What is the value of obscure academic text?

From what I understand of it so far, wavicle refers to the wave-particle-duality. Apparently, particles exhibit both wave and particle properties, but it can never be viewed as both simultaneously. It is always either one or the other.
Some claim it is a fundamental property of the universe, according to wiki, while other interpretations view it as "second-order consequence of various limitations of the observer". I lean towards the second interpretation. Seems consistent with your take on it.

I may be a couple of decades out of date, but my understanding of the duality involves considering particles as travelling nodes of reinforcement in space. Thus "an electron" can be considered as a region of space where em waves in three dimensions reinforce each other (like blobs when one net is viewed through another). In this picture the "identity a particular electron" is problematic because it is like identifying a "particular" ocean wave ...better.. a particular junction in a moving criss-cross pattern where such waves cross. And what can be said of electrons can be said of other particles and "materiality" in general with an extrapolation of complexity.

Some explanations seem to say that a wave is the superposition of a particle. It is all the possible positions of a particle simultaneously, and when it collapses into a definite state, that is the particle. Other explanations say that when measuring a particle, it is a matter of measuring the density of a wave where the particle is most likely to be found at any given time, but exactly pinpointing it with the accuracy associated with classical physics cannot really be done. The next measurement might show something different.

But, to steer this back to the topic so we don't hijack PQ's thread, would you say that the text I quoted from another forum is obscure because of it's subject or because of the way it is written?

I would say "obscurity lies in the eye of the beholder", provided there was at least one beholder who did not find it obscure . Derrida, for example, had many acolytes despite a concerted move against him made by "the establishment". Having said that, there is undoubtedly also a tendency for some to jump on iconoclastic band-wagons which turn out to be fan clubs for "the Emperor's New Clothes".

As far as obscurity goes, I didn't find it that bad. Can any physicist out there confirm whether any of the language in Cyracuz's excerpt was unnecessary? Would there have been a substantially easier way to say it? That's usually my yardstick for obscurity.

By the way, confusion can occur at an aesthetic level, which is a concern for artists trying to construct compositions according to principles of design.

By the way, confusion can occur at an aesthetic level, which is a concern for artists trying to construct compositions in accordance with principles of design.

First thing to come to my mind is succinctness.