Hi Bruno Marchal 

IMHO It doesn't matter what type of field. According to  the definition below,
a field is like a map, it is not the territory itself. ".....that would   
act on a body at any given point in that region" The word "would"
tells us that a field only has potential existence, not existence itself.

A gravitational field does not physically exist, IMHO, but exhibits
the properties of existence, such as our being able to see a ball
tossed in the air rise and fall.  But we cannot see the gravitational field 
itself.
It has no physical existence, only potential existence.

Or to put it another way, we can not detect a field, we can only
detect what it does. (In that case, pragmatism rules. )

 http://science.yourdictionary.com/field 

field   

"A distribution in a region of space of the strength and direction of a force,  
such as the electrostatic force near an electrically charged object, that would 
 
act on a body at any given point in that region. " 




[Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net]  
1/8/2013   
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen  
----- Receiving the following content -----   
From: Bruno Marchal   
Receiver: everything-list   
Time: 2013-01-08, 08:36:24  
Subject: Re: Is Sheldrake credible ? I personally think so.  




On 07 Jan 2013, at 17:26, Roger Clough wrote:  


Hi Bruno Marchal   

Yes, the theories are nonphysical, and in addition, quantum theories  
quantum theory applies to quantum fields, which are nonphysical.  


This is hard for me to grasp. What do you mean by "quantum fields" are not 
physical?   
It seems to me that they are as much physical than a magnetic field, or a 
gravitational field. I don't see any difference. Quantum field theory is just a 
formulation of quantum mechanics in which "particles" become field 
singularities, but they have the usual observable properties making them 
physical, even "material".  
With computationalism, nothing is *primitively* physical, and physics is no 
more the fundamental science, but many things remains physical, like fields. 
They do emerge from the way machine can bet on what is directly accessible by 
measurement.  


May be we have a problem of vocabulary. We might use "physical" in different 
sense.  


Bruno  







[Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net]  
1/7/2013   
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen  
----- Receiving the following content -----   
From: Bruno Marchal   
Receiver: everything-list   
Time: 2013-01-07, 11:17:56  
Subject: Re: Is Sheldrake credible ? I personally think so.  


On 06 Jan 2013, at 21:59, Roger Clough wrote:  

> Hi meekerdb  
>  
> Not all physicists are materialists, or if they are, they are   
> inconsistent  
> if they deal with quantum physics, which is nonphysical.  


All theories are non physical, but this does not make a materialist   
theory inconsistent. With non comp you can make identify mind and non   
physical things with some class of physical phenomena.  

Careful, in philosophy of mind, "materialism" means "only matter   
fundamentally exists". But comp is already contradicting "weak   
materialism", the thesis that some matter exists fundamentally (among   
possible other things).  

Some physicists are non materialist and even non-weak-materialist   
( (which is stronger and is necessary with comp). But even them are   
still often physicalist. They still believe that everything is   
explainable from the behavior of matter (even if that matter is   
entirely "ontologically" justified in pure math).  

Comp refutes this. Physics becomes the art of the numbers to guess   
what are the most common universal numbers supporting them in their   
neighborhood, well even the invariant part of this.  

Bruno  


>  
>  
> [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net]  
> 1/6/2013  
> "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen  
> ----- Receiving the following content -----  
> From: meekerdb  
> Receiver: everything-list  
> Time: 2013-01-06, 14:17:42  
> Subject: Re: Is Sheldrake credible ? I personally think so.  
>  
>  
> On 1/6/2013 5:30 AM, Roger Clough wrote:  
> Hi meekerdb  
>  
> Materialists can't consistently accept inextended structures and  
> functions such as quantum fields--or if they do, they aren't   
> materialists.  
>  
> So no physicists since Schrodinger are materialists. So materialism   
> can't very well be "scientific dogma" as you keep asserting.  
>  
> Brent  
>  
>  
>  
> [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net]  
> 1/6/2013  
> "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen  
> ----- Receiving the following content -----  
> From: meekerdb  
> Receiver: everything-list  
> Time: 2013-01-05, 15:37:09  
> Subject: Re: Is Sheldrake credible ? I personally think so.  
>  
>  
> On 1/5/2013 6:26 AM, Roger Clough wrote:  
> Hi Richard Ruquist  
>  
> Empirical data, to my way of thinking, trumps scientific dogma  
> (such as materialism) any day.  
>  
> It's rather funny that you keep assailing scienctists as being   
> dogmatic materialists and yet you think their world picture: curved   
> metric space, quantum fields, schrodinger wave functions,... is all   
> immaterial.  
>  
> Brent  
>  
> No virus found in this message.  
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com  
> Version: 2013.0.2805 / Virus Database: 2637/6007 - Release Date:   
> 01/03/13  
> --   
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google   
> Groups "Everything List" group.  
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.  
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com   
> .  
> For more options, visit this group at 
> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en   
> .  
>  
> --   
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google   
> Groups "Everything List" group.  
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.  
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com   
> .  
> For more options, visit this group at 
> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en   
> .  
>  

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/  



--   
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.  
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.  
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.  
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.  




--   
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.  
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.  
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.  
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.  



http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Reply via email to