Why is science just a starting point and not an end point?

You're unable to comprehend what was written or being intentionally obtuse. Noone is debating digital storage, lasers , laptops, smart phones. PET, MRI etc.. those are not the "esoteric" boundaries of QM those are the practical results of years of research. Those who research these areas have very little to no interest in the practical results that's the province of applied science. And once again it will be the engineers and technicians who apply this knowledge not the ignorant who think sound reproduction is some mysterious goop slopped on a wire or cable lifters isolating EM fields from carpets. 

To repeat this is the starting point and END point of nothing but science. Sound reproduction is science, not mysticism. 

      What you stated in the post to which I referred, and:
  "Noone is debating digital storage, lasers , laptops, smart phones. PET, MRI etc.. those are not the "esoteric" boundaries of QM those are the practical results of years of research."        seem (somehow) contradictory.

               Especially, since you seemed to be objecting to my comments, specifically concerning QM and QED.

                                                   But: I'm glad we agree!

     That science has not yet provided us the means (tests or measurements) to explain why many of us hear the things we do, with the choices we make, in fuses, cables, etc: doesn't mean we don't.

      MEANWHILE: those of us that do experiment with our equipment and rooms, or, "smear goop" on our cables, to improve such a basic scientific fact as conductivity, will go on enjoying the enhanced musical reproduction we've sought.

djones51

You're unable to comprehend what was written or being intentionally obtuse.

It's odd that this site's self-proclaimed objectivists and measurementalists so often resort to classic ill logic - such as this ad hominem attack - rather than assert their position with reason. It just seems so inconsistent.