BUT, this is NOT the same thing as saying that reality is representable by a series of numbers. This is what we do not know. Reality, for all we know, may exist far outside the scope of being captured by quantitative methods (and there's good reason to suggest this), and therefore I reject this naive notion by Dick.

I should clarify this response since you were just saying that Dick is not saying this. But, I disagree. Many times Dick has said that reality can be defined as a set of numbers. In fact, I can remember a time when he stopped a debate when I asked him to define 'R1' as a set of numbers. So much did he reject the very idea that he stopped the debate. I think a few people remember this exchange.

• I R1emember That - aurino_ - September 29, 2003 - 20:05 UTC
  • It doesn't explain anything - harvey1 - September 29, 2003 - 20:24 UTC