This sort of thing would go into a small e-book that is read only by advanced seekers of the way.
But you know those aren’t the only people who will, in fact, read it. I love these latest posts, but share the concern over rhetoric, although I’m not sure what to do about it—what you’re saying really needs to be said and I don’t know what an equally effective, less crazy way might be. But the problem, like Tom says, is not people trying to paint you as a lunatic, but people evaluating you for the first time who recognize “railing against Science” as a strong crackpot marker. Meaning does not excuse impact!
Brian Jaress, the point of an interpretation of QM is not to explain why the equations are the way they are. (Even if that’s not a Wrong Question, as I suspect it is—at some point, there’s no more underlying mechanism to ask after.)
But you know those aren’t the only people who will, in fact, read it. I love these latest posts, but share the concern over rhetoric, although I’m not sure what to do about it—what you’re saying really needs to be said and I don’t know what an equally effective, less crazy way might be. But the problem, like Tom says, is not people trying to paint you as a lunatic, but people evaluating you for the first time who recognize “railing against Science” as a strong crackpot marker. Meaning does not excuse impact!
Brian Jaress, the point of an interpretation of QM is not to explain why the equations are the way they are. (Even if that’s not a Wrong Question, as I suspect it is—at some point, there’s no more underlying mechanism to ask after.)