Blaggard wrote:Well Copenhagen has no ontology until a measurement is performed.
Yes, I should have added Copenhagen, Shut Up and Calculate to the list. Incidentally, I meant to say 'you ask whether GR and QM are in
compatible', I don't know whether that makes it any clearer that I understand that physics can be interpreted entirely instrumentally.
Blaggard wrote:If that counts as an ontology that would be it.
Only if you are prepared to say what the ultimate cause of the phenomenon is.
Blaggard wrote:We cannot know anything about something that is unobserved.
That too, is empiricism for you.
Blaggard wrote:As I said on another thread if a tree falls in the woods and no one is around to hear it does it make a sound?
Thanks Arising for putting it so succinctly. Yes, we get that observations/sensations imply observers/sensors although almost from the time Descartes said it, even that has been challenged; by Gassendi, initially.
Blaggard wrote:GR and QM are compatible in field theory that explains wave interaction but the particle theory encounters problems. I have already explained what they are.
Particle theories have been encountering problems since Democritus first suggested them (stealing Leucippus' thunder, perhaps).
What we actually need is experiment, and it is all we have to verify science, we don't have the benefit of making shit up like how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, or whatever.
There's a bit more to it than making up dancing angel shit. It's what philosophy does, you take the phenomenal world and put it in a context; try and make sense of it. Quite literally the oldest question in philosophy is 'What is everything made of?' According to our best physics, the universe is made of something that can grow from eansy-weansy to really, really big in just shy of 14 billion years. And do all the freaky is it a wave? is it a particle? two slit jiggery-pokery, form stars, planets and conscious beings, indistinguishable from magic stuff. Philosophers are as much party to that information as physicists, second hand, granted; but for all that we are dumbstruck by the brilliance of experimentalists in finding things to measure, and the mathematical genius it takes to account for the measurements, can physics or maths say anything about what the universe, what fundamental particles are made of?
Steven Weinberg, no friend of philosophy, but undoubtedly a brilliant man, Nobel laureate no less, says that most physicists assume 'a rough and ready realism'. What is it that most physicists think is real?
You said before: "I can't do what you want." I'm not trying to be funny, but do you at least understand the question 'What are fundamental particles made of?' I quite appreciate that 'Yes, but who cares?' is entirely reasonable, but this is a philosophy forum and you wouldn't be playing the game. Bad Blaggard!