Thank you so much, Bob, for your kudos. Know that I appreciate them a lot.
Yes, the hardest part for me is always language, how to write things down on paper so the reader does not trip over my words. I can tell from your reply that you are accustomed to my writing and have a good brain yourself, not afraid to think things over.
Gödel himself had a hard time seeing all that his incompleteness theorems entailed, and he urged the rest of the world to further the work on what he discovered. That's what I am doing.
An axiom is something considered to be true by itself. It does not need to be proven first. Then, taking this to the largest level of completion, we end up in a spot that is not the universe, but always a sub-level of the universe.
The highest position is empty, just as Buddha already discovered. It is an ideal we hold inside our minds.
A different example is how a political party can believe it is a strong party because the frontrunner is such a good speaker. We envision the leading person as if it is the party itself. We read the person, personify him or her with being the party.
In reality, the political party should be based solidly on the political ideals.
But what we see is that we vote for a candidate because they look nice, speak well, did such a good job in the movies or on television. So, there is a disjoined outcome in which we nevertheless like to see a single reality.
It's also a bit like 'the king is dead, long live the king' in which we have a single person in highest position. Yet when the person dies, we just continue the system, quickly replacing the dead person with a person who is alive. So, the system is not about the person at all. The system tells the rest of us to focus on that one person.
The human mind does this for us. Accepting an overall setting as if it were simple.
You are spot on with your environmental example.
--
Gödel's idea was that of space in which the galaxy was spinning, it then also rotating itself; that is, if I understand him correctly. So, Einstein had his spacetime, while Gödel had his space rotation. As such, it is easy to understand why it was declared as artificial. The next question one should ask (but few do) is what makes Einstein's spacetime so natural? Obviously, it is a very artificial construct as well (unless one becomes a believer).
I did provide a link in the article itself if you want to read up on that proposal.
About the laws of Physics, it is important to make a distinction between what is physical and what is not. Space is (should) not (be seen as) physical, but many do dive into that rabbit hole.
--
I am working very hard to express myself, and I am hoping for others to notice. So far, I have a handful of people who are now seeing that understanding Structure is more important than Science providing us the answers. Naturally, there is nothing wrong with Science, as long as these scientists stay out of the rabbit hole.
I am doing my best with these publications, but I am not making many waves. Any papers I sent in to magazines and the likes end up being rejected. What is nice is that Medium has boosted two of my articles now, exposing them to more readers.
I also have a friend who is an excellent editor, but the subject matter itself is also of a borderline essence. One can only do so much to make it easier to read.
Thanks again for the kudos. Yay! I like that a lot, Bob.
