Lev
Congratulations for an exceptionally well-written paper in which you guided us to the new horizons of your ETS concepts. From the outset I realized that I can completely agree with some of your ideas, but of others I can say "he knows what he is talking about but I just do not want to go in that direction". Examples:
You said " how many physicists are prepared to start the development ofphysics more or less anew". Count me in. The subtitle of my Beautiful Universe Theory (BU) is "Reconstructing Physics from Simple New First Principles."In my model of the universe the internal causal exchanges of angular momentum between the lattice nodes are well described by two of your statements:
"...development of a radically different - non-numeric, or structural-scientific language" and "evolving transformations systems". In other words in (BU) matter, energy, space and time all emerge from something more basic, and self-evolve according to internal exchanges of momentum (a 'language') much as in a quantum computer.
Having said that I then began to shy away from the structs representation you propose. It may well eventually work to describe how nature and thought work and interact, but using classes seems an artificial top-down coarse approach to describe what in the end would be the most delicate operations of nature at the sub-atomic level.
Yes your scheme may be " radically different from all known representations mainly because it is addressing the formative, rather than any apparent, structure." But understanding and dealing in space and structure is part of our human heritage. Is ETS a language invented for robot physicists?
I was intrigued by your enigmatic Figure 5 of a "schematic event-based version of the Huygens' view of light, which now removes the waveparticle mystery". How? I know Huygens' principle quite well and have shown in my de-diffraction research described in papers here that it is not a physically correct representation of how diffraction occurs in nature - as streamlined flow. I also know that Eric Reiter has now definitively explained particle-wave duality by debunking the point photon concept. Your comments on this and other issues here as well as on my current fqxi paper would be welcome!
With admiration for your combination of bold initiative with technical expertise in your field, I wish you the best.
Vladimir