But the equation is a platonic form! Otherwise, you will be introducing a third concept, which is unnecessary b/c it has no advantage over the traditional notion of "platonic form".
> It's an attractive framework, but as almost everything in philosophy it can easily be challenged.
Michael is aware of it. He insists that every speculation has to be experimentally tested. But no experiment of this kind will constitute a "proof" - someone can always "challenge" it. This is no different from a physical theory: every interpretation of QM is challenged by someone. :-)
Interpretations of QM are philosophy. That's why there's no consensus regarding them, unlike the underlying equations.
The ontological status of the equations is still unclear. BTW, if you can provide a link to your own essay, I would be interested :-)
Why assume that someone has written their own essay on such a topic?
After this commemt chain it comes across as both dismissive and arrogant.
Why did I assume someone has written an essay? Because he said so! Quoting:
> I do like his ideas (and I wrote similar things about platonic forms elsewhere)
What is dismissive about my interest to his write-up? (I'm sure it was a misunderstanding on your part, you don't need to apologize :-))