Your comment stayed in my mind, about the (maybe futile) quest for the "one true theory". Today I was reading an article [1], and a passage reminded me of what

Your comment stayed in my mind, about the (maybe futile) quest for the "one true theory". Today I was reading an article [1], and a passage reminded me of what you were talking about: Schrödinger’s theory proved easier to use than Heisenberg’s, in part because it is more intuitive. Furthermore, first Schrödinger and then Paul Dirac proved that the two theories are equivalent. In physics any two theories that make precisely the same observable predictions are observably equivalent. And one of the predominant philosophical views of the age — logical positivism — held that any two observably equivalent theories are really one and the same theory. ... Einstein demanded a clear and comprehensible account of what is going on in the physical world — at all scales — in space and time. Bohr thought that the key to quantum mechanics was the realization that no such thing could be had. [1] http://bostonreview.net/science-nature-philosophy-religion/tim-maudlin-defeat-reason http://bostonreview.net/science-nature-philosophy-religion/t...