Re: an earlier post of Dr. Dick's:
Dr. Dick: "..concerning the abstract problem of trying to explain what I know"
In other words: "trying to network what I know (interconnect it)". "trying to network what I network". Whole thing is about juggling relativistic networks. Make a match (a definition) and juggle!
D: "All three components consist of communicable concepts"
In other words: "consist of network-able; (connectable) concepts" (Join the dots)
In other words: concepts are "networks" (musical chairs)
D: "Something "A", which I will call reality.."
In other words: "musical chairs game A" (potential connections, possible networks)
D: "which consists of that which can be "known" ."
In other words: "that which can be joined, connected"
D: "Something "B", which I will call the explanation of reality, which consists of concepts conceived of by me (or others) to provide that explanation".
In other words: "Something "B", which I will call the joining of A's possible musical chairs arrangements into a specific network, which consists of networks conceived of by me (or others) to provide that proposed network".
So "A": stuff that can be networked. "B": ways of combining "A"'s ingredients into a specific network. This gives an explanation (a network structure of relationships).
D: ""B" is divided into three parts. Those three parts consist of : one, that part which maps into reality (isomorphic to "A") which I call :knowable data"; two, that part which does not, which I call "unknowable data" (i.e., a pure figment of my imagination created to provide that explanation); and three, that part which constitutes the explanation of how something "A" is to come to be known, which I call "my senses"."
In other words: "B"s three parts are:
(1) correct ways of joining "A"s ingredients in a specific network connected to the observer
(2) the other ways of joining "A"s ingredients in a network that are not knowable (cannot be joined to the observer as they are not real networks)
(3) How "A" (the correct network that correctly joins "A"s ingredients, joined to the observer) came to be known (came to be connected to the observer).
That is; the network (explanation) that connects (makes known) the something "A", the actual network of "A"s ingredients connected to the observer. Of course the network that connects you to "the network that connects you" is just itself.
There is no problem. The starting point is the ending point.
You are not isolated from reality. You are swimming in it.
Of course, any communicable (any connectable, networkable)
solution (actual network)
to explaining (networking) the universe can be viewed from the perspective of itself (a networking of a network-able actual network)(an explaining of a communicable solution).
Tautological. Like a palindrome!
D: "Something "A" transformed by "our senses" into something "B".
In other words: "juggled stuff which can be connected" transformed (juggled) by a network connecting the "juggled stuff which can be connected" to the observer, into a possible network connecting the "juggled stuff that can be connected".
In other words, humans are self-referent through and through; and connect reality acording to how reality connects with them.
Looks like: musical chairs game 1; musical chairs game 2; join the dots (musical chairs game 3); Know the difference between joining the dots and musical chairs (don't make category errors; know law of non contradiction).
Comparing and matching patterns. Laws of physics, QED, etc. may be the laws of pattern matching.
Instead of describing "reality", they describe "decription"; but reality includes networking too, so they describe that aspect of reality (the networking).