Vignette

I'm sure it would make sense to me as well if I had the opportunity to take the classes instead of learning on youtube and wikipedia. I'm a crackpot who sees an elite caste guarded by nomenclature who assumes the confusion is malicious instead of intrinsic and necessary.

Here’s an alternative perspective: instead of trying to fit explanations into an intuitive framework, you can start with a set of axioms (regardless of intuition) and try to explain the world. The theory with the least number of axioms and most accurate description “wins”

Which happens to be QM. The next step would be matching concepts from the theory to human concepts, the extent to which that works is debatable.

I can be sold on QFT. QM is statistics as axioms and that's a harder sell.

I don’t see any difference in the concepts involved. It’s just where you start classically: Point particle mechanics -> (traditional, single particle) QM Field theory -> QFT

Then maybe we can argue about points. I think everything goes off the rails when we assume there are such places where we divide by zero.

Fair enough, but the weirdness of QM that is not due to point particles completely transfers to QFT

Quantum means discrete instead of continuous and I'm curious to know more sources from which that constraint can stem.