On Wednesday, September 3, 2014 4:15:13 PM UTC+10, benj wrote:

> On 09/02/2014 05:29 PM, Timo wrote:

> > On Wednesday, September 3, 2014 6:24:22 AM UTC+10, benj wrote:

> >> On 09/01/2014 09:21 PM, Timo wrote:

> >>> On Tuesday, September 2, 2014 10:54:50 AM UTC+10, benj wrote:

> >>>> On 09/01/2014 08:28 PM, Timo wrote:

> >>>>> On Tuesday, September 2, 2014 4:53:36 AM UTC+10, benj wrote:

> >>>>>> On 08/31/2014 12:17 AM, Timo wrote:

> >>>>>>> Since you claim that EM fields don't exist, which is it:

> >>>>>>> (a)

> >>>>>>> energy is not conserved (b) energy is carried from point

> >>>>>>> to

> >>>>>>> point by magic (c) energy is carried from point to point

> >>>>>>> by

> >>>>>>> <fill in the blank>

> >>>>>>

> >>>>>> I choose "magic" given that HOW energy is carried is not

> >>>>>> known

> >>>>>> and fields don't exist as real objects.

> >>>>>

> >>>>> So certain you are!

> >>>>>

> >>>>>> Note that energy (according to Maxwell and refuted by no

> >>>>>> one

> >>>>>> since) can ONLY be carried by A. Waves in a medium. or B.

> >>>>>> Particles with kinetic energy.

> >>>>>

> >>>>> So certain you are! And wrong, unless you have a very broad

> >>>>> definition of "particles".

> >>>>

> >>>> Here's your chance for the "Smarter than Maxwell" prize.

> >>>>

> >>>> So what is the third way that energy can be transferred?

> >>>>

> >>>> Lessee. I'll help you out ('cause you obviously need help).

> >>>>

> >>>> Transfer of energy and transfer of information are basically

> >>>> the

> >>>> same. Therefore, by Bell's theorem we find that we can have

> >>>> FTL

> >>>> transmissions of energy/information by the (third) process

> >>>> known as

> >>>> "entanglement".

> >>>>

> >>>> My comment would be that "entanglement" = Magic.

> >>>

> >>> But we don't have FTL transmission of energy or information by

> >>> entanglement.

> >>

> >> Well, nobody has proved it yet, but Bell's theorem clearly states

> >> that you only have two choices. 1. FTL transmission. 2. Hidden

> >> variables.

> >

> > More of your certainty! Yet Bell's theorem doesn't state that.

>

> Are you saying that the Heisenberg uncertainty principle applies to what

> Bell's theorem states? I don't think you are correct!

>

> http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Bell%27s_theorem

Where is the "clear statement"? That page says "The fact that non-locality does not imply the possibility of superluminal signalling might appear particularly surprising; this fact will seem less surprising, however, if one keeps in mind that the concept of superluminal signalling involves anthropocentric notions such as controllability and observability that play no role in the concept of locality." which is a clear statement of the opposite.

> >>>>>> In an EM case NEITHER can be true since A. Aether does not

> >>>>>> exist. B. Fields have nothing to do with particles. This

> >>>>>> only leave C. Magic.

> >>>>>

> >>>>> In the face of your certain knowledge of what is not

> >>>>> possible,

> >>>>> you end up with certain knowledge of magic. Very good!

> >>> [...]

> >>>> I'm waiting for YOUR "c" alternative.

> >>>

> >>> The simpler alternative is that EM fields are real, and are what

> >>> carry the energy from point A to point B. You could say that

> >>> "photons" are real, if you prefer. Neither EM fields nor photons

> >>> are waves in a medium, or "particles with kinetic energy", with

> >>> "particle" meaning something like a classical particle.

> >>

> >> Just what do you mean "fields are real"?

> >> We've already established that Field math is not real.

