[resource0x]

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. :-)

[red75prime]

Interpretations of QM are philosophy. That's why there's no consensus regarding them, unlike the underlying equations.

[resource0x]

The ontological status of the equations is still unclear. BTW, if you can provide a link to your own essay, I would be interested :-)