1 hour ago, TheVat said:

Not sure what QI is standing for.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QI

16 hours ago, swansont said:

There’s no requirement that the model describe reality.

This is it. Then the open problems in physics are not problems. You solved all of them just now! Why did you created this thread then? With this position we genuinely have nothing to discuss with you. I'm not even sure your position can be called scientific...

@Eise Starting strong with self-contradiction:

On 10/20/2026 at 1:22 AM, Eise said:

What 'physical actions'?

16 hours ago, Eise said:

  On 10/20/2026 at 1:58 PM, Anton Rize said:

@Eise asked which physical actions I meant

No, I did not.

1. Summoned as specialist, didn't understood the thread, first comment mostly category errors and straw man.

2. Opened my repo ignored README.md (spam link removed), README.txt ignored my website, ignored my papers, just grabbed some random file ROSS.pdf. WTF?! No questions raised in your head yeh? hahaha! Just so you would know what you read. Ross is the name of a friend of mine. he's not a physicist but he is curios about foundations of physics. File ROSS.pdf is around 10 pages long personal letter that I shared with him via my repo as an addition to a very long and deep conversation we had. It is extremely context dependant + I had to remove all the math for him and simplify and cut lots of parts. this document never meant to be for public readings. But I keep it there because it wasn't the last time Ill need general audience story-like version. I never expected that anyone could mistaken this ROSS.pdf with my papers. And I usually don't have any traffic on my repo. All the action happening on the website. So what was driving you @Eise on my repo instead of website remains a mystery to me as much as your choice of ROSS.pdf. You can see that the name of the repo is WILL. In documents folder there's files called WILL_RG_I,pdf, WILL_RG_II.pdf etc... What was the reasoning to pick ROSS but not WILL? You are a very strange individual I have to say...

3. Based on this random file he came to conclusion (again no self criticism what so ever) without any idea what that random file was for.

4. Decided that he is privileged unlike everybody else to participate in debate using opinions instead of rigours arguments:

16 hours ago, Eise said:

But I think the answer is 'no'.

and

16 hours ago, Eise said:

It seems a clear example of crackpottism to me.

That's all he's argument! @MigL is it what you was expecting to see when you invite him?

Im still curios about your intent with this. Are you just don't know the difference between scientific argument and opinion or you genuinely that delusional to the point where your opinion is that important so it doesn't need any argumentation? Because you also showed similar delusion about your "monopoly" on Dennet's quote:

16 hours ago, Eise said:

And I regret that you are misusing the citation of Dennett (which you probably took from my disclaimer).

So far this is the most epic chain of fails that I ever seen on a public forum.
On a good side I appreciate your intent to actually read the papers. But you failed epically in doing so. You know if you new to github and it seems overwhelming you could just DM me and ask for papers. Any way at least you made me laugh I give you that. Don't worry though we all learning, just try to be a bit more humble and at least trace your logic before posting anything.

14 hours ago, MigL said:

When does the Ontology develop between those two steps

Look I explicitly written everything down step by step with clear operational primitives. I point out where exactly ontology meters and why. I asked question to everyone to spark the discussion of the real ontological problem. I do not know what else I could do. I can also answer direct well formed questions, but you didn't formulate those.

This:

14 hours ago, MigL said:

With very few exceptions, most Mathematical tools are developed in the 'abstract', without reference to any Physical systems.
They are, then, applied to Physical systems to develop a model for those systems.

When does the Ontology develop between those two steps, @Anton Rize .

is not very clear from my perspective.
if you saying that most math tools used in physics was developed by mathematicians before the physical application was found and you asking me when the ontology appear between this two? Is that your question?
If yes then its assumption loaded question. Ontological understanding of the physical phenomena and its mathematical representation are not two separate elements. Mathematical formalism is the direct reflection of the ontological understanding. For example Einstein first reached the physical idea that gravity is geometry, and then chose that existing mathematics, with Grossmann’s help, because it matched his idea. So its not a coincidence 4D pseudo-Remanian geometrical fabric is the math that represents Einsteins ontology. Same goes to Newton. He developed calculus not because he was bored. He's math is the direct reflection of he's ontology. So ontology doesn't appear somewhere between math and physics - its the conceptual understanding that bounds math and physics together.


