ALL systems-of-knowing have axioms they’re dependent on.
As has been discussed in the philosophy-of-science stuff, insisting that physical-experiment is THE criterion-for-validity itself presumes that subjective-reality isn’t reality, since physical-experiment is only on the objective…
The stuff where one can prove indirectly that the immaterial-alterer-of-matter’s-behavior of entanglement, or probabilitywave, and that has to be:
not-real, since neither entanglement nor probabilitywave themself is physical, XOR
real, since the effects/consequences of their acting are consistently measurable, therefore the causes of those effects have to be real…
proves that axioms matter, even in empiricism.
Pick whichever axiom, of those 2, you want, & reject the “reality” or the other, & call that empiricism.
Axioms are inescapable.
Axioms, as many in philosophy have noted, are “articles accepted on faith”.
There is no axiom central to empiricism, since empiricism relies on proof, whereas axioms are accepted as true without any. The purpose and fundamental core of empiricism is to be free from axiom, and to question and test everything.
Entangled particles and wave functions are physical phenomena, contrary to what you have claimed, because they a) exist in nature, b) possess energy and c) have measurable, predictable effects. This classification of (a seemingly arbitrarily-chosen pair of) quantum phenomena is not axiomatic because it does not rely on faith to proceed, it is a simple definition of terms, used to agree what is a physical phenomenon.
We do not need faith to measure quantum entanglement, we need an experimental setup.
We do not need faith to describe the wave function, we need Schrödinger’s equation.
So I will call empiricism what it is: deriving objective truth through observation, deduction and consensus using the scientific method.
Empiricism is not concerned with subjective truth, because subjective truth, whilst important to lived experience, is unimportant in the purely pragmatic furthering of the progress of human understanding of the physical universe. Again, this is not axiomatic, just a definition of terms.
ALL systems-of-knowing have axioms they’re dependent on.
As has been discussed in the philosophy-of-science stuff, insisting that physical-experiment is THE criterion-for-validity itself presumes that subjective-reality isn’t reality, since physical-experiment is only on the objective…
The stuff where one can prove indirectly that the immaterial-alterer-of-matter’s-behavior of entanglement, or probabilitywave, and that has to be:
proves that axioms matter, even in empiricism.
Pick whichever axiom, of those 2, you want, & reject the “reality” or the other, & call that empiricism.
Axioms are inescapable.
Axioms, as many in philosophy have noted, are “articles accepted on faith”.
That was declared decades ago.
_ /\ _
There is no axiom central to empiricism, since empiricism relies on proof, whereas axioms are accepted as true without any. The purpose and fundamental core of empiricism is to be free from axiom, and to question and test everything.
Entangled particles and wave functions are physical phenomena, contrary to what you have claimed, because they a) exist in nature, b) possess energy and c) have measurable, predictable effects. This classification of (a seemingly arbitrarily-chosen pair of) quantum phenomena is not axiomatic because it does not rely on faith to proceed, it is a simple definition of terms, used to agree what is a physical phenomenon.
We do not need faith to measure quantum entanglement, we need an experimental setup.
We do not need faith to describe the wave function, we need Schrödinger’s equation. So I will call empiricism what it is: deriving objective truth through observation, deduction and consensus using the scientific method.
Empiricism is not concerned with subjective truth, because subjective truth, whilst important to lived experience, is unimportant in the purely pragmatic furthering of the progress of human understanding of the physical universe. Again, this is not axiomatic, just a definition of terms.