You lost my logic in the first couple of paragraphs. First you say,

"I simply define "reality" to be a set of numbers"

That's fine. But then you go on to say

"the information available to our senses". That assumption is that there is some part of "reality" which is available to us to consider

So you agree that the model is based on assumption. Fine so far, except of course that you have contradicted yourself. Actually it's a very BIG assumption, that the numbers available to our senses are some subset of the numbers that define reality. At least you must concede that that numbers corresponding to our senses, if they are the basis of your model, makes you model a theory of sensations, not a theory of reality. So do you mean senses that we are conscious off? That would take your model even further away from reality. And consciousness certainly is not continious. So you have no right to use continuous variables in your model.

If we can get by these points. Then we can talk about time, which is neither a sense number nor a member of the original set of numbers defining reality.

• Read it Again!! - doctordick - February 23, 2001 - 19:27 UTC