However, the problem of probability is potentially more serious. As mentioned above, quantum mechanics makes its predictions in the form of probabilities: the square of the wave function amplitude in a region tells us the probability that the particle is there. The significant consistency of the observed distribution of the results with these probabilities is what reinforces our confidence in quantum mechanics. But according to the interpretation of multiple worlds, each result of a measure is actually done in a branch of reality, and the well-informed observer knows it. It is difficult to see how it can be associated with the concept of probability; At first glance, it appears that each result has probability 1, both objective and epistemic. In particular, if a measurement leads to two branches, one with a large square amplitude and the other with a small square amplitude, it is difficult to understand why we should consider the former as more likely than the second. But if we can`t do that, the empirical success of quantum mechanics evaporates. The rule of correspondence was an important methodological principle. At first, it had a clear technical significance for drilling.
However, it is obvious that there is no sense in comparing the numerical values of atomic theory with those of classical physics, unless the meaning of the physical terms in both theories is controllable. The rule of correspondence was based on the epistemical idea that classical concepts are essential to our understanding of physical reality, and it is only when classical and quantum phenomena are described in the same classical concepts that we can compare different physical experiences. It was this broader sense of the rule of correspondence that Bohr often had in mind later. He mentioned directly the link between the use of classical concepts and the principle of correspondence in 1934, when he wrote in the introduction to nuclear theory and the description of nature: Cantiaism. Many philosophers and physicists have recognized a strong kinship between Kants and Bohr`s thought or a direct cantonal influence on Bohr. In the 1930s, C.F. von Weizs-cker and Grete Hermann tried to understand complementarity in the light of neo-Islamic ideas. Several years later, Von Weizs-cker put it this way: “The alliance between Kantians and physicists was premature in Kant`s time and still is; In Bohr, we begin to seize his chance. A number of modern scholars (Folse 1985; Honner 1982, 1987; Faye 1991; Kaiser 1992; Chevalley 1994; Pringe 2009; Cuffaro 2010; Bitbol 2013, 2017; and Kauark-Leite 2017) also highlighted the Kantian parallels.