[drdeca]

That makes little sense to me. “Can’t be further probed”?

A thing behaves in some way. If you do things, things happen.

One can do certain measurements about how things behave, and then record these measurements.

What would it even mean for a material everything is based in to be magical? If there was some exceptional material that is unlike other things, following different rules, I can understand calling that “magical”. But, the only meaning I can think of for a material underlying everything to be “magical” is that either everyone just, declines to study it, or its behaviors like, depend on the intent of those studying it or something like that.

I also don’t get your statement that “brings a wonder back into it”. Like, do you not experience wonder when contemplating the nature of fundamental fields?

Like, if we set aside the “magical” part, it kinda sounds like your objection is that fields aren’t a substance/material. But, if you just generalize your notion of “material” a bit, why don’t quantum fields satisfy all your requirements? And, if they do, don’t you want to understand how this “magical material” behaves??

You decry these things as “abstractions”, and say that they “make no sense to anyone”. They can certainly be confusing, but they aren’t beyond comprehension, and I don’t see them as any less “material reality”? Macroscopic things just behave differently.

I don’t think I agree with “particles aren’t real” either. Electrons being excitations in the electron field, doesn’t make them “not real” any more than an apple being made of atoms makes it not real, or sound being vibrations in a medium makes sound not real.

Like, buckyballs are clearly “real” (they can act like little cages with something else contained inside), but they also clearly are “particles” like protons are (you can do a double slit experiment with them and get an interference pattern).

Also, I don’t think I’d say the enterprise was ever “What is the universe made of?” so much as “How does the universe work?” ? It is a drive to understand! It is asking “How do initial conditions relate to final conditions?”. The tech is ancillary to this!

[albatross79]

I'm not interested really in how something behaves, that's an accounting or record keeping task. I am interested in why it behaves a certain way, or what it is. Why does the earth go around the sun? We're told it's because of space time curvature. Curvature of what? Where is space time and what it is made of that it has a shape or geometry? There is no ether, space is not made of anything. Yet it has a shape, or at least there is some accounting going on somewhere that keeps everything moving like it's supposed to. Where is that, what's the mechanism? What we have is a mathematical model that fits the data, but doesn't explain anything. Yes, A behaves in a certain way when B is in a certain position relative to A, we can model that and we call that relativity or whatever, but what is the mechanism? That's where the abstraction is. Are we satisfied with modelling an alien system that we can't understand in any other way? To me that's not that interesting, it just leads to getting lost in abstractions. Maybe relativity will be replaced by a more complicated model that covers more edge cases, but that doesn't tell you what it is. It just tells you how it behaves, as you said. It's like if what you thought was your dog meowed and liked to climb trees instead of barking and chasing squirrels. You don't know what it is anymore, it's not a cat it's not a dog, you don't know what it is but you can model it's behavior. That's what you're forced into. The familiarity is gone. Acting like that's some big accomplishment or achievement is a cop out. We found out the universe is not amenable to our knowing it with any familiarity. Is that something to celebrate? No, it's like finding out your parents were androids. So what are we left with, just accounting rules and accounting models. All they'll give us are ways to make better tools.

[drdeca]

Your concept of “explains” seems like nonsense to me.

“what’s the mechanism?”? “[…] but that doesn't tell you what it is. It just tells you how it behaves […]”? A thing is what it does. C.f. the Yoneda lemma.

Again, your complaints sound like dissatisfaction with the fact that the world doesn’t run on stuff that fundamentally resembles substances we have everyday familiarity with.

You speak of “fitting the data”. I say “is compatible with the evidence”.

Also, asking where spacetime is, is a goofy question.

Oh, I see, you are expecting intrinsic curvature to derive from extrinsic curvature? There is no need for that. You could posit a larger (flat) space to allow that, but there is no reason to, as it would be indistinguishable from the simpler alternative.

“ We found out the universe is not amenable to our knowing it with any familiarity.” : You have to remember: it all adds up to normality. Any part of how the world works that seems “weird”, was already like that before you learned of it, and is, in fact, normal.

When I said “take it up with God”, that wasn’t just a figure of speech. Isiah 55:8-9 : “ “For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways,” declares the Lord. “As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts.”

God’s thoughts, God’s designs, are greater than our own. If how the universe functions offends our sensibilities, it is our sensibilities that need to change.

At the same time, Philippians 4:8 : “ Finally, brothers and sisters, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things.”

You say “ All they'll give us are ways to make better tools.” , but, better tools? This is certainly not my motivation! My motivation is to know truth! And, there is much that is both lovely and true in what you dismiss as “models that fit the data”.

[squeefers]

science still cannot predict the path of a particle through a double slit. they cannot explain why this is the case. its claimed that the particle bounces of vacuum fluctuations, yet the energy predicted by these fluctuations is way bigger than what we measure.... how is that satisfactory to you?

[drdeca]

I don’t expect the particle has a one single path it takes. This is just an example of reality telling us our assumptions (“each particle has a single well-defined path it takes”) were mistaken.

“It’s claimed that the particle bounces off of vacuum fluctuations” : hm? Like some kind of classical particle bouncing off of something?

“ yet the energy predicted by these fluctuations is way bigger than what we measure” : This is indeed a mystery, one which people are working to resolve. You spoke earlier of wonder. Is this not something to wonder about?