the principles of Methodological Naturalism and doesn't meet the standards of evidence demanded by science (objectivity/independent verification, Demarcation/ tentative nature etc)and unable to offer Accurate descriptions, testable predictions and technical applications. — Nickolasgaspar

The standards of evidence is what's being challenged here. Duality for example.

Old fashioned scientists were too innocent to be likened to hardcore physicalists.

It was a different time, a different mindset. There wasn't even cool and uncool. No pretense to assuage one's enemies, the sky the limit.

We even laugh at how hokily optimistic they were. Their big dreams. Religion claimed answers; rogue scientists claimed magic.

We need to reinvigorate ourselves. We've taken too many minor setbacks to heart. We can do this. We can do anything.

Fuck cynicism. Encourage each other, regain our innocence.

Old fashioned scientists were too innocent to be likened to hardcore physicalists. — theRiddler

Please do tell.

It's just my estimation. Physicalism implies something they weren't. The jury was out on God, and it still should be.

We need to get corny.

... regain our innocence — theRiddler

It appears you've never lost yours. Congratulations.

how those standards are challenged? How does "Duality" challenge the scientific standards of evaluation?

Me, I don't think that changes in metaphysics necessarily are a decay in science, at all. Natural laws were consider sacrosanct for a long time, but they are coming into question due to the evidence. That's ok. Conclusions that seem to challenge traditional ontologies are not decaying science. If the research, data collection, protocols and so on were unsound, that's a problem, which might or might not decay science if endemic. Science is a set of methodologies. They lead us where they will. And they may lead away from some folk theories that seemed obvious to the consensus of scientists for a long time. Or we could call some of these ontological assumptions/conclusions 'heuristics' that are not useful in certain contexts. I mean, we know from Einstein that some of Newton's ontology was incorrect. We have repeatedly shown this via what seem like sound protocols. That's just fine. We can still use Newton's formula's in many contexts, but let go of the ontology, not that most people do.

why are you confusing physicalism with science? The philosophical views of scientists are irrelevant to their work or their methods and standards of evaluation.
-" The jury was out on God, and it still should be."
-Why are you including religious artifacts in a conversation about science?

Many points to agree with and many that I find a bit off.
All scientific laws are descriptive...this means that if they stop describing our observations accurately they are challenged by default. Our frameworks were never considered as "absolute truths", again science doesn't play the "absolute truth" game.
Science produces data and offers descriptive law like generalizations based on Naturalistic principles...not because of a philosophical bias but due to Pragmatic Necessity since they are the only testable and objectively falsifiable.

I understand that absolute knowledge or truth as Science's goals are popular beliefs,but they couldn't be further from the truth. Science offers tentative positions because our observations are based on our technology. Our technology advances so our observations always change and new facts become available. The Quasi dogmatic* principle can only slow down the process of replacing old successful frameworks but that is only because we need to have and study a "black box" in order to see why a theory crashed and burned. (*Paul Hoyningen: Systematicity the Nature of Science).

The fact is that most of our new observations and facts, refine our frameworks, they do not really change much of the picture and this is why we are confident having the same Scientific Paradigm and the same naturalistic principles for almost 500 years now.
The above remarks are not necessary in conflict with what you stated, I only included them as additional information in the discussion.

-" Conclusions that seem to challenge traditional ontologies are not decaying science."
-"If the research, data collection, protocols and so on were unsound, that's a problem, which might or might not decay science if endemic."
- "Science is a set of methodologies. They lead us where they will. And they may lead away from some folk theories that seemed obvious to the consensus of scientists for a long time."
-I agree in all three of the above statements.

