[thylacine]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Now if you are saying that the fields are real, and they are modelled very well by various mathematical machinery, but that you would still like to know whats really going on in reality, then I sympathize with that point of view.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm pretty sure this is what your opponent was arguing about. You have to admit that "the fields are real, but I don't know what is really happening in reality" is a strange construction. From an operationalist standpoint, sure, fields are real; treating them as if they were real yields consistent results. But that's not necessarily what somebody means when somebody asks what they "really" are, and then one gets into an entire philosophy of science debate that I'm not particularly qualified for.

As for me, I tend to not think about this stuff.

[/ QUOTE ]

The difference is between a mathematical abstraction of something that exists and a mathematical abstraction of something that does not exist.