This is incredibly illustrative and convincing! Especially the concept of technologies that make reality less nebulous.
There is but one final rationalist gambit I can think of: as you say, the “absolute” truths of quantum theory.

Could the rationalist assert that THE wave function is the objective object?

I would say that the P(the wave function is the objective object) = 1 sense is fairly senseless, because it would require a solution to the problem of induction. And could not reality have deeper layers, which are undetectable merely because they are currently static? Q: What is the probability of these scenarios? A: Impossible to know, and who cares!

But even if we were to grant that absurd proposition, the idea of doing anything but quantum physics on the scale of the entire fucking universe seems to require our other more nebulous ontologies. And so it seems the rationalist cannot escape from nebulosity.

That would be my refutation. Does it seem on point?

Yes, I think an ontology with one “object” (the wave function) and one truth (the state of the wave function) is possibly absolutely accurate. It’s also completely useless and unknowable.

## b-but the wave function is the objective object!!

This is incredibly illustrative and convincing! Especially the concept of technologies that make reality less nebulous.

There is but one final rationalist gambit I can think of: as you say, the “absolute” truths of quantum theory.

Could the rationalist assert that

THEwave function is the objective object?I would say that the P(the wave function is the objective object) = 1 sense is fairly senseless, because it would require a solution to the problem of induction. And could not reality have deeper layers, which are undetectable merely because they are currently static? Q: What is the probability of these scenarios? A: Impossible to know, and who cares!

But even if we were to grant that absurd proposition, the idea of doing anything but quantum physics

on the scale of the entire fucking universeseems to require our other more nebulous ontologies. And so it seems the rationalist cannot escape from nebulosity.That would be my refutation. Does it seem on point?