>>11443981To engage with you OP, why do you think reconciliation is relevant or not achieved? What issue do you even want to overcome with that supposed reconciliation.
Nevermind that "philosphy" might be too broad of a concept to actually put meaning to the sentence.
Ethics and political philosophy are much further away from physical theory building than e.g. Kants thoughts on the mind.
>>11444033This sounds extremely naive.
Firstly, to even conceptualize and describe "actual physical phenomena", you need a philsophical grounding. If you say "I describe the phenomena of this stone falling", then you're already in a framework derived from a physical conceptualization (maybe notions such as "there are thing", "there is space", "there is motion", "there is time"). The interplay between describing words and their individual intended semantics aren't even easy to isolate - if at all - from all their possible contexts you can use them for.
At the same time, the ways of us describing the world with math in physics is also "just" a "schools of thought humans have made up." You must take a leap to project some naturalness to the ways of doing physics that humans have come up with.
I have a PhD in physics, but I'm not a realist. E.g. if you're not taking the problem of induction seriously, we won't have much fun together.
