Paul,
Thanks again, but unfortunately you are still wrong on this matter
"So, for the science of physics, we have two knowns: a) there is an independent physical existence, b) there is alteration. Which means that it is sequence, etc, etc, etc"
On the second point of alteration, one might actually call it recursion, and I have no real difficulties with this point if its in the proper context. However, still with the first point, independent physical existence is purely an assumption, and now virtually a certainty that its not a valid one.
You really should read the book Einstein and the Poet, it really does get into the discussion and the mindset of Einstein on this topic. Did you know that he was a very religious person?!
There is a great quote on page 90:
"I think I am a religious man," said Einstein, "and no one will convince me that the world can survive with Jewish-Christian ethics."
Kind of interesting isn't it?
On page 94:
"Religion and science go together," said Einstein. "As I've said before, science without religion is lame and religion without science is blind. They are interdependent and have a common goal - the search for truth. Hence it is absurd for religion to proscribe Galileo or Darwin or other scientists." Einstein grinned, "And it is equally absurd when scientists say that there is no God. The real scientist has faith, which does not mean," he looked at the minister, "that he must subscribe to a creed. Without religion there is no charity. The soul given to each of us is moved by the same living spirit that moves the universe."
However, Einstein is clear about one additional fact, on page 108:
"Do I have to repeat that I don't believe in a personal God who rewards and punishes His creatures? He did not create cosmic laws in order to override them when man asked Him to do so."
and on page 72:
"The world consists of real objects, and there are consistent laws underlying them. If we want to honor God, then let us use our reason and intellect to grasp these laws, which form the basis of a perfect mechanism."
This last point is important because it is exactly this point that is proven wrong. If although there may be consistent laws (quantum theory), the world does not consist of real objects (classical mechanics). It is absolutely fundamental to understand this point.
The problem Einstein had in finding unification is that he couldn't see past this point. For him it was a moral imperative that the world consist of objects, and this was a bias that was introduced by hardships associated with the events leading up to the holocaust, an event where Einstein states on page 96:
"I lost most of my family."
So we can begin to see that Einstein's refusal to accept quantum mechanics was likely influenced by horrible personal tragedy.
What is more interesting, is that even Einstein ultimately relents and says that objective reality is a mere assumption. On page 143 we see Einstein a young physicist who is depressed about life:
"Pat pointed to a tree. 'Can I truthfully say that that is a tree and, if so, what it means?'
'This could all be a dream,' replied Einstein, matter-of-factly. 'You may not be seeing it at all. But you have to assume something. Be proud of being the mean between macrocosm and microcosm. Stand still and marvel. Try not to become a many of success, but a man of value. Look around at how people want to get more out of life than they put in. A man of value will give more than he receives. Be creative, but make sure that what you create is not a curse for mankind.'"
Here we have from the man himself that there is a contradiction in his insistence of the material world. This is further reinforced on page 108:
"Dear Reverend, it is not a religion that teaches that man is made in the image of God - that is anthropomorphic. Man has infinite dimensions and finds God in his conscience."
So if the objective world represents Einstein's God, has not Einstein just refuted this position?
Again, there is no basis other than personal assertion that there is an objective reality. Experimentation has even validated this point, and the lead proponent of the objective world has even capitulated.