I see where you get it now. I previewed this book on Amazon and found it pretty weird, kind of a guy talking to himself and thinking the rest of us are interested.
Goodreads.com has some fun reviews. Many are funnier, but this one sealed the deal on me never wanting to read anything from this guy, this was his 3rd point among many:
3. Total misinterpretations. This is the worst. He gets everything wrong about the math and physics and doesn’t have a clue that he is doing so. He misunderstands both his primary and secondary sources. The things he says about both mathematical/physical “truth” and about the psychology and sociology of scientists is painfully wrong and makes him sound like such a tool.
New York Times had a nice review, but I think that is an indication that book reviewers can’t digest stuff like this. We need people with physics backgrounds to review books that refer to physics. I know this is a “philosophy” book, but philosophy that is not informed by physics is just pseudo-philosophy.