Paul Hughes, <firstname.lastname@example.org>, writes:
> Putting aside the fact that the whole truth about QM remains to be determined,
> you seem to be rather gleeful that we can and/or should eliminate any
> 'spookiness' in QM. If so, why? I rather liked the fact that QM can be so
> unsettling. From an *extropic* point-of-view, the non-locality and uncertainty
> of QM leaves more possible pathways for increasing extropy than a purely
> classical view. Obviously, science is about uncovering the truth, but
> personally I'd be much more gleeful if QM turns out to be even weirder than it
> is now.
Well, I guess I just like surprises...
At this point, after decades of learning about how spooky, mysterious, non-local and non-causal quantum mechanics is, finding an interpretation which is more in keeping with our prosaic instincts is the more interesting result. Maybe it will turn out that we have had, under our noses, a much more understandable quantum mechanics, but we have been overlooking it. This would be quite amazing and instructive.
Also, a way of looking at QM which is more in keeping with our instinctive understanding of Nature may end up increasing progress in the long run, not just because a more truthful picture is more useful, but because we can do a better job if we can trust our instincts. Many people have been confused by QM, as seen for example in the suggestions to use quanum teleportation for remote sensing applications. A more understandable picture will automatically improve our understanding.