Caticha, A. (2011). Entropic Dynamics, Time and Quantum Theory, J. Phys. A 44 , 225303, arxiv:1005.2357

It should be interesting for you already because it is a counterexample to PBR, see https://arxiv.org/abs/1906.00956

As all the standard realist interpretations which use hydrodynamic variables, it solves all your basic requirements (well-defined ontology, classical limit unproblematic, non-local and contextual). It is realist about the configuration space trajectory and epistemic about the wave function, based on the objective Bayesian interpretation of probability.

In the relativistic domain, all those realist interpretations have to use a field ontology, then the main formalism can be taken over (given that field theories have also quadratic dependence on the momentum variables). If one uses lattice theory as a regularization, it fits even into the classical scheme with a finite number of degrees of freedom. For fermions, the picture is a little bit more complicate, but the lattice discretization used in https://arxiv.org/abs/0908.0591 which gives two Dirac fermions together with one massive scalar field is sufficient for the SM.

]]>What does the success of the diagrams and the failure of equations tell us about the reality of the entities the diagrams describe, if anything?

What does the failure of equations tell us about the reality of the theories, if anything?

]]>Would we accept “entity realism” as expounded by Ian Hacking and Nancy Cartwright? Both did much of their work at Stanford and were instrumental in raising the profile of their department.

The Stanford online encyclopedia is a good source for the philosophy of science. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-realism/

Elsewhere, Lubos has been called an “idiot savant” and this may be appropriate. I am willing to accept him on that basis and have followed his blog for years.

]]>Yes, but you may get arrested for treason if you are not actually royalty.

]]>