-"Or we could call some of these ontological assumptions/conclusions 'heuristics' that are not useful in certain contexts. I mean, we know from Einstein that some of Newton's ontology was incorrect."
-Well to be fair towards Newton, he never included any ontology in his mathematical formulations. To be more precise he never published a theory, his Theory of Gravity is not a theory! Its a law in the form of a mathematical description!. There is even an anecdote informing people to call the phenomenon whatever they want (energy, force etc)...
Others rushed in to ad their narrative on what his equations implied.
Now Einstein's theory does make ontological claims about Gravity. Erik Verlinde's new Theory on Emergent Gravity suggest an new ontology. Newtons math just describes what the phenomenon actually does.
In science, ontological explanations are descriptive.....they are not speculative of entities or substances etc. And even when they suggest an existential claim (in the for of Hypotheses) they really informed and based on known entities that display similar qualities and properties. (i.e. Higgs Boson,).

-" We have repeatedly shown this via what seem like sound protocols. That's just fine. We can still use Newton's formula's in many contexts, but let go of the ontology, not that most people do. "
-Agreed.

I feel the need to highlight an important distinction.
Science deals with ontological descriptions within the observable reality and we don't know if its unobservable part (if there is one) is capable to hide a different ontology. So the default position is to accept the ontology we know it is possible and withhold belief to any unfounded claim.
When people try to talk about that "part of reality", we are dealing with Meta ontology.
Science, philosophy and this conversation for that "meta" part of reality are not at the same ball park.
So non naturalistic principles(an assumed meta ontology) are not and shouldn't be part of our philosophical narrative inside or outside of science. We need to be careful with our principles when we try to interpret new facts and evidence. i.w. A Natural law is not in question or under fire when people decide to interpret the available evidence by using unfounded principles(non natural). Those principles need to be verified...not assumed.

All scientific laws are descriptive...this means that if they stop describing our observations accurately they are challenged by default. — Nickolasgaspar

Sure, but the idea that laws are timeless and universal can be challenged. Which means they weren't necessarily wrong before, but the conclusion that they were built permanently into the fabric of the whole universe could be incorrect.


IOW what you write here is not relevant to the issue I was raising.

Our frameworks were never considered as "absolute truths", again science doesn't play the "absolute truth" game. — Nickolasgaspar

Science produces data and offers descriptive law like generalizations based on Naturalistic principles...not because of a philosophical bias but due to Pragmatic Necessity since they are the only testable and objectively falsifiable. — Nickolasgaspar

What you just presented here is a position that some scientists have (only humans can have biases and positions) but others do not. I'd say I am a kind of Pragmatist so I don't have a problem with your position here, in fact, I would say I agree with it. More than that I think that was what I was saying to Caldwell, though I am not sure exactly what his position is. But it seems to be that QM includes theories (or hypotheses that he considers unjustly accepted) that go against things like clearcut causal laws, so this is decay.

Well, to me, it might be a problem if the conclusions are wrong, but that's true for conclusions that support what he or anyone else might consider ontologically correct.

I understand that absolute knowledge or truth as Science's goals are popular beliefs,but they couldn't be further from the truth. — Nickolasgaspar

I'll just say you seem to be assuming things about my beliefs or the position I presented which are not the case. And again, Science can't have goals. Only living organisms can. (with a proviso that future evidence might alter my position on this:joke:)

The above remarks are not necessary in conflict with what you stated, I only included them as additional information in the discussion. — Nickolasgaspar

Ah, OK, I hadn't gotten this far yet. Thanks for the clarification.

-Well to be fair towards Newton, he never included any ontology in his mathematical formulations. To be more precise he never published a theory, his Theory of Gravity is not a theory! Its a law in the form of a mathematical description!. There is even an anecdote informing people to call the phenomenon whatever they want (energy, force etc)...
Others rushed in to ad their narrative on what his equations implied. — Nickolasgaspar

I claim no expertise about Newton, but it has been presented to me from hundreds of (perhaps weak) sources that he did in fact believe in absolute time and space.

Newtonian Time

According to its most famous proponent, Sir Isaac Newton, for example, absolute time (which is also sometimes known as “Newtonian time”) exists independently of any perceiver, progresses at a consistent pace throughout the universe, is measurable but imperceptible, and can only be truly understood mathematically. For Newton, absolute time and space were independent and separate aspects of objective reality, and not dependent on physical events or on each other.

