Paul is right that "***Either I am right and they are wrong, or they are right and I am wrong.***" is incomplete as they could be both wrong.

Similarly; it is a non-sequitur for Dr. Dick to claim that because the symmetries you see MIGHT be due to the alleged modelling carried out by your senses, that your senses must be wrong and contain no reality-symmetries.

It is possible for some symmetries to remain intact through the modelling process; or even for symmetries identical to those in nature to be re-created by the modelling process. In other words; your senses output version of symmetries in nature, and nature's own symmetries, may be isomorphic; both right.

It is dissapointing that even though both Harv and I noted the fallacy in Dr. Dick's argument; he did not (that I know of) amend his view or defend it. It is also dissapointing that Dr. D. did not refute the detailed explaination Bruce gave in his justification for calling Dr. Dick's post at the physics relativity site "clueless" re: debate with Preby and Anderson.

Dr. Dick once said he may be able to show how to solve quantum paradoxes and puzzles with his system, and invited me to submit such puzzles. I sure would like to know how he resolves the key puzzles of the "double slit experiment" and the "EPR" experiment.

Why raise Dr. Dick's paper again in this forum? Because the truth is with you always; and so far as I can see he is on to an interesting idea that should be properly revealed. I made a breakthrough in understanding it but need to type it first.

See Ya

dolphin