It never ceases to amaze me that mystics will berate Science in one breath and in the next seek it's verification. However here is a pertinent example of that and common pitfalls.

The Conscious Universe: Brahma's Dream

Please note that the author seems intelligent and reasonable and even quotes Carl Sagan (even if he likely blinks during "It is said that men may not be the dreams of gods, but rather that the gods are the dreams of men.") in his understandable appreciation that at least one ancient religion had people who dared think in terms of billions of years instead of thousands. However the author then begins to veer off track and hint at agenda when he claims that 4.2 Billion years is roughly equivalent to 15 Billion years (actually 13.7 iirc)

From his

" Here are the lengths of each of the 4 yugas in solar years:

Satya yuga: 1,728,000 years

Treta yuga: 1,296,000 years

Dwapar yuga: 864,000 years

Kali yuga: 432,000 years

The cycle repeats itself and there are 1000 mahayugas in one day in the life of Brahma (Hindu god)."

It would seem the author has at least spent some time researching Hindu, time that I contend would have been better spent researching Math and Science because he follows those terms and concludes with

If we take away all of the mythological nonsense from Hindu religion and replace it with mathematical nonsense, we come very close to the modern religion of cosmology. If you like, we are characters in Brahma's cosmic dream, and we are trying to understand his mind by analyzing and interpreting his dream.

So he equates mathematics and religion by declaring them both "nonsense", and directly that cosmology IS religion, only to conclude that Hindu really isn't nonsense "if you like" by reaching the exact opposite conclusion as Carl Sagan. Mr. Sagan rightly is fascinated by the idea that Bang and Crunch has any religious equivalency at all with a time scale orders of magnitude better than most, but he draws no conclusions from Hindu because it can't be tested and falsified. He doesn't even stoop to conclude within Science because of the lack of data. He only states that should there be sufficient Mass, there could be a Big Crunch and that should there not be sufficient Mass, the Universe may expand forever.

Mystics easily forget or ignore that mathematics is a construct, a tool, a language to replace words exactly because words are imprecise. Conceptually all math starts with the basest of fundamentals - 1 = 1, 1 =! 2, 1 + 1 = 2 and progresses from there. Furthermore, most mystics do not understand that as mathematics grew in complexity it first became possible to describe everything precisely. (pi x D is always a circle, never a triangle) and then it became possible to make predictions through math alone. Despite the popularity of the TV show "NUMB3RS" most people don't understand the full power and truth of Math. Probably, nobody does yet. Certainly I don't but I at least grasp it's precision and testability as well as it's infallibility given no "Garbage In". Logic ie. syllogism can compute nonsense as well as it can Truth. Mathematics ultimately cannot. HAL goes crazy and kills people

Notice that here

As far as your challenge goes... to show evidence or shut up... envisioning is a legitimate part of science and certainly of cosmology.

If imaginary clashing membranes can be taken as serious cosmology... based on very esoteric math/metrics positing 11 or more "dimensions"....

Well, I could reasonably ask for some slack on "my evidence"... even tho I am not famous like the M-theory boys (with the scientific community hanging on their every word.

Michael falls into the same trap as the Conscious Universe Bang-Crunch guy. He dismisses Science to try to achieve parity begging for "slack on my evidence" when there

**is no**empirical evidence and just because the math is "esoteric" (read "too advanced for the average Joe so I can dismiss it") does not imply it is altogether without substantiation. The M-Theory "boys" are not listened to and discussed (and controversial) among the scientific community because they are famous. They are famous because they are qualified mathematicians of the highest order. They are also vilified by many as destroying the fabric of Science. However, they are worthy of consideration, even vilification where others are just ignored, because the math is good progressive math. All that remains determining if the premises are correct, just how far observed and verified phenomena will go to substantiate individual points leading up to the whole. No math, no words, no person can argue against or for someone else's dream or "envisioning". Thus however elegant, however compelling, it is less than fog and of no consequence beyond a mildly interesting curiosity.