I liked the intro but some parts of the previous posts and this one have been confusing, for example in this post:
Second, we saw that configurations are about multiple particles. [...] And in the real universe, every configuration is about all the particles… everywhere.)
and more glaring in the previous one:
A configuration says, “a photon here, a photon there,”
Here my intuition is that we can model the world as particles, or we can use the lower-level model of the world which configurations are, but we can’t mix both any way we want. These sentences feel backwards: they talk about configurations in terms of particles, and this doesn’t make any sense because the model of particles should be derived from the lower-level model of configurations, not the other way around!!
Maybe someone with more knowledge in physics and philosophy of science can clarify?
I liked the intro but some parts of the previous posts and this one have been confusing, for example in this post:
and more glaring in the previous one:
Here my intuition is that we can model the world as particles, or we can use the lower-level model of the world which configurations are, but we can’t mix both any way we want. These sentences feel backwards: they talk about configurations in terms of particles, and this doesn’t make any sense because the model of particles should be derived from the lower-level model of configurations, not the other way around!!
Maybe someone with more knowledge in physics and philosophy of science can clarify?