>>11845099interesting question. because classical mechanics is probably the less likely to be derive in principle from 'pure thought'. it makes the most arbitrary assumptions which are ultimately based on rather biased and partial observations.
by contrast, you could argue that the development of physics all through the XX c has been in a sense following that path (although in practice, obviously, has remain empirical). einstein to good measure started officially that trend. relativity, gr, and even qm were developed guided by very few fundamental principles/assumptions (eg causality but above all, to maintain internal consistency).
there is not a complete decoupling of empirical observation, perhaps there will never be, but the guiding principles are more and more mathematical/theoretical in principle. paradoxically, classical limits are relatively arbitrary limits of the general theories and become somehow decoupled of the fundamental guiding principles. platonism would be more closely approached in an heraclitus framework.
this applies, obviously, to fundamental physics. fields like cond mat or astro or bio study so complex systems that they have to be heavily constrained by observations or you just get lost in the forest of infinite possibilities.
