Dear Tom,
Welcome to my world! Sorry about barging into yours uninvited and admitedly a little rude. But more to your comments.
Tom, you say "... we can objectively describe nature in mathematical language"
Judging the behavior of a person according to our system of values, thinking and expectations I claim is not 'knowing' the other person. Same is true of Nature.
Tom, your first 'technical objection' is the easiest to respond to. You write,
"Your claim that all attempts to give physical meaning to quantum mechanics have failed cannot possibly be true, because QM is founded in nothing BUT physical observation"
Tom 'physical meaning' is not the same as 'physical observation'. If you feel that QM has indeed provided us with 'physical meaning', can you please explain your 'physical understanding' of wavefunctions and of QM more generally? Even the great Feynman humbly acknowledged that 'no one understands QM'.
You write, "There is no "mind boggling mystery" in the calculation of the probability function,..."
Well Tom, the calculations can and do 'boggle the mind' if these calculations have no 'physical meaning'. Are we now so far removed from reality to not even 'make sense' of what 'making sense' means? Even the revered Einstein asked of Bohr, "what is the physical picture"? Let's not confuss mathematical abstractions with reality! The failing of physics is in not providing physical explanations that make sense.
As for associating in my essay the wavefunction with the quantity eta, this is a suggestion that seems to emerge from all the other results. Nothing more at this time.
Looking over your post, I don't see in your comments anything about the most important results in my essay. To begin with, my mathematical derivation of Planck's Law using simple continuous processes and without needing energy quanta. As important is the demonstration that Planck's Law is a mathematical tautology that describes the interaction of measurement. And this, I claim, explains why the experimental blackbody spectrum is indistinguishable from the theoretical curve.
Tom, whether you believe these results are correct or not, don't you agree that these are significant and deserving of a careful review by the panel? And Tom, I am prepared to answer honest questions from referees concerning all my mathematical derivations in my essay. I only ask for that opportunity. You can help!
Wishing you well,
Constantinos