Mike,

>>It seems that there is an underlying presumption of agreement on how things are measured.
>
>The unstated premise here is that you can "measure" reality. That implys that you have not the slightest clue as to what I am claiming that reality is.

Hey, I'm not the one who think man can know everything. I'm quite content to admit I don't and cannot.

But, if you assert that you can 'know' or 'understand' reality it is also axiomatic that you are asserting that you can comprehend it (even if only a bt), which is an ipso facto declatation that you can measure (understand) it. Even if only a little.

Now, if you are asserting that only you can understand 'your reality' then you're doing nothing more than spouting the old hash f existentialist thought. The sad thing is that you don't seem to even be aware or realize just how much your thought process is not your own. You're just regurgitating old stuff...

>
>Reality if not a dimension spatial, but the intertwineing of many many dimensions over space-time.

LOL..

Reach a little further and look at who's holding it all together. Come on up to the top of the mountain Mike! <g>