The paper itself says the dimension of the Hilbert space is e^(e^123), so very big but not infinite, countably or otherwise. That said, I also do not remotely

The paper itself says the dimension of the Hilbert space is e^(e^123), so very big but not infinite, countably or otherwise. That said, I also do not remotely understand this paper. I think I at least grasp the basics of quantum theory itself modeling the very small world as a Hilbert space that collapses to a single real-valued vector upon being measured and the math checks out according to what it predicts and what we actually measure, but after reading this I cannot tell why this should have any consequences for ontology. I think I understand the basic desire physicists have to include an ontology in their theories. Old-school billiard ball physics and even general relativity have very obvious and intuitive analogies to basic geometric objects we can envision. We definitely get a map with the math and at least a clear allusion to the territory by reifying these geometric analogies. With quantum physics, nothing at all comes out as some clear candidate for a territory. So this guy is just going galaxy brain and proposing maybe there is no territory at all and the most ontologically basic thing from which all observable phenomena we actually experience arises is just the math itself. I don't really see a justification in the paper, but that's kind of the nature of philosophy. At the most fundamental level, nothing can be justified.