Was literally just telling my wife that Maudlin seems to be the clearest thinker out there on these subjects.

I'm with you. Amazing combo of technical chops, philosophical sophistication and plain speech.

The "like" would be enough

He studied physics first so he is well aware of the current knowledge we have. Sometimes philosophers don't have enough physical knowledge or sometimes physicists focus too much on the math. Tim has both

He's Bell's successor and an amazing Philosopher !

Yeah, it's not corn (🌽) right?

@@fukpoeslaw3613 Who's to say what corn is though...

Physics has never been about things. Physics is about systems. Logic, OTOH, has always been about objects. It doesn't work for cases for which we aren't talking about objects like for colors or quanta of energy. But why are you telling us that you weren't paying attention in high school science class? Did the consumption of too much Kant go to your head? ;-)

How would you go farther? A field is an invisible "something" that can be sensed/measured at each point in space. We see it everyday in gravity, we see it often in various forms of electric charge, current, and magnetism. Where is the farther?

@@david203 I can’t answer that (in terms of its metaphysical content), that’s the whole puzzle. I will say that “farther” would involve explicating it as more than an “invisible something” that causes specific effects.

@@2tehnik All I can say is that as a student who graduated in physics with 'A' grades, I'm not puzzled at all by fields. But then again, I'm not puzzled by any phenomena in nature, not even rainbows or waterfalls or even waterfalls with rainbows. Everybody is different. Enjoy being puzzled. I enjoy accepting it all, even Bohr's mystical Copenhagen interpretation that has done so much to hold physics back. There is beauty in the way he isolated all the parts that puzzled him into a set of axioms, rather than investigate and resolve them.

@walter - Good comment. Unfortunately, of course, general relativity doesn't take into account quantum mechanics, but nevertheless it is extremely successful: the time signal in the Global Positioning System requires two and only two corrections to make it work with precision: one for special relativity and one for general relativity. As to the electromagnetic theory, it is perfect for our everyday regime/scale, but misbehaves at the atomic scale, so again it needs corrections for quantum mechanics. Currently, physicists have a good idea of the ways in which current theories fail, but most of the new theories are so speculative that they can't yet be tested by experiments. The stage is set for a new physical insight.

@@david203ppppp😊 an

And then, there’s the Lorenz attractor (chaos) and Lorenz curves (economy, statistics)

And there's also the Lorentz industrieterrein. (Lorentz industriel zone, Zone Industrielle de Lorentz, or something like that in English & French.) but that's in Harderwijk.

Yes, it's an abstract. Nature can not even implement a single real number, not even using the entire matter in the entire universe.

Science of science is called philosophy ;)

I am awestruck by the depth of your bullshit. ;-)

@@lepidoptera9337 mate just because you're too dum to comprehend and appreciate philosophy, it doesn't mean everyone else is.

@@lepidoptera9337 just because you're too stupid to understand and appreciate philosophy, it doesn't mean everyone else is also.

@@lepidoptera9337 just because you're too d um to understand and appreciate philosophy, it doesn't mean everyone else is also. Stay in your lane.

The point is the ability to chose different gauges and see what happens. With Coulomb gauge, you get apparent nonlocality which is why Bell and Aharonov-Bohm effect are part of the lecture.

Fortunately that provides for a whole cottage industry of philosophers of science. They get to tell us what it means.

"Therefore, the electron is squared" ?? I love pseudoscience because it seems so reasonable at first. Later, we realize that each concept is unrelated to the others around it. So it's like a stream of consciousness, a flow of unrelated thoughts, like a person's speech in the state of mania. Locally entertaining and sensible, globally lacking in meaning.

Dyslexic...etc • There's no such thing as a 2-dimensional reality. Two dimensional model is just a theoretical concept used only to comunicate an idea for some reason. If the third spatial dimension is zero, then the 2 spatial representation doesn't exist at all as a REAL aggregate. Etc.

@@mikel4879 The geometrical aspect of this process is based on Huygens’ Principle that says, “Every point on a light wave front has the potential for a new spherical 4πr² light wave". We can think of the point as a photon ∆E=hf electron interaction or coupling. The spherical surface forms a boundary condition or manifold for this interaction. The interior of the sphere naturally forms three-dimensions giving us our three-dimensions of everyday life.

Even in mainstream physics we have photon electron interactions or couplings with the exchange potential energy into the kinetic Eₖ=½mv² energy of electrons. Kinetic Eₖ=½mv² energy is the energy of motion of what is actually happening as the future unfolds. I think it’s all connected LOL @@david203

Dyslexic... • I understand what you mean. However, a mathematical geometry can't be by itself the true REALITY, like the case of einstein's theory, the quantum mechanics, your idea, etc, which are all mathematical concoctions only. No matter what theoretical formulation you present, in the end you have to show the REALITY, the true REAL natural aggregate. You say this and that theoretically, 'the surface, the photon, the wave, etc'. Now show how all of these create the natural bare REALITY. What your "surface" is made of in REALITY? Not only geometrically, mathematically, but in true natural REALITY! What is a "wave" in REALITY? What's your "spherical surface" made of in REALITY? What's your "interior of the sphere" made of in REALITY ? What is a "photon" in REALITY? Etc. Theory is easy. The CONCRETE explanation of the REALITY through a theory is very hard. No theory of physics has ever explained the true REALITY concretely. After you show your mathematical model, show how a true REAL aggregate is created CONCRETELY and CAUSALLY through your theory or through your ideas. That's the fundamental problem of any theoretical concoction of any kind.

