Hi Peter,
Good to see you participating in this contest also!
I finally had time to reread your essay. And my original impression has not changed: you did much interesting work but, as probably you yourself already know, the essay would have benefited tremendously from the expository editorial improvement.
Just to take one example, the first sentence of the conclusion:
"An intelligent IQbit with new helical/toroidal freedoms is found hidden in a Sample Space of hierarchical subsets, and an Included Middle between binary 0 and 1, including [math]\Psi^2[/math]".
I'm a mathematician by education but who knows what the "Sample Space of hierarchical subsets, and an Included Middle between binary 0 and 1, including [math]\Psi^2[/math]" is? ;-)
Now let me move on to your questions in my essay forum.
1. "to hear your views on my suggested division line (proposed by Dirac) between real physical nature and that of numerism."
I assume you refer to this in your essay:
"Dirac's Line then more clearly divides Proper Time (unchanged) from apparent co-ordinate time xi"
I had to go to the reference xi you supplied and found:
"if we add two more time variables t(subscript theta), t(subscript phi) as the quantum hidden variables, i.e., 3-dimensional time (t, t(subscript theta), t(subscript phi) ) instead of 1 dimension, we'll find that the motion of single particle under 3+3 time-space posseses the same qualitative behavior as the particle in quantum physics and the spin of particle can be simply interpreted as the topological property of 3-dimensional time."
I'm sympathetic to a more sophisticated view of time, but I'm very skeptical of approaching time via spatially motivated "dimensions". As you might have seen in my essay, in ETS, the idea of time is treated as embedded in the struct. So I believe that time, as you yourself say, is embedded in "change" and is not a numeric concept.
2. "I've also tackled measurement as a real interaction, trying to define 'detection' as a separate prior interaction and would welcome your views."
Again, I am of the opinion that any interaction is of the structural nature and cannot be adequately addressed in the conventional numeric framework.
3. "I end up offering a 'real' resolution of the EPR paradox so also saw analogies with your last figure. There is 'hidden information' which i have actually found researching Aspects discarded 'anomalous' data!"
Peter, I couldn't figure out what your "resolution" is, but our two approaches to entanglement cannot be that similar, because I'm advocating a *primary* informational reality that 'specifies' the spatial reality.
So, to put it mildly, I'm not the best person at all to comment on your essay, but I wish you good luck in the contest, and most importantly, interesting discussions!