QM can predict the activity of something that is a millionth of a millimeter in size with the accuracy of someone guessing the distance from Paris to Rome within the precision of a single hair. Ontology is a much more subjective topic imo

QM can predict the activity of something that is a millionth of a millimeter in size with the accuracy of someone guessing the distance from Paris to Rome within the precision of a single hair. — Gregory

Yes, but this impressive feat is the result of rigging the deck to some extent. The method of physics restricts
the criterion of ‘activity of something’ so it can achieve great precision within a limited arena of human functioning. But such precision is useless for making sense of the behavior of phenomena that require different accounts , such as biological and psychological entities. One can use a qm description here , of course, but that would eliminate the subject matter whose activity it is supposed to predict.

I don't know what you mean by restrict, but quantum biology is a field of study on par with many others

Are Relativity and Quantum theories the best ever descriptions of the ontology of reality? — Raul

It should be considered that strictly speaking 'ontology' refers to the study of being as distinct from phenomena.

considering their pragmatic consequences — Raul

I'm led to believe that when launching rockets - Newton's laws of motion are used, because they are simpler that Einstein's relativity; and there's a trade off between accuracy and simplicity. Those are pragmatic consequences. Philosophical implications are something else entirely. Relativity and quantum mechanics are conceived in pursuit of truth. But it's entirely possible, in my view, that QM is looking down the wrong end of the telescope.

I think it's simply assumed that if you keep taking something apart, you'll discover what it's made of. That could be mistaken. It could be that anything we can define as existence, being or reality - is focused at the atomic plus scale - as a consequence of a nexus of forces that confer existential properties, and that the quantum scale just fades into nothing. So, because QM is quite possibly wrong, and because relativity is too complicated for practical use, I vote no.

To be is to exist. Phenomena exist. They are what is. Being is what is. It follows that phenomena are be-ings. 'Existence' is equivalent to 'being'. Existents are thus beings. These conventional usages are all that determines the conceptual and semantic relation between the ideas of existence and being.

Your consideration is just an example of your personal preference for a particular unconventional interpretation of the terms. Which is all fine, but you should not imagine that the terms necessarily have the meanings you attribute to them and that conventional meanings are mistaken. If anything the reverse would be the case.You are but one and the conventional is manifold.

Also, how could being be studied if not by analyzing beings to discover what they have in common. The being of a rose is not the same as the being of a firefly, a lizard, a rabbit, a dolphin, or a human. And the being of any individual is not the same as any other being of the same species.

And yet in another sense, since they all alike exist, any being is the same as any other. But where could this analysis even start if there were no beings to compare and contrast? And what could being be if not instantiated in beings?

To be is to exist. — Janus

Existence is a subset of being.

‘Phenomena’ are ‘what appears’. ‘Being’ is what ‘phenomena’ appear to, but ‘being’ is not itself a phenomenon. Of course, particular beings appear to us as ‘others’ but what appears, nonetheless, is not their ding an sich.

So, because QM is quite possibly wrong, and because relativity is too complicated for practical use, I vote no. — counterpunch

Right, they are not be perfect, they could be wrong. But isn't it true they are the best ones we have? Or do you know about better ones? M theory?... or do you know a metaphysician that has better ones :wink:
My question is not about whether the theories are perfectly right but whether they are the best ones we have.

If anyone is responding NO, he/she should say which one is a better theory than those two.

I'm sorry, but I've done my best to answer what is - something of an incoherent question. As I said, pragmatic consequences and philosophical implications are entirely different. I explained why with examples. Also, why are you asking about QM and relativity in the same question? Ask about one or the other - but both? What is the supposed relationship between the two? Last I heard, they are incompatible approaches. Have you got some Theory of Everything up your sleeve???

