Not the parent, but I do have a background in physics.
Positivism is broadly the philosophy that underlies all of science. i.e. the philosophy that there is a real world external to our minds, and that it can be understood.
Confusing that with relativity is... bizarre. It confuses the foundation of science with individual bricks that are built on it.
> It might not be our modern view but it seems Heisenbergs view on the origin of QM is very much that. He wanted to work with the observable transitions directly rather than any assumed underlying reality, hence his matrix mechanics.
At a certain point, the distinction between theories becomes philosophical. If both theories describe the same underlying reality to a similar approximation, then for all intents and purposes, they are the same theory.
The philosophy behind the theory is used to motivate extensions to the theory. i.e. edge conditions where the theories make different predictions. At that point, the theories are distinguishable.
It's like arguing whether subtraction is adding negative numbers, or subtracting positive numbers. The difference may be important in some edge conditions, but for most purposes, it's two sides of the same coin.
What does relativism have to do with anything? It wasn't mentioned by me or previously in this post. Maybe there is a problem with terms here [1], to me positivism does _not_ posit that there is an underlying truth that we get closer to.
Of course if theories make distinct predictions deciding between them is a matter of physics and not philosophy. But it is a fact that the philosophical idea that all knowledge derives purely from observable phenomena and does not need to describe an underlying reaity that is being measured is cited by Heisenberg as a starting point of his investigation of QM that led to matrix mechanics.
"quantum theory / relativity / Heisenberg == positivism (If I don't see it (e.g. electron orbitals) it doesn't exist) (* e.g. complementarity)"
Not the parent either, but consider this:
My understanding of the standard model of quantum mechanics is that the fundamental particles cannot be observed in any other way than as statistical behaviors. Therefore, by positivism, it would be an error to try to describe their behavior in terms of a more fundamental model, or as a metaphor, or etc. The mathematics is all you get. There may be two equivalent theories, but if one goes on to make claims that cannot be observed, it is invalid.
In terms of relativity, you it would be an error to make any statements about what is going on outside your light cone. It's not that you don't know, it's that you cannot know and therefore any statements you make are meaningless.
It's not the case that if you know the position, then you cannot know the momentum of a particle. Instead, if you know the position, then the particle does not have a well defined momentum. Making claims about the momentum beyond the limit of your position/momentum knowledge is like asking "Is a unicorn blue?" The question is meaningless.
I see what you're saying, even if I would argue the details. But the important point is that there's no way to get from positivism to there:
The incompatibility of momentum and position, and that of energy and instant, arises from each being the Fourier transform of the other. It is after that that one can make a link to positivism.
In relativity, the fact that what happens beyond an event horizon can't influence my knowledge in any way is a consequence of the geometrical properties of spacetime. It is again a consequence of the mathematical theory, which one can link to positivism after the fact.
One shouldn't be fooled, by looking at how many branches of science started as philosophy, into then taking these modern spurious links and believing relativity or quantum mechanics are based on positivism.
Not the parent, but I do have a background in physics.
Positivism is broadly the philosophy that underlies all of science. i.e. the philosophy that there is a real world external to our minds, and that it can be understood.
Confusing that with relativity is... bizarre. It confuses the foundation of science with individual bricks that are built on it.
> It might not be our modern view but it seems Heisenbergs view on the origin of QM is very much that. He wanted to work with the observable transitions directly rather than any assumed underlying reality, hence his matrix mechanics.
At a certain point, the distinction between theories becomes philosophical. If both theories describe the same underlying reality to a similar approximation, then for all intents and purposes, they are the same theory.
The philosophy behind the theory is used to motivate extensions to the theory. i.e. edge conditions where the theories make different predictions. At that point, the theories are distinguishable.
It's like arguing whether subtraction is adding negative numbers, or subtracting positive numbers. The difference may be important in some edge conditions, but for most purposes, it's two sides of the same coin.