> >

> > If I use maths to describe a dog, the unreality of maths doesn't make

> > dogs not exist. Likewise, if I use maths to describe fields, it

> > doesn't make fields cease to exist.

>

> Depends what you MEAN by "fields". The actual mathematical description

> is clearly fantasy. What it refers to is unknown! That existence is not

> proved one way or the other by the fact the maths exist! If I use maths

> to describe a unicorn, does that prove that unicorns exist?

No. Why would it? There's a reason why experimental evidence is important in science.

What kinds of experimental evidence do we have that EM fields exist?

(a) Energy appears to be conserved, for things not involving EM fields (and some other kinds of fields). If EM fields don't exist, we have difficulties with conservation of energy. We could (i) assume that EM fields exist, and they transport energy, (ii) assume that something else transports the energy, and has transports the energy in the same way, quantitatively, as predicted by our models assuming the EM fields transport energy, but is NOT an EM field, or (iii) give up conventional conservation of energy. When a lizard sunbathes to warm itself, is it being warmed up by the light, or by some other "thing" transporting energy from the sun to the lizard? If I concentrate the light, I concentrate the energy. I'd say that burning glasses, lasers, solar cells, vision, radio, x-rays, and more - physical phenomena involving energy going from point A to point B are good evidence of the physical existence of EM fields. Indirect evidence, since we measure energy transfer and forces, but still evidence.

(b) From QED, we have the suggestion that photons have as much reality as electrons. Why should the existence of EM fields be in any more doubt than the existence of matter?

> >> It's just an inaccurate model according to you. So then the

> >> question arises just what is the REALITY that the field math is

> >> modeling?

> >

> > That we don't know. Does our ignorance make fields cease to exist?

>

> No. But being able to write a mathematical description doesn't prove

> they exist either!

>

> >> If energy isn't transferred by waves or by kinetic energy in some

> >> form (doesn't have to be "particles" as such, does it?

> >

> > Earlier, you claimed "particles" as such. And waves in a MEDIUM. If

> > you generalise "kinetic energy" to any moving energy, then, yes,

> > movement of energy involves "kinetic energy".

>

> You did read that little part about "moving mass" that keeps things

> "real", right? We do understand what "kinetic energy means, right?

It depends on how you define "mass".

> >> But obviously need "mass" and hence is "real") then by what?

> >

> > "Obviously need" mass! Such certainty! Define "mass".

>

> Mass is the coefficient between force and motion of objects

So, "relativistic mass" or similar. Which means that moving energy has "mass", too. Unless you artificially restrict it to "objects".

Since moving energy has inertia, this can readily lead to a useless circular argument: "transport of energy can be done by moving energy".

> >>>>> First, "reflect nature" is not the same as "identical to

> >>>>> nature". The map is not the territory. How could a

> >>>>> mathematical model be identical to nature?

> >>>>

> >>>> Ah, progress. So then maths are not "identical" to reality

> >>>> after all!

> >>>

> >>> Of course not. How is this progress? I never said otherwise.

> >>

> >> Of course you did (and do!) You just said above that "fields are

> >> real"!

> >

> > "Fields" are not "maths". We describe them mathematically; we have

> > mathematical models of their behaviour. Those models don't make

> > fields cease to exist.

>

> But it doesn't make them exist either! Point (again) is that

> mathematical description known as "fields" is fantasy and does not exist

> in reality. Whether or not there is an analog to that description in

> reality that approximates the characteristics of the the fields is

> unknown and unproven. So to talk about mathematical fields as if they

> were real objects is simply wrong. To talk about the thing in reality

> that may be an analog to mathematical fields is correct, but there is

> very little actual knowledge to prove such a proposal. The main

> "argument" seems to be that since the mathematical descriptions "works"

> therefore reality must be just like maths. See how we are edging toward

> "maths more real than reality" here?

No.

> > We don't directly measure them. So what? We don't directly measure

> > forces, either.

>

> Well, direct enough.

We measure accelerations, we measure displacements, we measure deformations. We don't measure forces directly.

