I'm certainly no Dick-worshipper, as no doubt you realise.
I'm sorry, I was just making fun of the fact that you, Paul, and I are sort of the exception here when it comes to Dick's paper. Everyone else seems to think it's nonsense.
I thought it was a cool idea, the idea that physics was circular.
I don't know, I wasn't much impressed by that aspect of Dick's work as I already knew physics was tautological. Dick and I had a big fight over that because he thought I couldn't possibly know that, but I do and I can easily explain why.
What I find really interesting is the way Dick applies logic to issues I thought couldn't be dealt with in a logical way. I guess I didn't really learn anything new from Dick as much as I learned to think in a different way. That was extremely exciting. Ironically, I find most people disagreeing with Dick because they, in essence, deny him his right to be logical.
That the laws of physics reduce to the law of non-contradiction. That tallies with the idea of maximum freedom, minimum constraint. That all things come from Existence.
Alan, I have no idea what you are talking about, but if it tickles your bones by all means go for it. Just don't expect a lot of people to be tickled as well, you might be in for a disappointment.
... I think he is excessively narrow in his approach; that he makes unnecessary and exaggerated philosophical claims!
Funny, I have exactly the same opinion... about scientists.
I am intereseted in what is true, whether Dick or anyone else finds something that looks true doesn't matter compared to what it is they find.
If you are interested in what is true, I suggest you go East. That's where the light comes from.