Please provide a theory about (explaining) a phenomena, which does not presuppose the existence of the things (not the theory and not the phenomena) used to explain it. I think it's going to be a boring tautology of an unfalsifiable theory.
The photo electric effect is a theory of energy emission of light interacting with a metal. Quantized photons and energy levels are things used in the theory to describe experimental results. If you accept the theory, you accept it's elements, it's things. If you want to build a new Photo Electric theory, it will probably also involve some things you propose existing.
Explain Beta decay using the standard model without presupposing neutrinos exist. Note that beta decay was observed and the theory about it (a different thing) were developed long before neutrinos were directly measured (but those things must exist for the theory to be true). In fact predicting the existence and properties of particles before their measurement based on theory is the basis of most particle physics.
You seem confused, because humans who propose theories give purpose to their elements, because by definition those theories (their explanation) cannot be true without the existence of those elements. You seem to want inanimate objects to have desire, which is dumb.
Please provide a theory about (explaining) a phenomena, which does not presuppose the existence of the things (not the theory and not the phenomena) used to explain it. I think it's going to be a boring tautology of an unfalsifiable theory.
The photo electric effect is a theory of energy emission of light interacting with a metal. Quantized photons and energy levels are things used in the theory to describe experimental results. If you accept the theory, you accept it's elements, it's things. If you want to build a new Photo Electric theory, it will probably also involve some things you propose existing.
Explain Beta decay using the standard model without presupposing neutrinos exist. Note that beta decay was observed and the theory about it (a different thing) were developed long before neutrinos were directly measured (but those things must exist for the theory to be true). In fact predicting the existence and properties of particles before their measurement based on theory is the basis of most particle physics.
You seem confused, because humans who propose theories give purpose to their elements, because by definition those theories (their explanation) cannot be true without the existence of those elements. You seem to want inanimate objects to have desire, which is dumb.