LOGIC is all the proof you need to verify something as true.
Rubbish - the 'truth' vs 'proof' debate was settled long ago (and not in your favour).
Mathematics like english, spanish, and any other language are just LABELS to represent what CONCEPTS exist in reality.
Rubbish - "Twas brillig, and the slithy toves did gyre and gimble in the wabe" - what 'reality' is represented by these labels?
You can write 1+1=2 or you can translate in English one ball plus one ball equals two balls. They prove the exact same CONCEPT. They just use different LABELS to represent the same CONCEPT.
Rubbish - you might like to read your Russell, and no doubt a great many philosophers besides.
You can also write F=ma or you can translate in English force equals mass multiplied by acceleration. Neither represents reality more accurately than the other, they just use their own individual LABELS.
Rubbish - explain how it's possible to 'translate' the equations of QFT into English! Besides, science long ago ceased to be about 'representing reality' (and maths blazed that trail well before science did).
LOGIC is the thing that unifies all CONCEPTS and gives us the ability to analyze and interpret reality.
So you will have no difficulty then in using LOGIC to show the unity of all the CONCEPTS within LOGIC itself? And, furthermore, you will shortly publish some papers showing that folk such as Cantor, Gödel, Church, and Turing were just too narrowly focussed to properly interpret reality?
With this said, if something makes sense in English than it makes sense in math, physics, and any other language.
"It only makes sense that no matter what, if other dimensions exist, that the universal laws, whatever they are, would have to apply to other dimensions. Within a system, anything within the system, is bound by the laws of the system - my law, but it makes sense." makes no sense to me - in English - so therefore it cannot make sense in math, physics, etc?
Therefore, I don't need to show you mathematical proof of what I am saying, I just need to make sense.
If you want to 'make sense' here in PF, you need to discuss concepts within the framework of the physics that you find in peer-reviewed journals; I submit to you that your challenge, should you choose to accept it, is to present any 'alternative ideas' (whether your own or Savov's) in a manner that is a) self-consistent, b) consistent with all good observational and experimental results (within its domain of applicability), and c) consistent with good theories with overlapping domains of applicability. If you can't, then we call such ideas (e.g. Savov's) 'pseudoscience', and PF is not a healthy place for such.
