Why, thank you very much for that, Luis!

Hmmmmmmmmmm; there is something rather questionable about Dr. Dick's system?

Will he respond to my finding things he may have overlooked re: his "unknown data"?

Your example using "no matter what you substitute for 'x'; you can get the number 3'; that is the crunch perhaps.

There would remain some questions; if Dr. Dick's system is that "silly"; yet still delivered main physics equations; will the physicists feel silly too? Or is something missing?

Um, I hope Dr. Dick faces up to your argument!

(I think it is possible that when the "real theory of everything" dawns on scientists, they shall fall about laughing) (Though they will be in awe at experiencing consciousness)

Dr. Dick complained that my use of "English" was too vague compared to his use of mathematics. But is "adding unknown data" not a diving into an ocean of vagueness? Or am I missing something?

Need to think if am to review your post; which may be satirical; but also revealing. Meantime;

I was going to post the "Rubik's cube" version of Dr. Dick's paper, so-to-speak:

Suppose a Rubik's cube with different colours on every little square face.

Take any arrangement of the cube's faces. Take any alternative arrangement of the cube's faces.

What is a "communicable concept"? How about it is yet another alternative arrangement of the cubes faces, that can be transformed into either of the first two arrangements of the cubes faces.
It can be accessed by both arrangements, so is communicable between them?

That is, imagine both initially selected arrangements want to share a third arrangement.
How do they do that?

Via the simple rules of twirling the mini-cubes within the cube; any communicable concept (any arrangement of the cubes faces) can be found along the way, between any other two arrangements of the cubes faces. You might have to do a lot of twirling to pick up your "communicated arrangement" while twirling your way from one arrangement to some other arangement.

So any communicable concept in Rubik's cube 'world' can be represented by the twirling rules for the cube? Has Dr. Dick found the twirling rules for reality? Do the laws of physics fall out?

Let's do the twist? And around and around and around we go? I think reality might involve 2 musical chairs games with a 3rd musical chairs game "joining the dots (chair-less kids to kid-less chairs) between the other two games. Key is to "know the difference" between the "musical chairs games" (Dr. D's unknown data?) and "joining the dots" (making logically consistent connections). The moment you connect "unknown data" you "make it known" (constrained) by placing an explanation network around it.

Rubik's cube world:

Now, suppose we take the MINIMUM possible path between any two arrangements of the cube that will include along the way our communicated 3rd arrangement?

Let us call "observation" any pair of cube possible arrangements (so "interaction' or "pattern match").

How do we predict a "future observation"?

We take all the paths of twirling the cube between arrangement 'a' and arrangement 'b' and call these paths "probability amplitudes" of finding an 'a' twirled into a 'b'?

We add these amplitudes; hopefully unecessary diversions cancel out and you get a final minimum path. Square this final path (make it self-referent)(take all internal variations possible within it) gives you a region of probability within which the minimum path lies?

Haven't figured it out properly; sure QED will end out simple though.

Chris Langan's "incoversion" may be the narrowing down to a minimum path by cancelling out unnecessary diversions; "excoversion" may be the broadening that happens when you make the final path self-referent by squaring it?

Well I'm a bit lost but is it that simple re: unknown data? It does SEEM that Dr. Dick, by "adding unknown data" which he calls "figments of his imagination" has made it rather easy to trap any concept in an explanation network?

Dr. Dick claims that one cannot tell the difference between invented data and real data
in explanations. But the difference is logical consistency: no double booking!

Of course you can build an explanation structure around "cheese" so it fits "made out of" and "moon" BUT you have renamed "rock" with the sound "cheese" in doing so.

All the "unknown data" you added to get a "moon made of cheese" had the effect of defining "cheese" as "rock"?

Any concept (Rubik's cube faces arrangement) can be expressed by any collection of other concepts (Rubik's cube faces arrangements) plus any invented (optional) data (arbitrary Rubik's cube faces arrangements) via connecting the "known" and "unknown" faces patterns via the twirling techniques of the cube.

The difference between "real" and "unreal" faces arrangements: the least time. Reality takes the least time (least twirls of the cube).
The east time is called "NOW"; also known as "Consciousness" and as "Eternal Life"?

In QED we see "least time".

Now I don't say I fully comprehend what I just wrote!

Tarski's theory of truth says that truth involves "correspondence with the facts". Since "facts" are patterns, it must involve pattern matching. What are "facts"? Well, they are "existents".

Logical consistency requirements transform Dr. Dick's "unknown data" into known data. Try to define "moon" as "made of cheese" and still be logically consistent; and you end out using the word pattern "cheese" when you talk about "rock", I think.

Someone told me a riddle: "W.V. Quine is smarter than I am!". With respect to W.V. Quine; just was a funny student riddle.

-dolphin