I am physicist (PhD), computer scientist (PhD), but I have also MSc in theoretical mathematics - the combinatorial construction I use: just uniform distribution among paths, can be formalized.

But, as you have also pointed, this is not new - Feynman path ensembles are know to be equivalent with QM, and are a time-symmetric picture.

I am interested in pointing and repairing problem of "nice physics": with particles and fields, understanding required non-locality.

You are reformulating QM instead - replace one set of assumptions with another ... and use supernatural beings to explain non-locality.

If you want to motivate me, please propose a scientific explanation instead for the non-locality problem.

While Feynman path integrals are really tough to formalize, you can start with analogous MERW (

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maximal_E ... andom_Walk ): just simple combinatorics - uniform distribution among paths on a graph, already recreating many nonintuitive properties of QM.

It is local in "4D sense", but nonlocal in standard "evolving 3D sense": walker would need to know the future to directly use MERW probabilities.

But this is only an effective model: describes only our information.

In fact the walker just performs some complex evolution - can be deterministic, not knowing it we use the safest assumption: according to Jaynes maximal uncertainty principle:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle ... um_entropyIt took me a few years to convince Manfried Faber to MERW, and now he also sees it as a way to save local realism.

The fundamental rules governing our world are time/CPT symmetric or not - there is no a third option, and fundamental physics we use say they do.

I have already addressed your Born's law argument:

- TSVF, MERW are time symmetric and have Born rule,

- example of measurement idealization is Stern-Gerlach experiment (

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stern%E2% ... experiment ) and it has time symmetry - switching time direction it would behave the same way: particles would still prefer to be aligned or anti-aligned.

Why do you think Born's law is not time symmetric?