I love the reply, Benjamin, glad to see this stronger side of you in responding to my comment.

Still, it appears you are battling a battle that isn't a battle. From my perspective, you established a perspective in which you have a hierarchy. That's all fine -- for you.

For me, physics is physics and economics is economics and never the twain have to meet.

I see no reason why one has to be placed at a higher setting than the other. Any good economist would acknowledge that economy is automatically a discipline that exists on a scale, and not on solid grounds. After all, the word economy is best understood with the word 'to economize', to do more with less. That is never a foundation but always a sliding perspective.

My gab with physicists is that they have one eye open, and never two. If they open two eyes, then they cannot compare evidence with one another any longer, debating what they see and then never coming to shared conclusions. So, all physicists have to view things via one eye and then they can compare notes, see what is indeed true with one eye open.

If only they would acknowledge that then I am fine (acknowledging that zero is indeed vitally important because two eyes means that each eye is 1 for each themselves, while the other eye is then 0, applied by the first eye). By not recognizing who we are ourselves (two eyed), their overall view on everything will also be false. God has two eyes, God is not and cannot be a Cyclops. The overall physical reality must have two levels (and it does).

Thank you once more for your reply. I see no bubble at all, so an unworthy bubble as you say is also not visible. Are you like Don Quixote involved in tilting windmills? Or explain better what the bubble is because I totally do not see one.