Time, in this conception, was external to the universe, and so must be measured independently of the universe. It would continue even if the universe were completely empty of all matter and objects, and essentially represented a kind of container or stage setting within which physical phenomena occur in a completely deterministic way. In Newton’s own words: “absolute, true and mathematical time, of itself, and from its own nature, flows equably without relation to anything external”.

Newton’s ideas about absolute time were largely borrowed from Isaac Barrow, his predecessor at Cambridge. Barrow himself described time as a mathematical concept, analogous to a line in that it has length, is similar in all its parts, and can be looked on either as a simple addition of continuous instants, or alternatively as the continuous flow on one instant.

Some going so far, as here, arguing where he got his ideas from and then quoting Newton.

So the default position is to accept the ontology we know it is possible and withhold belief to any unfounded claim. — Nickolasgaspar

Great. I have to add that I really wish this was the way scientists, in general, acted. You are talking about 'the default position' Science can't have a default position, people have them. And the people I see and interact with do not withold beliefs to unfounded (or even partially founded or even merely mentioned) claims. In fact ironically Caldwell's reaction (which I may be misinterpreting) to QM seems like what I experience in my interaction with the majority of scientists I've met: they don't withhold beliefs. They evaluate intuitively or deductively beliefs that contradict or seem to contradict or might contradict or just seem weird based on their sene of current models, ontologies and theories. And they often rapidly dismiss things that, were your sense of the default in praxis accurate IRL, they should not given what science is. And they do this with peers also. To bring back Newton, there is a lot of inertia when encountering new and 'strange' ideas. Bodies at rest and in motion and all that....

But that's nothing new and not a sign of decay unless someone can show it has gotten worse.

Of course one could then ask if it is science that has decayed or scientists who have deteriorated.

But I can't fully separate out a Platonic form science from the in situ mediated form I encounter, much as I try to point at the Ideal form when encountering some scientists and more commonly their groupies (not a dig at you, you know way too much to be categorized that way. In fact the people who annoy me would likely in practice go against your defaults with regularly and thus have problems with you also.)

-"Sure, but the idea that laws are timeless and universal can be challenged. Which means they weren't necessarily wrong before, but the conclusion that they were built permanently into the fabric of the whole universe could be incorrect."
-Sure, any idea can be challenged on reasonable doubts and objective facts.
First of all we need to distinquish the concept of laws as "human narratives" and the Regularity of the processes driving Phenomena in nature(attempted to be described by our laws ).
Human narratives can change due to new evidence. So we can challenge the longevity of our descriptions. I am not sure that we can successfully challenge the regularity or longevity of natural mechanism and properties.
Regularity is a basic quality in Nature and both concepts of timeless and universal are in agreement with that. Sure we can not prove or disprove this claim, so I look it more as a Pragmatic Necessity due to our limited observations. Its like the logical absolutes and any other axiom to be honest. They are all accepted as such.... as long as we are keep verifying them with every use.
I see what you say but I can not really challenge them solely on the lack of a mathematical type of proof. In science we use induction and the power in this type of reasoning comes directly from the risk we take to predict things. Tautologies(deduction) do not offer valuable predictions at all!
So we can agree there is a risk in that "assumption" but it is a beneficial UNTIL it is unable to produce predictions.

-"IOW what you write here is not relevant to the issue I was raising.
Our frameworks were never considered as "absolute truths", again science doesn't play the "absolute truth" game."
-You are right, this is why I stated:"The above remarks are not necessary in conflict with what you stated, I only included them as additional information in the discussion."
My point was that since science doesn't deal with "absolute truth"...we need to expect changes in our frameworks since they are only the product of our current observations and understanding.

