hello Dr. Dick,

i'm afraid i'm no spring chicken, i'm 53. my profession is not a scientific pursuit. i'm virtualy a layman having only a BS degree, chemistry major from nearly thirty years ago. although my work has not been in a scientific field i've kept up with the scientific areas that most interested me ever since my college days. three things i've never been able to lose interest in, the fact that the speed of light is constant for any observer, the double slit experiment and how mathematics so well relates to things physical.
well, i hope my advanced age and lack of scientific credentials won't keep you from considering giving some help should i come up with further questions or points with respect to your paper.
i very much appreciate the clarifications that you have made and it has truly helped my endeavor to understand your work.

please allow a small quote sir:
"The existence of the fundamental transform mentioned in figure 2 goes to the issue of representing reality as a set of numerical labels and has nothing to do with explaining our "senses". The explanation of our senses is left open as an unanswerable question."

yes i believe i understand the above.

so i've missed the boat when i state:
this set of numbers can be divided into subsets. those subsets can be construed as transformed by our senses for analysis via the fundamental transform of the model we construct.

would the following statement be more in order:

the data of reality as it impinges upon our senses is collected first through the filter of our senses and then we feed that filtered data through the fundamental transform (of fig 2) which yields the divided subset of numbers?

regards tim