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. I

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.