-"What you just presented here is a position that some scientists have (only humans can have biases and positions) but others do not. I'd say I am a kind of Pragmatist so I don't have a problem with your position here, in fact, I would say I agree with it. More than that I think that was what I was saying to Caldwell, though I am not sure exactly what his position is."
-Those "scientists" who don't share this position are not doing science...its that simple. They are either using the Principles of Methodological Naturalism or they are doing some kind of "philosophy".
So from your writings I see you understand how science sets our limitations in our philosophical interpretations and thus protects our epistemology from any pollution by low quality intellectual artifacts

-" But it seems to be that QM includes theories (or hypotheses that he considers unjustly accepted) that go against things like clearcut causal laws, so this is decay.""
-Well that is a misconception. After all QM is science's most successive formulations offering predictions with up to 99,999...up to 14 decimal places....accuracy.
So the "noise'' in our observations of the QM (btw by "observation" we mean crashing bozons and fermions to figure out their spatial/energetic properties) is there but we can verify the Regular Nature of Reality and we have the ability to make predictions (in a probabilistic way) with high accuracy. IT's not the first time in science that we have to represent our predictions by using a "bell curve". (its a first for physics).
Observation Objectivity Collapse( in playing English...meshing with the system we try to observe) is around Social sciences for way too many decades...but when we experience it in other physical systems it somehow becomes a problem for causality.
This is long conversation but one thing is sure. QM verify our current Scientific Paradigm even if we can not figure out its relationship with the rest of the physical scales.

-" I understand that absolute knowledge or truth as Science's goals are popular beliefs,but they couldn't be further from the truth. — Nickolasgaspar
I'll just say you seem to be assuming things about my beliefs or the position I presented which are not the case. And again, Science can't have goals. Only living organisms can. (with a proviso that future evidence might alter my position on this:joke:)"
-Sorry again I should have placed that disclaimer on the top. I was just adding arguments to your comment.

-"I claim no expertise about Newton, but it has been presented to me from hundreds of (perhaps weak) sources that he did in fact believe in absolute time and space."
-I was only referring to Gravity to be honest.

-"Time, in this conception, was external to the universe, and so must be measured independently of the universe. It would continue even if the universe were completely empty of all matter and objects, and essentially represented a kind of container or stage setting within which physical phenomena occur in a completely deterministic way. In Newton’s own words: “absolute, true and mathematical time, of itself, and from its own nature, flows equably without relation to anything external”."
-I wouldn't interpret Newton's idea on time as being external to the universe...more like a governing force of the universe. Either way he was wrong. Time is a phenomenon created by evolving processes and affected by other processes.

-"Great. I have to add that I really wish this was the way scientists, in general, acted. You are talking about 'the default position' Science can't have a default position, people have them."
-Well I am talking about using the Null Hypothesis to arrive to the Default position on a specific ontological topic. So Logic should force those people who do science to adopt a specific position as Default. Sure science is just a methodology and a bunch of philosophical assumptions(MN). Logic is what should guide Scientists.

-"n fact ironically Caldwell's reaction (which I may be misinterpreting) to QM seems like what I experience in my interaction with the majority of scientists I've met: they don't withhold beliefs. They evaluate intuitively or deductively beliefs that contradict or seem to contradict or might contradict or just seem weird based on their sene of current models, ontologies and theories. And they often rapidly dismiss things that, were your sense of the default in praxis accurate IRL, they should not given what science is. And they do this with peers also. To bring back Newton, there is a lot of inertia when encountering new and 'strange' ideas. Bodies at rest and in motion and all that...."
-Well to be honest, QM is just counter intuitive and that is mainly caused by our language.
i.e. We use the word "particle", a concept that for centuries was used to describe an entity in the Classic World. Entities of the classic world have specific spatial and temporal behavior. Now we use the same label to describe an energetic glitch in a field but our expectations for its behavior are borrowed by the classical world! We shouldn't maintain the same expectations from matter at such an energetic state and we should take in to account the way we make observations at that scale!
So most interpretations read far more things from our observations and they attempt to deduce directly one scale of reality to an other. I am not sure that a different approach without any hard evidence would be helpful or meaningful.! Maybe I miss some facts.

-"But that's nothing new and not a sign of decay unless someone can show it has gotten worse."
-As I mentioned before the Quasi dogmatic principles is a real thing in science and its responsible for the inertia at any change of our epistemology. Verification is a time consuming process.

