Solution would seem a dangerous chaotic place, from nature’s perspective. In transition from reactants to products, might nature be exploring the space of all possible interactions? That is, actually exploring all such possible transition states, with the most suitable, in terms of energetics and kinetics, resulting? So an entropic view, with nature having no intended specific transition state? Hence would one then have the prediction of nano to pico-second etc. ‘freezing’ of intermediate interactions giving rise to a plethora of different apparent ‘transitions’ states ?
Doesn’t this sound like Path Integral summation over all histories , but for quantum chemistry? Of course, all chemistry is of a quantum nature. More specifically, for finite (not infinite, as for quantum mechanics formalism) transition states, wouldn’t one have amplitude (and amplitude squared, giving probability) for each transition state? Then for summation of such probabilities, one gets the most probable result, based on kinetics and energetics. Or a sum over all amplitudes, with result squared, giving probability?
Also could one consider and render such transition states as atomic and molecular orbitals, with amplitude or probability associated with each such considered molecular orbital pattern?
Empiricism would result in decoherence (system of electron(s) quanta interacting with measurement probe, in this case), resulting in detection of one of transition states. Hence repeat experiments, at nano to pico-seconds, would likely seem to result in different transition states, leading to seemingly conflicting findings. So is analysis, and not empiricism, more suitable in clarifying the nature of transition state(s) conundrum, from reactants to product(s)? TMM