I don't understand the philosophical terminology used here, but I do know QM. I find it highly suspicious that you claim philosophy is useful in QM given that we have contradictory interpretations of QM that all fit the equations and experimental data and provide exactly the same predictions about reality.
Yeah, but quantum mechanics and general relativity (arguably just QM and special relativity) don't make sense. Talk to any theoretical physicist at the frontier of quantum field theory or quantum gravity and you will meet people very interested in basic philosophical questions.
If all you care about is laying a bra against a ket or calculating scattering amplitudes I suppose the philosophical questions are far away from you, in more or less the same way that one could employ epicicular models to calculate planetary motion with as good or better accuracy that using general relativity. But if you want to _understand_ the motion of heavenly bodies you must do more than just calculate.
> Yeah, but quantum mechanics and general relativity (arguably just QM and special relativity) don't make sense.
It won't suddenly start making sense if we stare at it long enough. We have to change our assumptions.
I'm a fan of the Dragan and Ekert paper that derives QM axioms from relativity. The only thing you have to sacrifice is the ban on superluminal observers :) No philosophy required, just relax the "common sense constraints" on the solutions for relativity. Of course - it can very well be wrong. But I like it cause it's quite elegant.
> But if you want to _understand_ the motion of heavenly bodies you must do more than just calculate.
AFAIR the arguments in favor of geocentric models were philosophical, the arguments against it were experimental. We moved forward when we ignored what makes sense, and focused on what the data is.
Similarly we assumed absolute spacetime cause it made sense, and only accepted it's relative when data forced us to.