-"Of course one could then ask if it is science that has decayed or scientists who have deteriorated."
-I could easily agree on that.! I even have a long list of scientists practicing pseudo philosophy with a white cloak.


-"But I can't fully separate out a Platonic form science from the in situ mediated form I encounter, much as I try to point at the Ideal form when encountering some scientists and more commonly their groupies (not a dig at you, you know way too much to be categorized that way. In fact the people who annoy me would likely in practice go against your defaults with regularly and thus have problems with you also.) "
-Natural philosophy turned in to "science'' because of this issue. Our methods and standards of evaluation is what protects our Science(epistemology) from Science (Establishment).

I don't really disagree with what you say. I can only see my self adding to your statements or going a bit deeper. The only point I don't really get is your position on QM. What observation in QM do you think creates the biggest trouble for our current paradigm?

↪Caldwell
how those standards are challenged? How does "Duality" challenge the scientific standards of evaluation? — Nickolasgaspar

I don't know. It challenges causality, the gold standard of science.

Does it really do that? What is the actual observation that manages that blow to causality?

↪Caldwell
Does it really do that? What is the actual observation that manages that blow to causality? — Nickolasgaspar

No actual observation -- that's the point. If you believe those who say that the wavelike quantum entities are really gravitons (particles) forced to move like waves due to gravity (cause), then QM needs to explain the role of probability and how absolute space is only a constraint we impose on the description of quantum objects, (as opposed to absolute space is a reality).

Here again, no one is denying that at the larger, slower objects, causality is not an issue. But once we get to a much smaller, speedier entities, another theory is needed. Bohr, I think, supposes that there should be multi-theories, not a single one. (I don't know if this is correct).

As I discussed with Bylaw, the main error we make is assuming "particles" in the quantum scale should display the same characteristics and properties with objects also called "particles" in the Classic world. Quantum "Particles" are not just much smaller and speedier objects/entities....they are not objects in the classical sense. They are energetic glitches.... that we can detect and quantify their different properties so accurately that we can even produce technical applications.
Our language which was evolved to describe our world and the baggage our concepts carry create a counter intuitive picture for a scale of reality that has fundamental differences from all other scales.

I guess in this case the term "quantum particle" is the cockroach.....one cockroach on the kitchen table renders the whole pizza disgusting while a slice of pizza can never "make" a ball of cockroaches eatable.
People argue that we need to throw the whole pizza out(the scientific picture of reality) for a cockroach that we created by our language and the expectations this word suggests.

Probability is explained by the uncertainty principle (Ungenauigkeit /inexactness in German), the characteristic of quantum glitches to display regular and quantifiable fuzzy properties.

I am not sure that we can successfully challenge the regularity or longevity of natural mechanism and properties. — Nickolasgaspar

Well, if we find evidence that natural mechanism change over time - constants and laws - then they are challenged.
https://bigthink.com/starts-with-a-bang/fundamental-physics-constants-not-constant/
https://physicsworld.com/a/are-the-laws-of-nature-changing-with-time/

-Well that is a misconception. After all QM is science's most successive formulations offering predictions with up to 99,999...up to 14 decimal places....accuracy. — Nickolasgaspar

I think the complaint is that qm is ontologically probablisitic, for example. Also that 'things' can be in different potential states at the same time. Of course the evidence is unbelievably strong or they never would have accepted QM and initial resistance was strong. It's that it points, as does relativity theory, to ontological ideas that went not only against common sense but against assumptions in science in general. I have no problem with this, but some do.

