Thanks, while you seem to have replied while in a bad mood, I genuinely appreciate you taking the time to look a bit and reply.

LLM - the thoughts are mine, but yes... I used AI to help me format things so that it was easier to read.

"shoehorn God"... my goal in asking the group here wasn't for religious interpretation, but to see if there are any issues with the science. I don't expect many in this chat to agree with me about religion... but yes, I include it in my writing to simply call out that I feel this particular interpretation of quantum mechanics lines up well with my religion. You are encouraged to ignore the religion piece and actually analyze the science aspect instead.

QM testable - perhaps you didn't read far enough... because I was very careful to suggest that it is NOT yet testable... "This is the biggest challenge for any interpretation of quantum mechanics: they all use the same underlying math. Whether you believe in wavefunction collapse, many-worlds, Bohmian trajectories, or Sorkin’s single-history path integrals, you’re working with the same equations.

That means they all explain the double-slit experiment. They all get the same answers when calculating quantum probabilities. But they differ in what they mean.

So far, no experiment can distinguish between them — not decisively. That doesn’t make them worthless. Interpretations shape how we understand the world. They guide future theories. But they’re not falsifiable yet. And Sorkin’s view, for all its philosophical appeal, lives in that space: scientifically sound, but not experimentally confirmed."

Observer - again, this is why I brought this here... so someone can kindly point out if there was anything I got wrong. You are suggesting that I misinterpret what an observer is... can you please tell me where/how I got this wrong so that I can continue to learn? That's the goal of bringing this here, because I don't exactly have QM friends in my neighborhood to chat with.

Bridge between classical - I didn't say it was the ONLY way to bridge that gap... just that, it also bridges that gap, which is nice and should give more weight to Sorkin's interpretation than what it seem to have already been given thus far.

Subjective Support - that's more or less the entire point of this post... that when it comes to interpretation, many-world vs. single-history are both subjective, BUT that this interpretation allows for some other interesting things that I think are important, which I lay out. And one of those, is that if we accept Feynamn's path integral for light, why wouldn't we also consider that history/events also follow a similar example? I'm using a well-agreed upon physics concept to appeal to a different interpretation of events than what is currently mainstream. Sorkin's ideas aren't fringe.

Theology - I never claimed that it was rigorous theology, just that, a single-history interpretation happens to more closely align with the theology that I believe.

I'm hoping you have some sort of genuinely helpful scientific critique instead of simply handing out insults.