This reads like a classic example of mathematical quackery. This same author also thinks calculus, which had been instrumental to all of modern science and technology, is flawed.

So far as I can see he never actually contends with the actual precise mathematical definitions of infinity, or of convergence in his calculus article.

While I can accept that mathematics may have some interesting foundational questions, the author has not developed an alternate solution that makes any predictions or provable statements that demonstrate an actual flaw in mathematics. It's all supposition and bullshittery.

This is little more than farcical nonsense.

It's amusing that this author so stridently criticizes mathematicians for not examining the soundness of their presuppositions, and meanwhile the entire article is based on the weak presupposition that mathematical entities can't be considered to exist independently. While that's a valid position to take, it's also perfectly valid to hold the opposite view, but the author seems to think that their position is fact rather than axiom.

It doesn't matter whether the sets exist in some platonic sense if the axioms (e.g. of Peano Arithmetic) are consistent. Nobody has been able to show that they are inconsistent.

The "simple answers" part amounts to basically refusing to answer the question. Which... seems unhelpful.

Would you prefer a wrong answer or no answer?

troll

has to be