I suppose I'm fine with flawed or untestable models as teaching or reasoning tools as long as they are clearly labeled as such. It was more that your original p

I suppose I'm fine with flawed or untestable models as teaching or reasoning tools as long as they are clearly labeled as such. It was more that your original post seemed to be saying "this is the way the universe really works", and that didn't seem right to me on account of the untestability. > You've got to let go of your need to know what quantum particles "are", because the universe isn't going to show it to you. I'd argue that it does show it to us, and quite clearly. It's just that us big macroscopic beings are sometimes confused or dissatisfied with how different and unintuitive (for us) things are at that scale. > All you can really do is mathematically describe and predict behavior. That's a lot, but it's still limited. Of course it's always important to be actively aware that there could be more going on under the surface that we haven't yet come across evidence for. But if your model fits reality perfectly, who's to say that it's not how things really work? By definition you could never prove it one way or the other.