Explain that to the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences. Maybe they can still take back this year’s prize and give it to some physicists who deserve it.

why dont you explain it to me?

You want me to explain what?

I don’t see a problem in people who deal with probabilities getting a physics prize.

Explain to me how that refutes what I am saying.

What you're saying is irrefutable in the sense that you can define things as you please!

I was pointing out that at the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences they are not aware that physics doesn't deal with probability and have given the Nobel Prize in Physics this year to some people who write the kind of books and papers that apparently you consider wrong - full of probabilities of transition, detection and whatnot.

Again, give me an example of what we are talking about so we can see what kind of probability we are talking about.

And the Nobel price giving credit to something that turns out to be wrong isn't really something novel.

I thought that would be one of the QM textbooks that are mostly wrong according to your vision of physics and probability:

https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/introduction-to-quantum...

Or maybe you could give an example of what textbooks are we talking about...

Well given I am a proponent of the Everett interpretation I would say any textbook that talks about quantum wave collapse.

See? That's why they don't deserve a Nobel prize!

You don't get a nobel price for truth. You get a nobel price for significant contributions to the field you are in. Those can be wrong, plenty of noble price winners have been wrong.