Hi Dick and Harv,
It's great to see you two communicating again in a way that looks promising.
D: ***The circumvention occurs because, using only mathematics, I can construct a completely general model of what you know which aligns quite nicely with my "ontological bias" thus that bias becomes immaterial (it is without material consequence).***
The short math lesson: Constructing a completely general model using only mathematics is known as developing and proving a theorem. The only reason you don't agree, Dick, is that you learned how to use and apply mathematical theorems and techniques to solve problems. You have not studied what is sometimes called "Pure Mathematics", which involves the foundations of mathematics and the philosophical issues surrounding the subject. Not that you don't understand it; you do. You just don't recognize it for what it is. You have definitely proved a theorem.
And, Harv, if you would look at Dick's work in this way, as I suggested in an old post which you never did respond to, I think you would easily see how Dick's work has shed light on the discussion you are now having.
***I deal directly with the problem of the fact that we only have a limited portion of "ultimate reality" to work with and am astounded that you have no interest in following the logic of that procedure. Your concern seems always to be the idea that such issues cannot be thought of.***
Dick is exactly right here: such issues can indeed be thought of, and that is exactly what mathematics does.