Hi

Your definition of time may indeed be mathematically rigorous. I did not say it was not. That is not the matter at hand.
Having corresponded with you by email and
having appreciated some of your statements in a positive sense, I observe that sometimes your bluster does not "dock" with the statements to which you are ostensibly responding.
(Rawson makes you look quite sensible by comparison to itself, of course.)

You state that math is "the very essence of rigorous logic." I do not agree. We had this discussion on the forum a couple of years ago.
Math IS an important system among several systems of logic, yet it usually cannot tell a full story in the real world without help from some other systems of logic. Verbs, for example, are usually not mathematically defined. Verbs are defined in physical terms Often, verbs are extremely necessary to define a math application. (it can be taken too far. When I "fly," it is not because I am more than a certain number of micrometers above the electron ring of a densely packed cluster of atoms."
When you responded with such emotion, it is easy to see that you agree math is not the only logical system. When you are not rigorously addressing my comments at the same time you take me to task for them, you are not criticizing my logic at all.
Mike
Mike