[nyrikki]

John von Neumann: "... the sciences do not try to explain, they hardly even try to interpret, they mainly make models. By a model is meant a mathematical construct which, with the addition of certain verbal interpretations, describes observed phenomena. The justification of such a mathematical construct is solely and precisely that it is expected to work—that is, correctly to describe phenomena from a reasonably wide area."

Both GR and QFT are insanely accurate models, but they are just models.

The N-body problem is undecidable, and Gödel, Turing, Church and other s proved that is the best we can do.

https://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/13175/1/parker2003.pdf

Western reductionism or Laplacian determinism is a good framework for practical, computable models. QFT actually is actually one of the counterexamples to Western reductionism.

But models are reductive and scientific models are just models. Don't confuse the map for the territory.

All models are wrong, some are useful; is another way of saying the same thing.

[arter]

Could you elaborate or share some articles on why QFT is a counterexample to western reductionism ? In laymans terms that is.

[nyrikki]

The oversimplified version is Laplac's deamon can't split quantum superposition.

Superposition being inseparable is a large part on why the many words concept is popular with some people. It is about regaining a form of determinism.