Continuing about options:

It appears that to know the difference between the option pair (black, white) and the option pair (here, there) requires a third pair. When you look at the letter "A" on paper you know the "A" is black and here, the background is white and there; by jumping your attention from one pair of (black,here) to the other pair (white,there) thus applying a third pair (then,now) as it takes time to make the comparison.

Even if you don't look at the object, it appears that it may be that three inter-related option-pairs may be involved in the phenomenon.

If in abstract terms, a phenomenon must involve a pattern A distinct from other patterns B compared by C; then physics phenomena must be mappable by sets and subsets of little three-way jump scenarios in all sorts of combinations and permutations and inter-dimensional pattern matches.

My account so far is rather rough but it should be straightforward to come up with general descriptions of things like velocity, mass, acceleration, gravity, photon, etc. that show that your notion of physics phenomena being 'math objects' in math-space translates neatly to the idea of 'freedom objects' in 'option-space'.

And this has everything to do with Dick's ideas of complementary necessary patterns.

Example: A, B, C and A, B1, C involves a 'movement' of A from B to B1 (or a movement (change) of A from B1 to B.

To give direction to the movement would require A, B, C and A, B1, C and D, E, C where D, E is the reference pair (eg. time)(C means comparison) that matches either A, B, C or A, B1, C. Of the two possible matches, once you take one match you have 'before, after' so you can talk of direction (whether A, B, C started with a D, E, C match or not).

Acceleration: requires a rate of change in the movement so further minimilistic-type elaboration.
Mass, gravity, photon, quantum states, relativity, Maxwell equations, etc. all can be generalised in a manner highly reminiscent of what Dick did.

-dolphin