View source for Q2: Independence of CS and CA

You state that '''CS (certainty of statements)''' and '''CA (certainty of algorithms)''' are '''independent within a single processing step''', which justifies the multiplicative RO structure and enables fault isolation.

Is this independence:

* '''ontological''' — CS and CA truly do not influence each other at that step,  
: or  
* '''procedural''' — they may influence each other in reality, but must be ''treated as independent'' to preserve accountability and make correction possible?

And directly:

'''What breaks in RF if CS and CA are allowed to co-determine each other inside the same step?'''

Your answer can be short.

===== there is no continuity in this world from the deepest basic level. =====

Understood.

You’re grounding the independence '''below methodology''':

* The world is '''fundamentally discrete''', not continuous.
* A “processing step” is a real ontological boundary, not a modeling convenience.
* Within such a step, '''S and A are fixed states''', not co-evolving processes.
* Therefore CS and CA '''cannot''' co-determine each other ''inside'' the step — only '''between''' steps via the correction loop.

So the independence of CS and CA is '''ontological''', not merely procedural.  
: If continuity were allowed at the base level, accountability would dissolve into ambiguity.

{{sitemap}}