nor can i fully understand Noether. i can understand at least 95% of Dr. Dick's first chapter.
i feel that if i understand something then i'm qualified to assess it. i'm not asking if Dick's model works because he has produced something new, or is it because he has subtly introduced symmetries that are already known to produce the results he is saying. that may be an interesting question but the significance of it is trivial if you understand the idea put forth by Dr. Dick that: "At issue is the fact that any explanation of anything is essentially a made up story which fits the facts. It is the assumption of the scientific world that there exists but one such story, which they are sincerely endeavoring to uncover. Knowing what I have discovered (the essence of which is put forth in this opus) I am of the opinion that their position is actually quite obtuse and simple minded: I am myself fairly sure that the actual number of possible explanations (each of which entirely fit the all the facts) is probably infinite."
with respect to my statement below:
i've not seen any indication in Dr. Dick's paper that he has implied that his work must be true simply because he has used mathematics in the creation of it. more so he points out that for the attack he is making on reality it is perhaps the best tool to use.
you state:
In Dick's paper I haven't seen this conclusion.
from Dr. Dick's paper i quote:
"I will make much use of Mathematics without defense or argument. In essence, it is quite clear that mathematicians are very concerned with the exactness of their definitions and the self consistency of their mental structures. I suspect mathematics could probably be defined to be the study of self consistent systems. At any rate, their concerns are exactly those which drive my work; I am merely attacking a slightly different problem. I hold that the reason mathematics is so important to science is that we are attempting to map the real universe (which is assumed to be self consistent) into a mathematical system (which is self consistent by construction). In accordance with this view, I will hold that the fundamental mathematical relations require no defense by me. I will leave that defense to others far more qualified than myself."
finally Harv, i must say with respect to your statement, "Dick has not provided a verified prediction. In fact, according to Bruce, the only prediction that Dick made happened to be wrong." that Dr. Dick has not claimed to to present a new theory. so why expect him to make new verified predictions. he has created a mental model in his paper true. your assertion that he must follow science 101 and make a prediction calls to mind your previous insistance that math must be used in a certain way and that ontology and epistemology mustn't be jumbled together in certain ways and heaven forbid any metaphysics be introduced. Harv it is as if you say you must color the coloring book with in the lines, you must think inside the box. but Harv that is not how things are created now is it, coloring with in the lines, thinking inside the box or even following the rules of science 101. if we are going to make something really new, then well simply put it is going to be something new and it wont look or act like anything you've seen before. essentially that is what Dr. Dick has offered, something new.
regards, tim
