I confess a certain fondness of one argument/observation that I added to the new edition, namely:
Almost all of the many theories put forth regarding quantum mechanics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretations_of_quantum_mechanics ) only address a single aspect of the many puzzling features of Q.M. They are essentially ad hoc theories focused on a single issue. Bohr recognized this drawback in his own theory and argued that Complementarity was not unique to quantum mechanics but was a universal principle of nature extending across physics, biology, psychology, and ontology/epistemology. We can admire Bohr for his attempt to broaden his concept, but in retrospect his effort was an abject failure. Eighty some years later his arguments for Complementarity as a principle strike us as forced, self-serving, unproductive and belonging to the grand, ephemeral theories of the nineteenth century: Lamarkism (inheritance of acquired characteristics) or Marxism (class struggle and dictatorship of the proletariat). Does any biologist today really use Complementarity?
In contrast I would modestly argue that if you take my book’s single proposition (the radical equality of mass and energy) seriously, then potential mass in waveform is just as real as potential energy in field form and the latter characterizes the time release of stored energy just as the former characterizes the space release of stored mass. Mass/energy equality also explains why stressing quanta (molecule, photon) in their extension dimension has no effect on their progression dimension (including the rate of progression in that dimension). The radical equality of mass and energy is not an ad hoc, single-issue theory/principle.