[Eric]

Hi Dave,

I will try to be clearer. When I say "a value >0", I'm not necessarily refering just to numbers.

The entire methodology of mathematics (geometry included) and physics as well, is based on the axiomatic system of logic. Theorems derived from axioms or in other words, proofs derived from assumption.

Is this not the case?

All I am saying, is this methodology has not and can not produce an Absolute. It's axiomatic nature is not rigorous enough to do it. Yes, we've been using it all along and it works to build things and go places to a high degree of certainty, but it is not capable of arriving at a certainty.

When it comes to a TOE, the entire community is scratching its head and I'm saying that this is the reason why.

A non-axiomatic system of logic begins with a certainty and ends with a certainty, without making one unimplied step in between. It also has to follow the rule of being non-circular, in that although it is circular, the very last certainty has to break the circle in an inwards direction, and be a certainty about a single uncertainty.

Anyone who believes this is impossible or that anything can be non-existent, will always run in to the problem of infinity, when it comes to arriving at a TOE.

I'm not saying this to find fault, but simply to state a case.

Eric