First of all here is yours:
"So,...what I think Dick has done, is to prove a theorem that says that any probability function, which describes what possible collections of subsets may be taken from a big set of numbers, must obey his fundamental differential equation.
I do not believe he has done that. I believe that is impossible to do. What I believe he has done is to postulate a set of symmetries, like the shift symmetry, to constrain his collection of subsets, and from this constrained set of subsets he can derive the fundamental equation. Noether did pretty much the same thing. Einstein postulated a set of symmetries and derived Special Relativity, and then a broader set to derive General Relativity. So the approach is nothing new. Its been used by recognized geniuses many times in the past.
The problem is that Dick has not recognized what he has done; and then making claims, like what is in your quote above, claims that any reviewer knows are impossible, he automatically turns off reception of his material. The usual approach in publishing scientific articles is to make minimalist claims. Then if the theory is much more powerful than claimed, others will quickly point it out once published. But if you make impossible claims to begin with, it will never get published.
Usually, an alternative procedure is to just publish a book. Books can be fiction or non-fiction. As long as they are sensational, they will sell. I wonder if Dick has tried that approach.