> It is better to read (change in capital):
> <<This is of course still countable when you look at the domain
> from a third person point of view. But, as you aknowledge in
> question 7, the delays does not count for the first person, so
> the domain of 1-indeterminacy, which BEARS ON first persons EXPERIENCE
> is, thanks of that delays elimination, given by the
> union (which is just the set theoretical interpretation of the or)
> of all portion of UD* (the execution of the UD, an infinite
> three dimensional cone in case the UD is implemented in a
> two dimensional cellular automaton) in which my "preparing coffee"
> state appear. (Reread that sentence slowly, I have written
> it slowly, and without doubts it's too long).>>
> So it is a third person measure on first person experiences.
I read the sentence many times and it still does not make sense to me.
Should I read it again?
"the union of all portion of UD* in which my "preparing coffee" state
You define UD* as "the the execution of the UD, an infinite three
dimensional cone in case the UD is implemented in a two dimensional cellular
automaton). Is the cone in space, time, or what? Why three dimensions? Why
not four or five? Where are these dimensions coming from? The sentence is
not too long... it's just that it assumes too much background. Is it the
union of UD* or the union of the outputs of UD*? Is UD* a cellular automaton
or is it a set of all cellular automatons with particular properties? How
does UD* relate to UD? Is it the complement, the conjugate, the inverse, or
In any case, the whole issue of restricting an implementation to a
particular cellular automaton in any dimensional configuration is abhorrent
to me. If finite inputs are considered any automaton can be replaced with a
huge look up table. And as any electrical engineer knows, any automaton,
Turing machine or computer can be implemented by circuits consisting solely
of NAND gates (with additional initialization levels of 0 and 1.) That's
it. Just NAND gates. Pure logic. No three dimensional cones or any other
kinds of cones.
> I apologize for having written in my last post to Jacques Mallah,
> <which BEARS ON first persons EXPERIENCE>
> read <which BEARS ON first person EXPERIENCES>
> (The "s" was not exactly at the right place !)
Yeah, I sympathize, English sometimes puts s in the singular and no s in the
plural! Very confusing. I have the same problems sometime. :-)