From: julio@diegidio.name   
      
   On Saturday, 10 September 2022 at 10:51:48 UTC+2, Tom Roberts wrote:   
   > 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, you are simply way out of your depths.   
      
   > no human thought has any ontology at all,   
   > because thoughts do not exist in the world we inhabit, they "exist" in   
      
   Nonsense: you apparently just don't know the meaning   
   of "ontology", or of "theory" for that sake.   
      
   > 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.   
      
   Nonsense: *every* (scientific, not to conflate with e.g.   
   mathematical or else) theory needs an ontology to be   
   a theory at all: with physics, the meaning and value of   
   models indeed is exactly proportional to their correspondence   
   to the "object of study", aka, from a theoretical point of view,   
   the ontology.   
      
   > So, for instance, there is no expectation that quantities that appear in   
   > a model necessarily correspond to some object or process in the world.   
      
      
   You must have implicitly internalized the shut up and calculate,   
   as otherwise that is in no way how physics or any other science   
   is supposed to work.   
      
   And  now a word a caution to you specifically, Tom, since you   
   regularly seem to jump on what I write: while I am relatively new   
   to physics, I happen to be an expert in foundations as well as,   
   FWIW, in philosophy generally.  So, please, rather ask questions.   
      
   HTH and EOD (hopefully).   
      
   Julio   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)