>he's asking about a hypothetical alternative in a very specific way, which is to see whether it sheds any light on the logical foundation of QM Could easily b

>he's asking about a hypothetical alternative in a very specific way, which is to see whether it sheds any light on the logical foundation of QM Could easily be done without any references to an omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent concept with exactly zero scientific evidence. Even worse the whole concept of God literally defies logic, so mixing god into this discussion is laughable, if it didn’t come from an authority in the field of QM. I have a lot of respect for Scott, but IMHO he would be more persuasive if he left his religious beliefs out of this argument. >Scott's aim is to understand QM better. How does referencing god help with this endeavor? Btw, the comment you linked commits the exact same fallacy of assuming anthropomorphic qualities behind whatever created the universe…