- #1

- 603

- 43

## Main Question or Discussion Point

It seems that the word ontology which suppose to be about the most concrete object we can come up with is itself not well defined.

Take for example this post

With QFT it is even more mysteries, the field is just numbers/functions and you are not allowed to speculate about there origin. You get the real, not real(mathematical) reaction, and if you ask if they are real that should mean they are ontological but you will get a blank face since no one wants to believe that numbers are all there is.

I mean it seems none of the interpretations are really about ontology proper even TI(which is based on field). So what good are they, is foundation about ontology proper or not?

Take for example this post

Which alludes to primitive ontology as a property and not "what" is actually there(ontology proper) as the ultimate ontology which we seek. even particle is not well defined in relativistic QFT. Even so how do we seek explanation for what a particle is by saying things like ontology of BM is particle position.I would categorize all the interpretations into 3 categories:

1) Interpretations without ontology (most variants of Copenhagenish interpretations)

2) Interpretations with ontology but without primitive ontology (consistent histories, thermal interpretation)

3) Interpretations with primitive ontology (Bohmian, many worlds, objective collapse)

Primitive ontology is the fundamental ontological quantity to which all other ontological quantities can be reduced. In Bohmian mechanics it is particle positions of all particles in the Universe. In many worlds it is the wave function of the multiverse.

With QFT it is even more mysteries, the field is just numbers/functions and you are not allowed to speculate about there origin. You get the real, not real(mathematical) reaction, and if you ask if they are real that should mean they are ontological but you will get a blank face since no one wants to believe that numbers are all there is.

I mean it seems none of the interpretations are really about ontology proper even TI(which is based on field). So what good are they, is foundation about ontology proper or not?