http://www.astronomy.net/forums/god/messages/28624.shtml
Harv observed about Dr. Dick's paper:
"You have arbitrarily made your paper's topic about 'problem solving'. If we change the ontic references to psychodelic problem solving, then presumably your paper has no any meaning whatsoever. It is entirely meaningless. Likewise, if there are no real problems and no real solutions, just problems we classify as problems having satisfactory solutions, then your paper is also meaningless. Add this onto the notion that all of these ontic references are terribly misleading and confusing, and it is clear that we cannot construct any meaning from your math unless there are predictions that go along with it."

Now, 1-1/2 years later, at http://www.astronomy.net/forums/general/messages/4605.shtml Harv writes,"Dick is one of those people who evidently stumbled upon something significant here, but he obviously has no clue to what it is. Well, his views might have been more significant had he stuck to just the foundational stuff, but instead he ventured off into philosophy."

Apparently Harv now thinks that philosphy stuff was baloney.

• Did physics bypassed him - wandaqueen - December 21, 2004 - 17:32 UTC