I want to remind everyone that this is a split from Zeno paradox threat. It was splited not by me but by @swansont . So the name of the thread is not my choice. We are not discussing pure math or engineering here. This is about foundations of physics and methodology of science.

18 hours ago, MigL said:

With very few exceptions, most Mathematical tools are developed in the 'abstract', without reference to any Physical systems.
They are, then, applied to Physical systems to develop a model for those systems.

When does the Ontology develop between those two steps, @Anton Rize .
( just expanding on Swansont's and studiot's posts; all three of us would like an answer )

Exactly. The connection to the physical world comes from the definitions of the concepts whose relationships are expressed in the mathematics. Those definitions have to be first expressed in words before any mathematics can be applied to them: concepts like mass, energy, electric charge or whatever.

There is a second issue of whether concepts such as force, mass etc can be said to be "real" or whether they are merely parts of conceptual models that allow us to predict the behaviour of nature. But that issue is nothing to do with mathematics.

(This, by the way, is why I don't have much time for Tegmark's "mathematic universe" idea. 🙂)

2 hours ago, Anton Rize said:

I want to remind everyone that this is a split from Zeno paradox threat. It was splited not by me but by @swansont . So the name of the thread is not my choice. We are not discussing pure math or engineering here. This is about foundations of physics and methodology of science.

I do not wish to participate in your dispute with swansont about the name or subject of this thread.

The thread is entitled the ontology of mathematics.

Apparently you wish to (and perhaps have always meant to) discuss the ontology of physics.

That is no reason to be as rude to others as you are to me.

Addressing your earlier statements I am not classed as sufficient of a philosopher to know what is meant by the ontology of either physics or mathematics.

However I do know what is meant by a parameter in both and I observe that your use of the term seems at direct variance with your subsequent 'one rule'.

So what please is the ontological meaning of a parameter ?

(I note the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy returns 168 documents about parameters, and over 3000 articles on the subject of the ontology of physics)

But they all seem to include the application of parameters to constants, as do both maths and physics.

So why did you exclude G ?

Edited Thursday at 10:42 AM3 days by studiot

4 hours ago, Anton Rize said:

I want to remind everyone that this is a split from Zeno paradox threat. It was splited not by me but by @swansont . So the name of the thread is not my choice.

The Zeno thread was not started by you. This was split because you responded to a comment about math having no ontology; it was an invitation for you to discuss it further, since that was off-topic for that thread.

If you have a better name, you are free to suggest one

4 hours ago, Anton Rize said:

We are not discussing pure math or engineering here. This is about foundations of physics and methodology of science.

If that’s what you want, you should have started a thread to discuss it, or see if any of the existing ones are still open. Which you can still do

But I will point out that foundations of physics is only a small slice of the physics pie.

5 hours ago, Anton Rize said:

This is it. Then the open problems in physics are not problems. You solved all of them just now! Why did you created this thread then? With this position we genuinely have nothing to discuss with you. I'm not even sure your position can be called scientific...

As I said, I split this because of your tangent in responding to the comment that math has no ontology.

On 10/18/2026 at 6:02 PM, Anton Rize said:

Mine or anybody else thoughts or opinions are irrelevant here. What we have here is a different operational understanding of mathematical language between us. And I would like to understand your position clearly. Lets take this simple example where 2 equations are solving for the same value but, as I see it, having radically different ontological meanings:

va=GMr−−−√vs.vb=2πrP

Can you see the ontological difference?

You can see the difference if you choose a range from two bodies of equal mass to one body of infinite mass and the other negligible. One equation is symbolic the other procedural.

10 hours ago, Anton Rize said:

Mathematical formalism is the direct reflection of the ontological understanding. For example Einstein first reached the physical idea that gravity is geometry, and then chose that existing mathematics, with Grossmann’s help, because it matched his idea. So its not a coincidence 4D pseudo-Remanian geometrical fabric is the math that represents Einsteins ontology.

Not even close.
It is not a coincidence that 4D Psrudo-Remenian geometric mathematics can represent Einstein's gravitational model.
But you need to keep in mind that this is the model, not the ontological reality.
Furthermore, this model is not accurate in all applications, and fails spectacularly, in such cases, giving rise to infinities.

