DISCUSSION WITH A CRITICAL REVIEWER

The reviewer quotes me from my previous comments:

"even the most abstract mathematical theorem finds application in the real world sooner or later"

this is a highly unconventional view, to put it mildly. Sure,  within the discipline of mathematics there are differences in the viewpoints regarding some new math as only becoming real/known after discovery or the more Platonic viewpoint that all possible (logic) math is already 'out there'waiting to be discovered.
However, in mathematical physics, trying to describe our *realities* in line with experiments, whether materialistic, biological, economical, or sociological, or in medical science, it is commonly thought that only a subset of all known math applies; that's why a pure study of mathematics is often considered to be highly theoretical. Which engineer would be interested to prove that the sequence of 'twin primes' (prime numbers with only a  difference

of 2, eg 5,7, or 11, 13) is infinite ? According to Terence Tao this is not proven yet.  Not to mention the infinite number of possible string theories, of which we know that -provided even *one* could apply- they not all can apply to our common physical reality. Hope you see what i mean. For the rest i will revert to Ed by mail, i have some important points where i claim you cannot extend dimensions to known physics theories without having to rewrite all the basics again; well at least for s (which E and V) do not extend beyond 3, but also for t, which is onedimensional in our current mainstream theories. Extend that and you throw five centuries of physics into the garbage tray. And eg. Newton but also many others would turn around in their graves in misery.

My reply:

I don't believe Newton would turn over in his grave, because he was a believer in something more than matter and energy. I think he would accept that new theories like relativity, QM, and now TDVP, extend his work, not throw it into the garbage heap. I think discussions with Standard Model paradigm scientists like you are helpful in the sense that they reveal questions that Vernon and I need to know how to answer, and they provide material for additional books and articles.  But they have also prompted me to think more deeply about why there is such vehement resistance to our ideas. I believe I now know why they will not - and perhaps cannot - open their minds to a paradigm that allows room for paranormal phenomena, conscious spiritual experience and God. It’s not just that they are defending their life’s work, although that is certainly a strong motivator, they are defending what they see as the basis for all certain knowledge and sanity.

Science is about the search for certainty. The scientific ‘laws of nature’ provide some measure of certainty and predictability, which makes us, as small, vulnerable individual life forms, feel more secure and safe in a universe that appears to be violent and chaotic. Even with Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle, the uncertainty is contained within a very narrow range that can be managed by a probability distribution function, allowing for reasonable prediction within the limits of our ability to observe and measure quantum phenomena. Standard Model scientists see allowing consciousness into the equations of physical science as opening the door to mysticism, which they see as fantasy and insanity, an anathema to their world of rationality. They will allow this only over their dead bodies!

One has to wonder if such individuals, at least in this lifetime, are capable of understanding that spiritual phenomena are real, and that verifiable paranormal and other phenomena, not explainable in the Standard Model paradigm, can be brought within objective rationality by including consciousness a a variable in the equations describing the laws of nature.