That's an interesting documentary Arising I watched it from start to finish, I do however have some contentions with the way he is interpreting the quantum erazer experiment, but the problem would be in trying to explain what they are to people who don't really understand the contentions themselves. EPR contradicted by Bells Theorem, and it would all get a little muddy trying to discuss it. So let me just say I advise you watch the video but I know there are contentions with the interpretations made on interpretations therein. If you remotely get why then you are where science is now. Suffice to say though he raises some very good points, but he loses the plot a little in the contentions he makes, 1) things are going faster than light, not a necessary conclusion, if they are entangled hence information if it it is correspondent needs to be faster than light. As the experiment Quantum erazor aptly demonstrates in fact the mesurement time, ie the time it takes for an observer to measure the information precludes ftl. And I could digress but this is probably all a little more than most people would understand. So I will just say, yes very good points, and you are missing some very good points. I am not saying Copenhagen is right but you are missing some more intrinsically important interpretation issues out when you make these a priori claims. What you wont be told is that this guy has no more idea what philosophical issue will resolve all the paradoxes, regardless of his claims. If he could do what he claims he'd of just won 5 Nobel prizes and a chufty badge. So we must remember he doesn't have a clue either. Pinch of salt.
I could suggest people look at Bells-Aspect and read from there, the trouble is if you never really got this video, that lab experiment is going to be mathematically incomprehensible too. But let me cut it short. Yes Copenhagen is a flawed interpretation, it is well known, it is only as flawed as all the others though. We take it as the leading interpretation for only one reason, and one reason alone, it is indistinguishable from all the others, and if you use any of the others all the same paradoxes appear in them that do in Copenhagen interpretation (CI) which is something you wont find mentioned on the interpretation blogs of most philosophers of science. We are hence in science as it regards the philosophy of collapse, does it, does it not, does it need to, we're just stuck. We just don't know how to resolve it. Feynman didn't say I don't understand quantum mechanics for a laugh to make everyone feel better. He didn't say shut up an calculate is my favourite interpretation just because it means you look at results not interpretation issues. He said it because he doesn't understand it, no one does. Let's not be polite about it we are out of our depth. So far out of our depth that it's not even funny. These interpretation issues are philosophical problems though. We know that the science works, we don't know how and why the system does what it does. The dirty little secret is not what QM doesn't tell you. It's that it fully admits the interpretation issues in philosophy are flawed, it however as science must do can only tell you what happens, not why or how as the theory now stands.
End of the day though it's nice to see scientists standing up and going wtf, this is not right. That probably doesn't go on much at university level education but just about everyone who persues a career is indeed saying wtf, that's just weird. Welcome to modern physics, we are all confused, get over it.
Don't you think it's a little more healthy though when someone like Feynman, a Nobel prize winner and oft touted foreman of quantum mechanics, stands up and honestly admits he doesn't understand it. Gotta be progress when the luminaries in the 20th and now the 21st century are all being honest about their lack of knowledge. 500 years ago some man in a dress was telling us absolutes because some other man in a dress said so. It's progress methinks.
