Just because we intuit that something seems absurd does not mean it is. What is at odds with nature seems to me to be our intuition.<p>Our measurements of the subject seem fairly clear. The double slit experiment works, and scales to larger and larger particles with improvements in experimental rigor.<p>We observe Casimir pressure, and we observe changes in that pressure based on probabilistic constraints that we place or remove in the vicinity of the detector.<p>We observe reduced certainty of observations as they become distant in spacetime.<p>All of these point in one direction-that our intuition on observing things is much less predictive than we tend to imagine.<p>Whether that means multiverse, simulation, unlimited reach of wave function, holographic universe, or one of the other many possible explanations has yet to be established, but there is no indication that classical physics is reconcilable with observation.
>In truth, we don’t know what the state of the electron really is, or how to describe its real physical situation. But if we represent this state as a superposition, we know we will get predictions consistent with experiment.<p>If electron behaves according to superposition, maybe superposition describes the real physical situation, why not? Antipods, length contraction and homeopathic infections were thought as absurd too because they didn't match traditional memes, now we have yet another presumably absurd concept. Everything new is just forgotten old.