Dick,

Just so you can see all is not lost, let me summarize your position as I understand it in my own words:

All that we (CS) see is an interpreted to us (CS) by our subconscious minds (SC). Our subconscious mind (SC) is not reliable and there is no way to validate the claims outside of tautological statements that are true by definition or deduction from definitions (and axioms). For example, mathematics comprises a formal system of definitions and deductions that we (CS) can follow through and validate.

What you have done is take this formal system of tautologies and developed theorems *within* that formal system of mathematics that match many of the well-known equations of physics. You haven't made any other assumptions other than what is allowed within mathematics, therefore your work indicates that physics itself is a tautology of the formal system of mathematics.

Those physics equations, as we (CS) interpret it, is thus able to treat the physical equations as a tautology instead of as unverfiable conclusions of our subconscious minds (SC). The implication is that physics is true by definition (and deduction).

Am I getting closer?

Warm regards, Harv