***Actually, to be unique IS to be known.
But known to who?***
If you know some ONE is knocking at your door, you know the unique category "human" applies.
If you know their unique name and home, you know who it is in the category "name and home".
"known to who" refers to "how is this uniqueness identified?" Also: "what category" is this an item of knowledge in?"
"***So I figured that the unique person was KNOWN to the dog!***
"person" is a set. "dog" is "unknown data" added to the set "person". I figured out that Dr. Dick's system had the effect of making a unique binding of the "unknown" person set to the "unknown dog" set added to it.
His system of subtracting one item from the pair yet saying it remained unique; meant the subtracted item must uniquely bind the pair together. Such unique binding amounts to "knowledge" between the set: person and the set: dog.
"***In this case there is only one unit of "infognition" (recognition/ shared information) between the person and the dog. So the MEETING is its own rule; and not predictable.***
The two sets are bound by a unique relationship by definition, in Dr. Dick's system.
There is no rule governing this unique relationship in his system, other than his definitions about requiring uniqueness.
***But in fact the person had a history of many meetings before meeting this dog.***
The set "person" may be regarded as consisting of a sequence of simpler intersecting sets that builds up this complicated set.
***And the dog had a history of many meetings before meeting this person.***
Same set-theory system.
***Now, this dog-history of meetings; and this person history-of-meetings; bump into each other.***
When you regard each set as a sum of other intersecting sets added one after another (a process that occurs in the broadening and narrowing of categories to obtain the common intersection that defines a word); you may analyse the effect of intersecting the two major sets in terms of what overlaps/ cancellations take place in their subset-intersections when the overall sets intersect.
***The final path might be regarded as characterised by a cloud of "virtual meetings" (virtual 1-on-1 meetings, so virtual fermions) that are exchanged around the margins of the actual common path that brings the two sums-of-histories together.***
With fermion defined as "any 1 intersects with 1" pattern; obviously a set intersecting with another set can be viewed this way. Example: the set of possible moves you can make in a game of Chess at any one time in the game; intersects with another such set representing your next position of play. Various simple move options may cancel while other new options may appear when you compare game-options-before your move with game-options-after.
***The force (the pressure of the difference between the two sums-of-histories) is thus mediated by virtual particle exchange (as I think Dr. Dick has said).***
Dr. Dick talks of a "differential volume".
I refer to "force" as like the "tension" between two "clouds" of move-possibilities between two piece-arrangements during a Chess game.
You can feel the "force" of the consequences of choosing a particular move; and of your present state of play, in a Chess game.
I am just mapping underlying simple patterns that may underpin physics patterns.
There was a quick rough indication of what those quotes involve that puzzled you.