Since Dick is no longer around, maybe we should refrain from discussing his ideas. I'm no supporter or advocate of any kind, I think he deserves criticism (after all, that's what he seemed to be seeking when he started posting here), but I'm disappointed that people's understanding of physics is so poor. I'm no physicist myself, I only know enough to realize that some people don't understand what they are talking about.
Let me comment on your post in view of simply showing how confused you, and almost everyone else here, is:
>> Since you agree that Dick's use of the word "reality" is arbritrary and uneccessary; and given that it obviously muddles things because the word has another well-known meaning; presumably you see it would be a good option that he ditches the word and just uses "A set of numbers"? > I am well aware of the nature of abstract thinking; Harv is correct that even abstract thinking relies on patterns obtained from reality > To make claims as bold as Dick makes he must investigate the foundation of maths; otherwise his castle might be built on "Godel-sand". > Reality is everything that EXISTS. Therefore even an abstract problem is ITSELF a REAL ABSTRACT PROBLEM. But Niels Bohr in his writings seems to have been deeply aware of this (claiming that physics was not about "reality" but "only about what we can say about reality".) > A problem for Dick here: the "Zeus did it" mental model failed to allow creation of rockets and planetary probes; "modern science" mental model did allow such development. So apparantly scientists (despite tautologies) know something the ancients didn't? > I know that a definition is an "agreement" > I also know that re-using old words with new definitions allows matters to be muddled and should be discouraged. > I hope Dick agrees with your words > That quote you mention in a post- I tried Google, but didn't find it > Where did that come from? I would be surprised if I was not alone (in the data I have).