Thank you for responding, Mike.
I am dissapointed at the lack of response from Dr. Dick. The financial toll of my involvement in this forum is painful.
I'm not sure what questions you are refering to in the past; but it appeared your algebraic representation was based on "order being part of the presentation of the sets"; whereas Dr. Dick regarded his sets only in terms of their contents, disregarding order, if I understood right.
Order entered his picture when he started talking about "time", and about "rule".
I think what Dr. Dick claims may turn out to be explainable along the lines of: any prediction about the future involves definitions of that future. These definitions are based on definitions one already has (from the past). The definitions one already has can be juggled about in various ways that are logically consistent and complementary. There is room within one's definitions for "future possibilities".
I think he claims that "the laws of physics" are inherent to the process of logically consistent reassignment of definitions within: the allowed freedom inherent in the precision-level of those definitions and of how they interact. So he would be claiming that the apparant "constraint" of the laws of physics is so minimal as to leave the future very much more unpredictable in real terms than people realise. Something like that.
-dolphin |