The essence of Dick's work, as he explained to me, is a search for all statements that are true regardless of context. The laws of physics, he claims, are part of the solution, but only the beginning.

Any fool can say this about anything as long as they use Greek letters, indexes, and utilize tensors. The point is that what Dick is doing has absolutely nothing to do with the external world until he can show otherwise. The way he shows it is by predicting, and until he can successfully make extraordinary predictions, skepticism is the only valid response. If he wants to espouse it as a meaningful belief about the Cosmos (e.g., religion), then that's fine, but let him be honest and up-front. Until then, Dick is not peer reviewed, he is not published, and, most importantly, he has not offered even one correct prediction which could verify his approach as correct. This work is completely meaningless as far as I'm concerned, and until he can put forth a coherent argument (which he so far has been unable), I see no reason why we should have to continue to talk about this ridiculous and weak metaphysical understanding of the world. You would think that a God and Science forum would talk about God and Science and not some obscure rejected model that holds absolutely no significance (in my opinion) whatsoever. It is complete trash. The only value it holds is the fact that Dick values it, but his rudeness and egotism completely wipe those sentimental virtues away.

• 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