Please... what is "embarrassing" about quantum mechanics? (As an (ex) quantum physicist I consider the desire to "metaphysically understand" anything a mental trap.)
From my limited understanding of QM, it would appear that their assertion, that all "mixed" states are really part of a "pure" state, is just a restatement of the Many Worlds hypothesis. In the MW hypothesis, reality is described by the wavefunction of the whole universe, which is a single "pure" vector in Hilbert space whose operators are observables on the whole universe.
Paper on the 5 axioms: <a href="http://physics.aps.org/featured-article-pdf/10.1103/PhysRevA.84.012311" rel="nofollow">http://physics.aps.org/featured-article-pdf/10.1103/PhysRevA...</a><p>It looks familiar actually; it could be posted on HN or had generated an initial pop science hype wave when it was first published.
After couple of thousands of years LHC would be viewed the same way we consider Egyptian Pyramids today.<p>Back then Egyptians were sure that everything they do makes a perfect sense - the height and shape of structures are in accordance with the opinion of the most knowledgable and authoritative experts, writings on the walls are perfectly correct and verified many times, etc.
>>Quantum mechanics ... allows us to describe elementary particles and fundamental forces, to understand chemical reactions, and to construct lasers, transistors, and computers.<p>What? So much for purifying the discussion. I know a little about the history of electronics and do not remember any discussion of quantum mechanics by those building the first computers, lasers or transistors. These were rather practical inventions based on easily observable experimentation.<p>The field of quantum physics certainly allows us to better understand how and why these devices work, and to improve them, but it is not responsible for their existence.