> Anyone can take a couple of magnets and move them

> around and certainly SOMETHING is pulling them together and pushing them

> apart! You can easily FEEL it. Once one learns how to describe that

> action using field theory, there is a grave temptation to decide that

> there are "invisible fields" out there producing the forces. Well, the

> things producing the forces are invisible all right, but there is no

> evidence of some physical things that is an analog to the mathematical

> field, nor is there any requirement for such a thing to exist!

Wrong. There is evidence. Beyond what was already said about conservation of energy, we could say something about conservation of momentum. Force is the rate of transfer of momentum. How does the momentum get from point A to point B? Hint: don't about retardation.

> >>> Note well the distinction between MATHS and A MATHEMATICAL

> >>> MODEL.

> >>

> >> What the hell? So MATHS are real and are the foundation of nature,

> >> but when you use maths to model reality, it suddenly is now an

> >> inaccurate representation of nature that is not real? Hint: When

> >> you find yourself in a hole: Stop digging!

> >

> > No. Learn what "maths" is, and what a mathematical model is. They're

> > different things.

>

> So you think that mathematical models are somehow constructed using

> number systems DIFFERENT from the maths studied and developed by

> mathematicians? I don't think so. You may be selective about which maths

> you choose to employ but the rules don't change.

So what? Mathematics and a mathematical model are not the same thing, even if the mathematical model uses mathematics (whether conventional mathematics or otherwise). The English language and a novel written in English are different things, too.

> >>> No. Some MATHEMATICAL MODELS are fudged approximations good

> >>> enough for engineers AND scientists. Other MATHEMATICAL MODELS

> >>> reflect reality more accurately.

> >>

> >> But not perfectly you admit!

> >

> > We don't know. Our best mathematical models appear to work. We don't

> > know that they work perfectly. It's likely that they don't work

> > perfectly. So what?

>

> What, is that if maths were "more real than reality" which is to say

> represent something TOTALLY fundamental about how the universe is

> constructed, then obviously when we get the maths right the models will

> be PERFECT! That's what.

Do we expect 2+2=4 to fail for predicting that 2 oranges and 2 more oranges gives us 4 oranges? If not, then it's a perfect model! Where does "more real than reality" come into it?

> >>> Any successful MATHEMATICAL MODEL of nature reflects nature.

> >>> Because we built it (the mathematical model) that way.

> >>

> >> But how does one "build" a mathematical model? You must start with

> >> axioms. Do those axioms then reflect reality? In other words are

> >> the axioms you built your maths with "true"?

> >

> > If one starts with axioms, one is typically a philosopher, not a

> > scientist. (See Bunge's book axiomatising a whole bunch of

> > mathematical models in physics.)

>

> A philosopher IS a scientist, just at a higher level! You know the

> degree is called "Doctor of philosophy" for a reason.

The disciplines diverged. The name of the degree is a Medieval relic. But even before they did, the term "natural philosophy" recognised the distinction between science and what we call philosophy now.

Of course, it is useful for a scientist to know something of philosophy (despite comments about the value of ornithology to birds), just as it is useful for a scientist to know something of mathematics. That doesn't make the disciplines identical.

> > For your mathematical model of reality, you choose maths that

> > reflects reality. Why is that so hard for you to understand?

> >

> > Is it a mystery why a curve fit closely follows the points the curve

> > is fitted to?

>

> No, but if a curve is fitted to points does that automatically imply

> that not the DATA but the analytic expression MUST be the way nature

> operates down it's wheel work as is so often supposed? There is no

> reason to presume so.

Of course. That's why such mathematical descriptions are accepted as provisional, or even as "known to be approximate only".

"Reflects reality" is NOT "is reality".

> >>> What I disagreed with was your assertion that maths is assumed to

> >>> be more real than reality. That isn't a common assertion.

