Strange

These are not dimensions in the scientific/mathematical sense. Maybe in the poetic sense. You should have created this in the Poetry section of the forum.

It is explained by the non-locality of quantum effects. One interpretation of this is Many Worlds. Another is Retrocasuality. There are several others. They are all exactly equivalent. Can this explanation make quantitative predictions?

The only chicken-robot experiment I could find was that chicks that grew up with a robot parent-substitute did better than those with no parent. How is that relevant? If you can't post a link to the experiment you are referring to, then just be more specific: names of the scientists, which journal the results were published in, when, etc. Your job would be to show that they lead anywhere. Superdetermnism is a known explanation of delayed choice (and other experiments). So why are the others needed? 1. "Prove me wrong" is the traditional rallying cry of the crackpot, so please don't go there. 2. In order to be proved wrong, you either need some quantitative predictions that can be tested or some formal logic that can be analysed. Some general claim that your ideas explain everything is not really refutable. I have studied formal logic. If you employ some, then I will attempt to critique it. So far you seem to be using "logic" in the informal sense of "it makes sense to me". But feel free to prove me wrong. Is there a science of belief? Is this part of psychology? If so, I don't know much about it (apart form a few studies on religiosity.) How is that a subjective truth? It is a bit of arithmetic (giving the result 2). It is neither true or false. Completely wrong.

Get a job working in a bookshop. Or work as a book reviewer (you could start off by blogging your reviews). Or train as a proof reader.

I don't see how these constitute a logic problem. There are four independent beliefs. One could believe any or all of them. They could even all be true, I suppose. Personally, I don't believe any of them. But I wouldn't be surprised (based on the things I have seen posted on science forums) if there weren't people who believed all of them. Note that they are all beliefs, because they are not objectively testable. As such, they are outside the scope of science. Whether they are true or not. If you say so. But so does saying "God did it like that". It is not a scientific explanation though (because it is not testable). Of course they understood the connection to quantum mechanics. Why would they be doing the experiment if not? This one: https://phys.org/news/2011-09-robot-behavioral-quail-chicks.html ? If so: how is that relevant. If not: please be more specific. My guess would be that there will be no difference in results. But until someone performs the experiment... (Let us know when you have done it and the results are published.)

Well, there you go. You can consider your theory falsified. Well done. You have done some science.

No it hasn't.

Could you state clearly what this logic problem is. I can see several references to it, but not a clear statement of the problem. Thanks. What are these four premises?

Do you need a hand moving those goalposts, they look heavy.

Me too. Which convinces me that these tests are pretty bogus. Amusingly, I had to guess most of the number series ones but it turns out I got them all right!

Sorry, the game is beyond me. I understand the way the pieces move and that's about it. I suspect that you didn't need to explain that to people here. Maybe if you were talking to someone with learning difficulties... Superior to an IQ less than 120, I assume.

Interpretation does not require you to change the words. That would be editing. Also, many people consider the Bible to be the word of God. (And their interpretations of it still vary.)

If you search for 'experiments conservation angular momentum' then you will find quite a few details of experiments to be performed by students to objectively measure the conservation of angular momentum. Most of these also include estimation of sources of errors and comparison of those with the measured results. That is how science works. Not by criticising youtube videos.

It is a natural tendency for systems to approach a minimum energy state. This is related to entropy (I think). As for why this is; that's just the way the universe works. That is not a physics question. It belongs to Philosophy or Religion.

The Quran is written in Classical Arabic, rich in poetry and metaphor (and no vowels )) and so is very open to interpretation.

There is one theory/explanation (quantum mechanics) but there are multiple interpretations of this. They are all equivalent and cannot be distinguished by experiments - if they could, they wouldn't be interpretations. I don't understand what the logic problem is. Was there a question in there?

Yes, that is generally acknowledged to be the best way to overthrow centuries of increasingly precise measurements.

I guess one problem is, that it isn't possible to test super determinism (I don't think). Which takes it outside of science.

I don't think so. Can you give an example (other than white holes )

Is there any reason to think that is the case? Probably because they don't exist.

No we don't. You keep claiming this, but have provided no support. Without that, we can dismiss it, in the same way we can dismiss any assertion made without evidence. We all know the source of love is the farts of invisible pink unicorns.

And as with the equivalent verses in bible, most people either ignore them or take them to be metaphorical.

True. But opposites attract. Or something ...

Einstein may or may not have been out of kilter with reality (I'll go with "not" from the little I have read) but that seems irrelevant as his theory produces results that are completely consistent with reality. Which, presumably, wouldn't be the case if your claims made any sense at all.

So, in summary, we have a choice between a scientific theory that is able to precisely (and correctly) calculate what happens versus a random guess from some guy on the Internet with no predictive power at all. If it's all the same to you, I'll stick with the science. Thanks.