As far as it says so, it is nonsense. It is not even a theory. No definition of the objects of the theory, no equations of motion for these objects, nothing. It limits the accuracy of the predictions of QT. Which is what matters. I do not plan to play endless word games. Learn to read. So what? Classical theory says there is, and gives exact equations, which allow exact predictions given exact initial values. That in a particular interpretation of a particular theory (QT) trajectories do not exist does not make them non-existent. In realistic interpretations of QT they exist. There are no missing things in classical theory, the things are the same (configurations). In this sense, your "aspects" was more accurate, it made at least clear that you are talking about something diffuse, and undefined. No. In the limit, the inaccuracy of quantum theory is simply small enough to be ignored. The language of physics is essentially mathematics. The principle I have explained you is nothing specific, but a very general strategy - no exceptions for the trivial cases - which every rational physicist uses too. Not ok, learn to read. What oops? Nobody has claimed here that the classical SM has anything to do with observable reality. Wrong. There will be a myon field, with field equations, and solutions of them. Of course, the energy levels are not discrete, so you have no "particles" in classical field theory. But classical EM theory also does not go away because you have no photons in it. Learn what a strawman is. This is certainly not a strawman because there is not even an intention to present this as if this would be really your point of view. It is simply an intentional exaggeration into the absurd of the weak points of what you do, namely to use vaguely defined notions like "aspects" or "quantum effects" without specifying them. Fine, so you have no longer written this, and can forget about it: So a TOE is not a TOE if it is false. This would be the consequence of this. And this would be nonsensical. With Newtonian gravity no longer being a theory of gravity (given that it is false in the relativistic domain).