All you're showing is that you don't know much of quantum mechanics either. Should you choose to change that, MIT has published a nice lecture series on quantum

All you're showing is that you don't know much of quantum mechanics either. Should you choose to change that, MIT has published a nice lecture series on quantum physics [0], the first in a group of three. Your bold claim "why something rather than nothing?" assumes that there is, in fact, a something to refer to, and QM directly challenges the simplicity of that assumption. So many words to fight against the lack of an ontic wavefunction! [0] https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLUl4u3cNGP60cspQn3N9dYRPiyVWDd80G https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLUl4u3cNGP60cspQn3N9d...