Hi Harv,

I am glad you found something of what I wrote to be addressable. I do think we are on a close-enough wavelength to at least see what each other is talking about. Maybe a discussion between the two of us will enable Dick to see which of us has gone astray and where. Anyway, for what it is worth, here is my response to what you wrote.

>>>This makes Dick's model a foundationalist model.>but how does he obtain a foundationalist model if he is using the laws of symmetry that are already known, in part, to produce the physical laws?>P: It is non-reductionist in that it only models the 'physical layer'...H: I'm not following you here. A mathematical model can't address the subjective issue since math has nothing very relevant to say about psychology (or at least what I'm aware of). When we do math we simply are solving analytical problems.>>A mathematical model can't address the subjective issue since math has nothing very relevant to say about psychology (or at least what I'm aware of).