But such precision is useless for making sense of the behavior of phenomena that require different accounts , such as biological and psychological entities. — Joshs

Right, one thing is to explain the physics of the universe and another thing is to explain the "human". There is a still a disconnect, an epistemic gap. But couldn't it be that gap to be caused by a cultural or philosophical bias?
Millions of people still believe in live after death. Are we sure many of us are not too biased still by our cultural prejudices ? Aren't those theories putting truth in front of us?
I agree all these are open and interesting discussions, I would claim though they have to be tackled from the underestimated but essential perspective of Naturalism (Daniel Andler).
This is the way! (Mandalorian :grin: )

Ask about one or the other - but both? What's the supposed relationship between the two, — counterpunch

Because one is the basis to explains the very big things, the macro (general relativity). I tis the basis to explain the Big bang for example.
The other one explains the very small, the particles, (QM).
So looks like it makes sense to say those 2 are the best ontological theories we have. Isn't it?

The opening line of "A Tale of Two Cities" is:

"It was the best of times, it was the worst of times."

That's Relativity and QM. They're contradictory.

So saying that they are both the best descriptions of reality we have is incoherent.

wasn’t that The Great Gatsby?

Yeah, but Nick Carraway was reading out loud to Daisy Buchannan from A Tale of Two Cities by Charles Dickens.

Well, there you go! Haven’t read either of them, so shows what I know. :yikes:

But do agree with you on the general incoherence of the OP. Just chipped in to make an etymological point about the derivation of ‘ontology’.

Relativity, certainly imo. It's up there with natural selection and thermodynamics.

Quantum mechanics... It's the best ever at predicting experimental outcomes, but it's a statistical theory about measurement outcomes, so there's a built-in phenomenological limit.

So saying that they are both the best descriptions of reality we have is incoherent. — counterpunch

you say that, I say they re not contradictory. Where is the judge, we need averedict :grin:
Nevertheless, who tells you that what our limited human intuitions tell us are paradoxes or contradictions are actually hiding the reality? Look at superposition states or quantum state of matter or entanglement. It is intuitively contradicting but we study it because it is how particles behave.

so there's a built-in phenomenological limit. — Kenosha Kid

You do not conceive reality as being probabilistic? It could be a scientific certification that ontologically reality is undetermined. Science saying reality is not deterministic! ... isn't this breaking stereotypes of the "materialist reductive" science many think...
Naturalism is the way!

It could be a scientific certification that ontologically reality is undetermined. — Raul

The natural sciences would have to have reached omniscience to ascertain that assertion. Until then we can assume that any undetermined reality is merely a result of the state of being confined to finitude.

You do not conceive reality as being probabilistic? It could be a scientific certification that ontologically reality is undetermined. Science saying reality is not deterministic! ... isn't this breaking stereotypes of the "materialist reductive" science many think...
Naturalism is the way! — Raul

My opinion is that it's probably not, but I'm open-minded. However my point above was that QM is phenomenological rather than just probabilistic. There is no theory underlying probabilistic mechanisms: one moves discontinuously from a deterministic description to a statistical, phenomenological one.

If ontology studies "being", as wayfarer says, and being is what is, at the present time, then doesn't relativity, which makes the present an illusion, render "ontologically real" as an oxymoron?

can assume that any undetermined reality is merely a result of the state of being confined to finitude. — emancipate

Right! and this is why science will never stop investigating :wink:
Researches do not have the intention of knowing anything. Actually scientists are becoming more and more specialized on very small areas of research. That's where philosophy has to help them to bring all together.

I recognize "ontology" is a metaphysical word but I use it on purpose to provoke a discussion :wink:

Regarding your comment, keep in mind that even metaphysicians are not clear on their definiton of being and even the nature of time. I remind you the different schools of though on presentism.
But you know, I'm one of those that think metaphysics is a philosophical-fever with no epistemic value. Sorry for being too direct, I'm not a diplomat, but it is what I think.

There is no theory underlying probabilistic mechanisms: one moves discontinuously from a deterministic description to a statistical, phenomenological one. — Kenosha Kid

Yes, there is, formulas in QM are probabilistic in the base but can become deterministic depending on the value of the factors.

What makes QM different from the rest of science to say it is phenomenological?
I think QM is phenomenal :grin: ... but phenomenological :roll: ... does it even matter? It is maybe phenomenological for you, so what?

Yes, there is, formulas in QM are probabilistic in the base but can become deterministic depending on the value of the factors. — Raul

No, that's not correct. The wave equations are completely deterministic. Probabilism enters via the Born rule. The collapse mechanism is unknown, presumed discontinuous.