What is the ontological realism of infinities ???

10 hours ago, Anton Rize said:

It was splited not by me but by @swansont . So the name of the thread is not my choice. We are not discussing pure math or engineering here. This is about foundations of physics and methodology of science.

Probably to keep you from derailing the other thread with unrelated nonsense.

10 hours ago, Anton Rize said:

That's all he's argument! @MigL is it what you was expecting to see when you invite him?

Of course.
And he's spot on.

Im starting to get tired of this...

10 hours ago, MigL said:

Not even close.

Close to what?

10 hours ago, MigL said:

It is not a coincidence that 4D Psrudo-Remenian geometric mathematics can represent Einstein's gravitational model.
But you need to keep in mind that this is the model, not the ontological reality.
Furthermore, this model is not accurate in all applications, and fails spectacularly, in such cases, giving rise to infinities.

What is the ontological realism of infinities ???

You quoted me so I presume you read it at least once. Can you point where exactly did I said that Einstein's ontology or GR is the ontological reality?
There's no realism in infinity's. I already used them as an example of artifacts in this thread. That's the whole point of this discussion to separate model independent interpretation free (as much as it possible) empirical facts from interpretation heavy model dependant ontological assumptions. Did anything we discuss in this thread came through to you?

10 hours ago, MigL said:

Of course.
And he's spot on.

Yeh that's explains why you was the one who invite him. No further questions or expectations in your direction from my side.

19 hours ago, exchemist said:

Exactly. The connection to the physical world comes from the definitions of the concepts whose relationships are expressed in the mathematics. Those definitions have to be first expressed in words before any mathematics can be applied to them: concepts like mass, energy, electric charge or whatever.

There is a second issue of whether concepts such as force, mass etc can be said to be "real" or whether they are merely parts of conceptual models that allow us to predict the behaviour of nature. But that issue is nothing to do with mathematics.

(This, by the way, is why I don't have much time for Tegmark's "mathematic universe" idea. 🙂)

Spot on! Thank you @exchemist for formulating this in such a clear form.

On 10/21/2026 at 6:08 PM, KJW said:

Not necessarily. For example, different interpretations of quantum mechanics use the same equations to describe the physics being observed. However, the different interpretations represent different ontologies, so the mathematics in this case does not indicate the ontology of quantum mechanics. Specifically, both the Copenhagen Interpretation and the Many Worlds Interpretation are described by the Born Rule, but they are ontologically quite different unless one accepts the ontology of the Many Worlds Interpretation and regards the Copenhagen Interpretation as the solipsistically subjective perception of the Many Worlds Interpretation, which I do. One thing to note is that the mathematics of the Born Rule does not actually contain wavefunction collapse, and it is my belief that mathematics cannot explicitly model intrinsic randomness.

thank you for joining in mate!
In your comment its not clear to me what prevent multiple ontological views (regardless right or wrong) to be attached to same mathematics.
Also how do you know that "intrinsic randomness" is telling us about physical reality instead of just reflecting our own ignorance caused by limited information about quantum system?
Don't you think that Many World interpretation is in direct conflict with the parsimony principle and Occam's razor? And if ontological understanding does not discriminate any data (one can explain anything with Many Worlds) it loosing its explanation and predictive value and its scientific status can be questioned don't you think?
in general QM is just ontological mess... So maybe lets warm up on orbital mechanics first? I would like to hear your thoughts on textbook assumption that M and G are the cause of the redshift when no empirical readings that I know can support it. I illustrated this problem here:

On 10/20/2026 at 1:58 PM, Anton Rize said:

I will use one rule: every parameter that enters the math must be traced to the action that produces its reading. I call this operational reasoning.

Take a circular orbit of radius r and period P.

vb=2πrP

• P - is a local clock reading (discreet benchmark cycles count) of the duration of an orbital cycle.

• r - we do not measure distance directly. Instead it defined through light travel. I write td=r/c for the time light needs to cross the radius. Since 1983 the number c is fixed by definition, so c is a chosen unit conversion.
  
  Dividing by c gives the speed as a pure number:

β=vbc=2πtdP

β is a ratio of two durations read on one clock. The unit of time cancels.

