quantum mechanics which considers physical quantities at the atomic level as merely random results of measurements — Ypan1944

I think even Einstein would say quantum mechanics is not fundamental given his famous quote, “God does not play dice.” Heisenberg may have even question what sense to call quantum mechanics fundamental when he said “What we observe is not nature itself, but nature exposed to our method of questioning.”

I think that most physical theories are phenomenological and very few fundamental. — Ypan1944

I agree. There are no such things as gravity, but only the phenomenon that things fall down to the ground from the air when released. From the observations of the phenomenon, they named the phenomena as gravity.

I think that most physical theories are phenomenological and very few fundamental.
Galileo and Newton only give descriptions of what actually happens without a fundamental explanation. It was also Leibniz's criticism that Newton could not explain how the interaction of gravity actually comes about.
I think there are but a few fundamental theories, for example:
- the general theory of relativity which indicates that the emergent phenomenon of gravity arises from the curvature of 4-dimensional space
- quantum mechanics which considers physical quantities at the atomic level as merely random results of measurements — Ypan1944

From what you have written, I cannot tell what distinction you make between a phenomenological and a fundamental theory.

The contraposition of "descriptions of what actually happens" vs. "a fundamental explanation" offers no clarification. All theories seek to describe what actually happens, and all theories seek to explain - that's just what the word "theory" means. But what is it that makes a theory fundamental, as opposed to merely phenomenological?

But what is it that makes a theory fundamental, as opposed to merely phenomenological? — SophistiCat

:clap: Quite.

Phenomenological means in my opinion that phenomenons are directly observable (possibly with the help of equipment). Fundamental reveals that there are underlying - not directly observable - causes.
Newton's law of gravity just describes what's happening assuming that there is such a thing like a gravity force without giving any explanation of the origin of that force.

Phenomenological means in my opinion that phenomenons are directly observable (possibly with the help of equipment). Fundamental reveals that there are underlying - not directly observable - causes. — Ypan1944

Excellent explanation. :up:

The elephant in the room, of course, is that it is impossible to identify an unobservable cause. As Bertrand Russell once said, when you have said everything you can say about the movement of electrons, you have said everything you can say about "electricity". There is no mysterious, unobservable, underlying entity called "electricity" which causes the electrons to move: They move because of antecedent phenomena which you CAN observe. The search for metaphysical causes is essentially religious in its origins, and has been a great hindrance to the advancement of human knowledge.

The search for metaphysical causes is essentially religious in its origins, and has been a great hindrance to the advancement of human knowledge. — alan1000

:up: :up:

Does your mind cause anything? Are there such things as physical causes?

"Phenomenological theories". I've been calling them "empirical theories".
"Fundamental theories". I've been calling them "metaphysical theories".

In my opinion, Newton's and Einsteins's theories are empirical and rational theories because they are based upon direct sensory observations (empirical), and their observed elements are interlinked by mathematical and logical axioms (rational). The rational part is important as the observation alone makes no theory.

Actually, I think, there are no "phenomenological theories" at all, but there are "phenomenological facts". When I say "I'm hungry today" there are at least three phenomenological elements involved: The "myself"-sensation, the "presence"-sensation, the "hunger"-sensation. They are all facts. Even if someone would claim they are an illusion; the subjective sensations would exist anyway. So, what part in these facts might be "theoretical"? I don't know. I think a theory only sprouts when the theory maker interprets these subjective phenomena as objective empirical observations, i.e. when other humans observe the same. But we can never be absolutely sure whether this is the case. See qualia problem: Joe sees blue bananas, but he learned that the quale "blue" is called yellow in english. Mary also calls it yellow, but she experiences green qualia. -- My question is: Why should we call those theories "phenomenological" rather than "empirical"? Are these considered synonyms in this discussion? Empirical stuff may contain errors (this is not oil, it's coffee). Phenomenological stuff is always true.

As to "fundamental theories" (metaphysics): I would say such theories are always religious or philosophical, i.e. much more speculative than scientific theories. (I can't say that scientific theories contain no speculation at all, otherwise they would be facts and no theories.)