***But sometimes I may refer to Feynman, or might refer to Chris Langan, etc. They are not here defending themselves. By default we maybe have to stand in as Dick's peers until the qualified people check his work. I did persuade a practicing theoretical physicist to look at his work though.***
I'm not qualified and neither are you to do this 'stand in' service. As far as I'm concerned, the mathematics of Dick's work is completely wrong and that even Dick might also be concerned that it is (hence the reason he wouldn't even consider paying a poor graduate student in India to check his work). I'm sorry, I don't think you are being fair discussing Dick's paper with others. Giving it to a theoretical physicist is fine, but not any theoretical physicist will do. The individual should have extensive knowledge in general relativity and quantum mechanics. The individuals I've seen so far who've had at least some of those qualifications haven't been impressed. Honestly, until we see otherwise, the educated laymen should treat it with no scientific merit (or, just think nothing at all). If you want to believe, then go ahead, but please don't ask my comments on Dick's work as long as he is away from this forum. I just don't think it is fair to him.
As far as Feynman, his work is thoroughly peer reviewed. If you have any doubts, you can check the published articles with prestigious journals of physics.
Regarding Chris Langan, I don't know anything about this guy. If his only significant qualification is his IQ test result, then I have to tell you that this is as impressive as throwing a rock into the water. It might create a lot of commotion with the fish, but it doesn't mean squat to me. If he is here on this forum, then I would be happy to discuss his views without any credentials. Mike is correct about credentials, but only when asked about references as they exist outside this forum. This forum is a magical place where as long as you make statements of your own ideas here, you are untouched (well, you should have a favorite color and I lean heavily to green). Leave the forum and try to publish your ideas you present here (or pull in references from the outside of this forum), and immediately you better flash your i.d. of credentials (e.g., Ph.D., published scientist, etc). This basic principle seems to be widely misunderstood about this forum in relation to the academic world.
***Just, I am proposing the notion that there exists a God Who is personal yet is Existence. We seem to be dimensions of His consciousness, existent entities thus distinct from Him; everything that exists would be a perspective on Existence; a view of God.***
I think you need to be clear what you mean by 'existence'. In the past you have referenced the mere property of existing as equivalent to 'God', however as I've said this is not a very interesting concept of God since strings might 'exist' but be dumb as heck. If you want to add attributes of God that are personal, intelligent, etc, that's fine, but you have given me the impression that God is 'Existence Itself' - meaning that existence itself is all that God is. If that's all God is, then you have to explain why you think this attribute requires God to be a personal, intelligent, compassionate, etc entity.
***I do wonder if true ideas (perfectly mistake-free) might be also objects? But that suggests that in such a perfect-thought state; if you think of yourself being on Mars, you'll find you are on Mars. Well that is what QED seems to say about things: that a photon is everywhere at once; to see it here you just have to have a particular perspective on it. A certain perspective on that photon will place it on Mars?
At least, within limits of the expansion of the logically consistent possible places it COULD BE.
QED seems to say things CAN be wherever they COULD be.***
You are making a comparison that is tough to substantiate in any meaningful sense. QFD (quantum field theory which QED - quantum electrodynamics - is just one member of those theories) is talking about mathematical probabilities of a wavefunction with respect to its physical location, whereas you are talking about some kind of metaphysical reality having apparently nothing to do with probabilities, but some type of mind projection. Why reference QED in this case? Why not just say that Mind is more powerful than Matter and leave it at that? What is the relationship between QFD and your metaphysics (which sounds more like a sub-plot of the next Matrix movie).
***No infinite regress of "relationships" if the basic relationship is "with Existence"; it is with infinite expansion of relationship opportunities.***
I have no idea what you are talking about. You specifically mentioned Russian dolls which is an infinite regress principle. Please explain. Also, the phrase 'with Existence' means so little to me that I cannot even express my bewilderment in the meaning of that phrase. Nothing is with existence, something either exists or it doesn't. Existence is not something you can be with (e.g., "I was with Joe today"), rather it identifies the nature of the object (e.g., existing, imaginary, possible, etc). I wonder if I'm the only one here who finds these kind of phrases as bewildering.
***Your "property of being round" was a particular perspective, a way of looking.***
No, I meant it in an ontological sense. Something has a property of being round if it exhibits certain round-like characteristics. As long as what we see is what is approximately the case (i.e., our senses are accurate reflections of what is actually there), then this property is not only a particular perspective, but is actually a valid description of that property.
***Because "ontology" is itself a word, involving "definition"; by investigating "definition" itself Dick surely stepped outside the system?***
Ontology is a word alright, but the word means that something actually exists (i.e., irreducible and is actually 'out there'). We can examine what the definition means, but if we do this in the sense that you are suggesting, then we are doing nothing but tail chasing. We can only define a word in terms of other defined words. Eventually we run out of words to define any leftover words. Rather that engage in that fun childhood game, why don't we simply agree on the meaning and then argue the philosophical merit of that meaning (e.g., obtaining a correct ontology of the world is not humanly feasible, etc)? If you play useless games, then I'm afraid you will feel like you are making significant accomplishments only to find out that you have confused yourself.
Warm regards, Harv