If anything had a 'self', it would be unable to interact with anything without changing some aspect of its self. Belief in a permanent existence along with belief in a world that changes in any way is contradictory. In that case it follows that through asserting it to be just inherently existent, one has a view of permanence. Because one asserts that things inherently exist at an earlier time and then asserts that now, later, they are destroyed and thus do not exist, it follows that one has a view of annihilation. In other words, anyone who does science with the realist attitude that he is exposing the way something really is, independent of method or concept, by consequence of this mistaken doctrine admits to instrumentalism.
History reveals that scientific theories are as impermanent as anything else.
They get replaced by newer theories which account in a more satisfactory way for observation. The answer is, 'dependent existence'. In the analysis of the lack of one or many, a particle was said to have various attributes, such as extension and duration, which result from the dependence of one part to another. With the help of modern physics we can speak of more attributes, such as mass, charge, wave functions and the uncertainty principle. Investigation of the relationship between the electron and its attributes shows that there is no one attribute that can be said to be that particle's intrinsic existence.