>>1614
Thanks for these resources. What are your thoughts on the video? It would seem if he is to be trusted (I'm more of a mathematician or physicist than a philosopher) he answers your question of 'does quantum mechanics disprove materialism'.
This is interesting for me, as a mathematician I would tend towards concepts not actually existsing, but just being concepts to explain experiments (or perhaps the other way around). Like I mentioned earlier, Newton's equations explained experiments very well on the human scale. But when we began to look out on astronomical scales, the equations did not hold up. It would be quite difficult to prove that the theory of relaitivty is the 'truth'. The only way we know that relativity is consistent is because of advanced mathematics, and those are just based off arbitrary axioms. We then look to experiments to validate theoretical claims. It was years before we actually measured the light bending from far away stars, proving Einstein's theories correct.
Ignore this if you're familiar, but I'd recommend reading about Kurt Godel for this (more specifically his incompleteness thoerems), he proved the limitations of axioms and mathematics as a whole, basically some problems may be unsolvable, and we could never know which are or aren't, quite Earth shattering results.

>>1619
While I am no expert on materialism, I think you have it a little wrong here, it's not that non-materialists think reality isn't really 'real'. Depending on what smallest building block makes up the univerise, the world may not be 'knowable'. We are still discussing it, but it seems some (quite reputable) physicists believe that the recent studies of atoms pretty much being a probability distribution, in the abstract mathematical sense, implies that materialism is wrong. From the Cockshot video posted above

>Classical materialism had been based on the idea that the atom was indivisble
If atoms were just probabilistic waves then would you call that 'objectively real'? When people created materialism they figured there was some building block of which all things are made (the atom) in a literal sense. This isn't trivially true so is worthy of discussion.

>>1620
For the record, as we understand it currently, atoms are divisible, since protons and neutrons are made up of quarks, unless we're talking about the same thing here, but yes I agree this doesn't imply materialism is wrong.
I'm not super familiar with all the different intepretations of quantum mechanics so I'll go research that, but in regards to science and materialism: like I mentioned earlier, I think mathematicians tend to look at it from a idealist view, with physicists more materialist, since mathematicians are usually the first people to discover anything, they don't have much 'functioning technology' to look to do base their work off.