>>>I fully agree. I hope we can make progress. The key is that you have to respond to my exact questions otherwise it is very difficult to understand you. >>"my conscious mind that says that I won't do it">Please explain your definition differences in regard to this specific paragraph. BTW, it is very helpful to stay with the current topic and reply to this exactly as it is stated. Otherwise it is difficult to understand how your definition differs my own. >>I don't think our subconscious (as I define it) models reality.>The models of science were created at conscious states>Dick, I don't see any problem as long as we accept that our perceptions of the world reflect reality enough to model and test our models. If that assumption is incorrect, then it is a fact that we are so badly out of touch with the world that we are wasting our time. >>Okay, so what man-made knowledge is entirely consistent in your view?>Your interpretation that the math of your model concludes that non-consistent epistemological knowledge is not satisfactory knowledge to justify particular knowledge as satisfactory. For example, physics, in my view, is satisfactory justified even though it lacks any kind of metaphysical foundation.>Okay, here's a set of numbers: 1, 15, 98, and 324. What can your model do with them? >At some point you must establish some type of connection with your model and the way reality is, or else you cannot make any comments about reality.>>What then causes you to seek the comment of physicists when they aren't much concerned with the 'games' that mathematicians play (only, of course, if it will advance physical theory)?>Physics is justified on empirical success. In my view, the mental model of reality for science does not exist.>It is a theory about science - philosophy of science.>My interpretation of your work is that you have found the 'holy grail' of a metaphysical foundation to physics.>This foundation is not A.B.C. but rather it is LOGIC.