[messe]

> You put all of that effort into compiling this lengthy comment just to come off as a condescending, smart ass critic

The majority of my comment is a direct quote. I wrote very little.

> Constructive criticism would explain how his model can’t possibly give rise to the Lorentz invariance or Schrodinger’s equation.

His model isn't well defined enough for me to attempt that. It's wishy-washy nonsense, that betrays a lack of understanding of the fundamentals of QM. I never said it can't, I just asked the author to show it. It may very well be the case that a more well developed and rigorously defined version of this could give rise to the Lorentz invariance or the Schrödinger equation.

> But you physicists clearly have it all figured out.

Science and mathematics doesn't have it all figured out. That's the whole point. But there are standards and rigor that need to be applied. This utter horseshit doesn't have any of that, and it's astounding that it came from someone with a PhD, and not a poorly trained ML model.