your understanding and knowlege is beyond mine.
there are only a few points you make that i can even remark on.

"1. He assumes what reality is, numbers, which is like assuming that math exists but not physics. He never states how the numbers are communicated."

doesn't he really just assume that reality, what ever it is, is communicable and then go on to define reality as a set of numbers? in other words isn't the step of defining reality as a set of numbers actually a logical step following the assumption that reality is communicable?
previous to making that definition he freely states that "I will make much use of Mathematics without defense or argument." so it is left to us to decide if that is an acceptable step. i find it an acceptable step in that while it is probably true "primordial" mathematics stems from abstractions of nature it is never the less as Dr. Dick states "quite clear that mathematicians are very concerned with the exactness of their definitions and the self consistency of their mental structures." but if my statement of the source of "primordial" mathematics is nature is true as Morris Kline in his book "Mathematics and the Physical World" seems to say, then even the assumption of numbers as reality or the undefended use of mathematics in his reasoning is not really an assumption that math exists but not physics.

in a previous post you made referance that you were in agreement with Dr. Dick's definition of reality as a set of numbers. do you remmember that post?

also in a previous post you in my estimation lamented the level of mathemantics that is required to understand modern physics while at the same time making it clear that it is inescapable for us to understand the physical world with out mathematics. it seems reasonable to me that one day the physical world shall be understandable with out such a convoluted, difficult to achieve level of mathematics as a requirement. i for one recognize in Dr. Dick's approach the feasability of such a hoped for outcome.

regards, tim

• OK, here we go again... - aurino_ - September 29, 2003 - 18:52 UTC
  • This is not so - harvey1 - September 29, 2003 - 19:32 UTC
    • Clarification - harvey1 - September 29, 2003 - 19:47 UTC
      • I R1emember That - aurino_ - September 29, 2003 - 20:05 UTC
        • It doesn't explain anything - harvey1 - September 29, 2003 - 20:24 UTC
    • The hole is deeper than you think - aurino_ - September 29, 2003 - 20:01 UTC
      • Alice and wonderland? - harvey1 - September 29, 2003 - 20:20 UTC
        • More like "Lost In Translation" - aurino_ - September 29, 2003 - 20:45 UTC
          • Sorry to be gruff - harvey1 - September 29, 2003 - 20:53 UTC
            • It's alright - aurino_ - September 29, 2003 - 22:02 UTC
              • true - harvey1 - September 29, 2003 - 22:32 UTC
              • so maybe i'm dense - sagefr0g - September 30, 2003 - 02:17 UTC
                • Tim, the other three folks "still" here have something in common - carefuluniverse - October 2, 2003 - 05:34 UTC
                  • if you followed the game thread - sagefr0g - October 2, 2003 - 14:26 UTC
  • An anecdote - aurino_ - September 29, 2003 - 20:22 UTC
    • Aurino - harvey1 - September 29, 2003 - 20:33 UTC
      • Prediction != Valid Theory - sfnative - September 29, 2003 - 21:25 UTC
        • Prediction + Good theory attributes = adequate theory - harvey1 - September 29, 2003 - 22:25 UTC
          • TOEs must go beyond SM - sfnative - September 29, 2003 - 23:41 UTC
            • Truth is not a scientific issue - harvey1 - September 30, 2003 - 15:47 UTC
              • Excellent Discourse - sfnative - September 30, 2003 - 19:25 UTC
                • Thanks! - harvey1 - September 30, 2003 - 19:32 UTC
                • yes excellent imho - sagefr0g - September 30, 2003 - 20:33 UTC
                  • This approach is philosophy - harvey1 - September 30, 2003 - 21:08 UTC
                    • probably so - sagefr0g - September 30, 2003 - 21:50 UTC
                      • No way - harvey1 - September 30, 2003 - 22:20 UTC
                        • Philosophy defines science - sfnative - September 30, 2003 - 23:00 UTC
                          • It depends on what you mean - harvey1 - October 1, 2003 - 15:26 UTC
                        • prediction is a key element of - sagefr0g - October 1, 2003 - 01:47 UTC
                          • Free will is an empirical fact - yanniru - October 1, 2003 - 12:18 UTC
                            • those bounds though - sagefr0g - October 1, 2003 - 14:46 UTC
                              • No- finite bounds - yanniru - October 1, 2003 - 15:30 UTC
                                • again my bad - sagefr0g - October 1, 2003 - 16:56 UTC
                                  • Apologies not needed - yanniru - October 1, 2003 - 18:48 UTC
                                    • zeno's arrow wasn't - sagefr0g - October 2, 2003 - 00:05 UTC
                                      • Yes - yanniru - October 2, 2003 - 03:59 UTC
                                        • this scenerio - sagefr0g - October 2, 2003 - 21:25 UTC
                          • re: prediction - harvey1 - October 1, 2003 - 15:10 UTC
                            • clarification - harvey1 - October 1, 2003 - 15:11 UTC
                            • point well taken with respect to - sagefr0g - October 1, 2003 - 16:53 UTC
              • "TRUTH IS NOT AN ISSUE FOR SCIENCE TO CONSIDER" ??????? - carefuluniverse - October 1, 2003 - 17:36 UTC
      • Harv - aurino_ - September 29, 2003 - 22:19 UTC
        • I'm not upset - harvey1 - September 29, 2003 - 22:29 UTC
  • i'm game - sagefr0g - September 29, 2003 - 22:43 UTC