Dear Jonathan Tooker,
I cannot claim to have followed all of your logic but I did enjoy reading your essay, and I found several of your remarks insightful and helpful. For example you say
"... any theory that preserves establish physics and adds gravitating quanta is a working theory of quantum gravity."
I'm somewhat confused by your process (4). Is the meaning that a present state is predicted by physics to lead to a future state, which, when measured, becomes a record of a past event which we study in the present? Or have I completely miss the point? Are you perhaps speaking of signals traveling into the past?
I appreciate your description of the genesis of your equation (9); that sort of openness is rare in physics.
Your discussion of the "often ignored" Ford paradox was informative. I found only one search result on this and look forward to studying it. It deals with a most significant topic related to my essay.
If I interpreted your discussion of the renewed interest in fusion physics properly, that is most impressive.
And it's nice to be reminded that "Hilbert space is home to only the simplest quantum model of spinless particles."
Finally, I note that you state,
"To settle a debate about physics, physics is required."
That seems self-evident, but, again with regard to my essay, some seem to wish to limit the debate to math only. I see in one of the comments above that you have not treated entanglement. I invite you to read my essay and find out why you may not have to do so and I invite any feedback you might have.
My best regards,
Edwin Eugene Klingman