Pythagorean said:
I don't see the world in quantum view, that's for sure. QM is very difficult to grasp in an intuitive way, and the more we find pleasing ways to encompass the whole theory in a way that we understand and identify with, the more we begin to make personal interpretations.
The world is a very confusing and strange place. Anytime we build a theory/model about it, (even on our own time when we're stereotyping, categorizing, or learning information) we're torn between generalization and specializing. The more you generalize, the more information you lose, and it becomes easier to mistake your case for the general since the resolution is so large, and you're flabbergasted when you find fundamental flaws in your generalized theory. As you specialize your model, it becomes more limited in the cases it applies to and becomes less intuitive as part of the general picture.
We tend to make generalizations in philosophy about physics. Of course, it's a lose-lose situation, because once you slide more towards the specialized models, you begin to lose feeling for the generalizations that make it a concept easier to understand on a fundamental, intuitive level.
Sounds like you are saying that reality is not(thoroughly) comprehensible.
yes, events happen between objects. Weather "exists". Weather is not an object. It's a series of events between many, many objects.
My question wasn't referring to the common-sense reality of objects and weather. I was interested to know your idea of the underlying nature of what you call objects and, in case you are a naive realist, what about GR, QM and cosmology?
Would you be comfortable with assigning existence for something that has no solid structure(e.g. our relative universe)?
Like Energy or Velocity? Yes.
If the universe is really a structureless, relative energy soup of possibilities, we must address the issue of our own weird classical reality. How come? Why do we see this perfectly structured reality that appears so real to the casual eye? You insist on doing away with the observer, but if there is NO observer to objectify the electron, atom, molecule, etc.(prescribe it
definite position, momentum, time, mass, energy, speed...in space), what would those "objects" be without us, the observers? (I presume you are familiar with the double slit experiement with highly ordered and structured objects such as c60 molecule, passing as waves when unobserved/unmeasured through the slits,
http://www.fkf.mpg.de/andersen/fullerene/symmetry.html).
Suppose there were no observers in this relative energy soup of possibilities(the probability density of a bound-state electron at infinity is never zero). What, in your view, is the ontological status of the phenomenon that gives rise to what we commonly accept as common-sense reality?
Would events(information about events) be considered real and observer-independent?
Events, yes. Information is an ambiguous word.
OK, I will assume for a moment that waves are real. What does it tell us about the events(what you like to call 'objects') that get manifested through them?
. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_holism. Being careful not to quote too much out of context, I'll pull out this one line regarding scientific or empirical knowledge:
. The claim that existence is only the sum of our perceptions and there is no existence independent of perception is commonly known in philosophy as subjective idealism. George Berkeley, an 18th century bishop in Ireland, famously argued (quite well) that this is more of a common sense and consistent view than belief in a material external world. He ended up using this line of reasoning as an argument for God, but that can be treated as an entirely separate and secondary argument. 
