Interesting idea, Luis. I think "tommorrow" is not the same as "sun will rise" though; well; you may be right there after all.

Your argument applies to "will tommorrow rise tommorrow?". "Tommorrow" is itself "the next day" which is defined by "the sun rising (Earth continuing to rotate/ sun continuing to shine)".

Will the sun rise tommorrow is like saying "Tommorrow, tommorrow?"

"Tommorrow" in local astronomical terms is itself
an inductive, predictive concept.

But has Dr. Dick just played that kind of game?
Breaking down a mirror-image concept into its images and then, rediscover the original?

I think physics may be like a hall of mirrors but not in that way. The primary image in the physics hall of mirrors is "time" which reflects itself over and over. Looking at physics thus like standing between two mirrors and seeing down the mirror tunnel.

I think what he has done is all about "the laws of perspective". Physicists may discover laws of nature; they also discover laws of perspective (that govern what happens when you change your viewpoint of nature).

You can look at an undefined set of numbers and investigate what "laws of perspective" might apply (regardless of what the numbers are). He appears to have discovered that general laws of perspective, re: ways of changing the view of sets of numbers; match laws of physics to the extent that Niels Bohr's comment about physics only tells us what we can say about reality, appears in new light.

Get enough detail on "perspective laws", and reality appears like a hologram, projected by those laws?