> However, Palmer's view on quantum systems does seem to be pretty set and fairly ideological in nature (i.e. experimental verification doesn't seem to be much

> However, Palmer's view on quantum systems does seem to be pretty set and fairly ideological in nature (i.e. experimental verification doesn't seem to be much of a concern). I don't understand this objection. Palmer's theory would have to be consistent with all existing evidence for quantum mechanics. There's a rich unexplored area in quantum foundations (superdeterminism), and he's found a novel, plausible model for how it could work, so why wouldn't he explore it fully until it's been contradicted? A different interpretation on QM might also imply some new experiments that orthodox QM wouldn't consider interesting. For instance, Hossenfelder has suggested that there might be some unusual regularities in repeated low temperature experiments if superdeterminism is true, regularities that would be implausible if reality is actually indeterministic. Palmer's theory has testable predictions for large-scale cosmology, so it's not like his ideas are unfalsifiable in principle. Furthermore, Palmer is a theoretician not an experimentalist. Bell created his theorem but experimentalists designed and ran the actual experiment.