You know, it is amazing when someone comes along spewing bluster and venom. It neither clarifies nor informs. You are arguing that this idea presented as new is in fact, nothing new.
Which begs, why the heck have other folks looked at it and said, mmm.. may be interesting. You cite basic and accepted theory and say, this guy's stuff is nothing at all and thus assume that anyone looking and saying it is interesting is ignorant or stupid or uninformed.
That is your hill and your battle. There isn't enough information in the article to even begin to support or refute your contentions about this mans suggestion.
Given that, your last statement just speaks poorly about your own character, because your point is basically beyond your reach and requires all others to assume that this article is patently wrong at your insistence alone.
Past this, you seem to intend on attempting a conversation that has no relevance to the folks that inhabit this place. I am attempting to bring the relevance of this to me, into my space and as I do, I am disturbed by a specific term, but know that inevitably the answer will be obvious so I just indulge in a bit of speculation.
Your argument is not convincing, and bluster, name calling and put downs don't make it any moreso.
First, you don't understand the basic principles of Quantum Mechanics. That's no sin. Many people don't. But please don't pretend to if you don't.
Second, you don't understand what this article even says. The author suggests a resolution of the conceptual difficulties of Quantum Mechanics by positing the existence of an invariant subspace which by definition can only include those events which actually occur. Now: either this is already accepted dogma (Feynman) or a statement of a teleological supreme reality (Tipler/Davies), or it is tautology. The first is not new. The second is not science. The third is not interesting.
Third, your most recent post confuses physical and metaphysical approximation. The fact that F = ma never exactly applies because, say fat people or the most distant galaxies exert an influence on physical systems is hifalutin stuff for a Sophomore bull session that has no place in a serious discussion, but it is, in any event, errant nonsense to claim that the invalidity of an exact result invalidates the physical law itself. What laws do you think the fat people themselves obey? No law? F = mv? Or can they make up their own laws? This is the part of your recent post that is not even wrong: metaphysical approximation is NOT physical approximation. You have made a category error in your argument. It is like claiming that we will never be able to discover the color of the number three, because the colors of all the other numbers make it so confusing. And frankly, you made this not-even-wrong assertion in a patronizing tone.
Fourth: you are wasting my time. You may claim there isn't enough here to invalidate this man's claims (something I've said from the beginning when I said I hoped there was more to this idea than the article could convey) but for someone who believes that you've wasted an awful lot of energy trying to defend it all the same, and in defending it you have made claims about QM that are false or misleading. Should I be polite and let the errors stand? I don't mind back-and-forth, but when you attempt to brush aside a factual statement with some nonsense about how this is all intellectually fine and good but there really is no such thing as a basic physical law because it doesn't encompass all of reality, that's pretty much the limit of my tolerance.