[ArubaJamaica]

This statement is misguided. A lot of physical phenomena doesn't lend itself to intuitive understanding. Quantum Mechanics is a great example of this. You cannot expect subatomic particles to behave the same way that macroscopic objects do (and macroscopic behavior is what humans find intuitive because we experience it on a day to day basis).

Its the same misguided thinking that leads to the popular PopSci explanation of electron behavior being both wave and particle like. Why should we try to categorize the behavior a subatomic particle (an entity so distant from our experiential reality) as being analogous to one of two macroscopic entities?

I totally get the desire for intuitive understanding, and it should be encouraged, but sometimes you just have to put intuition aside and come to conclusions with pure mathematical reasoning.

[kanzenryu2]

https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/apbcLXz5zB7PXfgg2/an-intuiti...

[BoiledCabbage]

Great link - thanks for sharing. Beautiful explanations.

[devalgo]

Isn't this just a misunderstanding of what we mean by intuitive? It's possible to have an intuitive understanding of a thing that's not "intuitive" to humans.

[ddxxdd]

Exactly. Just imagine the quantum world as a bunch of liquids floating around carrying their associated particles, and you have an intuitive grasp of (the debroglie bohm interpretation of) quantum physics.