
Are there intrinsic properties at the most fundamental level of reality? - lainon
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1355219817300795
======
kjullien
The problem with these sort of papers is that we find a "the new smallest
dividend" of the universe every other day. You can't make an accurate
estimation of something you do not know, only guesses. Not to say that
"guesses" haven't taken us to the moon, on the contrary, but it gives another
perspective on affirmations made such as the one in this paper's title.

~~~
allthenews
I disagree. A proper mathematical formulation can imply a final "smallest
dividend," presuming it accounts for observable behaviors. For example, I
don't believe we have experimental evidence of, say, the Plank Length, but we
are aware of its supposed existence.

In other words, mathematically rigorous physics can imply results far more
certainly than loose logical "guessing."

------
westoncb
I'm not going to purchase the PDF, but this sounds problematic already:

> More precisely, I will claim that 1) according to quantum field theory, the
> most fundamental objects of matter are quantum fields and not particles, and
> show that 2) according to the Standard Model, quantum fields have intrinsic
> non-relational properties.

That only works as an answer to the larger question at hand (whether the
"structure of physical reality is genuinely relational" or not), if we accept
another philosophical claim implicit in the argument's structure: that
mathematical abstractions (e.g. quantum fields) are potentially
interchangeable with reality itself, rather than just descriptions.

If you instead hold that any abstraction is just a description, and not
literally a building block of reality, than this only tells us whether the
structure of a physical _theory_ is 'genuinely relational'—not whether
physical reality is.

~~~
unixhero
No need! Just use Sci-Hub and you're all set!

------
colordrops
Summary of the paper: yes, we think so.

~~~
posterboy
Actually, no, according to the abstract:

> ... The present paper will argue that our currently best physics refutes
> even this most moderate form of ontic structural realism ...

It's a mind bender though.

~~~
colordrops
Well, yes. Ontic structural realism implies no intrinsic properties. So, they
are saying, yes, there are.

~~~
yarrel
Can you unpack that? Is the argument that the absence of intrinsic properties
amounts to intrinsic properties?

~~~
colordrops
They directly say they believe there are intrinsic properties to reality.

------
asimpletune
I have always wondered this.

------
lettucehead
@kjulian, please don't lower the level of intellectual debate on HN by
asserting the arbitrary limits of human intelligence. You remind me of a lying
Cretan. St. Aquinas had more rigor! Look at the proof of the existence of God
by efficient causation! When it comes to Standard Model, we need to address
the particulars of the model. Your accusing hands are the ones waving
furiously in their accusation of handwavingness. This is the first ad hominem
argument I've seen today, and it is egregious. How could you possibly judge a
project on the basis of the fact that a bunch of code is out there purporting
to solve the same problem at some poorly defined level of abstraction, yet not
actually solving the problem at hand permanently and forever? Would you look
at the code, or accuse the handwaving programmer of being nothing but an
astrologer? No!!

The real problem here is the paywall - where the devil is Aaron Schwartz?

~~~
lainon
>The real problem here is the paywall - where the devil is Aaron Schwartz?

 _cough_ sci-hub _cough_

