I've heard that it has been said in the movie business, that "character is action".
How about an object is a change in the background? An action is 2 or more such changes?
When Dr. Dick uses "non-internally contradicting" in math as his foundation; it is another way of expressing my "To BE is to be DIFFERENT. For if "A" were not in some way different from "B", it would even have the same name as "B", there would be no "B", just "A".
So Dr. Dick and I agree that to exist, is to be non-contradicting.
Aurino: Do you agree with my summary of Dr. Dick's equations 1.1, 1.2, 1.3 giving:
you conclude by 1.3 that the pattern rule is "no rule" for:
a set of special-rule-generated-data that either includes 2 items of unknown arbitrary unique data, but lacks an item of special-rule-generated-data;
or: includes all special-rule-generated-data plus one unique arbitrary unknown data; but lacks the other arbitrary unique unknown data.
The lacking data is known by default from the special-rule; or is one of the two added unknown data.
(One wonders if "uniqueness" means one can hardly call the unknown data "unknown")
Now, suppose he were to take this little model that has a "tracking program" tagged on.
This tracking (with unknown data tag-ons) has
so far isolated one special-rule-item into a system that has no rule other than the adding of unique unknown (tracer) data.
You could nest this cute little idea over and over couldn't you? All the way down to the last unknown special-rule-generated bit of data!
And look what you got: a beautiful logical construct that is "built of nothing (its rule is: NO rule other than NESTING and adding these tracer unknown data each NESTING.)
Yet this construct HAS CONVERTED the special-data-rule into an astonishing format: a format constructed from specially NESTED, SEQUENCED, additions of "tracer" unknown data items!
So any special-data-generating-rule can be fitted into this beautiful logical construct!?
Which makes it common ground for communication? And having converted a mystery into this format, we ...what? We make up our own rule? I mean, anything can fit this, can it?
Or we figure there is no rule, but notice the construct itself; which reduces to NON-CONTRADICTION and CONSCIOUSNESS (nesting?) and LOVE (letting BE; no unnecessary constraints?)
You know, that would figure wouldn't it... QED...that would be there wouldn't it...and the rest of physics?
Aurino: I read of your plan to understand Dr. Dick and translate it into ordinary language. I feel like my brain just did that....your words might have catalysed this. However this came to me, am sure pleased I wrote this. Hope folk try to follow it. Would it work?