Just a thought guys, but there seems to be too many additional variables added into the equations that you keep refering to. In Misha's original equation, logic, mankind, nature and superpowers are used, but in Jaden's approach, God, Humans and the ability to do two things at once (a & b) were added. Later, mass and force were referred to as well as a mention of language. Your equations will always evolve, reaching a large, complex and incomplete theory always to be disproved by someone (hello!
).
To add a different view and kinda vindicate what I mentioned in an earlier post that as a race we cannot agree on the perfect answer, as there is always too much room to add disclaiming variables for us to agree in harmony, I'll add my thoughts in basic maths. In a simple sense, my therory is nothing and life, therefore in a mathematical sense I'll use nothing = 0 and life = 1.
1 could never be divided, multiplied or equal 0, causing (whichever way you look at it) an impossible equation to calculate and this defies logic. I'll add 'variables' to try and please all like the Chaos theory, a 'big bang' chemical reaction, and lets asumme that's 0 too as it is similar to evolving from nothing. Science = 0
I'll even use an all powerful entity that created all - 'God' and give that a number of infinity as it defies 'logic' in the sense that it is opposite to science as it can never be proved by that means. Infinity cannot be multiplied by 1 either, as it is illogical to multiply it by a simple number, meaning infinity must have an end if it can be equated. God = ∞
You're left with up to three impossible to prove theories so why equate something that couldn't be logically proved or create an equation that serves no purpose? I guess that's the point. The general debate here is noone is right. But in the same vein, everyone is right in the same sense for having their own theories and beliefs. Best to make peace and agree to disagree I think.
Conclusion is that logic can always be defied by nature because logic is bound by rules, yet nature is an ever evolving entity that always defies logic, in this world and for in the rest of the universe.
Just realised the very Scientology approach I used,
The Big Bang Theory does not propose that something came from nothing. all the matter in the universe was condenced. The process is continual. As for the universe's existance, there's no reason why it could not have existed forever (it's more logical than stating God has existed forever because of the simple fact that we know the universe actually exists).
My point is, you really have no reason to ascribe 0 to science (since it's not something from nothing). Honestly, your proposal is way too abstract to be using numbers anyway.
