ABC2019 wrote:[color = # gray] the problem is that to speak a little intelligently about quantum physics, it is necessary to have well understood its principles, which is almost impossible except for professional physicists (or then philosophers with a solid scientific training) . This was obviously the case with Max Planck and Ernst Mach, but it is far from being the case in general. And when one understands it well, it is certain that there is undeniably a problem in the concept of "reality" and that one is led to conclude that the observed world is not the real world.
[/color]
To try to keep it simple, quantum mechanics allows you to calculate with great precision the probability that after making an observation A, you make another observation B (and it works very well), but it forbids you to interpret your observations like discovering a real state of the world, and don't really give you any information about what the real state of the world is. From there to conclude that the world only exists in the idea that you have it, there is only one step that some do not hesitate to take ...
You go up a notch ... Do not forget to say that we would only “know” less than 4% of “matter” (and again compared to a theory of matter based on mass, that man himself has concocted). So it will stay below 4% (including Higgs * bosons) but how much “below”? A probably dizzying figure that we will have to admit once we know more ...
Suddenly, I would tend ... one might tend ... to believe that men could have a longer experience of things of the mind than of quantum mechanics. The problem is that we would have had to study these things in a pragmatic way (I dare not say scientific ...) which has not been done much ... (the Russians perhaps more than the West ?)
*) or more ethically “BEH Bosons” by Robert Brout, François Englert and Peter Higgs