Dick kinda makes it sound like, if only you could put every sentence, whatever the language, ever written in the entire history of mankind into one big computational machine, you would emerge with "truth." Well, if you assigned numbers and probabilities to each atomistic symbol, anyway. You wouldn't have to assume anything, just be a good scrivener, that's all. The machine would figure it all out.
Maybe that's not what he means. I really don't know.
Apparently you have no comprehension of what I am talking about at all. Suppose you had every publication, every document and every thought ever conceived by any entity which ever existed (clearly a finite collection of finite entities) but printed in a representation which is totally undefined. (That would be my representation (x1,x2,...xn), a totally undefined collection of numbers each designating a specific concept represented in that collection of documents.)
Now that collection would include every issue necessary to represent reality as it has been presented to us (including every perception possessed by any individual). Now add to that one additional "unknown" fact; the belief of the original creator of that thought as to the truth of that "assertion".
At that point you have a collection of expressions represented by T(x1,x2,...xn); "a totally undefined collection of numbers".
How would you propose figuring out what that collection could represent?
Are you at all interested in the constraints existing on that representation? Can you conceive of any??? Or is the circumstance totally beyond your comprehension?
Have fun -- Dick
Thanks for your comment Buffy. I had thought you had simply presumed my approach was a waste of time.