"In quantum physics there will probably never be direct observation of the thing being measured."
And that's the measurement problem, Rick. Succinctly put by Johnny Wheeler: "No elementary phenomenon is a real phenomenon until it is an observed phenomenon." If observation requires some mystical assumption called 'mind,' there is no objective reality; all interpretations of quantum mechanics are equal. Richard elevates this assumption to its ultimate logical conclusion of 'embodied cognition.'
If there is an objective world, however, only the objective language of measurement criteria makes it comprehensible inter-subjectively. So there can be no differentiation between the language that corresponds to a measurement, and that which interprets the measurement. The empirical interpretation of quantum phenomena, independent of theory, does makes such a differentiation, as Richard avers.
As you noted, that language is infinitely recursive (Derrida) needs to be clarified. In fact, in a strict formal sense, Derrida is absolutely correct. Recursion is as native to natural language as it is to the set of real numbers that we use to predict and describe our measurement results. Derrida is also correct that in this sense meaning is not fixed, a fact perhaps empirically validated in Chaitin's Omega number.
The problem of meaning in science was tackled head on by Popper, who rehabilitated Tarski's correspondence theory of truth for scientific theories. I.e., meaning is derived only in the correspondence of theoretical language with physical result. In other words, scientific meaning does not stand alone in language (such as in interpretations applied to quantum experiments); it only stands so far as experiment corresponds to theory, and theory -- language -- is primary. No meaning exists outside that correspondence.
"The only way to get off the merry-go-round of speculation would be firm establishment of local realism along the lines of Dr. Christian's proposal."
Exactly true. Richard would only be able to invoke the Sherlock Holmes' impossibility criterion if there were no alternative. In fact, though, the assumption of non-locality was always the 'impossible' element.
"The physical experiment is necessary toward that end, but it's impeded by Dr. Christian's unfortunate self-presentation as well as in some cases that of his supporters."
It always makes me uncomfortable here, when we get into personalities, and no doubt many of these personalities are prickly, indeed. I try, not always with success, to focus on what we can objectively share and leave the personal out of it. Joy is right or he is not -- I happen to think, for very sound reasons of known mathematics and philosophy, that he is. I believe I have been forthcoming in making counterarguments to conventional quantum theory as dispassionately and reasonably as I can -- though I am passionate on this subject, and if I come across as inappropriate I am willing to try and listen and adjust.
"For example, a recent thread was deleted (I retain a screen-shot) in which he says things about another poster which I'd describe as over-the-top. If you give me an email address I'll forward the screen-shot to you."
My email address is liberally published, on my essay forum and elsewhere. I can pretty well guess the individual and the content, however. The enmity and insults are hardly one-sided, and this goes back several years.
"Also he has allowed himself to be lured into a bet which I can't see him winning."
Wait.
"In other words, his fundamental judgment is suspect. Personally I find it depressing."
Well, I admit that this rhubarb sometimes gets me down, too. What makes it worthwhile, though, is that I wouldn't want to be left out of the best science being done today.
All best,
Tom
