(My 2+ week absence maybe begin at any time.)
You the Man ! I don't know why Doctor Dick doesn't see some clarity in your response, for I do....ethough your dissent is so long and contains errors (see below) I found value in what you wrote. For example, you wrote about Doctor Dick's paper,
"I thought: The "Laws of Physics" are deliberately phrased in a Mathematical form that is logically consistent with Physics definitions. Therefore if you analyze either "the Laws of Physics" or "Physics Definitions" from the point of view of a "Logical Consistency Analyzer": you will get the other side of the coin (e.g. analyze physics definitions and you would get Physics laws.)
It still remains a possibility that...that what? How could you ever know there was a law other than logical consistency itself? Any other "law" will reflect your definitions, and vice-versa, through the mirror of logical consistency. You cannot prove that there isn't a law, you simply have no way of telling whether there is a law or not- other than logical consistency itself!
Well, Alan, that makes a lot of sense. The law of logical consistency is at least a Maypole around which other ideas may dance. And if one of them is not holding on to the pole or staying in line, it can be very worthwhile to reexamine what we were telling the dancer about itself.
Of course, when we tell someone they "cannot" they often try anyway, and if they don't blow themself up, they might invent something!
Thank you for sharing your thoughts.
Regarding another point in your writing...
If you were proving Fermat's Last Theorem, the best service we could offer would be to help root out any mistakes.
I found one...a little one.
"3. Looking for physics laws; example: Suppose a law of nature that: pigs fly. How could you ever discover this law? Logical consistency requires that you do not confuse "pigs" with "sheep", or "fly" with "walk".
You do an experiment and find that pigs fly - you were not sure till you did the experiment. You discovered a new law? Or was it already present in your definition of "pig" and "fly"?
To define "pig" you must look at a lot of broad categories and also at a lot of narrow categories. A broad category is "animal". Too broad to define pig though. A narrow category is "that particular creature in farmer Smith's yard beside you". Too narrow to be a definition of all "pigs”."
Uh oh. The Law only said "Pigs fly." That only requires that two pigs fly, not all pigs.
Thus the definition of the pigs (for possible flying analysis) would not have to include ALL pigs.
If this passage was not essential to the analysis, perhaps it is unnecessary to correct it
... or include it.