Such a claim needs to overcome 3 objections in view of unification of our 2 best theories (qm& gr) .
(Realism claims our theories captured the truth about the world, a belief.)
Argument 1: There is no easily constructed semantic thesis about the shared correspondence of the 2 theories to the world i. E the objects& concepts of 1 cannot be combined demsntically with the other.
Semantic realism assets that properties of sentences i. e having meaning, being true etc are objectively explained primarily typically by in terms of causal relationships or interactions or correspobdence to external world.
every declarative sentence in one's language is bivalent (determinately true or false) and evidence-transcendent (independent of our means of coming to know which), while anti-realism rejects this view in favour of a concept of knowable (or assertible) truth.
Argument 2: The unproven hypothesis of a commonly held by the 2 theories correspondence to reality.
This argument is a thesis based on epistemological realism, a philosophical position, a subcategory of objectivism, holding that what can be known about an object exists independently of one's mind. Thus we ned to combine the 2 theories in a way to obtain an independent of mind correspondence to reality which is possible if we direct our focus on the Common denominator mind independent theorizing of the 2 theories.
It is opposed to epistemological idealism. Epistemological realism is related directly to the correspondence theory of truth
Argument 3: lack of proven commutative principle of Metaphysical realism. MR is the thesis that the objects, properties and relations the world contains, collectively: the structure of the world [Sider 2011], exists independently of our thoughts about it or our perceptions of it. So if 2 theories are proven to be so, their marriage is also.
Aditional info:
Regarding Argument 1: There is no easily constructed semantic thesis about the shared correspondence of 2 theories, recent work by L. Smolin (physics time & qualia) contribute to it and thus make a small step to disproving it.
Regarding Argument 2: The unproven hypothesis of a commonly held by the 2 theories correspondence to reality there is no progress to invalidste it.
Regarding Argument 3 Lack of proven commutative principle of Metaphysical realism, there is Chinese Scientist's experiments to test entanglement in dissimilar gravitational fields in satelites, tge first set of which failed to prove it.
I would request a little more explanation from your side of understanding, about Argument 3.
It says that if 2 theories are mind-independent then their linear combination (in mathematical argo) or if one achieve through their combined postulates a new theory then this is also mind independent that is the relations properties of the world it contains. In other words, a mix of 2 Metaphysically realist theories is not guaranteed to produce a Metaphysically realist, where different scientists arrive at the same estimations of its properties from the solve promise of recombining the postulates and premises of original theories i. E they haven't found a way to define time on quantum gravity theory that is a result of a mix of postulates from the 2 original theories and this is attributed, based on this argument, to the failure to arrive to a mind independent definition that encompssses postulates from both theories, not from the in ability to craft a definition per se, which lacks satisfaction of the Argument 3 criteria.
(Argument 3 points to an unproven assumptions of realist dominated science that will save effort if is proven wrong.)
Argument 3 is in fact the most widely mentioned in physicists circles (inconsumersbility of postulated entities between the 2 theories) although it has never been classified or identified a consequences of realist Requirements as I do
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Linguistics
- Composition Studies
- Publication