Thanks.
So Michio Kaku has a multiplier. Does anyone know how he calculates it? Far as I know, cosmology isn't a number, so I am guessing he is thinking of a particular feature of it, the calculation of which is off by a large amount. I wonder what that is.
I suppose he thinks that because this feature is off, all cosmology fails. Rather than that perhaps he simply lacks an explanation of that particular thing. Does anyone agree with him and his extrapolation? Is his multiplier testable?
On your second paragraph ("Validated experimentation shows that Information comes Before Innate Matter ..........which kinda destroys Evolution."), who is the source of the theory that the Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser has an impact on the Theory of Evolution?
I don't recognise your definitions of laws and hypotheses, but now I know what you mean by them, so we can communicate. Just so you know what I mean when I use scientific laws and theories, my understanding is that a theory is a hypothesis that has survived attempts at disproof, but that hasn't been tested in so many ways that it is accepted as a law. A law is a theory accepted as true across the entire known territory of science, although sometimes even laws end up being refined or refuted, such as when a new realm of science emerges (eg Newton's ideas were modified by Einstein in the domain of relativity).
Does science have any explanations why things are? I thought that scientists just observe what is.
| 
