It is quite possible I didn't reply to something you wrote. Problem is: recent travel, and more travel soon; means delays between being on this forum.
Also, a limited budget for internet user-fees; time constraints etc., mean I have to ration my involvement. Reality is that my initial reason for getting into discussion forums was to put up to critical comment some stuff I had figured out.
And play with ideas batting them around a bit.
At the Counterbalance forum, Luis Hamburgh delivered the severity of comment I was looking for. In digging deep to defend my essay, I made a string of discoveries.
When Dr. Dick turned up, straight away I figured he was talking about something similar to what I found in my debate with Luis (about how the brain works). Actually I think Dr. Dick turned up before then; but I recall (allegedly) figuring out what he was up to in essence, right away.
On one occassion Dr. Dick wrote out a scenario involving an imaginary Egyptian and coded messages, shuffled wires, and the task of decoding the message.
I carefully went through that scenario and felt I had a breakthrough on what his paper is about.
Also at Counterbalance, my own breakthrough allowed apparently a way of explaining many things both in and outside of physics. Like it was snowing explanations.
My main reason for hanging around was I felt Dr. Dick was on to something and I felt a reconciliation of that discovery, was possible with what I found through his own explanation, through my interpretation, and through my discovery.
Thrown into the mix are all the insights of everybody else. Example: Aurino noted that 0.333333333.... has the "......" aspect as a result of the use of base 10. In base 3, it is just 1 with no infinity paradoxes it seems.
So paradoxes can be artifacts of a particular perspective. I think there may be a perspective on physics that makes paradoxes vanish; where the three constants c, G, and h; are aspects of, or even the same, thing: comparison of pattern.
Due to the focus on Dr. Dick's paper; I have tended to neglect other topics others have raised. But not entirely; as we have debated topics you have raised re: young humans, at length.
What was a reply anticipated to, that you refer to?