Lev
No. In terms of representational devices narrative is a real problem. One can have a certain set of agreed terms etc, but after that I think only maths can cope with the complexity and precision necessary. In terms of methodology, calssification systems/models are fine, so long as they correspond with physical existence as it occurs.
What I am drawing attention to is what physical existence is, and how it must occur, which then means certain rules must be adhered to in a science which examines it. In simple language, what is now, somewhat derogatorilly referred to as 'classical' has not been properly understood and taken to its logical conclusion (ie sequence of disrete definitive physically existent states). It has been left at the ontologically incorrect everyday usage mode (ie it changes). This has resulted, along with the apparent outcomes of experimentation, even though experimentation could never differentiate such states, in the development of an alternative view (relativity, QM, spacetime). Which presumes some form of indefiniteness in physical existence. That is impossible. The contradiction is then 'resolved' by such mechanisms as observer intervention, and ever increasingly bizarre concepts, even that physical existence can occur out of sequence order, for example.
I have no doubt that despite this, much of the content of what has been discovered is valid. What needs to happen is that that must be re-ordered into a context of a physical existence where these false notions that it involves relativity, indefiniteness, time, have been eradicated.
Will that happen? Doubt it. Even I have been stunned by the inertia created by the status quo. People will engage in differences of detail, presuming the status quo, but not the status quo itself. However, it givesme something to do in the early hours as I do not sleep well.
Paul