Flavio,
You essay is claiming: "we have a way to discriminate the "truth" from imagination. This is actually Popper's legacy."
To me Popper's legacy includes his reportedly accepted utterance to Einstein:
"You are a Parmenides". I am not sure whether you are entitled to generalize philosophical reasoning as prejudices.
Stefan Weckbach distinguished between bird's and frog's view. I feel myself rather a frog who has no chance but to accept some philosophical conjectures, in particular causality and the preference for non-arbitrary references. e.g. the now as the natural one.
I asked you to ignore your dependency on Brukner's defense of QM by backing Bell's argument, and simply tell me in what McEachern was wrong. While I never dealt with QM, I would accept an actually based on QM computer as a strong argument in favour ot it. However, I admittedly don't trust much in Hendrik van Hees' judgement, for emotional reason. Many years ago, it took me about a year of fierce discussion with him until he apologised. Later on I managed to illustrate my view with MATLAB programs wich were not refuted but simply ignored. That's why I feel symathetic with McEachern who made a similar experience. Maybe McEachern is correct, maybe he is wrong.
For you convienience I point you to two of McEacher's papers:
A Classical System for Producing "Quantum Correlations"
viXra.org/abs/16009.0129
What Went Wrong with the "interpretation" of the Quantum Theory?
viXra.org/abs/1707.0162
If you can, please tell me in what McEachern is wrong.
I would also appreciate you refuting Alan Kadin's suspicions concerning QM.
Only as a rule, I consider viXra less trustworthy than arXiv.
I just learned from Kadin that Pauli (1925?) might have influenced Schrödinger, Heisenberg/Born and maybe Kramers.
Katz made me aware of something behind Buridan, set theory and EPR.
Curious,
Eckard