Genady

I don't think we need a specific reason to doubt our teachers, or anything. Skepticism is a default state. BTW, I didn't know about the negs, and none of them is mine. Although, I did (mis)understand that post as an insult.

Only if this society and this consensus exclude Onge, Jarawa and many other peoples who cannot vote anymore.

If we're not talking about the "best" or the "most important" (re: OP), but rather about a list of generally good things, sure. Perhaps, a very long list.

Now I understand what you mean by "ontology". I'm not sure it is a common understanding of this word. But with this understanding, I fully agree with you. Re Feynman, doesn't matter, just a quote. The partner is Nature.

I don't understand how it can be useful in such situations. Could you give an example (rather than a metaphor)?

I understand that democracy is a rule of majority. It is inequality then.

I believe that such a thing does not exist. There are many different "bests", for different groups of people.

Which proven law does definition of imaginary number "i" follow?

I think that the difference between physics and mathematics is that - paraphrasing Feynman - in physics we got a partner.

Is it a proven law? I think, this equation is incorrect. For example, x*log(x)→0 when x→0 and log(x)→-∞.

I'm with you here 100%. However, Isn't thinking about ontology another substitute for physics?

Exactly. Thus, no contradiction.

There is a big range between "only one direction" and "all directions". No photon emitted from the opposite side of a star reaches us. (Ignore BH and alike.)

He is right.

The "state of cat" is entangled with the "state of bomb" as well as with states of everything else the cat interacts with. To separate the "state of cat" from all this mess, one needs to sum up (integrate) this entangled state over all variables describing all other parts of the entangled system. The resulting "state of cat" is not a pure quantum state, but rather a mixed state with classical probabilities, something like "50% chance it is dead and 50% that it is alive." This is not unlike "50% heads and 50% tails" of a coin before we check it. Nothing paradoxical here.

It might be useful to investigate, why it doesn't have these effects in the waters of Bonaire.

The wave is not canceled. Its shape changes. Fewer particles appear in some areas while more particles appear in others. With the same total. There is a destructive and also a constructive interference.

Is a definition of Dirac delta function free? Which proven law does it follow?

A historical analogy doesn't prove anything of course but can work heuristically. By analogy, no efforts to disprove classical mechanics or find where different interpretations of it could produce different results have brough a breakthrough. The breakthrough rather came from different developments, i.e., EM, thermal radiation, spectroscopy. By this analogy, I'd expect the next breakthrough to come from a different development as well. Cosmology? Something else?

Aren't we in this situation for a few decades already? About 3 or more?

Which specific intuition does it contain? Then what does?

A procedure of following from intuition has to include intuition on one or more steps. Just like a procedure of following from axioms has to include the axioms on one or more steps.

Yes, it does. Otherwise, it does not "follow from intuition."

There is no "intuition" in this text.

How do you know that it follows from intuition? Whose intuition? How does a procedure of "following from intuition" work?