Agree. I was a little curt saying "weird". Probably the most persuasive point you make is about non-local couplings. I think that's the strongest evidence for

Agree. I was a little curt saying "weird". Probably the most persuasive point you make is about non-local couplings. I think that's the strongest evidence for me that macroscopic observations don't bind the microscopic ontology. I probably buy the "everything is relational/consistent histories" story the most. > There is no comforting continuous existence across time I think I agree. Using differential equations to model everything makes us think that the entities are really there and being pushed around by laws. But that's the map trying to sneak into the territory imo.