I think QM is phenomenal :grin: ... but phenomenological :roll: ... does it even matter? It is maybe phenomenological for you, so what? — Raul

What I mean is that a robust answer to a question like "What is a photon?" is "A click in a photon detector." QM doesn't justify a firmer position than this.

These are just your own idiosyncratic senses, not the ordinary senses, of the of the terms, as I said. If you like those senses, then fine, but you cannot argue for their priority over the ordinary usages.

I argue that 'ontology' is derived from the first-person participle of the Greek 'to be' - which is, of course, 'I am'. On that basis, I argue that the meaning of 'ontology' is different from the study of phenomena generally. It concerns 'the meaning of being', not 'the nature of existing things', and that the meaning is, in a certain sense, first person, to emphasise the fact that it concerns being-in-the-world, so to speak, rather than analysis of objects of perception.

StreetlightX also strongly objected to my account as idiosyncratic, and posted an article, namely, The Greek Verb 'To Be' and the Problem of Being', by Charles Kahn, which he said is an authoritative account of the matter. But I think this paper rather supports my interpretation. He specifically talks about the differentiation between the Greek use of 'einai' and the modern sense of 'existence'. He says that the Greek use of the verb 'einai' was intended to indicate 'what is truly the case', 'what is so', what can be truly spoken of.

It may be thought that the neglect of such a distinction constitutes a
serious shortcoming in Greek philosophy of the classical period. But it was
precisely this indiscriminate use of einai and to on which permitted the metaphysicians
to state the problem of truth and reality in its most general form, to
treat matters of fact and existence concerning the physical world as only a
part of the problem (or as one of the possible answers), and to ask the
ontological question itself: What is Being? that is, What is the object of
true knowledge, the basis for true speech? If this is a question worth asking,
then the ontological vocabulary of the Greeks, which permitted and encouraged
them to ask it, must be regarded as a distinct philosophical asset.

The bolded passage is precisely what I meant when I said that 'existence is a subset of being'.

What you say is 'ordinary usage' is precisely what I think needs to be criticized, in a philosophical sense, because, as I say, 'modernity' often comprises a particular sense of relation to the world which is philosophically barren. It assumes a realist point of view without acknowledging that this point of view is in itself a construction, in Schopenhauer's sense, and then judges everything against this common-sense outlook, without being critically aware of itself. It's this very taken-for-grantedness which philosophy must criticise.

Of course I don't expect you to accept it but at least know it is not a mere passing fancy.

No, that's not correct. The wave equations are completely deterministic. Probabilism enters via the Born rule. — Kenosha Kid

This mistake makes clear you haven't studied QM or don't understand it.
You're mixing up Schrodinger equations and wave equations. See wave function description here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_function
In QM we use probabilistic everywhere.

What I mean is that a robust answer to a question like "What is a photon?" is "A click in a photon detector." QM doesn't justify a firmer position than this. — Kenosha Kid

A photon is not a click, but if you go to the laboratories like in the CRN you will see that particles are not clicks but probabilities everywhere, so many wave functions using probabilities to certify that a certain particle passed by a certain electromagnetic field. Go to CRN if you have a chance and take a tour I have friend physicien that showed me how it really works and is so far from what you can imagine.
Phenomenology cannot even grasp all the complexity that is behind.

If this is a question worth asking,
then the ontological vocabulary of the Greeks, which permitted and encouraged
them to ask it, must be regarded as a distinct philosophical asset.

The problem is that the general question concerning being or existence, as distinct from questions concerning beings or existents, is unanswerable. That is to say the question "What is being" or "what is existence" has no sense because the only possible answer, since being is nothing but existence, and existence is nothing but being, is a mere tautology.

Heidegger tries to answer the question by privileging human being: "dasein" or 'being there' or 'there being' as primary and other modes of being 'present at hand' and 'ready to hand' as secondary and derivative.

I think his asking of the question amounts to asking 'what is it like to be (human) and what modes of (other) being do we experience'. He forgot about the animals and other organisms, though.