Quote:
Originally Posted by dipayankar  My dear friend... I get your point. However science can be divided into two realms. One is where there is solid reasoning and evidence. The second realm is where there is a pointer to a thruth and the same can be proved at a later time. However religion does not fall in any of these catagories.. |
Then we are on the same page, Dipayankar. While claiming to make use of scientific information only, I state that the platform of science is one that contains division. I claim to bring scientific (mathematical) evidence that a unified platform for a theory of everything does not exist (except in the abstract).
I find comfort in the knowledge that QM is similarly based on not-knowing the outcome until knowing the outcome. Previous to knowing the outcome, all options in the QM domain are on the table.
If you read Lloyd's wording carefully, you will see that he has no qualms with my mathematical evidence. He is not really interested in discussing it either, rather he moves to make math be not that important. In mathematical circles my evidence is quite controversial since it goes all the way back to the basics, and no one likes to go to that messy state without a struggle. Yet the final (or first) delivery comes down to being quite similar to the binary system (though not perfectly identical): there is no 1 that is thé 1, there are just several 1s. And then there's zero also, but that's just a nothing, totally nothing. It's not a system of one and zero, it is a system of ones and zeros, which is quite a distinction.
That delivery contains indeed similarities with Nobody's delivery, but the similarities are mainly found in structure, they are not identical in detail. Where he claims not having to bring evidence because after all there is nothing that exists, I bring evidence of a scientific level. It fits the scientific requirements even when it is annoyingly contradictory to what many people (including scientists) say.
It may be messy for science, but I claim I am bringing scientific evidence.