Now the second expression:

va=GMr−−−−√

No action on the orbit reads G or M. Setting va=vb gives the only route to GM:

GM=β2tdc3

Dividing by the unit conversion c3:

GMc3=β2td

The right side is a duration built from two clock readings. This duration is the entire physical content of GM. Multiplying it by c3 adds no physical meaning.

Is there another route to GM?

GM has units of length cubed over time squared, so every reading of it combines lengths and times only. A kilogram could enter only by weighing the body on a balance, and nobody weighs a star. Every method in use confirms this. Planetary ephemerides use radar times, Doppler shifts and periods. Gravitational-wave signals give the binary's scale directly as a duration, from the wave frequency and its rate of change.

The speed can also be read from light alone. If z is the transverse Doppler shift of a spectral line from the orbiting body, then:

β2=1−(1+z)−2

So the orbit offers three ontologically real readings: the light radius td, the period P, and the shift z. Any two of them fix the system's scale, and the third one tests it:

2πtdP=1−(1+z)−2−−−−−−−−−−−√

This line equates a ratio of durations with a ratio of frequencies. These are two different types of readings, and the equality can fail. @joigus , this is why I do not call va=vb an algebraic manipulation. With GM taken from the same orbit, it is an identity that tests nothing. With operational readings, it is a physical law. Can you see this difference? That what ontology is, and there's no need to escalate adversarial tones. We are better then this.

For an elliptical orbit the same chain holds, with r as the semimajor axis and v as the speed at the point where the radius equals the semimajor axis.

This is the ontology in action.
The readings are durations and frequency ratios. G and M enter only when we convert the result into kilograms, a unit we invented. Relativists already drop G in practice by setting
G=c=1 and writing mass as a length, and the chain above shows why that convention works. Yet the way we teach orbital mechanics starts from the Sun's mass in kilograms and the value of G, and derives the orbital speed from them. The real physics operational order is the reverse: the speed is read, and the kilogram mass is computed from it.

and then added important correction:

On 10/21/2026 at 1:18 PM, Anton Rize said:

Rereading my orbital example, I found a logical gap in my own post, and it shows exactly the problem this thread is about. I wrote that with operational readings,
va=vb becomes a physical law. That sentence assumes the speed read from the spectrum is caused by G and M. No reading supports this.

The physical law is:

2πtdP=1−(1+z)−2−−−−−−−−−−−√

Neither side contains G or M. The readings fix one scale of the central body. Splitting that scale into a kilogram mass and G, and calling the mass the source of z, is an assumption added on top of the readings.

3 hours ago, Anton Rize said:

Spot on! Thank you @exchemist for formulating this in such a clear form.

thank you for joining in mate!
In your comment its not clear to me what prevent multiple ontological views (regardless right or wrong) to be attached to same mathematics.
Also how do you know that "intrinsic randomness" is telling us about physical reality instead of just reflecting our own ignorance caused by limited information about quantum system?
Don't you think that Many World interpretation is in direct conflict with the parsimony principle and Occam's razor? And if ontological understanding does not discriminate any data (one can explain anything with Many Worlds) it loosing its explanation and predictive value and its scientific status can be questioned don't you think?
in general QM is just ontological mess...

OK, but then I'm not sure I see the problem you think needs to be addressed. Mathematics per se has nothing to do with ontology and I don't think anybody here is arguing otherwise. Mathematics is essentially a form of abstract reasoning that happens to provide a language (more specifically a quantitive language) well-suited to express the relationships between many of the physical concepts science uses in its models.

Note that the Many Worlds interpretation of QM that you refer to is not part of the QM model. It is an interpretation of the model, which is a different thing. QM is a very mathematical model, which predicts the right outcomes in terms of observation. That is good enough for science. "Shut up and calculate", if you like. The various interpretations of this model may suggest different ontologies, e.g. whether QM entities can be said to be real in between interactions, whether the wave function has any physical existence or is just a predictive tool, and so on.

