[strogonoff]

There’s nothing “real” in physics. Everything is a model, and every model is necessarily flawed—otherwise would imply a provably correct, complete formal description of the actual-really-“real”. To obtain that even in theory we would have to observe the real from the outside, which we by definition cannot: we’re necessarily part of what we’re describing, so if we could look at it from the outside all we would get then is a new indescribable “real”.

Hence, a question like “are fields real?” is besides the point: it is impossible to tell whether that theory is wrong or qualify how wrong it is, because the reference point is never available. It’s a model—it works for some purposes, it doesn’t for others.

[abstrakraft]

I agree that you can't know what is "real" without looking at our universe from outside it, but that, in and of itself, doesn't imply that every model must be flawed, in the sense that its predictions must not be 100% consistent with observation. We could stumble across the "real" model, or something equivalent to it (in the sense of identical predictions) - we'd have no way of knowing whether the model is "real", but it could still be right.

[strogonoff]

Such a model would look extraordinarily compelling to rely on all the time for all purposes, all the while remaining capable of being false in a critical and very difficult (impossible with technology of the time) to detect way.

I’d rather prefer a Unix way: a plurality of explicitly more limited but more numerous and conceptually diverse models.

[fellowmartian]

I’m not convinced it’s impossible to model reality from the inside of reality. It’s conceivable to have a model that logically necessitates a reality, maybe with some kind of meta-mathematical bootstrapping mechanism, and some way to prove that your model reality is the same reality as we’re in (eg just as all turing-complete machines are equally powerful, all realities with some properties are equally real).

[strogonoff]

The model of reality is created by and used by your mind, and your mind is part of reality, so already that catch-22 intuitively precludes the model from being provably correct and complete even if your mind could somehow be completely unbiased and objective in every other way (which our minds aren’t, our biases and preexisting beliefs and feelings inform physical theories and models all the time).

I don’t see why your approach is not subject to the same limitations.

[mensetmanusman]

If the model is wrong but pointing out the shape of the real thing that governs everything, it’s still an interesting question as to why anything is being so perfectly governed.

[strogonoff]

Replace government with correlation. Correlation is data, government is a story. We observe correlations and then create stories and analogies with things we already know that fit those correlations. That’s how our mind works.

“Are fields real?” is not a bad question! It can’t be answered within the framing of scientific method, but it brings into focus the bigger question of what “being real” might mean.