phyllo wrote:This is an admission that RM 'results' can't be compared to observations since the is no conversion between real world measurements and RM units.
The measurements can't be - yet.
The Logic can be.
But just as it takes someone knowing math to verify math, it takes someone knowing logic to verify logic.
phyllo wrote:That's what Aristotle was doing. But that approach had to be abandoned because the logic did not in fact match observations.What RM does most is give logically based coherent understanding of what is already observed, unlike quantum magic. RM is about WHY things are they way they are.
Aristotle made "plausible assumptions" for his axioms.
RM makes no assumptions.
phyllo wrote:You're a clever man and you can certainly weave together a plausible explanation for how and why things might be. How closely does the explanation match the world? If it matches well, then it is a truth or a useful fiction. If it doesn't match, then it is a waste of time or an entertaining fiction.
That is exactly my point. I have stated that many times. Anyone can build any kind of coherent ontology. The proof is in the final pudding.
So far, RM matches every single observation of modern physics.
Modern physics theories are what RM disagrees with, not the observations.
And in addition, RM answers the mysteries that modern physics claims to not be able to answer.