Once I see the possibility that some idea may be expressed in crisp mathematics, I’m no longer interested in vague philosophical treatments of that idea.
Why do you think, the arxiv article is more precise than classical astronomy? Actually, it is about “vague” philosophical interpretations of QM, in this case leading it back to classical, newtonean concepts. Whereas the classical physics was free of such issues.
Once I see the possibility that some idea may be expressed in crisp mathematics, I’m no longer interested in vague philosophical treatments of that idea.
Why do you think, the arxiv article is more precise than classical astronomy? Actually, it is about “vague” philosophical interpretations of QM, in this case leading it back to classical, newtonean concepts. Whereas the classical physics was free of such issues.
If you think I think that, then communication has failed. Let’s try again. Could you explain your first comment in more detail?