Buck,
"True, but I'd like to be sure we clearly distinguish instantaneous time-point snapshots from a moving system. Also, what would you say about an instantaneous measure of position or a rate of change in motion...are they meaningless?"
How far down into the system do you freeze those snapshots. A nice Nikon can produce an amazingly clear picture of a person in motion, but what if you go to the sub-atomic level, where everything is mostly empty space, with various energetic fields and point particles that seem composed of further layers of motion? How do you measure it, other than stopping or slowing the momentum? In that case, you've measured its energy content in relation to the measuring device. It's not that they are meaningless, but they are relational. If all the motion ceased and positive and negative energies matched up, there would be nothing. Non-fluctuating vacuum. (The problem with the concept of "meaning" is that it is inherently static and reductionistic. What is left when you distilled away all that is "meaningless." Reality, on the other hand, is dynamic and wholistic. Everything is tied together and in motion.)
"although highly speculative since the underlying mechanisms for our perception of a given volume, distance, and time is unknown. Could it be that for us to perceive "volume" requires a particular energy level, frequency, and movement (via that energy fluctuation) combination? I don't think this has been answered."
All these concepts are relative. They make no sense, except as to how they relate to one another. What would the vacuum be, without fluctuation? What would fluctuation be without a vacuum? How could you have volume without distance? Dimensions without volume? Units of motion(time), without average motion(temperature)?
"In my essay, I argue (plead?) that we avoid investing piles of money and lifetimes of effort in repairing broken paradigms, and therfore it is absolutely critical to acknowledge observations for what they are, distinguish them from rules, relationships and/or transformations, and document our assumptions. This stuff is of primary concern to managers, policymakers, and administrators, but it is vitally important for researchers and experimentalists to gain understanding basic assessment criteria, which comes from unambiguous definition and communication of a shared, (preferably practical), goal."
For that matter, what is money? It's a medium of exchange, currently based on the tax potential of the issuing governments, but historically based on a supply of a given commodity. Which makes it an article of faith in the larger economy that can only be saved by lending to someone else. Since we desire to save more than can be prudently loaned, we either create credit bubbles, or spend it on things of nominal value, large houses, fancy cars, bloated militaries, surplus academia, etc. It is mostly a bubble in the first place, so a little waste in scientific theorizing isn't such a big deal. Of course we could spend it wisely and intelligently, but that's just wishful thinking. The problem with objectivity is that it doesn't exist. The God's eye view of objective perspective is an oxymoron. From the outside, we can see the whole, but not all the connections. From the inside, we can see the complexity of particular detail, but not the whole.
"For that reason, until there's sufficient justification to consider currently "fundamental units" real, I consider my best contribution will be developing model assessment systems to improve the quality of information available within the research enterprise, focusing on controllable attributes of proposed models and approaches based on criteria for revolutionary models."
That is why I like your essay. It does apply lessons learned to the current context. The problem is that the field is dominated by experts, to the exclusion of generalists, so there is little ability and less incentive to really stand back and put the situation in that broader context to which you appeal. As I pointed out, much complex thinking is being put into understanding how to explain a dimension of time that goes from past to future, whether it's Newton's absolute dimension, or Einstein's relative dimension. Those of us on the outside can look at the situation and see classic examples of bubble type thinking, where assumptions are taken to be correct and then projected to absurdity, with little to no effort to step back and see if the initial assumptions are correct. When your paycheck is dependent on running with the bulls, stopping only gets you run over. So everyone runs off the cliff. If I was to graph this against the recent economic bubble, I'd say it's about late 2006, early 2007. The real momentum is past, but only those at the top recognize the system is starting to spin its wheels, while the late comers trying to pile on are keeping it going, to the advantage of those at the top, thus creating a feedback loop. Of course one of the main reasons Ptolomy's epi-cycles lasted 1500 years was because scientific progress went into hibernation for 1000 of them. With all the economic, political, environmental, resource and population issues piling up, I don't think anyone really knows how far down before we bottom out and start back up, so the current physics model might survive out of a lack of critical examination, rather then genuine progress.
I know I sound presumptuous, but think about it; Does reality travel along a meta-dimension from past to future, or does the rotation of the earth turn tomorrow into yesterday? One is theory, the other is observation. Are these people with all the PhD's questioning my logic, or just ignoring it? You are a very logical person, what does that say to you?