Similarly, to postulate that angels come through the other slits and deflect our photons would be better than nothing. But we can do better than that. We know exactly how those angels would have to behave: very much like photons. So we have a choice between an explanation in terms of invisible angels pretending to be photons, and one in terms of invisible photons. In the absence of an independent explanation for why angels should pretend to be photons, that latter explanation is superior.
Though you cannot disprove the presence of angels as an explanation of phenomenon, the lack of explanation for the angels behavior leaves a gap. A better explanation is then one that doesn’t involve angels whose behavior cannot he explained and does involve only those things whose behavior can be explained. It’s that old saying, “looks like a duck; quacks like a duck” where must be a duck is the simplest explanation that is wholly explained. It could also be a robot disguised as a duck with an explanation of how looks and sounds like a duck. We couldn’t know and both explanations would be sufficient for answering the problem, “what is it?”
