When I first read your response to my last post to you, I just presumed you were incapable of following common logic or were intending to just "blow me off" without thinking about it, that is why I ceased to respond to you. But after reading your more recent posts, I find it difficult to reconcile that with your other actions so I have decided to respond. This response is based on the assumption that you actually believed your comments were relevant. I have put my direct responses in all caps to make differentiation clear.
You lost my logic in the first couple of paragraphs. First you say,
IF YOU ARE SERIOUS, I THINK IT WAS YOU WHO LOST MY LOGIC!!
"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
I WAS BEING FACETIOUS THERE. IT SEEMS TO BE RATHER COUNTER PRODUCTIVE TO THINK THAT WHAT YOU SENSE CONTAINS NO ELEMENT OF REALITY. IF THAT IS THE CASE THEN WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF ANY MODEL OF REALITY?
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.
??? YOU ARE STATEING THAT "IT IS A VERY BIG ASSUMPTION" TO ASSUME THAT THE DATA ON WHICH YOU BASE YOUR MODEL IS PART OF REALITY??? MAYBE THAT IS THE PROBLEM WITH THIS FORUM!
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.
YOU SEEM TO HAVE THE WHOLE PICTURE BACKWARDS. THIS SHOWS ABSOLUTLY NO COMPREHENSION OF WHAT I WAS SAYING.
So do you mean senses that we are conscious off?
I AM MODELING REALITY; I.E., ANY SET OF NUMBERS! YOU CERTAINLY CAN NOT MODEL YOUR SENSES UNTIL AFTER YOU HAVE MODELED REALITY!!! (If you understand my presentation, you will comprehend that I have intentionly left "senses" entirely undefined!)
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.
I HAVE NO RIGHT???? I HAVE THE "RIGHT" TO CONSTRUCT ANY MODEL I WISH. THE ONLY COMPLAINT YOU CAN MAKE IS THAT THERE EXISTS A REALITY (a set of numbers - my definition of reality) WHICH CAN NOT BE CAST INTO MY MODEL. (If that is the case, then describe what you have in mind to me.)
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.
THIS STATEMENT IS ENTIRELY BACKWARDS!! THE NUMBERS DO NOT DEFINE REALITY!! THE DEFINITION OF REALITY IS: "A SET OF NUMBERS".
IN MY MODEL, I HAVE "DEFINED" TIME TO BE A PARAMETER IDENTIFIYING A PARTICULAR SUBSET OF REALITY (a subset of numbers I have chosen to call "an observation")(By the way, I have absolutely no idea what you think a "sense number" is!! I don't think I have ever used the phrase!)
AS FAR AS I AM CONCERNED, YOU HAVE SHOWN NO SIGN THAT YOU UNDERSTAND ANYTHING OF WHAT I WAS SAYING. TAKE IT ONE LINE AT A TIME AND THINK CAREFULLY ABOUT EXACTLY WHAT I SAY, NOT WHAT YOU THINK I AM SAYING.
Good Luck -- Dick