Thank you, John [John C Hodge = JH below]. I appreciate your pointed comments, all the more so for bringing your essay to my attention.
Reading your essay, it seems that our personal philosophies differ little, especially as we seek to understand the nature of Nature (by which I mean reality). I'd thus welcome the details behind your use of "the Reality principle" -- I recall only Freud's version. [As an aside, re your next-world-order: as a management consultant, specialising in fixing sick organisations for free, I practice and recommend benign-dictatorships: where overthrow is a vote-based and happy (because evolutionary) occasion.]
Thus, for me, it's truly good that you are taking the opposite approach to that which I take in my studies. Since, from such a position, we cannot both be right, I see here a chance to make real mutual progress. Thus, welcoming a clearer explanation of your position (and wondering if you endorse "infinite-speeds" sometimes associated with van Flandern), your claims give rise to several preliminary questions.
[I hesitate to say more right now. In relation to your comments here, let's first eliminate misunderstandings and ambiguities before embarking on trickier conceptual questions.]
............................
JH-1: "I take the opposite approach. Quantum entanglement and quantum eraser experiments suggest a plenum (space, ether) wave speed much greater than light as found by T. van Flandern."
GW-1a: If we take "your opposite approach" -- ie, accepting that "quantum entanglement and quantum eraser experiments suggest a plenum (space, ether) wave speed much greater than light as found by T. van Flandern" -- how does that make things non-local?
GW-1b: Why wouldn't we call such events "van Flandern-Local"?
GW-1c: As I recall, van Flandern himself held: "(i) EVERY effect has an antecedent, proximate cause; (ii) there is NO true action at a distance"; eg, see Wikipedia, from his seven principles. Since, unless I'm missing something, I could endorse the van Flandern position given here: please, how do I reconcile your position here vs. van Flandern?
GW-1d: In saying that an experiment "suggests" superluminal speeds, on what interpretative assumptions do you personally rely?
GW-1e: Relatedly, what is your definition of "realism".
GW-1f: If I understand you correctly, we could solve many of our differences by substituting van Flandern-Locality for Einstein-Locality. Since all my ideas are subject to development in the light of sound experimental outcomes, could you elaborate, please: which results of my essay [thus far] would not hold under van Flandern-Locality?
...............
JH-2: "The STOE model and Hodge diffraction experiment (see references in my essay) suggest plenum wave speed much greater than light. Experiments!! Therefore, there is no "local" effects. All experiments are non-local."
GW-2a: You use "local" in scare-quotes (for effects) but the non-local (for experiments) is not? Does 'local' have different meanings here?
GW-2b: In what way do you say that experiments are non-local? (See also vF in GW-1c: above.)
GW-2c: "Experiments!!" Where might I find independent replications, please? From what you write, you are heading in a Nobel direction.
GW-2d: Wouldn't van Flandern himself say that your results are still van Flandern-Local?
GW-2e: Do I take it that your experiments find QM and QT unsatisfactory?
[To be clear: Since, in my experience to-date, I find Einstein-locality to be currently better supported experimentally than van Flandern-locality, you have here the basis for my current 'locality' choice.]
..................
JH-3: "Therefore, our macro-scale is an analogy of the nano-scale and the Quantum weirdness is more simply explained."
GW-3a: Yes, we seem to agree: In my theory, I do not render the micro different to the macro; you seem to disagree?
GW-3b: Again, seeking to be clear: What does "the Quantum weirdness" entail for you; with examples to help me please?
GW-3c:: As mentioned above, I'd welcome the details behind "the Reality principle".
GW-3d:: Please, which of your essays give me your latest mathematical analyses?
............................
PS: John, with my thanks again, I will post this on your site too, hoping it will be helpful when I comment there, on your essay.
With best regards; Gordon Watson