Genady

This physics professor describes his hierarchy of Framework >> Theory >> Model. Theory is a framework applied to a specific context, model is a theory with external parameters plugged in. Might be useful for this discussion. See the lecture between 14 and 22 minutes:

A relative of mine has sent me their website asking for my opinion. After I've stopped laughing, I've decided that the only thing I can do is to ignore this request. If you have a better suggestion, please let me know. Here it is: CLO Life. Note to admins: I am not promoting this in any way. This is just for fun.

In the words of Pauli, "Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig; es ist nicht einmal falsch!" "It describes an argument or explanation that purports to be scientific but uses faulty reasoning or speculative premises, which can be neither affirmed nor denied and thus cannot be discussed rigorously and scientifically." [Not even wrong - Wikipedia]

I don't see such a "list of requirements for new theory" serving any purpose in science.

A state of two electron system is either factorizable into tensor product of the individual electron states, or it is not. In the former case, they are not entangled and each one has a definite state. In the latter, they are entangled and don't have individual states. Measurement of any of them changes the state of the system: it becomes factorizable, they become unentangled, and each gets an individual state.

Investment with no return.

After reading and thinking, I'm getting a "third" answer. It is not Yes or No regarding the OP question. My feeling rather is, Doesn't matter because humanity will not do it anyway.

Requirements 1 and 2 are not absolute either. For example, Newton's theory contradicted observations of perihelium of Mercury for centuries (requirement 2), but this was not enough to reject it. GR has singularities which can be easily turned into mathematical contradictions (requirement 1), but they are considered being out of scope of the theory's applicability, not enough to reject the theory.

No, they do not. When you measure x2=right, electron 1 is not entangled because it was already measured (z1=up). So, at this time its x1 can be any, left or right, independently of the measurement x2.

What is determined is z of electron 1 and x of electron 2. Let's say the measurements were: z1=up, x2=right. Now measure z2. It can be up or down. Measure x1. It can be left or right. They are not entangled anymore and uncertainty holds.

"Same time" in which reference frame?

When you measure any of them, they are not entangled anymore. So, any measurement of one electron doesn't measure anything about the other. Each has the normal uncertainty.

Take a spring. Let's call it's length = total length - sum of widths of the coils. When it squeezed maximally, its length is zero. It has non-zero energy there. When it relaxes it expands, so the minimum energy is at the length greater than zero. This spring has a very real existence

Altshuller, the author of TRIZ (the method), was a science fiction writer before he made himself busy with TRIZ 100%, some time in the sixtieth-seventies. He published his stories under the pseudonym, Altov. But the story and the writer you remember are unrelated to him, I'm quite sure.

Nothing slows down free fall. A matter falling into a black hole will change its shape, becoming "spaghettified." Anyway, it reaches singularity very fast. For example, in the supermassive black hole in the center of the Milky Way it will be a matter of seconds.

I think that time evolution being non-unitary is a fatal flaw.

I think I understand the question now. In this case, I think, it is just a question to a preliminary study in economics of the project: how "huge" is the expense. I don't know what makes you think that it needs to be as devastatingly expensive as you describe. I think it doesn't have to be more expensive than, say, LHC. Maybe less. We already have a range of developed and tested technologies used for JWST, rovers, probes. Searching for a "suitable" planet is not part of this project - these data come from already running exoplanet projects. There are more technical options described in the articles I've linked a few posts back. The big unknown rather is, how common is life. If life turns out to be even a bit common, then this project is not needed. If on the other hand it turns out to be extremely rare, like e.g. nowhere to be found, then this project has merit.

Who knows then? Maybe he meant that a new theory has to be an extension of an existing recognized theory having it as an approximation / limiting case / subdomain / ...

Didn't he elaborate on these points in the program?

The same answer as before: "to give life a chance to go on after there is no more chance on Earth." Maybe if you rephrase your question, I'll understand why this answer doesn't answer it.

Unitarity is required for the total probabilities to add up to 1 all the time, among other things. Not for beauty.

The purpose is: Whose knowledge? Humans are a tool, not a goal in this idea. Plants and other forms of life on Earth do it while restricted to Earth. The idea is, to remove this restriction.

The point is, to give life a chance to go on after there is no more chance on Earth.

There is nothing to discuss anymore, is there? The OP has conceded:

Why report back?