"

Request for Clarification

Hello, Arthur Rubin (congratulations on your recent promotion to admin here at Wikipedia!). Your friend the Hillman agent seems to be MIA, so I'll be waiting until he/she/it gets back to renew my discussions with him/her/it. But as it happens, I just noticed that you responded to me in the CTMU AfD as follows:
 
""The only kind of theory capable of 'resolving an intractable paradox of physical science' is a theory formulated on a level above that of the paradox itself; thus, using the theory, one can define a function which resolves the paradox by mapping its (otherwise conflicting) elements consistently into observables. [That was me; now here's you:] WP:BOLLOCKS. Well, perhaps, not, but no such (intractable) paradox is discussed here. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) ."" 

I'm very sorry that I wasn't able to respond to you when you made that comment - too much going on for me to notice it at the time, I'm afraid. But now that it has come to my attention, I'm struck by its ambiguity. Do you mean that science generates no intractable paradoxes in the conventional or computational sense? (If so, I'd like to know how you've managed to deduce this.) Do you mean that such paradoxes may in fact exist, but that the resolutions are necessarily scientific as opposed to interpretative? (If so, I'd again like to know your reasoning.) Or do you simply mean that the CTMU - an unquestionably notable theory which was covered by large-circulation elements of the popular media, but whose Wikipedia article you nevertheless helped to delete - doesn't have anything to do with such paradoxes? 

I ask, of course, because you are a ""relatively famous Wikipedian"" who participated in getting that article deleted, and as an important mathematician, must understand quite a bit indeed! More importantly, because you have taken it upon yourself to help arbit the math-science-pseudomath/science-philosophy distinction here at Wikipedia, I think we all need to make sure that you thoroughly understand it, and are not letting misconceptions contribute to possible conflicts of interest on the parts of other Wikipedians. Thanks,  "