1. instantaneous and faithful, at the cost of depending upon substrate-specific persistence parameters;
2. faithful and substrate-neutral, at the cost of requiring historical information;
3. instantaneous and substrate-neutral, at the cost of losing faithfulness.
No implementation map can satisfy all three simultaneously.
Doesn't introducing separate time slices automatically forces you into a continuum of time and therefore the "Instantaneous" requirement "I" become meaningless.
One can't evaluate physical state transitions without continuous time or atleast some form of mathematical ordering.
But if you strip away continuous time and keep only the abstract "ordering", you are again back in the world of pure mathematics where states never decay and memory never fades.
Indistinguishability of merging states: π(x)=π(x’’)=q
Continuation during merge: δ(q,i)=δ(π(x),i)=δ(π(x’’),i)
Do I understand it right that you claim that computer programs are nonportable if you assume Λ≥1? But computers have Λ<1, at least it's difficult to imagine something else.
>Implementation requires >= 1.
No, you require computation to work on a broken substrate, and that's an inadequate requirement. It's agreeable that your requirement isn't met and computation can't work on a broken substrate, but this doesn't imply that computation can't work on a working substrate.