Thus you ask me to show that any explanation [A] of "anything" does not actually inhere in your equation [E]. It follows that any [A] must actually inhere within the set of all possible explanations [C]. Now, to the question, can any [A] not actually inhere within your equation [E] ? To proceed, we must hold true the possibility that [A] does inhere within [E], and further that [C] inheres within [E]. But, if so, then a contradiction of inference results such that you demand that any specific explanation [A] always inheres in both [C] and [E], --but unless we do not question the premise that your equation [E] actually applies to all [C], then the inference that [A] always inheres within your equation [E] is impossible. Thus, your argument that all explanations [C] always can be reduced to physics [E=your equation] is falsified for clearly any universal equation [E] that actually applies to the set of all explanations [C] can never be questioned, yet above the question is obtained. Now, since the above is a complete and internally consistent explanation of the logical relationship of [A] [C] and [E] that cannot be a solution to your equation, your argument is falsified.Doctordick said:I am sorry. You simply did not understand what I said...That is, you cannot give me a complete and internally consistent explanation of anything which can not be interpreted in a manner which makes it a solution to my equation.