This is very good. Luis has persuaded Dr. Dick to admit that his tautology is similar in principle to those "think of a number" games.
I think what Dr. Dick is saying when he requires his "algorithm to be independent of time" is that he wants it to not depend on the direction you travel through all the data.
He wants the algorithm to be independent of path direction through the data.
His algorithm is, in fact, a rule that specifies path direction through the data. In specifying the path direction, it constrains the path through the data to a particular path.
Am I not educated Dr. Dick? I have repeatedly given demonstrations, surely, of how to obtain various chunks of physics as matching certain organisational structures; these being inherent to the networks that depict pattern comparisons within a field of patterns! (?)
I just claim that your work can be reduced to a much simpler level of exposition.
Now it looks like pi is in there too; see above!
I kept to the deal; you were on shaky ground with your unknown data.
Also: you blindly accept mathematics without question? Yet use such shaky assumptions to write a paper that leads you to question if you can tell the difference betwen truth and error?
Error involves double-definition; logical inconsistency. You can tell the difference.
If a Chinaman sees "motor vehicle" in a particular patern of Chinese script; and you see "funny squiggles on a page"; who is right and who is wrong?
That both can be right in his own context does not mean you cannot tell truth from error. That you could see "motor vehicle" by adding "unknown data"...big deal? So long as you are logically consistent and do not double-book any definitions in your explanatory-network of matched patterns..............as you judge, so you are judged?