Hi Stephen:
At 10:49 PM 1/29/2005, you wrote:
>Dear Hal,
>
> What do you propose as a means to explain the memory and processing
> required to be sure of inconsistency as opposed to consistency?
It is not a logical inconsistency. What I am trying to convey is that each
step in the sequence pays no attention to the prior sequence. That is a
maximal inconsistency of progression to the sequence. "Random" and
"independent" to me convey a testable behavior and I want to point to an
untestable progression.
>Both options, it seems to me, require checking of some kind! All that is
left is randomness, there is no such >a thing as a true "test for
randomness" that is finitely implementable!
The embedding system component - the All - is already infinite, so an
infinite test is containable therein.
>If we accept that option then we have to explain the apparent continuity
that occurs in the 1st person aspect >of the path.
Such a path will link arbitrarily long strings of kernels that give the
appearance of 1st person continuity, and this appearance can hold even if
many other kinds of kernels intervene - the 1st person could not detect this.
Hal Ruhl
Received on Sat Jan 29 2005 - 23:18:52 PST
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0
: Fri Feb 16 2018 - 13:20:10 PST