I agree that is where it will likely go, and I agree with the slivers of possibility that still remain. But for me, there are still researchers working through the possibilities, and there is a tradition of Bohmian interpretations, so it seems harsh to simply call it a misunderstanding. Is the common consensus going in a different direction? Sure, but that work - while further ahead in matching experimentation - isn’t exactly resolved yet either.
I agree, and my stance is the more interpretations the better, as each brings a different perspective to the table which in turn imagines up different experiments to try and prove or falsify different assumptions.
The human need to try and find confirmation of one’s own views is toxic to academia, and all too often fields can be held back due to undue influence of specific thought leaders who subscribed to one perspective or another.
I agree that is where it will likely go, and I agree with the slivers of possibility that still remain. But for me, there are still researchers working through the possibilities, and there is a tradition of Bohmian interpretations, so it seems harsh to simply call it a misunderstanding. Is the common consensus going in a different direction? Sure, but that work - while further ahead in matching experimentation - isn’t exactly resolved yet either.
I agree, and my stance is the more interpretations the better, as each brings a different perspective to the table which in turn imagines up different experiments to try and prove or falsify different assumptions.
The human need to try and find confirmation of one’s own views is toxic to academia, and all too often fields can be held back due to undue influence of specific thought leaders who subscribed to one perspective or another.