You claim that the unexaminable barrier and the communicable explanation of it are orthagonal, analogous to axioms being orthagonal to rules.

OK, but I think the unexaminable barrier can be averaged out by using many of them, just like Schrodinger's eq can be derived from many different sets of assumptions.

You claim: "I have no proof that what you are expressing is exactly what has been created by my subconscious"

I think there is no need to be exact as long as the communication is consistent- as long as my mental image is the same every time you express your mental image, that is sufficient. There is no need for greater detail.

But you express or communicate an explanation which is exactly that greater detail.

I reject that explanation because it is not consistent with my subconscious. Since you admit that my subconscious cannot be examined, there is no way you can claim that your explanation is consistent with it.

You claim "that all communicable explanations can be transformed into my [i,e,. Stafford's] explanation. "

I claim that the characteristics (symmetries)you impose on your analysis are akin to axioms. The math you use are the rules.

So we are back to square one. If you just used math and maintained the randomness of the sets of data you analyze, then I would accept that your explanation concerns only the rules. But you impose shift, scale and cylindrical symmetry on your data which are like axioms, and as I have repeatedly pointed out, do not correspond to my subconscious.

I agree with you that the same math rules all our unexaminable barriers, which by the way is also an assumption. But I disagree that the symmetries you also assume are part of the rules. They are axioms and in your words orthagonal to the rules. Use different symmetries with the same rules and you will derive different laws or equations.

You claim that your analysis contains all possible symmetries. Yet Noether has shown that each different symmetry results in a different law of physics. So if your analysis were all inclusive, it would also result in every law of physics. That would be remarkable. But it is not so. You have limited the axioms of your analysis and not found all the laws of physics. However, I agree that the number your have found from just three symmetries is remarkable.

You and I know that we have semantic problems. When you use a word corresponding to an image or concept in your head, I get an inconsistent image or concept in my head. Part of our continued dialogue is an attempt for greater consistency.

But even once we are as consistent as possible, I may see everything in black and white whereas you may see color. But even the reasons why that may be so may be examinable. As you say the barrier is being thinned.

My experience with the channel of a disembodied being suggests that (should I say gives me the mental image) from such a perspective, the hidden feelings of humans are available for inspection. Christians would say that God knows our every thought. If that is part of reality, an assumption on my part, then the barrier becomes very thin, indeed.

So bottomline, there exists a barrier. I am not convinced that it cannot be examined. I am convinced that your explanation of it is incorrect, and incorrect on the basis of your own arguments concerning the orthagonality of axioms and rules. The axioms, I think you will agree, cannot be exactly examined. They are probably a little different for everyone. The rules are known, however. They are the rules of math. I think you would also agree with that.

Our difference of opinion (pipeline) is whether the characteristics of the data are axioms or rules. I think they are axioms. Even the assumption of randomness is an axiom. And since every symmetry can be broken, the axioms are not fixed. Only the rules are fixed, or at least I assume they are fixed.

Enjoy responding to this one,

Richard