But we get this sort of hazy relationship to reality in science more generally. For instance in organic chemistry there is a technique used to rationalise and predict the outcomes of reactions, known as "arrow-pushing". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow_pushing This is a way of analysing the mechanisms of reactions by the convention that the electrons in chemical bonds rearrange themselves in a certain way during the course of the reaction. But any physical chemist will tell you it is doubtful whether the electrons actually, physically, move as shown by the arrows. So if you want to, you can have a similar debate about the ontology of chemical reaction processes. Note that no mathematics at all is involved. Chemists are happy to use the technique and treat it as "real" enough to be getting on with, for the purpose at hand - a sort of non-mathematical "shut up and calculate". But at the back of their minds there remains the caveat that it's just a technique, whose physical reality is perhaps a bit questionable.

So my take on the discussion in this thread would be that yes, there certainly can be debates about ontology around the various models of science, but that arises because science deals in models and is typically fairly cagey about asserting their reality in a philosophical sense. Whether the models are mathematical or not does not really have much to do with the question, it seems to me.

1 hour ago, exchemist said:

But we get this sort of hazy relationship to reality in science more generally. For instance in organic chemistry there is a technique used to rationalise and predict the outcomes of reactions, known as "arrow-pushing". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow_pushing This is a way of analysing the mechanisms of reactions by the convention that the electrons in chemical bonds rearrange themselves in a certain way during the course of the reaction. But any physical chemist will tell you it is doubtful whether the electrons actually, physically, move as shown by the arrows. So if you want to, you can have a similar debate about the ontology of chemical reaction processes. Note that no mathematics at all is involved. Chemists are happy to use the technique and treat it as "real" enough to be getting on with, for the purpose at hand - a sort of non-mathematical "shut up and calculate". But at the back of their minds there remains the caveat that it's just a technique, whose physical reality is perhaps a bit questionable.

So my take on the discussion in this thread would be that yes, there certainly can be debates about ontology around the various models of science, but that arises because science deals in models and is typically fairly cagey about asserting their reality in a philosophical sense. Whether the models are mathematical or not does not really have much to do with the question, it seems to me.

Talk about spot on !

+1

A clear appreciation of both the subject of 'models' and the fact that there is (much) more to Science than Mathematics alone.

5 hours ago, Anton Rize said:

Im starting to get tired of this...

I see you are continuing to blank me rather than address the deficiencies in your posts.

On 10/22/2026 at 9:33 AM, Anton Rize said:

So what was driving you @Eise on my repo instead of website remains a mystery to me as much as your choice of ROSS.pdf.

I googled a citation with no reference in one of your posts. I could not imagine it was from a philosopher or physicist. And voila, one hit, your document.

On 10/22/2026 at 9:33 AM, Anton Rize said:

That's all he's argument!

That was not an argument. I highly trust my crackpot detector. If your approach to GR and QM is really that revolutionary, why don't you publish it in an established physics journal?

Just curious: do you an education as engineer? And/or have a career in IT?

Ontology being a branch of Metaphysics. @Anton Rize , did I ever tell you what a T-shirt said about Metaphysics ?
Its like being in a dark room and looking for a black cat that might ( benefit of doubt ) not be there.

That seems to fit your posts as well.
you said

On 10/22/2026 at 3:33 AM, Anton Rize said:

Einstein first reached the physical idea that gravity is geometry ... 4D pseudo-Remanian geometrical fabric is the math that represents Einsteins ontology

I understand that as Einstein's Gravity is the geometry of space-time.
Yet you claim

10 hours ago, Anton Rize said:

Can you point where exactly did I said that Einstein's ontology or GR is the ontological reality?

You're welcome.

On 10/23/2026 at 3:18 PM, Anton Rize said:

In your comment its not clear to me what prevent multiple ontological views (regardless right or wrong) to be attached to same mathematics.

If multiple ontologies are attached to the same mathematics, then this would indicate that the mathematics does not have an ontology. However, this doesn't mean that the mathematics doesn't suggest a preferred ontology. I believe the mathematics does suggest the Many Worlds Interpretation as the preferred ontology.

On 10/23/2026 at 3:18 PM, Anton Rize said:

Don't you think that Many World interpretation is in direct conflict with the parsimony principle and Occam's razor?