> >>

> >> And yet while you boldly assert that nobody thinks this way,

> >

> > I said that YOU think that way at times, and gave an example. Your "3

> > EM fields".

>

> Right. Got it. I think that math is more real than reality but you are

> setting me straight about the issue.

You were insisting on the reality of 3 different EM fields, based on a separation of the mathematical description into 3 terms.

> >> you then turn around and tell me that "fields are real"! If fields

> >> are "real" then what are they composed of?

> >

> > Did iron not exist before we knew about atoms? About chemical

> > elements? Our ignorance does not make things cease to exist.

>

> Nor does our knowledge mean that what we know MUST be correct.

And yet, you make many claims of "MUST".

> >> How does one create a field? Nobody knows because the "field" is

> >> just mathematical fantasy. The fantasy is constructed so as to

> >> reflect the forces observed which are obviously real even though we

> >> have no idea where they come from, but again I used my example of

> >> the wind and the field describing the forces produced by the wind.

> >> The field is not real. It is a mathematical description. The axioms

> >> behind that description can't be proved real. The question is

> >> stupid. The wind is real and the forces are real but the "field"

> >> is clearly NOT the wind! And to pretend that it is would simply be

> >> making mathematics more real than reality.

>

> > A rational person would simply identify the wind as the physically

> > real "field". Yes, the wind is not the same as the mathematical model

> > of the wind, even if we attach the label "field" to both. So what?

>

> By "rational person" I presume you mean one who does not discriminate

> between their fantasies and actual experiences. In other words a "lib".

You presume wrong.

> Sorry, the wind is NOT the field. You haven't been paying attention. We

> developed a field with the the equation F = qE.

That's the "mathematical field", not the "physical field".

> Wind is producing the

> force, but there is the factor "q" (the size of your butt) so the

> "field" is a construction with properties different from the wind which

> is the TRUE reality of the phenomena! Hence to say the wind is the

> 'field" is just wrong. Wind is real. Field is fantasy describing

> reality. It is very common (as you well know) to do a calculation and

> then extract various "terms" and then assign "meaning" to each of those

> terms as if they each were real physical objects. Convenient, yes.

> Proper philosophy, no.

Map, territory. Not the same thing, and the map doesn't have to be the same as the territory. The dots on the map are dots on the map, not towns and cities. As shorthand, we will call them "towns" and "cities", but this doesn't mean that we believe that they are towns and cities. We will point at a dot and say "this city here". So what? We call our "Delta x" in a mathematical formula the "displacement of <...>", when it isn't. So what? Don't be confused by our usual shorthand!

Language is flexible enough so that it's common to use the same term for a physical object, a mathematical concept, an abstract idea, and a picture. That doesn't mean we uncritically confuse the different things.

> To simply assign mathematical terms to actual phenomena is simply sloppy

> thinking. People like to say 2 + 2 = 4 as if that somehow "proved" that

> maths are real. Of course even if we ignore the fact that the statement

> is blatantly wrong, there is the problem of just what "2" is. Is it a

> pair of oranges? is it the symbol printed above? Is it the semantic

> meaning that the symbol represents? Just what is "2" exactly! And THAT

> is precisely where the problem lies.

And yet, 2 oranges and another 2 oranges gives a total of 4 oranges. The mathematical 2+2=4 corresponds to reality.

These days, with the axiomatisation of much of mathematics, one can say exactly what "2" means. But it's largely irrelevant. What matters is that 2+2=4 works to describe stuff in the real world. It doesn't work for everything in the real world; the solution to that difficulty is to use it where it works, and to not use it where it doesn't work.

Anyway, as I said earlier, the mathematisation of physics predates modern physics. The success of Galileian/Newtonian science, and Newtonianism in general, says something about the success of such mathematisation. There were objections, even at that time. Simplicio on maths and reality from "Two New Sciences": "The arguments and demonstrations which you have advanced are mathematical, abstract, and far removed from concrete matter; and I do not believe that when applied to the physical and natural world these laws will hold."