Since it's becoming a tradition for us to agree on Friday afternoons, let me just clear things up a bit:
" You know that's not possible. Newton couldn't derive Einstein's equations anymore than Einstein could derive Hawking's equations. You need new conceptual schemes that were unavailable to them, and it takes a great deal of scientific development before we know which conceptual scheme to select. "
I understand what you mean and it's a valid point. But just as Dick's paper was tailored to yield 1960's physics, nothing prevents him or, as Paul suggested, some new Dick to come up with another paper that's tailored to yield what everybody already knows. Once you learn how to impress people by getting a rabit out of a hat, you can always buy a bigger hat and start pulling out all sorts of animals. Some people make a living out of that.
" Well I agree, it is completely meaningless, not because he reproduces our knowledge in the 60's, but because his terms are ridiculous. "
I wouldn't call his terms ridiculous, but I'm convinced they do not relate to anything meaningful about the world.
" His whole paper is nothing but a condemnation on science and does nothing to answer the problems that he supposedly trying to solve. He doesn't realize it, but ego prevents him from admitting he's wrong. "
I suspect he's trying to make an important point about language, but I also think his point has been presented in a much better way by the Logical Positivists, from some of whom he actually took inspiration.
Besides, if having fun is the idea, then his paper beats Einstein and Feynman anytime!