It is an interesting rabbit hole to start with John F. W. Herschel, and, how he studied philosophy and was influenced by John Locke - the major turn of events at the time was the trouble of having to equate God into the sciences.
It was Joseph-Louis Lagrange that considered unifying principles that governed diverse phenomena. His approach considers a philosophical undercurrent, seeking underlying order rather than simply describing isolated observations.
Pierre Simon de Laplace was the one that said to Napoleon, “Ah, it is a fine hypothesis; it explains many things.” Laplace’s apocryphal reply was, “This hypothesis, Sir, explains in fact everything, but does not permit to predict anything. As a scholar, I must provide you with works permitting predictions.” >>https://www.quantumdiaries.org/2011/09/16/there-is-no-need-for-god-as-a-hypothesis/#:~:text=Laplace%20presented%20his%20definitive%20work,need%20for%20the%20God%20hypothesis.
Philosopher Paul de Vries (same source) much later distinguished between "methodological naturalism" from "metaphysical naturalism".

Just a few pages into the prelude, and the battle rages here with "The ninth Bridgewater treatise; a fragment"
by Babbage, Charles, 1791-1871; Herschel, John F. W. (John Frederick William), Sir, 1792-1871, (association)
Publication date 1837
Topics Natural theology
>>excerpt : "But if this respect and admiration are yielded to the mere interpreter of Nature's laws, how much more exalted must those sentiments become when applied to the Being who called such principles into living existence by creating matter subservient to their dominion - whose mind, intimately cognizant of the remotest consequences of the present as well as of all other laws, decreed existence to that one alone, which should comprehend within its grasp the completion of its destiny - which should require no future intervention to meet events unanticipated by its author, in whose omniscient mind we can conceive no infirmity of purpose - no change of intention!
_Charles Babbage

https://archive.org/details/ninthbridgewatai00babb/mode/2up

This is quite the ride.

>>24494877 (OP)
What's your thoughts on Niels Bohr or Werner Heisenberg?

>>24494968
gettin there, anon - just started this morning on this and I need more coffee rn.

>>24494968
so I read this :
>>Rejection of a Priori Knowledge: Bohr's approach implies a rejection of the idea that knowledge exists independently of our investigation of nature, a central tenet of traditional epistemology.

and thought "are we not circling back to this this very day and age understanding that quanta does in fact store information that observers are not giving it?"
It seems like Bohr was not trying to tangle too far into the weeds about the new quantum ideas before they took off from the ground - limitations of tech and language - which was rightfully smart considering his epistemological point of reference.

>>24495038
reading about the Bohr and Heisenberg clash here:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1355219815000064
Also an article about Bohr and Rudolf Carnap
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0039368121000741

>>24495067
lemme add this excerpt : "Motivated by the common ground between himself and logical positivism, Bohr tried to persuade the logical positivists and Carnap in particular to adopt and champion complementarity as well as part of their unity of science program. Though his efforts ultimately proved in vain, Bohr's attempts to influence logical positivism disprove the claim that his engagement with them was reluctant and purposefully limited."
from https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34147731/#

>>24495071
So in short, I do NOT believe Bohr was attempting to be dogmatic of the new science, but, was trying strongly to point to the correct philosophical tools necessary to move forward.

>>24495082
My base impression to Bohr's main thought process:

>philosopher phrase in one hand I hold the key to the other I hold the lock?

AI Sloppa
A direct quote matching "In one hand I hold the key, to the other I hold the lock" attributed to a philosopher could not be found. However, the concept of holding both the key to freedom and the lock to imprisonment aligns with certain philosophical ideas:
Control and Agency: The phrase can be interpreted as highlighting an individual's potential to control their own destiny. One hand holds the "key," symbolizing the means to unlock potential or overcome challenges, while the other holds the "lock," representing the ability to imprison themselves through inaction, limiting beliefs, or resistance to change.
Self-imposed limitations: The phrase echoes the idea that people can be "imprisoned" by their own minds or limited perspective. As Ludwig Wittgenstein might have suggested, "A man will be imprisoned in a room with a door that is unlocked and opens inwards, as long as it does not occur to him to pull rather than push it". This implies that sometimes the solution to a problem is readily available, but people fail to see it due to ingrained patterns of thinkin

>>24495144
wtf? I think that phrase is from somewhere else - AI is just stupid sometimes.
What's interesting is now how science "trains" quanta is through gates and capture techniques.

>>24495153
>Also quasi-metal was when I read this:
The Theory of Forms:
The physical world is not the ultimate reality, according to this theory.
Instead, Forms are the true, timeless, non-physical, and unchanging essences of things.
Physical objects and matter "participate in," "imitate," or "resemble" these Forms.
Amazing how something ancient still helps quanta understanding even now.