We shouldn't maintain the same expectations from matter at such an energetic state and we should take in to account the way we make observations at that scale! — Nickolasgaspar

Sure, though aren't they getting qm effects at larger scales.
https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/quantum-human-scale-ligo-mit-nature-a9596056.html
https://physicsworld.com/a/seeing-quantum-effects-on-a-big-scale/
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwi_g-64_NjzAhWNn4sKHRtHCE8QFnoECA0QAw&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.livescience.com%2Fphysicists-entangle-15-trillion-hot-atoms.html&usg=AOvVaw08b78zA0eeFtLEXzLWupAY
And since organisms as large as birds use qm effects this means that large things are visibly affected by small scale processes....
https://arxiv.org/abs/0804.2646

The only point I don't really get is your position on QM. What observation in QM do you think creates the biggest trouble for our current paradigm? — Nickolasgaspar

I am not sure what 'our current paradigm would refer to' but it was Caldwell who I think has a problem with QM. I think, but I am not sure, he sees it as having concluded (a little anthropomorphism tossed in) that classical causation does not hold (at least in some processes or at a certain scale

so (important jump here)

it represents a decay in Science.

Since classical causation must apply, then at least the conclusions in qm must be wrong. Not the data, but any conclusions and any new ontology.

I disagree with him. Or with my hallucinated version of him.

-"Well, if we find evidence that natural mechanism change over time - constants and laws - then they are challenged."
-Yes this is the actual observation (under specific conditions) that we need to verify in order to justify any challenge, but as I said, I am not sure that we currently have any indications to even think about it.

-''I think the complaint is that qm is ontologically probablisitic, for example. Also that 'things' can be in different potential states at the same time. Of course the evidence is unbelievably strong or they never would have accepted QM and initial resistance was strong. It's that it points, as does relativity theory, to ontological ideas that went not only against common sense but against assumptions in science in general. I have no problem with this, but some do.'
-Well probabilities are calculated by thinking agents in their efforts to predict the outcome of a system,so its more of an observer relative term than an intrinsic feature of the ontology of a natural system.
I can not see any meaning in the statement "qm is ontologically probabilistic". We as observers calculate probabilities in order to make a prediction.
QM doesn't have an ontology...its a methodology in a specific discipline of science. If they refer to the quantum world, well its ontology is materialistic since QP studies matter in its energetic form.

-" Also that 'things' can be in different potential states at the same time."
-That is an other misconception on what QM says. The actual statement is that the states of fundamental particles have many probable values Until we do our measurement and pinpoint that actual value. The "wave function" that derives from our formulation inform us for all those possible values that a specific particle might be. When we do our measurement we can point out the specific value and get rid the rest of the probable values that our math were predicting.
ITs bad language used to describe a really simple thing.
Let me give you a real life example.When playing hide and seek in a room there is a number of potential hiding places one can be. When you start searching for him,at that "same" time he can (potentially) be in any of those places. That doesn't mean that he "occupies" all of them at the same time. The term "at the same time" is statistically speaking!

-" Of course the evidence is unbelievably strong or they never would have accepted QM and initial resistance was strong."
-The resistance was strong because we had to wait for many years in order to be sure that the "inexactness" we get was not a measurement issue, but an intrinsic feature of the system.
This noise and fuzziness exist when we try to measure highly energetic fundamental elements of matter.

-" It's that it points, as does relativity theory, to ontological ideas that went not only against common sense but against assumptions in science in general."
-Either than the counter intuitive picture we receive for the behavior of those entities, nothing that we observe goes against the basic principles of science.
As I said, its a problem of language, not part of our actual observations.

-"Sure, though aren't they getting qm effects at larger scales."
-Correct, but those phenomena are Similar....not QM effects that bleed over larger scales.
i.e. we have observed that sea waves can draw "energy" from their neighboring "peaks" and produce monster waves. We have measured such monster waves at oil rigs and it is something that we observe in the quantum world. This resembles quantum tunneling (veritasium has an episode on that).
We observe "entaglement" type of phenomenon when two floating objects "ride" the same ripple of the wave. By looking at the first object we can automatically know the state (amplitude , wavelength etc) of the second one.
Chaos theory introduces "inexactness" in classical systems too....

These phenomena are similar but with serious differences so we still need to understand that we are not dealing with the same "stuff".

