> Then I see he links to his own Revolutionary Theory, and it starts to look like outright crankary.

But what an AI-generated crankery! Because I enjoy wasting my time, I chose a random point (beginning of ch2) and started reading:

> Standard field-theoretic practice selects equations using symmetry, gauge invariance, and conservation. This chapter proposes a cognate selection principle built from three structural demands. A potential that carries energy must appear on the right-hand side of its own equation, because the energy it carries is part of what sources it. A potential that describes the same physics in every frame must have an equation that survives change of observer. A tensor equation must have matching ranks on both sides.

I've italicized a couple of items: Cognate selection principle? Really?

A tensor equation must have matching ranks on both sides? As opposed to all those tensor equations with differing ranks on both sides? Not exactly the type of thing that makes someone slap their head and shout "Why didn't I think of that?!"

The technobabble is interesting in that any single sentence might make sense in the absence of sentences nearby; It that regard, it's much like an Escher painting: Locally sensible, but globally out-to-lunch.

It's been really bad the last few months. You'd think people would want to share human blogs written by people. But half of the links are just different themes on different blogs all ghostwritten by Claude.

Are you AI? You joined HN 5 years ago, dawg.

> but isn't this literally just written by AI?

Evidently.

> Why tf would you even bother posting slop like that?

Maybe low-effort internet point farming? Maybe an attempt to rake in some ad money in the odd chance the post goes viral?

> I'm new to HN and was initially excited about the various intellectual and technological posts

Ehh... It's marginally above Reddit, but that is a very low bar to overcome.

It's decent toilet time.

I want to make my stance clear.

Bell's theorem rules out local hidden variables, not hidden variables. An ontology-first approach to QM (rare in modern physics) takes Bell as the constraint it has to operate inside (same as Bohm-de Broglie) rather than as a settled debate.

The Bohr-Einstein debate wasn't adjudicated on substance. Copenhagen won sociologically, and the renewed traffic on it is the field acknowledging that "settled" was always a cultural claim.

My analysis is on diagnosing the methodological inversion that produced the impasse, rather than picking sides inside it.

Can you briefly explain how the debates refute the basic argument? It's a somewhat interesting comparison he makes, even if AI was used to write that doesn't necessarily make the argument less interesting. I do agree that the end seems like motivated reasoning.

I'm not sure why I got 2 downvotes for this.