>>>So in a way, this is saying that a raytracer is made of C?

>Yes, but isn't it?

If you understand 'made of' as: a program that produces identical output from the same input can be expressed in C, then absolutely.

> These fields are very real, it is our understanding of them that is perhaps inaccurate!

Again, this depends on the precise meaning of the words. To start with a analogy, at some point the gravitational force was understood as a instantaneous action over some distance, nowadays it is understood as curvature of the space-time. So if you say that 'the fields are real,' then you implicitly claim that they are fields. And as our understanding evolves, perhaps we will call them something else entirely, we may not even describe them as fields anymore than today gravity is described as a action at a distance.

So you may argue, that this is just semantics. But semantics become important, when you have a theory which predicts that the fundamental particles of the theory can not be observed in isolation. If the only thing that you actually observe is the response of a 100-ton detector, and where you heavily post process the data you gain from observing the detector.