Scientific community needs measurements because they need to be able to reproduce experiments done by different scientists. That can only be done because scientists have the same fundamental measuring devices: eyes, ears, hands. That divides all knowledge into two large groups: observable knowledge - the one which has been obtain via direct observations, and abstract knowledge - the one which is based on inferences from the observable knowledge (a better name would be "imaginative", or "theoretical", "descriptive" because for many people "abstract" means "mathematical" or "non-descriptive"; mathematical knowledge is an abstract knowledge, but that knowledge not about the world, it is about abstract logical relationships which could be used for describing some properties of the world, as part of the "descriptive" knowledge). The abstract knowledge is the subject of interpretation. Everything, anything, which is beyond direct measurements is the result of interpretation (e.g. any description of what may be happening in an atom, or in any microscopic system, is only interpretation). Quantum mechanics is a good example of that even a well working mathematical model (the Schrödinger's equation; Feynman's path integrals) may be based on different interpretations, or a fundamentally wrong interpenetration may lead to a correct experimental results (e.g. the Bohr's model of a Hydrogen atom).
When scientists begin study a new phenomenon, they generate many possible interpretations (there are two post on scientific thinking: in general, in physics). Eventually, one of those interpretation is accepted by the majority of scientific community and becomes "a paradigm". The history of science demonstrates, though, that paradigms are not absolute and may change.
Science development is a consensus-building processes (an example of which we all just have witnessed!): first, scientists reach a consensus on what they perceive, then on the language the use for the description of what they perceive, then on the reasons for the happening of what they perceive (in reality, all three processes interfere and intertwine).
Of course, there may be people who would disagree with the last statement.
And I would ask those people:
And they would say:
"Because I do not want to study how to apply the Schrödinger’s equation to a complicated system composed of a microscopic and a macroscopic parts".
"So, you agree that the Newton's laws correctly describe macroscopic systems and cannot be applied to microscopic systems, that the Schrödinger’s equation correctly describes at least some of the properties of microscopic systems, but you think it cannot correctly describe properties of combined microscopic and macroscopic systems?"
"Well, in that case I am sorry to say that you have wasted your time on reading this piece, because you are selecting the third option from the three options listed before, and this piece is written for people who select the option two".
However, since such approach is not doable, we – scientists – do what we always do when we cannot solve the actual problem, i.e. we make a simpler model and solve that new simplified problem (again, and again, and again).
From my view, the best approach, in that venue has been offered by the "pilot wave theory" (but the wave which guides particles should be quantized as well).
There is another possible explanation, which may solve all the mysteries - the matter we know also interacts via particles which cannot travel slower than the speed of light: tachyons - those hidden variables that establish faster than light "spooky" interaction. However, there is no yet any model which could offer a reasonable mathematical description of that interaction.
When a stone hits a ground at 20 m/s, it does not necessarily mean that it was released from rest 20 m above the ground. It might mean that it was shot down from a 15-meter height starting moving down at 10 m/s. Or, there are infinitely more initial situations leading to the same observation.
Soon after posting this piece I received an email saying that books of Richard Feynman and Paul Dirac have statements which contradict mine. I have read those books, but it was long time ago, so, naturally, I do not remember any specific quote or quotes (so, I re-read some and wrote some on this here in Appendix II). However, the fact that my statements contradict somebody's else statements do not automatically mean that my statements are wrong (they say, there is a list of twenty-three mistakes done by Albert Einstein). However, I would appreciate very much a specific logical analysis of specific contradictions between different interpretations. Isn't that what interpretations are for?
In this post I presented my take on EPR paper; I used a two-column table; on the left I placed a statement from the paper, on the right my comment. I would encourage readers to use a three-column format: one column is for a statement from Feynman or Dirac, second is from me, and the third is for your comment (02/12/2018).
Of course, you may think "I have not heard about this guy never in my life. He can't write anything useful of physics".
And maybe you are right. Or not. In science, it is not about "who", it is about the logic. Isn't it?
Soon after publishing this post I received several emails with critical views on some of my statements (thank you!).
When I started writing my response in the form of this Appendix, eventually it grew up so large that I decided to post it as an individual piece.