Philosophy Now Forum

From Carlo Rovelli's Helgland, I noted similarities between Heisenberg's Observable Turn and Kant's Copernican Turn which both are led from a Top-down approach leveraged on the human conditions.

Heisenberg was struggling with Bohr's dilemma but had difficulties, then he did this "turn".

• Heisenberg’s leap is as daring as it is simple.
  No one has been able to find the force capable of causing the bizarre behavior of electrons?
  Fine, let’s stop searching for this new force.
  Let’s use instead the force we are familiar with: the electric force that binds the electron to the nucleus.
  We cannot find new laws of motion to account for Bohr’s Orbits and his “leaps”?
  *Fine, let’s stick with the laws of motion that we’re familiar with, without altering them.
  Let’s change, instead, our way of thinking about the electron.
  Let’s give up describing its movement.
  Let’s describe only what we can observe: the light it emits.
  Let’s base everything on quantities that are observable.
  This is the idea.
  
  It is very simple: the forces are the same as in classical physics; the equations are the same as those of classical physics (plus one,* which I will talk about later).
  Butthe variables are replaced by tables of numbers, or “matrices.”
  Why tables of numbers?
  What we observe of an electron in an atom is the light emitted when, according to Bohr’s hypothesis, it leaps from one Orbit to another.
  
  The calculation scheme by Heisenberg, Born, Jordan and Dirac, the strange idea of “limiting yourself to only what’s observable,” and to substituting physical variables with matrices,12 has never yet been wrong.
  It is the only fundamental theory about the world that until now has never been found wrong —and whose limits we still do not know.
  Carlo Rovelli, Helgoland

In the beginning Heisenberg, Born, Jordan and Dirac was ridiculed by many Physicists including Einstein who had loads of reservations on it.
Nevertheless that QM is so successful at the present only expose those who originally oppose to it as ignorant and narrow minded relatively.

Kant also rebelled against the traditional beliefs of his time in introducing his Copernican Turn which is leveraged on the human conditions as primary.
Whilst Copernican Turn is not as successful as Heisenberg's Observable Turn [easier to verify and justify] Kant had a lot of supporters and those who opposed I believed to be ignorant and narrow minded relatively.

The main point,
the top-down approach [anti-realist] is ultimately more superior and powerful to the bottom-up [realist] approach.

Views?

The above is a good example of Model Dependent Realism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model-dependent_realism

• Model-dependent realism is a view of scientific inquiry that focuses on the role of scientific models of phenomena.[1]
  It claims reality should be interpreted based upon these models, and where several models overlap in describing a particular subject, multiple, equally valid, realities exist.
  It claims that it is meaningless to talk about the "true reality" of a model as we can never be absolutely certain of anything.
  The only meaningful thing is the usefulness of the model.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model-dependent_realism

Nevertheless there will still be those who are dogmatically trapped by the 'bottom-up' approach in insisting there is a 'true reality' that is absolutely-absolute and independent of the said model. As I had argued this pursuit for a true reality which is impossible is a psychological issue driven by an inherent existential crisis.