DougMds3u • Yes, correct. The REAL causal chain is completely broken. Instead of correcting everything and reconnecting the lost causal steps, they march ahead with absurd theoretical patches and absurd paradoxes, like everything would be OK like that. Well, it is not right. It is in fact a human cognitive fallacy. People with no tallent in the domain are roaming with strong authority and impunity maintaining the ignorant and dogmatic status quo. That's why the science in this domain has been on the wrong track for so long. Like Max Planck once said: 'science advances one funeral at the time'.

If you are trying to say that Plato was an idiot, then we can both agree. ;-)

> On curl, there is no real two-dimensional world and curl is not defined in two dimensions. Yeah, but that's rather contingent. The flatlander can define a scalar value that would correspond to the z component (with respect to their land) of what we call the curl. And that would essentially be the only meaningful sense of curl for them anyway so I'm not sure there's a problem. Flatlanders don't need a right hand rule because there's only 3 ways vector fields can curl for them (clockwise, counter-clockwise and not at all).

@@2tehnik Well, contingency doesn't apply to mathematics, only necessity. How could curl be a vector if the z dimension is missing? The vector product of two vectors is a scalar? That violates the definition of vector/cross product.

@@barryispuzzled yes. And I’m saying that the quantitive designation of curl as a vector is a contingent choice. We can describe the same quality as a scalar. The flatlander could anyway. And they wouldn’t really be missing any information by just describing it that way (as far as the vector fields in the flatland go anyway).

No. Physics needs to tell you if you do this or that, what do you observe. The question "what there is" is meaningless, and so is "what it does", because there are non identical formulations that have different ideas about 'what there is' and 'what it does', but which give identical predictions. This is why logical positivism was invented. This guy is not doing good work, he is ignorant of the philosophical revolution physicists made in the early decades of the 20th century.

@@annaclarafenyo8185 Same thing. What there is? Is the inputs to the model. What it does? Is the model outputs. But to be clear I agree, physics doesn't claim to demonstrate truth, only that a model has predictive power.

@@nmarbletoe8210 The "model inputs" can be completely different, the "model outputs" is the observations you make, this could be the same observations in completely different models. This is not an academic point. He talks about electromagnetism. You can formulate EM without fields, only using retarded potentials from charged particles. You get the same answers. Or with advanced potentials. Or with half-half potentials. Or using extra fields, like Maxwell used. Or using fewer fields with relations. These are all mathematically different, they have a different "ontology" the way he would say it, but they produce the same perceptions, so they are the same. The ontology isn't important, and there is no absolute ontology. All that matters are the predictions for the perceptions of observers. This is a very important point, and it's the foundation of logical positivism. This person doesn't understand this point, and is going backwards over territory that was solved by Mach in the 1890s.

​@@annaclarafenyo8185 Thank you that is beautifully clear, and very interesting.

​@@annaclarafenyo8185 If the tribe does a raindance, does it observe rain? If it doesnt observe rain, the raindance wasnt performed correctly. Do it again and again. The tribe does not need to know the facts (is and what it does) of weather, irrigation, farm machines, computerized weather predictions, food from distant, non-drought regions attracted by higher market prices, etc. Your basic concern is your consciousness ("if") , not reality ("is"). This is the destruction of science and the return to mysticism. Science began to be possible when the first philosopher, Thales, rejected supernatural causes and traditional coincidences (statistics) for the natural causes evaded by Pragmatism and Logical Positivism (the basic early 20th century philosophical revolution). You also evade the decades-long delay in accepting atomic theory by anti-causality Logical Positivists. Leap Of Logic-David Harriman, physicist; science as basically inductive, not deductive; induction as basically about the is/what it does relation, not basically statistical. I push a ball and it moves. Therefore, it is absolutely certain that pushed balls move (in a context that is progressively known). Knowing what things are and what they do is not optional for mans life. Of course, IF your goal is not life, what observations will you make? Metaphysical realism is not an option. Reality is metaphysically primary. Consciousness is metaphysically passive.

You need a causal bridge, I guess. Just like a computer uses causal bridges (transistors) to be able to compute and show you the result.

So the world does not exist? Only descriptions exist? Mathematics is a language, agree?

LOL. Relativity formulas look like Gibberish to those who do not understand what they mean. Calculus looks like Gibberish to those who do not know Mathematics. This is all fine and well but what strikes me as odd is you felt the need to loudly proclaim your ignorance by not only telling everyone you cant understand this relatively straight forward and easy to understand talk but you do it in an arrogant manor that shows not only are you clueless.... but you are clueless about the fact that you are clueless and if I am not mistaken a few Scientist a little while back whose names started with a D and a K wrote a paper about folks such as yourself. I wish I could remember the name of those two Scientist but their names elude me. Do you perhaps know who I am talking about? What was the names of those Scientist that described that sort of behavior?

hardly

@@objectsofintuition yeah if anything it seems a very lucid elaboration on the problems a lot of people seem to be blind to.

Misses point.

@@2tehnik This is a well understood problem in physics. It’s the problem of using words to describe things for which there isn’t adequate language to describe. The answer seems to invent more words. Physicists get themselves into trouble with this semantic juggling. The “god particle” being a popular example.

@@paulthomas963 The problem is with the philosophy department, and their fascist paymasters.