To Harv, Dr. Dick, Paul, Yanniru and co.:
With describing "water running downhill" via a carpenter's level: it is a circular description where the item described is the same as the description.
But a correct description of "water running downhill' would necessarily (if it is accurate) ALSO be the same thing as what it described!
What is the difference between these two circularities? The difference is that a correct description is expected to involve OTHER CATEGORIES and their relationships to the item described.
So one circularity involves identity or double definition: carpenter's level/ water running downhill.
The other circularity involves reflection: like a self-referential mirror tunnel of multi-reflections between two mirrors; there are layers of partially differentiated patterns that create the explanation of "water running downhill" by appeal to other pattern categories (dimensions).
The structure of layers of categories (between which patterns are compared) that separate "carpenter's level" from "water running downhill" in a real explanation is what is different from a straight double-definition.
"Water running downhill" is explained by its relationships. As these are self-referent it is no wonder a partial differential equation is pivotal.
People consider that science isn't objective unless there are more than one scientists communicating. O.K., this leads to the idea that communication creates objectivity, creates OBJECTS even? Which tallies with Alexander's view that objects are mathematical relationships (and relationships of course mean communication).
Since communication is an event; if it creates an object then dimensions are associated with events- 'category' as dimension.
What Dr. Dick seems to be saying to Harv is that he is interested in considering not WHAT is communicated; only the PROCESS of communication itself. If he found the laws of physics are the laws of that process; then he has found that all the laws of physics seem to describe is the laws of communication of reality, not reality.
But physicist Paul Davies should be pleased; as he feels what is missing is "information laws" and "information forces". Yet that is what Dick's paper is really about: information laws and information forces.
So possibly physics laws ARE information laws. Brilliant discovery may have been made by Dr. Dick.
What about defining "communication"?