After a diligent search of your overly long post, the only question I could find was---

Is Dr. Dick then claiming that with his math and "human mathematic syntax," we are seeing the exact language which writes the book of the universe?

Not exactly, what I am saying is that any language with which that "book of the universe" can be written can be seen as a collection of symbols which can be enumerated so long as we possess only a finite amount of information about that book (and the language with which it is written). And, given a specific enumeration, our job is to figure out what those enumerated symbols mean and what rules will make that interpretation yield useful information (generate meaningful expectations).

Have fun -- Dick

• No worries - kantolfir2 - January 3, 2005 - 07:21 UTC
  • Not exac tly means not exactly. - doctordick - January 3, 2005 - 17:31 UTC
    • Re: "That's life." - kantolfir2 - January 3, 2005 - 20:34 UTC
      • I see no contradiction in what I said! - doctordick - January 3, 2005 - 22:05 UTC
        • I'm just melting with the charm and sincerity of your logic ;) - kantolfir2 - January 4, 2005 - 02:18 UTC