>>14360637Experiments don't use this or that mechanics. They use instruments, and give results that we interpret by this or that mechanics. They can be designed to inquire about some property of some theory, but that in itself does not make them "this or that mechanical experiments".
You can derive the Schroedinger's equation from a simple Newtonian assumption: all particles are subject to Brownian motion in a perfect fluid.
Because you can derive it, no matter how hard you say no, even if you don't accept it for whatever extrascientific or religious reason, there is a classical explanation for quantum mechanics.
If you want to cling to quantum weirdness, either because you desperately need grants to either publish or perish, or because you need it to exist to sell quantum consciousness books, then that's fine, but it's not scientific.
Denying evidence because it doesn't sit well with the currently accepted model is antiscientific. Science does not progress by small improvements and appeal to consensus, but by out of the box thinking and contradictory evidence.
Even, and especially, in the modern sense of "the scientific process", where you don't explain the "why" of things but only provide models, you shouldn't be so opposed to the idea of exploring classical models of quantum mechanics. You don't have to agree with them, they're just models. Let Occam's razor select the simplest model in the end. And by Occam's razor, it sure would be nice to explain quantum mechanics classically.
>If it wasn't weird you wouldn't be literally talking about me about the Broglie-Bohm intrepretation,Doesn't follow.
>which is ironic because Bohm himself was a deeply esoteric and spiritual person himself.Doesn't matter.
