[Eric]

Lloyd,

That's a nice concise response.

Jumping through the loophole of infinity, is not necessarily an act by an unbeliever. I realize it usually is and almost always, the jump drags infinity along with it and without any logical reasoning, labels it God.

The "redicuously inconsequential measurements" you refer to, are in fact, what is holding science back. Length, whether it be time or radius, are infinitely divisible or multipliable.

Present observation may suggest otherwise, but they're incomplete and so is theory. That's why science is still on a "TOE Quest".

Whether it's stated as such or not, what science is looking for is a theory and observation, that aren't relative. Right now, when we say "we know what we know", we also have to say "it depends".

Science is lacking an absolute reference point (frame of reference). This is not a put-down of science, but an accurate assessment of science.

Presently, science is convinced that in time, it can define the "what" and how the what operates, but it can never define the "why".

I'm saying, science can define the "why" and observe it as well. However, it takes a form of logic we haven't used yet. It takes a non-axiomatic, "only" logic. It takes a logic that doesn't begin with an assumption (axiom), but by disproving the greatest of all possible assumptions.

We all know that science has never assumed that "something" came from "nothing". It has only ever asked the question, "why or how is there something rather than nothing"? This is not a trivial or meaningless question. It is at the root of all of scientific inquiry.

We all know there is "something", but we can't define it. We can keep trying for as long as we want, but until we disprove "absolutely nothing" we can not prove "something". This may seem unnecessary, but is it?

Dave,

Infinity has a dictionary definition, but is not a theory or a part of theory. It lays in wait beyond our theories and is the downfall of every theory.

However, it's not impossible to incorporate it into theory nor for theory to begin with a non-axiomatic absolute.

Just as science includes multi-verse in its musings, it can not be said that it is limited to understand the nature of "the universe". It can only be said that it is limited to understanding "existence".

In doing so, it must rigorously disprove "non-existence" as existing.

Eric