https://youtu.be/uEuOGCEmiTg?t=4800 Is he right? Are there

>>8717063
No

>>8717063
Another non-falsifiable theory?

>>8717063
Eh, I'm not going to watch almost two hours of garbage to find the part you're talking about, so if you want a specific answer, you're gonna have to give me the time.

In general, though, your question is philosophical in nature, i.e. you can argue both for the existence and the nonexistence of fields, and it's impossible to claim 100 % confidence in any answer.

Fields are (one of a fuckton of) mathematical representations of reality. Do fields exist as entities in and of themselves? Nobody can tell you, because it's not possible to observe the field itself, only its properties. However, now I've already entered into philosophyland, because obviously you can't directly observe anything, you can only observe its properties.

TL;DR: You shouldn't give a shit about if fields exist or not, you should give a shit about whether they are useful representations of reality or not.

>>8717108
Asking if a concept can be expressed in terms of other concepts is very valid question. Calling it "too philosphical" and "not useful" is just brainletism. Asking "if fields are real or just consequences of another mechanisms" is a very important question.

>>8717124
That wasn't OP's question, and if you read what you just typed (regardless of context) and think about it for a little while, you'll realize why your post is retarded.

>>8717191
How original (and unproductive) counterargument.

>>8717095
>i'll dismiss it easily cause it sounds crazy lmfao what a brainlet i am!
uh in the same talk Op linked, in the very beginning, Tom talks about falsifiability. He's literally a scientist and he's come up with experiments in physics that can be done to determine if this is a VR.

>>8717108
1:20:00 sorry about that

>>8717211
Nah I'll just dismiss all theories that cannot be proven false. Including all crackpot simulation theories and evolution theories and other anthropic principles.

>>8717197
Welp, if being defensive and protecting your ego on an anonymous imageboard is more important to you than actually learning something, so be it.

>>8717220
It seems my general answer applies to this specific case. I'll add just a bit more.

For some reason, this guy decided that fields is the one mathematical abstraction that isn't real. Here's a newsflash: The entirety of physics is built upon mathematical abstractions; it was meant to model reality, not to be a replica of reality in itself.

Also, he does not address the fact that you can't directly observe anything, you can only observe its properties. The foundation of his argument seems to be (it wasn't explicitly stated, but it's heavily implied) the assumption that only things you can directly observe are real, but you can't directly observe anything, so the assumption itself is self-defeating.

>>8717325
Wrong conclusion, I'm afraid
You seem to lack some social skills, go get laid

>>8717325
If you can only measure a thing's properties and effects, will you ever be able to *know* the thing-in-itself?

No. So why should we use the same old method that will never yield any better and more meaningful results? Oh right, because scientism.