no Harv, what i understand is what Dr. Dick is presenting in his paper. symmetry issues have always made a lot of sense to me but i'm not proficient in the use of symmetry as Noether and more sophisiticated physicists are. and yes Harv, there is something inherently rational about the two divisions with respect to knowable data and unknowable data. the problem with these two concepts is that for some reason it is natural for us to think of them in terms of mathematical known values and unknown values when that is not what they are at all. the two
concepts are really more related to an issue of a human condition that of cognition and the reality of which cognition is a part of. where reality is what ever it is and that reality is assummed to be "knowable" or cognative, and then
there is what we think we know about reality which is "unknowable" ie a figment of our imagination. Allan's theories would be a perfect example of unknowable data :). albeit those may be a bit less constrained by the rules that knowable data lives by than those theories of say Einstein and Heisenberg.

i guess you just can't buy into the idea that Dr. Dick's work is not a theory so as long as that is the case i can understand that it is going to be impossible to convince you that it shouldn't have to make new predictions. even though the very physics that Dr. Dick's work is able to derive does and can make predictions.

it is admirable to try and avoid errors. i'm all for that. Dr. Dick express's much concern about that issue in his work. freedom of expression is by no means the only thing i want. i want creativity. i want something new under the sun. i want to know what i don't know, not rehash continually what i already know. you wont find those kind of things with out taking some risks, with out changing. there is a wise saying, "if you keep on doing what you've always done you'll
keep on getting what you've always gotten." come now Harv, do you really think Dr. Dick is quack? i'm sure you recognize in him a high degree of intelligence. i don't believe you would bother to discuss his work so much if you did not find
something of interest with in it. you don't spend nearly as much time discussing Allan's theories.

the idea that reality is a set of numbers and that the behavior of absolutely any collection of things may be explained by the rule F=0 is new Harv. that Dr. Dicks work can then go on and derive much of physics is just an aside.
what i find ground breaking about Dr. Dick's work with respect to science is not with respect to theoretical grounds so much but more so with the scientific method it's self. approaching a scientific problem or any problem for that
matter with the knowledge that reality is a set of numbers, that the behavior of absolutely any collection of things may be explained by the rule F=0 provides the scientist or the problem solver a platform to set up his application of the scientific method from. in other words one need not start from the bewildering position of complete ignorance when one is confronted with some new problem that needs to be solved.

frankly Harv, i kind of like arogant,egotistical people if they have something to back up their arogance with. Mohammad Ali the great boxer is a good example. he certainly was arogant and egotistical but then there were very few boxers who could whip him.

from what i've seen of Frieden's work it really isn't any more like Dr. Dick's work than Fischer's is. both are fundamentally different from Dr. Dick's in that IMHO they are more convoluted, and difficult to understand.
they lack the elegant simplicity that Dr. Dick's work has to offer. not the same basic ideas either as i see it.

regards, tim