Quantum and Newtonian physics are both just conceptual models to help ourselves understand and predict the things around us. They're useful for describing reality but neither of them are accurate representations of the real deal. All models break down at some limits.
To imagine one model "being merely a superstructure" on another implies that the limit doesn't exist and the two models are, in fact, the same thing. If you expand that idea to all other models, they would all eventually merge into one grand unified theory that accurately explains every single occurrencence in the universe. A nice idea conceptually, but we're at best no where near that and at worst have brains that will find the nuance of the universe impossible to comprehend in totality.
Any model that is useful for understanding and predicting the universe is worth sticking with, as long as you understand the limits where it applies. If path integrals happen to unlock some new insight that seems evidentially correct, it doesn't really matter if it ties into other theories.
Great project, Josh! I'd love to see where this goes.
As a general design style, the pattern you have landed on with two big prev/next buttons and then very few action buttons (call) sounds great. I can imagine this working very well for a number of other journeys in the app. e.g. if you start to add config, making all the lists or menus work this way could be a lovely, simple interface. I'll keep an eye out and chime in if anything else comes to mind as you go.
I used to do a fair amount over LiveShare and we would adapt depending on the relationship we had. It got more interesting the more level we were.
One of the more successful patterns that came out was to: talk about the goal, write out the code that acted as interfaces between the two of us, and then split up and tackle two things at once. That might have been code vs tests, backend vs frontend, migration vs adapting existing code. We would often then swap and discuss what we'd done (and we might be asking little questions as we go to help refine each other's approach), add improvements or plug gaps and then finally give it a good end-to-end run through with some exploration.
We were working together on the problem, asynchronously, and you'd be surprised how little there were occasions where a big assumption at the beginning was missed and made us go off in different directions. This was nearly always caught early as we talked whilst we worked on our separate areas and had a quick glance at what the other person was writing. I'm convinced that we caught them faster than if I was alone as we had the opportunity to think about the problem from multiple perspectives at once.
To imagine one model "being merely a superstructure" on another implies that the limit doesn't exist and the two models are, in fact, the same thing. If you expand that idea to all other models, they would all eventually merge into one grand unified theory that accurately explains every single occurrencence in the universe. A nice idea conceptually, but we're at best no where near that and at worst have brains that will find the nuance of the universe impossible to comprehend in totality.
Any model that is useful for understanding and predicting the universe is worth sticking with, as long as you understand the limits where it applies. If path integrals happen to unlock some new insight that seems evidentially correct, it doesn't really matter if it ties into other theories.