No. The Many Worlds Interpretation is actually the logically simplest interpretation. It is simpler to have all possible worlds than to select one of those worlds. Selection adds complexity to an interpretation that is unnecessary in accordance with Occam's razor. And if there are multiple possible outcomes to a physical interaction, it is simpler for all of those outcomes to happen than to randomly choose one of those outcomes. Mechanistic randomness adds complexity, perhaps even impossibility, to an interpretation that is unnecessary in accordance with Occam's razor. I find it strange that people think that the many worlds conflict with parsimony as if there is an unaffordable cost to having many worlds. The crucial issue is whether or not a single world is deterministic. If it is deterministic, then the many worlds is ontologically unnecessary. Otherwise, I see it as necessary. And if it is necessary, then the parsimony principle and Occam's razor doesn't enter into consideration. It should be noted that determinism is the result of the mathematics that describes the laws of physics being sufficient to constrain the possible futures for a given past to just one. There is no reason at the outset to believe that the laws of physics are sufficiently constraining.

On 10/23/2026 at 3:18 PM, Anton Rize said:

And if ontological understanding does not discriminate any data (one can explain anything with Many Worlds) it loosing its explanation and predictive value and its scientific status can be questioned don't you think?

A natural objection to the Many Worlds Interpretation is the unobservable other worlds. We see only one outcome, not all of them. However, being unobservable does not imply non-existence. Of course, care is needed to avoid Russell's teapot. It can be said that if the other worlds were inconsequential, then the Many Worlds Interpretation would be unnecessary. But the other worlds are not inconsequential. Although they are unobservable, their existence is logical. They provide what I believe is the explanation for the randomness of quantum outcomes. Other interpretations seem to either lack an explanation or invoke an unobserved mechanism for selection of quantum outcomes. Interestingly, the Many Worlds Interpretation provides a mathematical basis for the unobservability of the other worlds: classical states are orthogonal. This weakens the unobservability objection.

On 10/23/2026 at 3:18 PM, Anton Rize said:

Also how do you know that "intrinsic randomness" is telling us about physical reality instead of just reflecting our own ignorance caused by limited information about quantum system?

As far as I'm aware, there is no experiment that has revealed quantum mechanics to be anything but complete. When one actually has some understanding of the true nature of quantum mechanics, it becomes clear why there is intrinsic randomness and in particular, why the information that would otherwise select a particular outcome doesn't exist. For example, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle is a mathematical consequence of the relationship between conjugate variables.

On 10/23/2026 at 3:18 PM, Anton Rize said:

So maybe lets warm up on orbital mechanics first?

It's been a while since I looked at that. I would like to work out gravitational deflection of timelike and lightlike trajectories from infinity, non-circular orbital precession, and orbital decay of mutually orbiting equal mass black holes along with the concomitant emission of gravitation. Unlike the previous problems, none of these involve the simplicity of stationary frames of reference, although I'll attempt solving these in a rotating coordinate system nevertheless.

On 10/23/2026 at 3:18 PM, Anton Rize said:

G and M enter only when we convert the result into kilograms, a unit we invented. Relativists already drop G in practice by setting G=c=1 and writing mass as a length

One can measure the mass of the sun in metres, and one can measure the mass of a bowling ball in kilograms. But unless the value of G is measured (eg Cavendish experiment), one will not be able to calculate how many bowling balls has the same mass as the sun. IIRC, the Cavendish experiment has been described as "weighing the earth". Physicists have identified seven base dimensions of measurement from which all other quantities can be defined. One can invoke dimensioned fundamental constants to reduce the number of base dimensions, for example expressing mass in metres instead of kilograms, and indeed it is something I have enthusiastically done. But I see two problems: 1, from a practical perspective, the seven base dimensions are all different, requiring different types of measurement. For example, measuring length using a clock is different to measuring length using a ruler. That is, time and length are different even though c connects them. And 2, when one uses all seven dimensioned fundamental constants to reduce the number of base dimensions, one instead obtains the Planck units. In itself, this is a benefit rather than a problem, but it does seem to indicate that invoking dimensioned fundamental constants to reduce the number of base dimensions is misguided.

Edited yesterday at 05:59 AM1 day by KJW

Well, since we are now clearly in the realm of opinions ...

I don't particularly like, or dislike, the Many Worlds interpretation.
Nor do I have any preference for any other interpretation of Quantum Theory.

What I like to keep in mind is that these are interpretations of the theory, or mathematical model, not of reality itself.
Reality acts the way it should; there are no other possible outcomes.
It is the mathematical model that predicts other possible outcomes.
And by that I don't mean 'hidden variables', but that the effects are intrinsic to themathematical tools we have available to use, such as @KJW 's example of the HUP arising from the maths.

