The quantum-field-theory-and-atoms thing seems to be not very relevant, or at least not well-stated. I mean, why the focus on atoms in the first place? To someone who doesn’t already know, it sounds like you’re just saying “Yes, elementary particles are smaller than atoms!” or more generally “Yes, atoms are not fundamental!”; it’s tempting to instead say “OK, so instead of taking a possible state of configurations of atoms, take a possible state of whatever is fundamental.”
I’m guessing the problem you’re getting at is that is that when you actually try to do this you encounter the problem that you quickly find that you’re talking about not the state of the universe but the state of a whole notional multiverse, and you’re not talking about one present state of it but its entire evolution over time as one big block, which makes our original this-universe-focused, present-focused notion a little harder to make sense of—or if not this particular problem then something similar—but it sounds like you’re just making a stupid verbal trick.
I agree—atoms and so forth are what our universe happens to consist of. But I can’t see why that’s relevant to the question of what truth is at all—I’d say that the definition of truth and how to determine it are not a function of the physics of the universe one happens to inhabit. Adding physics into the mix tends therefore to distract from the main thrust of the argument—making me think about two complex things instead of just one.
The quantum-field-theory-and-atoms thing seems to be not very relevant, or at least not well-stated. I mean, why the focus on atoms in the first place? To someone who doesn’t already know, it sounds like you’re just saying “Yes, elementary particles are smaller than atoms!” or more generally “Yes, atoms are not fundamental!”; it’s tempting to instead say “OK, so instead of taking a possible state of configurations of atoms, take a possible state of whatever is fundamental.”
I’m guessing the problem you’re getting at is that is that when you actually try to do this you encounter the problem that you quickly find that you’re talking about not the state of the universe but the state of a whole notional multiverse, and you’re not talking about one present state of it but its entire evolution over time as one big block, which makes our original this-universe-focused, present-focused notion a little harder to make sense of—or if not this particular problem then something similar—but it sounds like you’re just making a stupid verbal trick.
I agree—atoms and so forth are what our universe happens to consist of. But I can’t see why that’s relevant to the question of what truth is at all—I’d say that the definition of truth and how to determine it are not a function of the physics of the universe one happens to inhabit. Adding physics into the mix tends therefore to distract from the main thrust of the argument—making me think about two complex things instead of just one.