...i'm no match for you when it comes to philosophical concerns and science. well i'll take a shot any way.
i think we agree that Dick's paper is not pure math. you seem to find a problem with how he is applying the math but i fail to recognize your reasons.
Harv, you find Dick's paper a confusing mesh, but not Frieden's. hmm, it's only my opinion but i believe Occum would vote for Dick's paper over Frieden's (that is if the math is correct & i don't know that, yet).
"Dick continues to confuse epistemology and ontology"
i think he starts out making an attack (or at raises doubts) on the foundational underpinning (epistemology) of science and then revises the ontology of science by changing those underpinnings.
why would he do this? well he does so because he knows first that science history shows the variability of the epistemology of science such that a revision of the ontology of science is required.
he also does not trust the unbridled vagueries that the subconscious affords us in an epistemological sense from the data of reality that is filtered through our senses. an example of why this might not be an over stated concern would be how intuitive galilean velocity transformations are to us. this is so even now that we know the speed of light is allways 'c' for any observer regardless of his velocity relative to the light source. but when we apply the postulates of relativity to the velocity question we find we must use the Lorentz transformation to obtain more accurate results. the point here is now to be more accurate we can't just use an intuitive mathematical approach but must use a consciously reasoned approach that takes into account the fact that light travels 'c' for any observer. neither the fact that the speed of light is allways 'c' for any observer or the Lorentz trasformation is intuitive. so it is that it seems reasonable to take our subconcious renderings with a grain of salt.
regards, tim
