3 ms·

> If there is no epistemic support, how is this different from belief? It isn't that different from belief. It just seems better because it is based on a physi

> If there is no epistemic support, how is this different from belief? It isn't that different from belief. It just seems better because it is based on a physical theory. It isn't about what is proven empirically but about what feels more likely based on the current empirical proof. > "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent" I don't agree with that, and I don't think most people do. > I am delighted to see brave physicists making ontological commitments - perhaps they are not aware of the tangled web that awaits them. Remember that almost all physicists have no philosophy education, including those making ontological commitments. > Please, please, please read Fine's book. I probably won't, sorry. I am reading Marx and Hegel right now. Maybe in a decade or two. > Einstein was a realist, and was extensively ridiculed for it. I don't think so. A lot of people still think like Einstein or admire his commitment to a complete theory of reality. That's why we still have a lot of people interested in Bohmian mechanics. > I wouldn't be surprised if there are no actual ontological realists in physics today Most physicists are taught the Copenhagen interpretation with the first principle stated as "the wavefunction is the full physical state of the system". > natural ontological attitude I obviously don't know what that is I think you are projecting a sense of philosophical expertise that is absolutely not present in modern physics. Again remember that almost all of us have literally zero training in any kind of philosophy. I am from the UK system, in the UK we do not study philosophy in high school, and at university we literally only do lectures that are directly related to our "major". I never did a non-physics lecture. The philosophical viewpoints of physicists is entirely based on a mixture of their pre-existing social conditions (whether or not they are religious) combined with their gut reaction to the physics.

Eupraxias 4y ago
Thank you for your reply here. You've nailed it - there is an ever-widening gap between physics and philosophy, which is concerning to me for various reasons. In the end, I feel it is holding things back, but perhaps we have entered a new era. A few points, with the hope that they are helpful, but bear in mind that I am also not an expert: 1. I too, disagree with Wittgenstein, though his statement is mostly logical in context. Disagreeing here is tricky. 2. Einstein was definitely a well-documented realist, and the debate is central to what I'm trying to get at here. I tend to defend him, though I suspect I am nearly alone among 'philosophers'. I think everyone else has jumped from what they see as the sinking ship of 'realism'. I suspect it is fully sunk at this point, except for a few die-hard realists out there. (Are there any left?) 3. The "natural ontological attitude" is a realist concession. It's basically what you are talking about, with some complexities for the interested. I like it, but it doesn't resolve anything, it just says, 'this epistemological nit-picking is annoying - I'm just saying that "it just seems better because it is based on a physical theory..." My apologies for being pretentious or presumptuous about philosophical concepts. I just wish there were more open discussion of where these spheres overlap. Again, thank you for your critical thoughts here. And truly, read the Fine book in a decade or whenever. It's amazing.

Eupraxias 4y ago

Thank you for your reply here. You've nailed it - there is an ever-widening gap between physics and philosophy, which is concerning to me for various reasons. In the end, I feel it is holding things back, but perhaps we have entered a new era. A few points, with the hope that they are helpful, but bear in mind that I am also not an expert: 1. I too, disagree with Wittgenstein, though his statement is mostly logical in context. Disagreeing here is tricky. 2. Einstein was definitely a well-documented realist, and the debate is central to what I'm trying to get at here. I tend to defend him, though I suspect I am nearly alone among 'philosophers'. I think everyone else has jumped from what they see as the sinking ship of 'realism'. I suspect it is fully sunk at this point, except for a few die-hard realists out there. (Are there any left?) 3. The "natural ontological attitude" is a realist concession. It's basically what you are talking about, with some complexities for the interested. I like it, but it doesn't resolve anything, it just says, 'this epistemological nit-picking is annoying - I'm just saying that "it just seems better because it is based on a physical theory..." My apologies for being pretentious or presumptuous about philosophical concepts. I just wish there were more open discussion of where these spheres overlap. Again, thank you for your critical thoughts here. And truly, read the Fine book in a decade or whenever. It's amazing.