Strange

There is absolutely no reason that nature should be intuitively obvious to you (or anyone else). There is no reason that humans must be able to understand nature at all. But also, you can learn new intuitions. If you learn about how quantum theory works (which you seem reluctant to do) then you can develop an “intuitive” understanding of it. (That intuition can never be a substitute for the math, but it can guide your use of it. But that is true of even classical physics.) What are those? How would you test this hypothesis (in order to turn it into a theory)? Does your god approve of you lying like this? This is the same strategy used by creationists: make a false claim; ignore the explanations provided; then repeat the false claims. It is tedious and makes people less willing to engage constructively. Except that hypothesis does not match experimental results Then you need to provide some evidence of that. It can be proved that it has

That is a very good point. And it further implies that the God of the OP also exists in a purely classical world. Why would you constrain a omniscient and omnipotent God to behave in purely classical ways? Why would you insist that your God had created a world that was capable of being understood in intuitive terms? When, presumably, such a God can create any type of universe they want. (But getting into those theological questions would be off topic so I'll leave it there, as something for the OP to think about.)

Perhaps this is an extension of Stigler's law of eponymy, which "states that no scientific discovery is named after its original discoverer." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stigler's_law_of_eponymy

It is worth saying that there are plenty of very good scientists that believe in god(s). So it doesn't necessarily blind you to facts and reason. But the OP seems to have taken "the easy route"; rather than understand, make something up.

Understanding what knowledge is, how it can be gained, how it can be tested, what it means to "test" something experimentally, what paradoxes are (and if they actually exist), are all topics for philosophy. We only have the scientific method because of philosophers of science.

I think this poll confuses two concepts: philosophy as a discipline or process (a way of thinking about problems, definitions and questions) and a philosophy (a worldview or set of beliefs; e.g. I am (apparently) a naive realist). Both of these can be good or bad. The former (the "process") is highly valuable when done well. So I guess there is some sort of objective-ish measure of how good it is. For the latter meaning, I suspect good or bad become much more subjective.

QED explains (and predicted) the results of the single photon equivalent of Young's experiment and all the variations such as quantum erasure. You are inventing a mystery where none exists. And then using your favourite deity to fill the gap you have created.

So you made one up. I think you need to get back to that point of view, and then learn the science. Eise has given an excellent short summary. If you want more detail, then I recommend Feynman's lectures to a non-technical audience on QED. He explains how this works, extremely well: http://www.vega.org.uk/video/subseries/8 (Also available as a book, if you are old-fashioned like me.) There is no communication. It can be shown that this idea does not match experimental results (see Bell's Theorem) From the title: This is what is known as the logical fallacy of begging the question: you start with the (non-scientific) assumption that a god exists, then add the assumption that it controls every photons, from there you derive the conclusion that quantum theory proves that a god exists that controls every photon.

! Moderator Note OK. As you think testing of ideas is unnecessarily tedious, you are clearly not interested in science. Do not open another thread on this topic.

None, specifically, as far as I know.

The axion is one possible candidate for dark matter. There isn't a "dark matter axion" and a "QCD axion": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axion

Sadly, this is because you believe in god and are twisting the facts to fit your beliefs. That is not a puzzle in quantum mechanics because it is something you have invented, based on your religion.

Yes it is. Gravity propagates at the speed of light. What is the function f()? Can you define it for us? We know that c is a constant (and, more importantly, invariant). I assume this means that G is also a constant? What s the value of G? c is a constant, so there cannot be a "higher c". What is G? Why do you think that relativity needs to be fixed? Do you think it produces incorrect results? Why do you think that space is not expanding? What about all the evidence (CMB, proportions of hydrogen and helium, large scale structure of the universe, etc. etc) It sounds like your "complete view of the universe" is seriously out of line with the universe.

! Moderator Note I suggest you look up "numerology" in the dictionary. Then look in the mirror. Alternatively, tell us which prominent peer-reviewed journal your "research" has been published in.

! Moderator Note Do not post in the main Science sections of the forum.

There seem to be two possible approaches to that: 1. The universe is fundamentally mathematical in nature. (This contains all sorts of implicit assumptions about the existence of an external reality and that mathematics exists independently of our minds) 2. Mathematics is the tool we (our minds) use to describe our mental model of the universe and so inevitably the universe appears mathematical. (If all you have is a hammer then every problem looks like a nail. Or whatever the proverb is.) In the latter case, we might ask why mathematics is so successful at describing the universe. Well, to some extent, because we say it is: we build models that work, so we shouldn’t be surprised when they work! But on the other hand, it isn’t very successful: our two best theories (GR and QM) can’t actually be used to solve lots of problems because the mathematics is intractable - there are no analytical solutions.

Thank you

As they are both descriptions of the same theory, that probably isn't surprising. Anything that happens in MWI also happens in Copenhagen (or any other interpretation), it is just described differently. These are just "human stories" (fairy tales?) to attempt to explain what the theory says in understandable terms. It is not clear that they have anything to do with what "really happens". (I don't even know what "really happens" means.)

That would make quantum theory wrong. You would need to provide some pretty impressive evidence to support that claim.

Correct. Nothing. It means you could contrive a statement that can be written using the Peano axioms, but could not be proved to be true or false, using those same axioms. (That statement would be useless, other than as an example of Godel's theorem.) Not in this case it doesn't. Here it means: every statement can be proved to be either true or false. No.

Hydroelectricity is the obvious example. That uses gravity but the source of energy is actually the Sun I don’t think there is any way of extracting energy from gravity without putting more energy in But if you really mean perpetual motion then that is obviously impossible

That universe was once smaller and hotter (and denser). And has always been uniformly(*) full of matter. Being large, small, finite or infinite makes no difference. (*) Until gravity started causing areas of higher density.

No, it would be true for a finite universe as well.

The convention is to put commas between adjectives that modify the same noun. So "reasonable, intelligent members" would be standard.

This is a very readable explanation of Godel's proof: https://www.quantamagazine.org/how-godels-incompleteness-theorems-work-20200714