> Although they sensibly tend to focus on interpretation at the particle level, avoiding the hype and wishful mysticism that would tend to crop up around its implications for us as individuals.
Is this yet another one of those scientific facts that does not require a proof?
> Too many imaginative people and popularizers have a tendency to jump from actual equations/constraints they don't understand, to non-scientific psychologically motivated "implications" and ideologies.
Similarly, too many imaginative people who lack adequate depth in epistemology and non-binary logic like to practice both on the internet as if they know what they're doing. And the beauty of it is: if the minds of the population have been adequately conditioned, no one notices.
But wait, there's even more Oracle level soothsaying of the unknowable below:
-------------
My response is staying with science, which just means staying with evidence and reasoning that avoids our unbounded ability to fool ourselves. I.e. repeatable experiments by others, tested model predictions, mathematical and statistical checks, etc.
That is all science and math are. An accumulation of tools and systems that improve the reliability of our thinking. They increasingly help us mitigate our exceptional talent for fooling ourselves.
If we find another way to "know", it will get included into science too.
-------------
I'm sorry to be such a party pooper, but when religious or mystical people make epistemically unsound claims, the knives almost always come out for them, a little in the opposite direction shouldn't hurt too much. And besides: "science" claims to welcome criticism, much like religious people claim to follow their scriptures. But then, who doesn't like to have their cake and eat it too?