What happened? I thought you went away this summer and upgraded the gray matter.
>>>”the algorithm should be the same regardless of when you apply it.”
Think about it, Aurino. The prerequisite "regardless of when you apply it" is meaningless except to the person who doesn't understand relativity. Otherwise, what kind of "when" could Dick (or you) be looking for? Every event, every parcel of reality defines its own time; anything happening outside of this event is irrelevant to the event itself. Positing a neutral 'time' and then asking to separate an algorithm from this 'time' is a reversion back to the metaphysical, pre-Einsteinian, luminiferous ether version of "time."
Besides, even if you've lost (or never had) the ability to really understand the paradigm shift of Einsteinian time, you should still see in a deductive way how Dick requires two different "times." He says, “The algorithm we are searching for may vary from time to time” and then, in the same sentence, says, “the method of determining it must be independent of time.”
Whether his communication if usually clear or unclear, Dick’s view is obvious here. Indeed, the next statement -- practically protruding from the page by means of increased, bolded font, and punctuated with exclamation point -- reveals that this point just might be the one he's had so much trouble with: “I hold that that the above is the only valid statement of the problem confronting the scientific community.”
Can you not see that this is the point in his paper where Dick and would-be arbiters disagree? Can you not further see how Dick is not getting Einsteinian time?
Think about it!