Dear Israel,
what a refreshing essay. I usually do not consider to read an all-caps-title-essay, (Why did you do that?), but I'm glad I did. I think, I knew your name from your arxiv article on the physicist's view of the universe.
I like your approach to physics. As fascinating some of more modern information theoretic approaches to quantum foundations are, I miss the physics sometimes. It is so different to read the 'old ones' on foundational questions.
I have a few questions though. Where did Landau and Lifshitz exclude inertial frames? Didn't they just say, that between the inertial frames non is preferred?
Regarding the rotational motion, I did not know, that statement (2) is accepted as false by most physicist. How and when did this change come? I somehow missed that.
In my own investigations on time dependent symmetries (within quantum mechanics), I asked myself why does the translation symmetry remain a symmetry, if we make it time dependent and the rotational not. The answer I found was basically: For rotational symmetry to hold on subsystems the environment must be isotropic. Introducing a global time dependent rotation introduces a direction in the environment and hence breaks the isotropy. Group theoretical arguments where enough to show this.
In my own essay symmetry plays a prominent role and the question under which conditions measurements are well defined and so also concepts of the laws or properties of objects or systems. It would be a pleasure if you would find the time to read and give your opinion on my essay.
Best regards,
Luca