[thylacine]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Okay, consider charged matter and the electromagnetic field.

Is it in any way reasonable to say that charged matter exists but that the electromagnetic field does not?

[/ QUOTE ]

Probably not, given that the evidence for each is the same. In terms of intuitive conceptions, it is clear why matter is much easier for people to grok. We are used to dealing with localized objects and so conceiving of small pointlike particles isn't that hard, whereas there is nothing that we are familiar with materially that is a field. (Arguments about something like temperature don't convince me, because that is more of a description of the properties of some other collection of matter rather than a thing unto itself.)

This visualizability is, in my opinion, what non-philosophers generally mean when they talk about existence. We want analogs to other physical systems that we can intuit. Trying to ascribe this same kind of material existence to the field in the past led to ether theories and all of that, which were obviously flawed. I don't know of a good picture for the field that is consistent and works, other than just looking at the math of thing.

For that reason, I don't think it's terribly unfair of Phil to say "no, the field doesn't exist," and it seems unnecessarily nitpicky to me to attack that point. If there's not a meaningful way of distinguishing between existence and nonexistence in this true sense - if we can't really distinguish between "things behave this way" and "things are this way" - then what's the point? If we agree that Maxwell's equations and general relativity seem to do a good job explaining what's going on, isn't that about the limit of what we can say at the moment?

I would contrast this with issues regarding quantum mechanical interpretation. Arguments about hidden variable theories led to Bell's theorem predicting real experimental consequences for things being a certain way. This kind of discussion I am all for, obviously; whereas, in a similar vein, I find the many-worlds interpretation as it has been explained to me to be an exercise in pointlessness.

[/ QUOTE ]

Another question. Is it in any way reasonable to say that fermions exist but that bosons do not exist?

Personally, I do not <font color="red">S</font><font color="blue">E</font><font color="green">E</font> why bosons should be seen as so intangible. [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

And another couple of questions.

What does "operationalist" mean?

What does "grok" mean?