> Atoms are still just a human created mathematical abstraction we use to describe and make predictions about matter. All there really is is energy and atoms are just a mathematical tool we use to study energy.
We can see atoms with electron microscopes. A mathematical tool to study energy doesn't say anything. A tool describing how chemistry arises from atomic structure does.
> This is quite literally the oldest debate in natural science and it seems like one half of the debate just decided they’re right a few centuries ago and stopped caring about the fact that’s not something they have (or can) ever proved.
Not proved, but imagine using this sort of argument against evolution being a true account of life's history on Earth. Of course it won't get everything right, but in general there is simply no other way to explain how life forms changed over time. Similarly, there's no other way to understand microscopic physics than quantum mechanics. Maybe a more complete theory combining gravity and QM would be more true, just like Newtonian physics was incomplete and superseded by relativity.
We can see atoms with electron microscopes. A mathematical tool to study energy doesn't say anything. A tool describing how chemistry arises from atomic structure does.
> This is quite literally the oldest debate in natural science and it seems like one half of the debate just decided they’re right a few centuries ago and stopped caring about the fact that’s not something they have (or can) ever proved.
Not proved, but imagine using this sort of argument against evolution being a true account of life's history on Earth. Of course it won't get everything right, but in general there is simply no other way to explain how life forms changed over time. Similarly, there's no other way to understand microscopic physics than quantum mechanics. Maybe a more complete theory combining gravity and QM would be more true, just like Newtonian physics was incomplete and superseded by relativity.