Robert thank you for your points. I will answer them from my own view but I realise you have a different view and I hope you will submit an essay to elaborate it.
"""1-Even in theory, a Black Hole can only be indirectly 'observed'. The indirect effects observed include pedestrian causes, less than convincing evidence of a BH."""
--- Anything can only be indirectly observed. Black holes are surrounded by a gravitational field and it's effects on in-falling matter are distinctly observable and characteristic. Nothing is certain and all astronomical observations require delicate measurements but the evidence for black holes is as good as anything we have in cosmology.
============================================================
"""2-Science is not just internal metaphysical consistency, but also the external consistency of physical evidence...if we are talking physics, not math."""
--- I agree and have made the same point myself many times. There are very few observations we have that tell us anything about the combination of gravity and quantum theory. They include
(a) the observation that the universe began from a hot dense state.
(b) the observation from Fermi that photons experience no dispersion even from the Planck scale.
These do not impose strong constraints but there is plenty of reason to hope that further observations will be possible.
============================================================
"""3-"... it(HP) is based on consistency reasoning from the need to bring together the laws of gravitation, quantum theory and thermodynamics."
This need for unification of these physical laws ... is it motivated by natural discoveries, or simplification for human convenience - an offshoot of Occam's Razor?"""
--- The laws of gravity, quantum mechanics and thermodynamics apply everywhere so there must be some consistent way to unify them. This will not necessarily be a simplification or a human convenience. For my take on Occam's razor see http://physicsfaq.co.uk/Faq/General/occam.html
============================================================
"""4-"Energy conservation in general relativity is real, exact, non-trivial and important."
Only in linearized GR is there energy conservation. But linearized GR is not exactly GR."""
--- On the contrary, energy conservation in the linearised gravity approximation is problematical. You need the full non-linear theory of GR to understand energy conservation
============================================================
"""5-The GR field equations express a continuous feed back between mass motion and 'curvature'.. which causes non-linearity ...which causes failure of superposition and energy conservation .... and of Noether's theorems"""
--- Energy conservation and Noether's theorem do not require linearity. I dont know where you got that idea from. If you can give me a reference I can locate the error in the reasoning.
============================================================
"""6-"Some physicists like to say that this makes energy a non-local concept in general relativity ...."
If energy is non-local, then it violates the causality principle.... without the CP, predictive science is a guessing game. """"
--- "non-local" is how "some physicists" describe it, not me. I have provided the the equation for the correct local covariant formulation of energy current.
Besides, non-locality does not violate the causality principle. More besides I do not agree that causality is an essential feature of predictive science. Causality is emergent as I stated in this essay and explained at greater length in last years essay.
============================================================
"""7-"...we never really measure real numbers. We just answer yes/no questions. Nature's information comes in bits..."
...but the number of binary questions we ask for completeness may be infinite."""
--- Which is why we can never achieve completeness, and we do not require it.
============================================================
"""8-"Should we base our theoretical foundation on basic material constructs such as particles and space-time or do these things emerge from the realm of pure information?"
The latter..... specifically, the immaterial substance of the free and bound states of aether."""
--- I hope you will submit an essay that explains what you mean by that because it is not part of any theory I am familiar with
============================================================
"""9-"We must 'Translate the quantum versions of string theory and of Einstein's geometrodynamics from the language of the continuum to the language of bits'".
Rather, to the language of 'its', from the abstract world of math models to the testable world of real objects. What good are the bits, if tests yield no valid hits? """
--- Maths ceases to be abstract when applied to physics. Of course we need to make experimental tests but predictions will only be possible when a complete theory of quantum gravity has been formulated. I don't claim to have a complete theory. I am just explaining some aspects of how such a complete theory could work. Quantum gravity is a hard problem and it is not reasonable to expect complete solutions including solid testable predictions all at once.
============================================================
