well that was interesting.
There is a lot I still wanted to type up; but haven't done yet. As I see it, Dr. Dick has overlooked something; but has arrived at some interesting ideas.
The something he has apparantly overlooked; turned out to be the key to Langan's work.
(I mispelt "infocognition" as "infognition" by the way.) What Dr. Dick seemed to overlook; or sort-of-overlook; was that his "unknown data" became "KNOWN, by definition" as soon as he applied his rules to it.
It became known, not to him, but it became a quanta of information/recognition that uniquely bound two algorithms together.
The quote you gave from Chris: it's classic. Obviously you get it!
>>>“In my view, time is composed of specific intervals somehow tied to the differential between an object's mass and its motion. . . in some, heretofore undefined way, the universe exerts an inward 'rule' (gravity) and an outward 'rule' (who knows -- expansion?) on everything."
Looks like you, I, and Dr.Dick all found gravity.
The "expansion" though, that you speak of; this may be Dr. Dick's 4th axis containing "scale differences"; also known as "creation".
My main recent discoveries though came from defending my essay at Counterbalance from the critique I invited from you. That lead to realising about "pattern matching" and soon insights on puzzles both in and beyond physics began raining down. I seemed to be in a snowstorm of explanations.
Add to this I was trying to understand Dr. Dick, and others. He had revealed the idea of physics laws being "true by definition" or circular and self-referential. All these ingredients plus reading stuff in books and thinking stuff and getting ideas all added up.
And you had gravity for how long I don't know! But congrats; and it looks like several views, yours, mine, Chris, and Dr. Dick's; ideas on gravity are coinciding.
(Note: No computer and i-cafe's cost; so hard to keep up with the discussion; unfortunately delays in replying at times.)