Many World would seem like such a waste, having an infinite amount of 'otherwhere' that cannot ever be causally known.

I sometimes even question the idea of 'randomness', as either incomplete representation of the system in our model, or, again, inherent in the mathematics we use for our model, as I believe reality must be strictly causal.
IOW, even what we consider 'random' events must have a cause.

Also keep in mind this is opinion, so no evidence to back it up.

1 hour ago, MigL said:

I sometimes even question the idea of 'randomness', as either incomplete representation of the system in our model, or, again, inherent in the mathematics we use for our model, as I believe reality must be strictly causal.

I suggest it is more sexy to seek a hidden cause or mystical behind-the-scenes whatnot, rather than the plain and simple common or garden reality.

Carrying the garden theme on, take a batch of garden twine balls.

Do a tensile test to breakage on samples from each ball.

Every single one of those breakages will have a physical cause that is pure physics.

But the values of the actual breaking loads will vary randomly and quite widely, (which is why I chose garden twine). Analysis of that distribution is pure mathematics.

Is there an ontology attached to either of these ?

Seems to me that you can attach ontology to virtually anything desired. Whether it is necessary or useful to do so is a different matter...

This is a really bad example

3 hours ago, studiot said:

Carrying the garden theme on, take a batch of garden twine balls.
Do a tensile test to breakage on samples from each ball.
Every single one of those breakages will have a physical cause that is pure physics.
But the values of the actual breaking loads will vary randomly and quite widely, (which is why I chose garden twine). Analysis of that distribution is pure mathematics.

If you could obtain two identical samples of twine, right down to the atomic level, they would have exactly equivalent breaking points, solely due to VDW forces between atoms of constituent molecules.
The causes for dissimilar breaks would be differing amounts and density of fibers in the twine, tears, dislocations and other damage to the fibers, even 'rotting' of the fibers or unequal pulling forces are some of the many causes of the apparent 'randomness'.

Now if you had mentioned radioactive decay, I might have had to scramble to come up with a plausible ( but obviously not evidentiary ) QCD 'explanation.

I know you can do better 🙂 .

9 hours ago, MigL said:

If you could obtain two identical samples of twine,

But you can't as you well know.

9 hours ago, MigL said:

The causes for dissimilar breaks would be differing amounts and density of fibers in the twine, tears, dislocations and other damage to the fibers, even 'rotting' of the fibers or unequal pulling forces are some of the many causes of the apparent 'randomness'.

There is always, or perhaps nearly always ( I shy away form absolutes) to any action.

But that is not what I was talking about.

I was referring to our measurement of that action.

With better manufactured ropes the same question is of vital importance to industry and mathematics allows us to go into more detail for useful safety purposes.

So my question still stands

14 hours ago, studiot said:

Is there an ontology attached to either of these ?

16 hours ago, studiot said:

Is there an ontology attached to either of these ?

Ontology is one of those words I have no use for ( like 'Overton Window', 'Looksmaxxing' or 'Shadow Docket' ... who makes up this stuff ? ).

As far as I'm concerned science deals with making models that describe how some aspects ( not all ) of reality work, using a tool called mathematics. It makes no attempt to describe what reality is. The one model cannot describe how all aspects of reality work, nor can it describe what reality is.

The examples I previously used were Newton's Corpuscular Theory, and Huygens' Wave Theory, of light. We know that light is neither a particle, nor a wave, yet we can perform experiments that demonstrate aspects of both, such that, properly applied, both theories have invaluable predictive power
Is there any 'ontology' attached to this ?
The obvious answer is a resounding "NO'.
( nor is there a need for it ... my opinion )

14 hours ago, npts2020 said:

Seems to me that you can attach ontology to virtually anything desired. Whether it is necessary or useful to do so is a different matter...

This.

Epistemology (often paired with ontology in approaching philosophy questions) is another one. I could write a paper on the epistemology of burnt toast, but that doesn't mean it's worth reading.

So ... what happened to @Anton Rize and @Time Traveler , the people who started this mess ?
A little push-back and they quit for a couple of months ?