3 ms·

> We're getting further and further away from everyday experience, and so more and more of the fundamentals of reality have to be understood from mathematical f

> We're getting further and further away from everyday experience, and so more and more of the fundamentals of reality have to be understood from mathematical first principles rather than everyday intuition. How much of that is an insistence on thinking of things in terms of fundamental particles and definitive properties instead of fields and packets of energy? I guess the question is that what the mathematical models are really about, and whether we're just having a hard time shrugging off Greek atomism and 19th century materialism when it comes to intuition? Intuition could be built on top of a solid understanding of fields, backed by the math. The difficult part is connecting that to the classical world of our size that we experience.

lmm 7y ago
> How much of that is an insistence on thinking of things in terms of fundamental particles and definitive properties instead of fields and packets of energy? I guess the question is that what the mathematical models are really about, and whether we're just having a hard time shrugging off Greek atomism and 19th century materialism when it comes to intuition? I don't think it's "Greek atomism and 19th century materialism" to imagine a world made of persistent physical objects in well-defined positions. That's the entirety of everyday life.
- goatlover 7y ago
  Consider the competing ontological views: everything is made up of water, the five elements, everything is a sphere, the world is a simulation, everything is ideas being perceived by the mind, the world is matter formed by the ideal forms, etc. Those views were prominent among certain intellectuals at different times which go against the grain of everyday experience. Since physicists are trying to understand the fundamental nature of the world, I take it they're used to not accepting appearance as a guide, and are rather operating under whatever philosophical intuition is dominant at the time. Since 19th century physics confirmed the existence of atoms, and the periodic able of ordinary matter is made up of atomic bonds, then it makes since that physicists have been influenced by that guiding intuition. Regardless, fields are probably a better building block for intuition than particles.

lmm 7y ago

> How much of that is an insistence on thinking of things in terms of fundamental particles and definitive properties instead of fields and packets of energy? I guess the question is that what the mathematical models are really about, and whether we're just having a hard time shrugging off Greek atomism and 19th century materialism when it comes to intuition? I don't think it's "Greek atomism and 19th century materialism" to imagine a world made of persistent physical objects in well-defined positions. That's the entirety of everyday life.

goatlover 7y ago
Consider the competing ontological views: everything is made up of water, the five elements, everything is a sphere, the world is a simulation, everything is ideas being perceived by the mind, the world is matter formed by the ideal forms, etc. Those views were prominent among certain intellectuals at different times which go against the grain of everyday experience. Since physicists are trying to understand the fundamental nature of the world, I take it they're used to not accepting appearance as a guide, and are rather operating under whatever philosophical intuition is dominant at the time. Since 19th century physics confirmed the existence of atoms, and the periodic able of ordinary matter is made up of atomic bonds, then it makes since that physicists have been influenced by that guiding intuition. Regardless, fields are probably a better building block for intuition than particles.