>there's a non-zero chance I'm a floating brain in space
>there's a non-zero chance I can go through walls due to "entanglement"
You don't actually believe all that do you?

>>16695977 (OP)
Boltzmann brains require some cosmological assumptions.
Quantum tunneling was shown to be true empirically. In fact, our current understanding of the Sun is that the only reason fusion happens in the core is due to tunneling (not hot enough classically). So yes, there is a non-zero chance of me tunneling through the wall, but I am more statistically likely to become the POTUS, a trillionaire, and solve the Riemann hypothesis, all in one lifetime.

>>16695977 (OP)
What you're talking about is not entanglement but quantum tunneling. And it's just the remark of simple fact: Electrons and positrons are each repulsive to same charge, and electrons oscillate in orbitals, and nuclei can go trough electron orbitals of another atoms without huge problems, if there is no repulsion caused by particles that have function in this orbitals.

Also there's an non-0% chance you aren't reading too much popsci.

>>16696004
>And it's just the remark of simple fact
>some wishy-washy explanation
>no mention of the Schrödinger equation
You're a chemist, aren't ya?

>>16696047
If you x-ray the box, you've got picture of living cat while it's dead. But in real world superposition means something different than you imagine. Do you really think, that world is rendered as you observe it?

>>16696066
I think that saying
>the Schrödinger equation is just the complex heat equation
>therefore you get oscillatory modes in the “classically allowed region” (E > V) and exponentially decaying modes in the “classically forbidden region” (E < V)
is a much simpler way of explaining things rather than muh atoms and muh orbitals. For one, it doesn’t just concern atoms and their orbitals. Your explanation just doesn’t work for the Sun’s hydrogen plasma for instance.

>>16696076
I think saying "Shrodinger" is namefagging and should fucking stop.

>>16696862
>Shrodinger

>>16696898
He's not interesting at all to spell his name right, he obviously would risk life of cat to do experience where a film would be enough to have same result. Also I've heard somewhere he was pedo... I really think that copenhagen is bullshit, and many worlds even more, also I think shit happens even if you don't look, but different shit happens because you can't measure without destructive interference. That's why I would not measure with stupid sensors. It's like stupidity sensor. Also he was accused of also being pedo. I don't like that guy, he didn't invented anything new, just poisioned the mind of many young aspiring sciencist, who if he didn't tried to kill a cat very unefficiently, could become enlighted by better explanations.

>>16695977 (OP)
Theres a non-zero chance OP is straight