The Platonic Interpretation
I think that modern physics has definitely decided in favor of Plato. In fact the smallest units of matter are not physical objects in the ordinary sense; they are forms, ideas which can be expressed unambiguously only in mathematical language.Heisenberg
I have become fairly convinced that the best way to understand Quantum Mechanics is in a platonic sense, much like Heisenberg hinted at. To expand this out in a speculative way, it has some similarities with both relational interpretations (Qbism/RQM) and the Bohmian interpretation. It’s a fairly simple starting point, which is that all physical properties are a representation of something more fundamental. I would use the term ‘form’ in a Platonic sense as it fits well once you build it out using logical steps.
To start with, I’ll define space as a brane (or plane) of representation. What I mean by this is that we group the three dimensions of space as being categorically the same. We then need a plane in which the forms themselves exist, which could be seen as quantum or classical – as you will see the distinction disappears, which is one of the great things about looking at things this way. For arguments sake we could call this a plane of extra dimensions. You could say this representational nature of physical properties from a more fundamental plane is what gives the impression that extra dimensions are ‘rolled up’ as per Kaluza-Klein, however in reality it’s simply that the two planes are only connected at the point where a form is representing to another form. Because there is continuous representation, space has a continuous existence. However everything in this space (ie. the physical properties) is relational along two axes, in terms of the subject the image is presented to, and the more fundamental properties of the object form (more ‘be-ing’ than relation). We could perhaps describe gravity in terms of the energy required to represent at any point in space, creating a gradient which we then describe as the curvature of space. Any substantial interaction between forms, results in a representation of the form as physical properties. A subset of this is what we call observation, but more properly it could be called an entanglement. In effect, observations create an image of the form – which contains some information of the form, but is not the forms itself.
It’s worth clarifying what this means in terms of a simple slit or experiment. In this case, there are multiple entanglements between the emitter, the particle, the slit housing, the screen and the detectors. All these happen at the same time, but the physical properties only appear between each entangled form. It’s also worth saying that there is a distinction between particles combined into a macro form via the normal forces (‘physical contact’), and particles entangled in the usual quantum sense. Nonetheless, when you have two entangled particles, it’s effectively a sharing of a single form.
Because the physical quantum properties are just an ‘external’ image of the actual form, you naturally have the appearance of strange observer influence, as those properties ARE the observation itself, not the form. However at the macro scale, these average out to give the appearance of a classical, objective and physical object. The object does have an objective reality, it’s purely the assumption that the object consists of these physical properties that is a slight misunderstanding.
Because the wave function is like a translation between these planes, it’s describing a potential mapping at any point in time, which of course will only become actual in the case of an entanglement (or measurement), at which point the form will represent as an image/properties. Because these two planes are only in effect connected at the point of representation, you have the wave front of all potential locations spreading through space. There is nothing magical about this, it’s just the possible relationships between the planes, which becomes actual at measurement. Most of the strange stuff seems to me to become natural, including the ‘no go’ experiments.
I may of course be wrong with this, the fact no physicists see this distinction between form and representation should be a red flag. Nonetheless, the more I hear physicists discussing the existing interpretations, the more natural this one sounds to me.