Re: The interconnectedness of all research

I said affecting reality in terms of influencing events, not of altering matter itself.

Dante probably wouldn't argue this; but I do.

Are "events" independent from "matter"? Capable of being clearly separated into two?

At an essential level, it's questionable they are.

Oh, this poses problems both for a religious or spiritual and for a pure materialistic view of the universe. Yet it's clear to me that X is X not because it "is" X but because it "does" X. Probably, of course, have I been influenced by my own reflections on the On Topic subject ("what is a pedophile / girl lover? what isn't? who is? who isn't?") and on language differences - languages where the noun is more central and where the verb is more central: this is evident in their grammar. Still, it's important to know it's not the same if anything, from the universe to a particle, "is" the universe and "is" a particle, or "universes" and "particles".

Science does not have to reduce everything to mathematical equations.

Obviously not, but it tends to.

Roger Penrose has an interesting discussion in which he compares the three domains or worlds of the physical, material world; the world of ideas; and the mathematical world. Each of these has its own rules, which are self-coherent and appear at first sight independent from the others. Yet, a fraction the mathematical world appears to describe the physical world, a fraction of the physical world appears to describe the mental world, and a fraction of the ideal world appears to describe the mathematical world. In a beautiful symmetry of serpents biting each other's tails, only a fraction of each world describes a much larger portion of the other: most of mathematics is not natural science, most of natural science is not "psychology", and most of philosophy is not mathematics. Of course, there is also an associated discussion of whether each may describe ALL of the other, or if there are things it really cannot and never will: that would be, if there are parts of physics irreducible to mathematics, parts of mathematics inaccessible to the mind, and parts of the mind irreducible to natural science.

The last link up above is one you should especially note, since the info contained within makes it quite clear that the various interpretations and theories that you routinely denounce are embraced by enough physicists and mathematicians to make them legitimate. Not many of these interpretations are embraced by all physicists as being conclusively correct.

Yet (and this is not at you, but at others), the interpretations that require free will to be impossible have never been given the time of the day outside specialized circles. Even though some of the Calvinist interpretations are even more interesting, imho, than the extreme Pelagian position you prefer.

(Oh Gawd, am I really describing theoretical physics in terms of Christian theology?)

I'll try to keep my jabs--er, rebukes--as short and sweet as possible if you will provide me the courtesy of doing the same, especially since these are mostly OT if interesting discussions.

It's most definitely not off topic.

Together we can pray for the end of puberty!