2 ms·
I'm intrigued by this thought exercise! If it doesn't depart too much from the analogy, what is the lake (water below the surface, under the field) and what is
by chrisjc 4y ago
I'm intrigued by this thought exercise!
If it doesn't depart too much from the analogy, what is the lake (water below the surface, under the field) and what is above the field?
Are we supposed to assume that the water below the surface is inside the field, and above the surface is outside of the field?
What is the non-exceptional form of the particle, or thing that makes up the particle? I guess this is the essence of your analogy, and your point is that we've spent so much time trying to identify this thing as a particle, we can't yet answer this question?
Or have I now dissolved the analogy by taking it too literally?
- narag 4y agoIf it doesn't depart too much from the analogy, what is the lake (water below the surface, under the field) and what is above the field? More than what it is, the question is what properties does it have. Anyway the object of interest is the surface. What is the non-exceptional form of the particle, or thing that makes up the particle? The surface.
- dvh 4y agoThe field is the "deeper truth", the particles are the second hand tidbits of information, it's like trying to understand marriage only from the jokes instead of marriage itself.
- chrisjc 4y agoYeah, totally get that. Was trying to understand what was inside (water) and outside (air) the field to help me start thinking about what the field (surface) might be.