- #1
entropy1
- 1,230
- 71
I was thinking that QM and QM practicioners tend to stay away from the ontology part of QM, and see the QM framework as useful for predicting measurement outcomes. But if I see the properties of wood or plastic, they are explained by the properties of the particles they are "made up from", and I consider these materials ontic, so the particles and the laws they obide should have some ontology about them too, right? So why should we stay away from this ontology part?
Last edited: