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

Reply via email to