> The disagreement with MWI and the general disdain for QM are separate issues. Fair point, I guess I didn't sense any disdain from the conversation so I didn'

> The disagreement with MWI and the general disdain for QM are separate issues. Fair point, I guess I didn't sense any disdain from the conversation so I didn't intend to comment on that. > there's also been a general disdain for QM from various folk who attempt to completely replace it. Too bad, it's as proven as any other theory out there. I wasn't responding to this as I didn't see any in the conversation, maybe I missed it. I was responding to the criticism that someone received for pointing out that what quantum mechanics describes (things being in a superposition of states) doesn't match what we observe (things being in one state at a time). > Whether Sabine Hossenfelder likes a theory or not is not really an argument Whether actual scientists hold a view is not an argument (nor did I try to use it as one), but it is relevant to pointless random online arguments because it can help us spend our time better and not waste it on debunking things that nobody who knows what they're talking about actually believes, as I was trying to help you do. You yourself said > I think many "top" physicists (those with high citation counts in theory), generally believe in consistent histories so your criticism applies to both of us or neither. > the idea that QM is "completely wrong" Who are you quoting here? The article you linked doesn't say that QM is "completely wrong" (just that it's not as good as QFT), and neither does anyone in the HN discussion, so I'm not sure what text you're referring to. > because it's incomplete or introduces some complexities she doesn't like Actually Hossenfelder is a well-known critic of the idea that simplicity and beauty are requirements of truth, and your remarks aren't supported by the text of the article, so I'm not sure what you're getting at here either.