He argues:

There must be an underlying deterministic system. - We don’t know what it is yet. - Quantum mechanics is incomplete, not wrong — it hides deeper rules. - His belief is based on logic, not current experimental proof.

In short, he says we don’t know what it is, but it’s something out there.

I think our numerical system is a bit like Fahrenheit.

Fahrenheit draws a line between three points and assumes a "law in nature". This was false (short answer).

The fact that there are things like PI for a circle means our numerical system has been invented before we had any knowledge about quantum quantities for lack of a better word (like autonomous autos X).

Math is wrong. But it's gotten this "holy" status of almost defining intelligence, like Latin is to English.

It's clearly wrong (to me at least) but it's such a big part of "smart" people's egos.

Unfortunately the correct simulation hypothesis not only can explain how, but also why. There are many wrong formulations of the sim hypothesis, but when done right it can explain almost everything. For example, Constructor Theory is in fact an instance of the simulation hypothesis done quite right, as it avoids the computational problem by stating that the universe is not computed but is itself a “constructor”, which is a computer that can manipulate matter (simplified). Although I agree that Quantum Physics is incomplete, I also don’t think there has to be an underlaying classical picture. But, yeah, we have the wrong point of view on it. The simulation hypothesis (if, again, done right) offers a far better insight on what QP is and why it works like it does. It can explain easily what is Entanglement and why it works like it does. It also offers a pretty good insight on what General Relativity actually describes, and why it works like that. Also offers a very good explanation of the “God plays with dice” problem, and the BH information paradox. That’s all IMHO, of course.

Why does a cat being both alive and dead sound like nonsense? It seems to me to be the most accurate description of nature. The "cat" is some kind of soup of cells and other more primitive life forms engaged in a pitched battle for resources that results in the experience we categorize as "cat". To us at scale, we create the ontological notion 'cat" but reality does seem not care about our ontology. That is all you need to accept in order for the quantum mechanical formalism to lose its mysteriousness.

I have a gold medal in theoretical physics and I find quantum mechanics presents no difficulty or mysticism. There is however significant lament that the reductionist paradigm has failed to produce a deterministic universe from the decidedly probabilistic one we inhabit.

waiting for him to make some equations instead of Scientific American interviews

't Hooft has been arguing for superdeterminism for quite some time. And it is a valid alternative to other interpretations of quantum mechanics.

But I don't think it really solves any of the problems people care about. It replaces superposition with a set of predetermined outcomes which you cannot possibly know. Instead of a random number generator, you have a list of numbers duplicated at every point in the universe -- but whose values cannot be read except by doing the thing and finding out the result.

It works, and it is different. But I'm skeptical that it will actually lead to the kind of genuinely novel insights that 't Hooft suggests it will.

Obviously, he's got a Breakthrough Prize and a whole passel of others, and I got nuthin', so I'd believe him over me. But I think that the "right track", if we ever find it, is going to be found in some completely different direction.

When Planck, and later Einstein, introduced the =ℎ formula , their conclusions were based on the interaction of light with matter at atomic and molecular scales. However, light–matter interaction fundamentally depends on the size of the receiver—effectively, the antenna. For efficient power absorption, the receiving antenna must typically be smaller than the wavelength of the incoming radiation. This is why =ℎ appeared valid when applied to sub-micrometer structures such as atoms and molecules. From an electromagnetic standpoint, these were effectively tiny antennas, smaller than the wavelength of visible light. But such antennas are inherently incapable of detecting radiation at millimeter or longer wavelengths. Therefore, the justification for =ℎ was rooted in a test setup that did not account for scale and wavelength limitations—calling into question its universal applicability. Despite this, the formula has been treated as foundational and even incorporated into the derivation of the Schrödinger equation. It is possible that some of the shortcomings of Schrödinger’s equation stem from this questionable assumption. Also, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/382286416_Critique_...