I didn't supply Lee's work in support of my position Lloyd, but rather to show that even theories which seem to be background independent have aspects of background dependency and vice versa along with it being the best work I had found in a short search which discussed all of the dynamics which must be considered within such debates. I don't care if Lee disagrees with my position but forgive me if I don't allow such to be the final say.

I must admit, you debate an argument from so many directions e.g. logic, semantics, science, philosophy, etc, that it does become exhausting to even try to relate ideas at this level. I'm not saying you don't have valid positions, but I do see where there's still some misunderstanding with the actual mechanics I suggest due to my limitations of finding the words to express them. I'd love to be able to supply a lengthy mathematical formalism, collection of equations or whatever, but I cannot. I'm simply supplying the philosophical paradigm by which a high school drop out has come to understand such complex aspects and interactions of our world to the point that I can even debate with the likes of much more educated individuals such as yourself, Dave, Greg, etc, which is a credit to itself. I'll try to give a more simplified explanation of my theories shortly so as to clear up all of the logical, philosophic and semantic aspects being debated to the point that we can discuss it in terms of science and mechanics only rather than the much broader debate we seem to be having.

Ultimately, if any of this was easy, we'd already have all the answers we seek because there are definitely greater minds in the world today along with many greater one's in the past than ours I'm sure. I'll try to sort through the many arguments you have with me and distinguish the science/mechanical ones from the semantic and logic problems we seem to be having so I'll have a better idea how to respond.

Meanwhile, why don't you give me a full run through of your current mechanics so maybe I can find points where we agree and disagree and perhaps might find a way to bridge the language gaps and such whereby we might have better communication. You can start at the continuous FS resolution and work through your chiral wave mechanics through structuralization and such to give me an idea of how you see an approach to unifying the many seemingly conflicting aspects of science. It's a better approach to let me into your mental processing so I'll get a better idea of how to further communicate rather than me trying to find ways to justify and explain my personal beliefs.