[darby_nine]

> i am having trouble wrapping my head around the sense in which entanglement is a physical phenomenon as opposed to a semantical byproduct of the bookkeeping involved in modern quantum theory.

Is there any indication that all reality is not just "quantum bookkeeping" (at a quantum and not gravitational scale, which is also consistent and coherent)? It seems like splitting hairs to differentiate outside of referring to literal discourse, ie referring to the signifier rather than the signified. Otherwise we would not be able to consistently and precisely measure the quantifiable (un)certainty that forms our models.

Of course all our models could be wildly inaccurate and I look like a fool. But that's just looping back to the concept that it's simpler to assume that the world is consistent than to assume the world is conspiring to deceive you.

[guy234]

Im not really sure what you're suggesting so I can't really evaluate whether it is plausible. What I meant by semantical byproduct was that a definition based on a waveform needs to be supplemented with an argument that the definition is independent of the choice of waveform, because multiple different waveforms can describe the same particles depending on which components of the system are considered as classical.