My full name is Richard David Stafford so we have a little more in common. I do not understand your comments entirely: you quote me, as to what I am intending to do and then list some of my comments. It appears that you may be trying to suggest that those comments are assumptions. If that is the case, I think you have missed a critical point. I am trying to construct a mental model which is applicable to any conceivable concept. The first issue is that, as any communication may be represented by a set of numbers. That being the case, I simply define "reality" to be a set of numbers. I do not believe a definition can be called an assumption and, in order for that definition to be classed as inadequate you need to show a concept of reality which can not be represented by a set of numbers. If such a concept exists, it certainly cannot be communicated via the internet!
I am making an assumption with regard to my definition of "the information available to our senses". That assumption is that there is some part of "reality" which is available to us to consider -- if there is not then I am at a loss as to how we are to examine it!
As I read further, I think that you are confusing a number of specifically different issues: first, there is reality, which I cannot constrain in any way; second there is the information available to produce my model and third, there is my model itself. I think it would be difficult to prove the information available to produce my model would be infinite. Again, if that is the case, we certainly could not write it down or communicate it via the internet. However, no such constraint exists for my model. In fact, the only constraint on my model must be that there be no conceivable reality which the model cannot represent.
I define t to be a parameter attached to the "orderable" subsets defined to be the examined subsets of reality. Since my "model" must allow for any number of possible subsets between any two given observations, t in my model must be a continuous variable. If it is not, my model certainly cannot be completely general.
In my model, time is defined to be t. In my model, it is nothing more than a parameter attached to an observation representing the position in ordering of that particular observation. Using this procedure, time is defined in absolutely any set of examinable data.
Yes, I am assuming that all the numbers in a given subset (an observation) are a function of t, the parameter defining that subset; but I wouldn't really call it an assumption. I believe the definition of a "function" is that, given the argument of the function, the values referred to by that function are determined. If t labels a particular observation which, by definition, consists of a particular set of numbers, then, for any specific t (which was a member of the finite set of observations) we know exactly the set of numbers being referred to. At this point, absolutely nothing has been said about any continuity or even existence of those numbers between observations.
I don't think you have pointed out any assumptions. I think what you have done is misunderstood what was being said.
I have never minded criticism of any kind. I may not agree with it but I never hold it against the source and sometimes it can be very well founded. With regard to getting someone to read my work I would love some good criticism.
I would offer to look at your work but I am no authority and don't believe my criticisms would be of much value. When it comes to philosophy, I am of the opinion (right or wrong) that any analysis which does not take into account what I have discovered is just not looking at the whole problem. If what I have published is wrong than I am wrong in that position. If I am right then the consequences should be included in any rational analysis of any problem.
With regard to your other post (on the microkernal thread), the "sites.netscape.net" is a home for "free" websites and they are worth about what you pay for them. The equations are all just simple jif files. The problem is that the server often seems to fail to send them, I presume when the traffic is heavy. Grab it at the right time and it will all download together. Again, I am presuming you are trying to read it with either Microsoft explorer or Netscape communicator, the only systems I am familiar with though I have heard there are others!
No, it has never been published. I submitted an earlier version to a dozen or more Journals about 25 years ago but each and every one of them said it was outside their field of interest. I don't think it even got to any referees. I presented a paper at a National Physics meeting back in the late 80's and was surprised by the number of people who wanted to talk to me afterwards until I discovered they were all out on the nut fringe.
So, it was clear, I was a nut. So I pretty much forgot about the issue. In 1990 I bought a 256 PC at a garage sale which had WP5.1 on it. I decided to write it up as a book and try to get it published. I never did finish all of chapter 6; I got bogged down is some of the more esoteric conclusions. Dropped the issue again for many years.
My son in law (who is a e-business consultant out of Denver) one day suggested I ought to put it out on one of those free websites. So I have tried to learn a little HTML and translate the thing from my old wp5.1 file. At the moment, the webpage is the only valid copy available. I can't even print from the old 5.1 file any more although I can see it on my PC.
Sorry I am so verbose --- Dick