It's not "nonsense," simply something that (clearly) you do not understand.
If I were you, I'd stop parading my ignorance.... (Jeepers, I'd give the same advice to Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, Richard Lewontin, Stephen Pinker, Jacques Monod, and a litany of other prominent scientists; so please don't think I'm singling you out for special treatment.)
Oh, and by the way, where did "intelligence" come from? Clever matter in its (random) motions???
Just for the fun of it, try to explain how intelligence could arise from a random cause.
Filo: The rest of your nonsense is just that and deserves no response.
Betty Boop: If I were you, I’d stop parading my ignorance
Me: He won’t BB. Filo said it, Filo believes it, and for Filo, that settles it.
Jeepers, talk about "second realities" - that one's a classic.
Mathematics is not a discipline of science according to the modern definition of the term. And Information Theory is a branch of mathematics.
Truly, the proofs of mathematics are more trustworthy than the scientific method.
And science would be unintelligible without mathematics. Ask any physicist. Indeed, your "reality" would exclude on principle the Level IV cosmology of Tegmark which posits that the perceptible four dimensions are a manifestation of mathematical structures which really exist outside of space and time. Ditto for Wesson's theory of 5D/2T which posits that particles in the perceptible four dimensions are multiply imaged from as little as a single particle in a fifth time-like dimension. Jeepers, the Higgs field/boson has not yet been created or observed!
Logic itself is a branch of mathematics and philosophy - which would both be excluded by your definition of "reality." But what science could proceed without logic?
And then there is qualia - that which can be experienced but cannot be conveyed by any form of language, e.g. pain, love, good, etc. Science is not able to subject the love that a man feels for a woman to the scientific method. It can neither reproduce it nor measure it.
Modern science - reduced by the principle of "methodological naturalism" and the scientific method - is simply unable to address the concerns of philosophy, e.g. meaning.
The very concept of universals - which are invoked by the use of variables in mathematical formulae and which originate from philosophy - are crucial to the scientific method. If physical laws and physical constants were not universal, if physical causation were not universal, science would have nothing to do.
Science is neither separate from nor superior to other disciplines of knowledge:
The word "science" itself is simply the Latin word for knowledge: scientia. Until the 1840's what we now call science was "natural philosophy," so that even Isaac Newton's great book on motion and gravity, published in 1687, was The Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy (Principia Mathematica Philosophiae Naturalis). Newton was, to himself and his contemporaries, a "philosopher." In a letter to the English chemist Joseph Priestley written in 1800, Thomas Jefferson lists the "sciences" that interest him as, "botany, chemistry, zoology, anatomy, surgery, medicine, natural philosophy [this probably means physics], agriculture, mathematics, astronomy, geography, politics, commerce, history, ethics, law, arts, fine arts." The list begins on familiar enough terms, but we hardly think of history, ethics, or the fine arts as "sciences" any more. Jefferson simply uses to the term to mean "disciplines of knowledge."
Most importantly, spiritual matters are untouchable by science. They can only be spiritually discerned.
God's Name is I AM.