This post is intended as an answer to JD and to include his further material. Just knew you’d need this first thing on a dull Monday morning.
JD wrote, in response to The Mathematical Matrix  and my comment “Of course it’s bloody particles”:
It is only a particle when you are looking at it, otherwise it is a wave i.e. a potentiality.
Don’t worry. You are in good company, Einstein didn’t understand it either- [I can't accept quantum mechanics because] “I like to think the moon is there even if I am not looking at it.” [Albert Einstein]
To which I replied:
Didn’t understand or saw what it really was? Such blunt terms lead one astray.
Particle physics, with its quarks and leptons, can very well, in substance, be part of fields, as I commented in the post. They may be bound by mathematical relations.
However, they are still mass in the sense that they are measurable. You’ll know about STP in experiments and it’s a similar thing here. In terms of everyday, as Johnson showed, not as a yahoo or limited Einstein but as a realist in terms of what works, given a set of conditions, it works according to the laws we know.
The question of whether it does in other circumstances need not come into the discussion. When one delves into the broader nuclear physics, then hypothesized models are where everyone dwells but they’re still describing a set of interrelations they don’t … and can’t … know.
So we have four sets of people here – those enamoured of the art of maths, those who know there is design here, the theorists who love to construct possible [educationally guessed] models and the Johnsons who say that, in practical terms, it is quite correct to speak of mass, maths or no maths.
Einstein needn’t have said, “I like to think,” because the moon is there, which is unwitting support for astrologers who take the conjunctions that are observable under our circumstances and make sense of them. And all four people can claim credit. The mathematical beauty man says there, you see – mathematical interrelations again.
Those who have had the sentient force shown to them [those who bought the ticket of belief first and this can never be properly explained to those who have not, leading to a certain esotericism which annoys those who haven't] know that there are ways in which it’s arranged that our perceptive faculties cannot take in. This comes out every time a newly awkward phenomenon such as what is lurking at the edge of what we once called the solar system arises. leading the next group to create a new model.
The accepter of an intelligent force, far from precluding the mathematical model, simply understands that this intelligent force has to use something, some means to transport, communicate etc. Whatever that means is, there has to be one. As far as any model is confirmed or denied by subsequent phenomena, this one is.
The modellist himself is observing handiwork and trying to make sense of it. When he does, and it’s workable, then he approximates Johnson – he can be quite right and even tweak his model and still be basically right. There is no need for camps [further down].
Lastly, Johnson himself, on the way to the coffee house, kicks the rock and he’s right too. His modelling is that this works under these circumstances. JD is right, the Christian is right, the astrologer is onto something too. So is the Buddhist. They’re not interchangeable as they refer to different aspects of what is and how it works.
Which brings me to camps. I see no point in two camps killing each other or even being brusque and nasty. JD comes at this from the beauty and art of maths – he’s a known-known. I state and cannot prove to you that I have seen the proof or rather “experienced” it that there is design here. And as JD said above, I’m in good company.
By their lights, the modellist is an educated person who is looking at one part of the entire field and does well within those parameters. And by his lights, Johnson is perfectly right, as was Einstein regarding the moon, within the terms of reference.
Now to JD’s further material:
and here’s the link from that story-
I can understand it intuitively but can’t articulate it (yet!)
The revelation that particle interactions, the most basic events in nature, may be consequences of geometry significantly advances a decades-long effort to reformulate quantum field theory, the body of laws describing elementary particles and their interactions. The new geometric version of quantum field theory could also facilitate the search for a theory of quantum gravity that would seamlessly connect the large- and small-scale pictures of the universe.
So we come back to the same old question, in standing back and admiring that. The Pythagoras says, “Wow, such natural beauty,” and I say, “Wow, such wonderful design.” And neither can be disproved.
As for going the way of humankind and in recent days, esp the left-inclined, rather than now split into the Judaean’s People’s Front and the People’s Front of Judaea over niceties which then divide people politically, I’m not inclined to. To me, this is a different discussion to that of the left in politics and political correctness, which has mal-intent behind the leading lights, this now is hypothesizing and believing and therefore should be angst and viciousness free.
Yet we all come to the same material through our filters.