Why quantum mechanics might be hard to learn

From Decarte's Baby, by Paul Bloom:

The developmental psychologist Elizabeth Spelke lists four properties that all humans assume physical objects possess:

1. Cohesion. Objects are connected masses of stuff that move as a whole. If you want to know where the boundaries of an object are, ... grab some portion of stuff and pull -- what comes with what you are pulling belongs to the same object.
2. Solidity. Objects are not easily permeable by other objects;
3. Continuity. Objects move in continuous paths; the travel through space without gaps.
4. Contact. Objects move through contact. The exceptions to this rule are animate creatures.

Looks like a good list of principles to violate in a sci-fi thriller. For example, the main character(MC) encounters a creature whose eye-ears leap through space and suddenly appear in front of MC's face to perform a close-up observation. They sound like hummingbirds and "nest" in the creature's body. While gap hopping, they talk to the creature's brain via a wireless nervous system. Can be shared by a family of creatures and carry tiny but deadly poop charges :) A dragonfly with eye facets that violate principles 1 and 3 would also be a good option.
I believe there was something like that on the Incrediboy's island in the Incredibles movie. But those surveilance devices didn't leap and where clearly delineated as separate entities. Also, Michael Crichton used smart swarms in Prey.
We would need to run Altshuller's fantasy matrix to see if there's anything left to discover.

Another good observation from Robert J. Shiller's lecture:

...insurance, like any other risk management device, is an invention. Every risk management device relies on a design and the design is usually complex and has--it all has to work together. In order for a design to work well we have to have every component there. If one component is missing we may have a failure. All these components have to be compatible with each other and it has to work according to a plan, which ultimately is informed by this theory.

What's important here is the completeness principle. In order to perform its function, a system has to be complete. This may sound very trivial, but even experienced inventors forget about the principle. Some are not even aware of its existence. Furthermore, large successful corporations make this mistake. For example, when first MP3 players came out they relied on poorly designed third party software to manage and transfer content from a PC to the player. Apple's iPod, besides being a well designed device, was made even better in combination with iTunes. The complete user experience propelled iPhone to the top of the pack, and created a base not only for other iPods, but also for iPhone. The completeness principle played a huge role in the success of the latter, because it came with iTunes, the software service with almost infinite choice of programs to try and buy. When a system is complete, it is very difficult for the competition to catch up. That's why Microsoft had incredibly hard time with Zune, and now struggles to maintain its initial advantage in software for smart phones.