Ο προοπτικός (προοπτικιστικός) ρεαλισμός δεν έχει αξιωματική θεμελίωση

## Perspective (perspectival) realism doesn't have an axiomatic foundation (related: there is no omni-science)

Is Michela Massimi correct about the Coherence/Cohesion of Perspectival Realism?

Practically yes (in everyday unscientific language; but that cancels our argument) in many cases, because perspectival knowledge isn't arbitrary. But deep mistakes occur. Oratorically we can say big words pretending we are scientific purists, but thinking unfactually and unmathmatically we become the greatest antipurists.

A wish, goal and/or a general tendency doesn't prove a common axiomatics for all science (most sciences don't even have a pure axiomatics; mathematics and geometry are axiomatically derived, but medicine is too complex at the axiomatic level [even if medicine has a mathematically rigorous axiomatic foundation, nowadays we have oratorical descriptions of it]. Physics via the foundations of quantum mechanics tries to become axiomatically based (we are not there yet).

The Ptolemaic system (geocentric system) was wrong, but it's mathematics weren't useless. Actually if we accept the heliocentric system we can calculate predictions of the celestial bodies when observed from Earth (or elsewhere). Thus the Ptolemaic system was wrong but it could evolve to describe reality. What happened actually is more complicated, because some people believed in the heliocentric system and inserted their data to the new model; but they tested the discrepancies of the geocentric system.

Newtonian gravity isn't ontologically possible, it is magical, because it's noncausal. Causality can get transmitted 1. luminally (at the speed of light); that way we can exchange telecommunication data and 2. entanglement breaking is spontaneous but it cannot transmit telecommunication data, and it cannot explain gravity because rarely two macroscopic objects are completely (not partially) entangled (point/entry No. 2 is problematic because: a. entanglement isn't a telecommunication causality transfer mechanism but a spatiotemporal coherence mechanism [it's about many particles sharing an ontology/a wavefunction] ... but that might be deemed as hypernymic to causality [it creates substantiality; the wavefunctional connectome of the universe]; b. some proposed mechanisms of gravity include partial entanglements, partial probabilistic entanglements which statistically occur by chance).

Newtonian gravity is ontologically impossible and wrong, but it's a useful system of predictions within a more limited range of magnitudes. It was an evolving step in the ontological description of physics; but it's still useful for calculations.

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

On the other hand some theories go very wrong, and oratorical trickery (sophistry) won't cut it.

But even things seem to make sense within the framework of the scientific evolution, that doesn't mean that there is an omniscientoaxiomatic a common axiomatics for all science fields, and that is a nontrivial problem / a significant/major issue.

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Oxford University Press's comment on Michela Massimi's book Perspectival Realism: "Perspectival realism is realism about phenomena (rather than about theories or unobservable entities)."

That view is practically wrong and biased the way it is put/postulated. (As a standalone phrase it is correct. But Massimi uses a correct definition to imply some false hypernymic order [nonaxiomatic tendencies exist, but not ontologically pure, sciento-onto-axiomatically derived = not derived from some hypothetical ontological axiomatics of the supposedly generic science [but the omni-science the science of all sciences does not exist,
because the omniaxiomatics = the axiomatics of all axiomatics doesn't exist]) It is wrong to claim that: 1. all scientists are perspectival realists, 2. perspectival realists are not playful to test different perspectives from their main views, 3. Michela Massimi herself isn't the axiomatical glue of how science evolves; science does NOT evolve in a purist way, neither in separate purist ways; ideas are shared and tested amongst different groups of thinkers.

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

There is no axiomatic coherence/cohesion in perspectival realism.

The goal of science (many times [not exactly all times]; because it is a lie to present it as a general purpose oratorically and not factually and mathematically) is to create an axiomatic-like shell.

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Do I agree with me about Michela Massimi's view? Do I really want to attack Michela Massimi? Not necessarily. And Michela Massimi is more complex than what I described. But philosophy has to evolve, and I have to make a clear statement.