[meroes]

Ontology was central to past physical theories like of Newton or Aristotle though. Why is ontology inherently philosophical? (I mean in the natural philosophy way it is sure, but I don’t think you mean just that). I don’t see biologists getting by with operational theories for a hundred years. It seems less “by design” and more like without choice. A retreat. Even GR has light cones and events as real physical objects of the theory.

[b215826]

> Ontology was central to past physical theories like of Newton or Aristotle though

Yes, physics has origins in philosophy. Philosophical notions that could be formulated mathematically and tested experimentally became physics, and the rest became metaphysics. And, in the 21st century, metaphysics is of zero importance to working physicists. Only a few physicists would even be able to accurately describe what "ontology" is.

> Even GR has light cones and events as real physical objects of the theory.

Events and light cones are just convenient words/phrases for mathematical definitions, e.g., an event being the 4-vector (t, x, y, z). They don't have any further philosophical significance.

[meroes]

It’s no coincidence the discoverer of nonlocality John Bell insisted on clear beables (ontology) of the theory. It’s not philosophy to posit what exists. Be careful because doing it your way may require future disentangling as mathematical existence and physical existence are usually quite dissimilar. Only using mathematical definitions for physical theories is bound to create future tangles. And who knows when the next Bell will come along to disentangle the operational mess.