoherent gibberish which has followed.

"Non-physical", to my mind, suggests some X that cannot be modelled or measured and which lacks any causal relation – interaction – with every physical Z.

I am in love with Susan. Susan is in love with me. Consequent to our love, we do a lot of things in physical reality, many of which we would never do in physical reality should we lack love.

To me the existence of non-physical real things is proven by their causal links to physical reality. And it is a two-way causation: physical reality potentially causes changes in non-physical reality, and non-physical reality potentially causes changes in physical reality.

I just can't shake the oxymoronic sense of the term "non-physical reality" proposed in the OP, and therefore the 6 pages of mostly incoherent gibberish which has followed. — 180 Proof

It's oxymoronic and gibberish only when you speak a language which uses the word reality as a synonym for physical world. Reality contains more than what physics tells us though. The non-psychal reality is an epiphenomenon. It's contingent to or emerging from magic reality. If I love Suzan, where is the physical reality of that feeling. It's a wise comment made by forum member godmustbeanatheist (if there are more gods they might be theists in love).

Reality contains more than what physics tells us though. — EugeneW

Maybe. How do you know this to be the case?

How do you know this to be the case? — 180 Proof

I'm part of reality. Wtf are D-Kers? Is it a D-cherry?

So you don't know, lil D-Ker. :ok:

I have searched for lil D-ker. Is it Crosby?

The first proposed infinite measuring system, the natural numbers for example, would require a larger infinite measuring system, to measure it. — Metaphysician Undercover

(Power set)

Embedded in the rationals embedded in the reals. Not so much going bigger above than counting more points between natural numbers.

But your analysis is interesting.

But your analysis is interesting. — jgill

It's my opinion. There is a fundamental needlessness when mathematics employs multiple infinities. We might say that a thing could be infinite in this respect, and infinite in another respect, but quantitative is one category, so there is really no need for numerous quantitative infinities.

For example, if there is an infinite number of points between any two points, then why would there be a need for another infinite number of points between each one of those points between the two points. That's basic redundancy. And to say that the second bunch of infinities, the infinity of infinities, is somehow different from the first infinity, really makes no sense.

What is the definition of a causal relationship in these definitions?

Nonsubjectivity as a criteria would appear to make many theories in quantum foundations non-physical. But it certainly seems the physical can't be both local and objective due to expirments in Bell Inequalities. For example: https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.aaw9832

For example, if there is an infinite number of points between any two points — Metaphysician Undercover

It's the question if this is the case.

I'm not followingg you ...

In QM by "observer" I understand measurement apparatus (re: interaction of different systems).and not "consciousness"..

In QM by "observer" I understand measurement apparatus (re: interaction of different systems).and not "consciousness — 180 Proof

Then you understand it wrongly. That's exactly what not is meant. An observer is always conscious. An apparatus stays in superposition till an observer looks at it.

And "conscious observer1" is also in superposition until "conscious observer2" looks at her and 'conscious observer2" is also in superposition until "conscious observer3" looks at him and
so on ... ad infinitum? :roll:

Exactly! Wigner's friend and all that. Only hidden variables offer a realistic escape. Objective collapse.

:sparkle: You wouldn't recognize a question-begging infinite regress if it bit you on the tuchus, woild you? (Rhetoruc question, Mr. D-K.)