-"And since organisms as large as birds use qm effects this means that large things are visibly affected by small scale processes...."
-Yes this is a different phenomenon than the one in your initial statement :" getting qm effects at larger scales."
This phenomenon is more like: " quantum mechanism being part of biological functions".
Quantum biology was founded based on our need to investigate such functions. Bird navigation and photosynthesis are two well known examples of those mechanisms.

Again I have to stress the need of correct language( I am not a native speaker and that might sound arrogant and silly but bare with me). Saying that "the birds use qm" or that leaves "utilize" qm to produce energy, that alone introduces intention and purpose when its nothing beyond the principles of evolutionary biology! In addition to that, there is nothing "spooky" about those mechanisms to begin with.
Magnetic fields act on many things not just on birds! We have crystals on rocks revealing us the history of changes in the direction of the magnetic north of earth.
Leaves(photosynthesis) are not the only classical organs that utilize the abundance of photons in nature . Our eyes do it every time we "see".
If you "connect" those sensitive elements to a nervous system you get bird navigation and animal vision...simple.
So there is nothing weird or anomalous about those mechanisms and nothing about them goes against our current scientific paradigm or causality...we literally talking about quantum particles causing things!
We even build technical applications that use quantum particles to harness their "causality".


-"I am not sure what 'our current paradigm would refer to' but it was Caldwell who I think has a problem with QM. I think, but I am not sure, he sees it as having concluded (a little anthropomorphism tossed in) that classical causation does not hold (at least in some processes or at a certain scale so (important jump here)it represents a decay in Science."
-Even if classical causation didn't hold on...that would say nothing since quantum systems are not classical....they are just far more "fuzzy" to be predicted with accuracy.

-"Since classical causation must apply, then at least the conclusions in qm must be wrong. Not the data, but any conclusions and any new ontology"
-Again that is an unfounded assumption in my opinion. Its like expecting the same behavior from liquids and gases. We are talking about two different scales with their respective elements being a product of different ontological mechanisms.
Again the issue behind these misconceptions are 3.
1. language 2. language 3. limitations in our observations.
I stress language as an issue and I provide this last example.
We say "Electric current flow"...while in reality the movement of electrons don't resample a classical "flow"...not to mention that the motion we observe has nothing to do with flow.
So we need to reflect on the wording we use to identify things that we find "weird" or counter intuitive or in conflict with science.

btw we have the same issues with our language in cosmology! Black hole...not a hole, Dark matter...not sure we deal with matter or an emergent property of matter, big bang...not big and it didn't bang!

I hope that we're not just putting together strings of words and make it sound like we're talking QM. I noticed that no one is commenting on the reality of absolute space. Anyone, is this or is this not the ontology of QM?

. But it seems to be that QM includes theories (or hypotheses that he considers unjustly accepted) that go against things like clearcut causal laws, so this is decay. — Bylaw

No. The statement goes like this, that QM theories are speculative which poses a danger to scientific activities. You live long enough in speculations, you get the dismantling of scientific evidence. (and by long enough, I mean, it could take ages -- I alluded to length of time in my OP, the very first one on this thread)

For the following quotes, my intention is to clarify points that are getting lost in the discussion:

I think the complaint is that qm is ontologically probablisitic, for example. Also that 'things' can be in different potential states at the same time. — Bylaw

Okay.

Well probabilities are calculated by thinking agents in their efforts to predict the outcome of a system,so its more of an observer relative term than an intrinsic feature of the ontology of a natural system.
I can not see any meaning in the statement "qm is ontologically probabilistic". We as observers calculate probabilities in order to make a prediction. — Nickolasgaspar

No it isn't. Probabilities are put in place of exact measures -- because if we're not relying on absolute space and causality, then what's left to prove one's point? To say QM is ontologically probabilistic is good to include in this discussion. It needs to be discussed. If you claim that it is just the observer that's doing the probabilistic calculation, then do you or do you not support the classical physics?

