From: tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net   
      
   On 9/8/22 4:13 AM, Julio Di Egidio wrote:   
   > [...] saying "the wave function is not real" means a plain hole in a   
   > theory's ontology   
      
   Say "model" instead of "theory", and you'll more easily see the basic   
   mistake you are making here: no human thought has any ontology at all,   
   because thoughts do not exist in the world we inhabit, they "exist" in   
   our minds only via a PUN on "exist". This of course applies to our   
   physical models of the world, such as QM: they are pure thoughts.   
      
   This has been a fundamental evolution in physics: we are NOT "describing   
   how the world works", we are MODELING how we observe the world to work.   
   So, for instance, there is no expectation that quantities that appear in   
   a model necessarily correspond to some object or process in the world.   
   The difference is profound, and involves a radical change in outlook and   
   approach. Remember that "model" inherently implies validity only in a   
   limited domain....   
      
       [So, for instance, the incompatibility between GR and QM   
        does not imply a fundamental problem, as they are both   
        excellent models valid in disjoint domains. We are   
        searching for a better model that will be valid in a   
        wider domain that hopefully encompasses both of their   
        individual domains.]   
      
   Tom Roberts   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)