> There is no textbook of physics which models reality by saying, "Well, we suppose in the future, the positions and velocities will just follow the same distri

> There is no textbook of physics which models reality by saying, "Well, we suppose in the future, the positions and velocities will just follow the same distribution, but we've no idea why, and how dare you ask, and get out, and doesnt my Ideal-Gas-TransformerModel look pretty? It gets the pressure right for Argon at 20.0001 C in glass jars at about 2.002L" That's precisely what physics textbooks say! Put most famously by Feynman (originally by Mermin): "Shut up and calculate." Entanglement is nonsense? Too bad it works. There's no explanation. Don't like the notion of virtual particles that violate the conservation of energy? Too bad, it just works. Don't like notion of wave function collapse and that we have no mathematical model of it. Too bad, it works. etc. Explanations are models. Models can be mental models. They can be mathematical models. They can be computational models. But all that matters is that they make good predictions. Nothing else. It's totally irrelevant whether you or anyone else personally feels they're provided with an explanation or not.