Personally I like the article, and I agree with his concluding paragraph that there must be coherence preservation somewhere.
You need to look at one of the pillars of quantum mechanics he mentioned, where the observables of a system are only the probability, and this is due to 'decoherence' from a measurement. What he's trying to point out is that the coherence in the system must be preserved somehow, otherwise where could it go? It seems that this is very central to the difference between quantum mechanics and general relativity, and that the tiny connections to marry these two are yet to be found. His position is clearly 'it's in the details' not 'we must change everything' of string theory.
This argument reminds me very much of Thorne–Hawking–Preskill bet about information paradox.
PS: fascinating development in quantum weak measurement, where trading off measurement accuracy provides a window into coherence of a system.
You need to look at one of the pillars of quantum mechanics he mentioned, where the observables of a system are only the probability, and this is due to 'decoherence' from a measurement. What he's trying to point out is that the coherence in the system must be preserved somehow, otherwise where could it go? It seems that this is very central to the difference between quantum mechanics and general relativity, and that the tiny connections to marry these two are yet to be found. His position is clearly 'it's in the details' not 'we must change everything' of string theory.
This argument reminds me very much of Thorne–Hawking–Preskill bet about information paradox.
PS: fascinating development in quantum weak measurement, where trading off measurement accuracy provides a window into coherence of a system.