Theory of Everything

Thread Starter

Jennifer Solomon

Joined Mar 20, 2017
112
(This thread is a continuation and renaming of the “Information in an analog wave” thread in the science section)

Here’s a more refined sketch of the proof from earlier. I say this is a great starting place, no? I think if we take one section of this at a time, it could be novel...


The following questions:

Do you understand?
Do you know what I'm saying?
Can you grok that?
Can you see that?
Can you feel me?

...are observationally unique to a human's use of information. These phrases all mean roughly the same thing, and that is:

"Do you know what I mean?"

Which is altogether different from:

"Does what I say have meaning to you?"

The first is a binary phenomenon that denotes whether or not there is understanding, and the second is a quantitative gradient that denotes the quality of experience associated with the understanding.

The first question is initially explored herein.

Axiom 1: Information has no worth to a human unless it means something.

The meaning mechanism must be separate from information itself, and “having meaning“ or “not having meaning“ is an innate property of logical and mathematical valuation, whether mechanically derived or sensorially observed.

Proof: Under the ring of integers, the theorem 3 < 6 is proven to have meaning. 6 < 3 does not until it is proven to as a function of contextualized meaningful information. QED.

Indeed, if one is reading this proof and understands it, one is able to derive meaning from its contents.

We propose the following:

Let set O = {MEAN, NO-MEAN}

A 2-state set to denote the ontological distinction of ascriptive value to any information.

Proof:
There is a bijection between set O and the set of integers {0, 1}
There is a bijection between set O and the set of logic states {T, F}

This bijection permits a computer to use voltages to represent, to a human, base 2 integers and 2-state logic states to evaluate logic and arithmetically compute any meaningful value.
QED.

Axiom 2: Element MEAN of set O is the intended output of propositional logic.

Proof: The purpose of any proposition is to yield an undeniable truth that has meaning. QED.

Only a living human is known to compute with set O; human-constructed machines only compute using voltage states or analog continuous phenomena, and a human imparts meaning upon such computations with set O.

Axiom 3: Set O is the subconscious foundation of human reasoning to determine relationships between external and internal data points.

Using set O, one determines the base truth value, or "presence" value of an object in physical space.

Proof: Is it true you are reading this? Yes. Are you sitting or standing? Yes. Are you able to derive meaning from the information? Yes. QED.

Proof: An observer beholds an object, such as a chair in a room. Light is the ontological phenomenon that confers non-dimensional bits of information from the object to the observer, and the observer's mind spatially constructs an image of the object and then "knows the order" of the object in the room. The question "what is the chair" implies that a meaningful response can be granted which will reveal knowledge of the chair's spatial existence in physical space.

The programming concerning the question itself is connected to the existence of the chair.

One may ask another observer, do you know what I mean by the question, "The chair is in the room?"

Using set O, the observer will say: "Yes, I know what you mean by that statement."

The statement itself is agnostic to the specific chair in space that is being referenced, and the concept of a "chair" must have programmatic origin apart from the chair to ask the question.
 
Last edited:

Deleted member 115935

Joined Dec 31, 1969
0
Let's say you captured an audio recording onto an analog format.

The analog recording is of an entire orchestra.

One of the violins played a bad note starting at precisely 4:49:03...

Technically that note is "embedded" precisely at that point in the wave.

Where and how is the note "stored" in the wave? Is there any current theory on how to access that information?

Hi

I see you started this forum on March 28th
but then Last edited: May 21, 2020

I see this is not the only time you have changed a post after you have started it
whats the reaosn you feel you need to do this and not to start a new thread ?
 

Thread Starter

Jennifer Solomon

Joined Mar 20, 2017
112
Hi

I see you started this forum on March 28th
but then Last edited: May 21, 2020

I see this is not the only time you have changed a post after you have started it
whats the reaosn you feel you need to do this and not to start a new thread ?
The thread was locked briefly. It was renamed per internal discussion with moderators and moved to the Off-Topic area. As in real life conversation, the actual thread topic morphed a few pages in as fully agreed upon with the participants. This is the original thread. I had noticed a small typo in the original post’s wording that I corrected a few weeks in to the discourse.
 
Top