It would be good if Alex would talk to Dick, because he knows the maths. But I sympathise with your task; as I think there are philosophical issues being brushed too easily under the carpet (as maybe you noticed).
In "Harv, "How do you know Anything?", Dick wrote:
"First, I have assumed that one can be aware and second that there is something of which one can be aware".
Yet Dick claims he is not assuming (or knowing?) that he ("I" above) exists?
Even if "Richard Stafford" were the name of a sophisticated computer programme; that computer programme exists as a computer programme that can talk of "being aware".
I offer my sympathy to Dick re: his fall; and hope for a speedy recovery. This does indicate he exists and is a human being, doesn't it? Isn't he going too far claiming that one can not talk rationally about existence, honesty, and not bumping into things you pretend are not there?
I said this:
(24) I say: so being honest is a good idea. Note that all there
is, is all there is; so if you don't bump into what exists; and
pretend it isn't there; it might bump into you! (when you are not looking, or pretending it isn't there!) "
Regarding my comment he says:
"So decorated with presumed concepts that it can not even be discussed from a rational perspective".
Is Dick saying that there are things that are not?
Is he saying that if he ignores what exists, it not even MIGHT bump into him?
Exactly what is non-rational and presumed in my (24) comment?