Since classical causation must apply, then at least the conclusions in qm must be wrong. Not the data, but any conclusions and any new ontology. — Bylaw

No, I don't think there's a definitive answer to the "wrongness" of quantum theories, I think what the critics are saying is, there shouldn't be multi-ontological theory depending on the size of the world we're investigating. There is just one world.

-"No. The statement goes like this, that QM theories are speculative which poses a danger to scientific activities. You live long enough in speculations, you get the dismantling of scientific evidence."
- The longevity of any speculation can never be a threat for Science. Scientific evidence can only be challenged by new evidence.

-"No it isn't. Probabilities are put in place of exact measures -- because if we're not relying on absolute space and causality, then what's left to prove one's point? To say QM is ontologically probabilistic is good to include in this discussion. It needs to be discussed. If you claim that it is just the observer that's doing the probabilistic calculation, then do you or do you not support the classical physics?"
- I don't really get your point, maybe you use a different definition for QM and Probability.
Can you provide your personal understanding for those concepts?

These are mine and Science's.
Quantum mechanics are mathematical formulations that allow us to produce accurate Mechanical descriptions for the "behavior" of quantum elements. QM can accurately predict a spectrum of values for random "expressions" displayed by energetic glitches that seem to display an inherent fluctuation.

The notion of probability has been developed as a scientific tool to describe uncertain phenomena in science. By calculating probabilities we introduce a "countable additive measure" for systems displaying "randomness", either due to hidden non local variables or due to incomplete information.

-"No, I don't think there's a definitive answer to the "wrongness" of quantum theories, I think what the critics are saying is, there shouldn't be multi-ontological theory depending on the size of the world we're investigating. There is just one world. "
-We don't have any falsifiable theories on how larger scales emerge from the quantum world. So talking about right or wrong is meaningless.
If we take in to account the property of Emergence in matter's structures and properties ,we might never get an answer to that question.
What we have is more than 10 competing Interpretations but none of them are a threat to the Principles of Methodological Naturalism or our current paradigm. They are all at the state of "not even wrong".

Quantum mechanics are mathematical formulations that allow us to produce accurate Mechanical descriptions for the "behavior" of quantum elements — Nickolasgaspar

Some Heavy Math, Dude!

Some Heavy Math, Dude! — jgill

What is this suppose to calculate?

Quantum mechanics are mathematical formulations that allow us to produce accurate Mechanical descriptions for the "behavior" of quantum elements — Nickolasgaspar

And that behavior is what exactly? What are we measuring? Or are we confined to the descriptions of atomic entities?

What is this suppose to calculate? — Caldwell

It's a Lagrangian description of quantum activity I suppose. Ask a physicist (if they haven't all left TPF)

Thanks.

in QM calculate and predict the mechanics of particles. We calculate different characteristics of the smallest packets of energy (quanta/the minimum amount of any physical entity) detectable and measurable through their interactions.
Quantum mechanics deal with subatomic entities and their discrete quantity of energy.

It's the Lagrangian for the standard model. With some false elementary fields, but only the future will show that. If people haven't fucked up Nature before...

Quantum mechanics deal with subatomic entities and their discrete quantity of energy. — Nickolasgaspar

Molecular and atomic entities are involved too, though it can be argued that only electrons are involved.

Involved in what?

As I see now, it's a bit unclear what I meant indeed. I mean that it can be argued that in atomic and molecular QM only electrons are involved. The nuclei merely give the potentials the electrons find themselves in. The wavefunctions of the electrons determine many of their properties. But QM can also be applied to atoms or molecules as a whole. Or for finding vibrational modes of molecules. So (supra-)atomic particles. Phonons or other quasi-particles involve atoms or larger structures.

No worries,I only wanted to avoid strawmanning your position. Sure, we can even observe similar expressions in far larger physical structures (i.e. sea waves, oil droplets etc) so our ability to describe similar kinetic properties in physical interactions expand beyond the quantum scale.
The problem arises when people go beyond those kinetic/energetic properties by projecting Advanced Properties (i.e. mental properties) at a quantum level. That is in direct conflict with our verified Scientific Paradigm.