I don't know how to parse this sentence. And for the record, a single particle of my house is an infinite-dimensional vector in Hilbert space.


You say this as if it somehow makes your point. As I said, a communications protocol is a function of time. To optimize transmission, protocols often use their own language -- their own set of symbols and grammar -- to encode messages. The language of the protocol necessarily depends on time. But the information -- the message being transmitted -- is time independent.

You're confusing like eight levels of abstraction and coming to invalid conclusions from the jumbled mess.

There is a pulses of electricity. There is time in between the pulses.

THAT is the only thing going on. I am saying NOTHING MORE. We can call those pulses anything we want. But there are 2 things. Electricity and time. Without time, there is no information science, because there’s no parceability. You insist they’re different, but you wouldn’t know what information even is without time!

 

As in, you can give it values in real-time and have them computed, or they can be computed later on on a timer.

As a physical machine, the ALU (the circuit that does computations) in a CPU always works in "real time". The beautiful stored program concept has a CPU fetch the next instruction it should follow from memory, rather than having them be permanently hardwired. This means that -- unlike a basic calculator -- we can program a single CPU to do multiple different things.

 

If your wife asked you, “Am I a REAL LIVING PERSON in your house?”

Your answer is? And why? And why isn’t it a scientific fact?

 

Can I get you to agree, that in essence, in order for a number to have value and be workable, that we need to “rationalize“ it by terminating any repetition or truncating its mantissa?

What do "have value" and "be workable" mean? You say that you're highly attuned to semantics but you use these vague words. I honestly believe that much of your own confusion would vanish if you would first clarify these terms for yourself before you use them.

 

What do "have value" and "be workable" mean? You say that you're highly attuned to semantics but you use these vague words. I honestly believe that much of your own confusion would vanish if you would first clarify these terms for yourself before you use them.

lol!

Irrational numbers: do we do computation on them as is, or do we make them rational first?

 

It started with a thought experiment that assumed space outside the mind was bent! The math flowed from there. You MUST assume a distinction between the “thing” in physical space and the information describing it.

No! GR started with the recognition that acceleration and gravity are physically indistinguishable. Einstein was visualizing window-less elevators, not "bent space". Using this equivalence, and what he learned in SR, Einstein followed the physical implications. The result was a set of ten coupled differential equations that characterize the dynamics of motion in a gravitational field. If we model this geometrically, we find that the metric tensor (the thing that tells us the spatial distance between objects) is not a constant, it's a function of spacetime. Ergo, the geometry of spacetime is not flat (constant metric), it's curved.

This was not an assumption that Einstein started out with, nor is it an ontological declaration.

If you had a mathematical proof your wife was a man, would you trust it over your observational definition involving observable, experiential form?

ROFL. This is a funny but weird category error; human gender is not in the mathematical domain.

Would you consider there to be some kind of “truth” we could use that involves measurability and observationality in physical/O space??

"Truth" in what sense? I do not believe we can determine the validity of "ontological truth" statements from measurement/observation, as measurement/observation is necessarily filtered, limited, and impefect.

would you call your wife real???

The world "real" doesn't have any precise meaning to me beyond the vacuous "part of the universe". Is my wife a part of the universe? Yup.

 

There is a pulses of electricity. There is time in between the pulses.

THAT is the only thing going on. I am saying NOTHING MORE. We can call those pulses anything we want. But there are 2 things. Electricity and time.

Am I supposed to just accept that time and electricity are the only things in the universe? Physics tells us quite clearly that we can't have matter -- protons, dogs, and such -- with just electricity and time, so why should I believe you?

And if I accept that there are other things besides time and electricity, I'd like a way to organize the various things, describe how they interact, and so forth. So, I'd invent a language using symbols, say {0, 1}, and use it to represent the information in all of this stuff. I would need time to write down any messages in my language, and time to transmit them, and you'd need time to read them. But time wouldn't be any part of the messages.

Without time, there is no information science, because there’s no parceability. You insist they’re different, but you wouldn’t know what information even is without time!

I get it, our universe has time. Change cannot occur in zero time. Great! So what?

 

If your wife asked you, “Am I a REAL LIVING PERSON in your house?”

Your answer is? And why? And why isn’t it a scientific fact?

"Real" as opposed to "fake"? What is a "fake living person"? What's scientific about any of this?

 

"Real" as opposed to "fake"? What is a "fake living person"? What's scientific about any of this?

No... she just asked you the question, and there are no qualifiers. What is your response?? And why?

 

Am I supposed to just accept that time and electricity are the only things in the universe? Physics tells us quite clearly that we can't have matter -- protons, dogs, and such -- with just electricity and time, so why should I believe you?

And if I accept that there are other things besides time and electricity, I'd like a way to organize the various things, describe how they interact, and so forth. So, I'd invent a language using symbols, say {0, 1}, and use it to represent the information in all of this stuff. I would need time to write down any messages in my language, and time to transmit them, and you'd need time to read them. But time wouldn't be any part of the messages.


I get it, our universe has time. Change cannot occur in zero time. Great! So what?

No, you have to accept that information cannot be KNOWN without time. QED?

 

lol!

Irrational numbers: do we do computation on them as is, or do we make them rational first?

Great question! Tricky question, too. I'll give you two answers and we can see where they lead.

1. We can do computations on irrational numbers. For example: \[ \sqrt{2} \times \sqrt{2} = 2 \]

2. We cannot do computations on irrational numbers. Argument: a physical computation requires a physical representation of its operands. An irrational number cannot be perfectly physically represented, therefore there are no irrational computations.

I'm good with either as a starting point.

 

No! GR started with the recognition that acceleration and gravity are physically indistinguishable. Einstein was visualizing window-less elevators, not "bent space". Using this equivalence, and what he learned in SR, Einstein followed the physical implications. The result was a set of ten coupled differential equations that characterize the dynamics of motion in a gravitational field. If we model this geometrically, we find that the metric tensor (the thing that tells us the spatial distance between objects) is not a constant, it's a function of spacetime. Ergo, the geometry of spacetime is not flat (constant metric), it's curved.

This was not an assumption that Einstein started out with, nor is it an ontological declaration.

What if it could be proven through measurement that it is NOT curved. Would you still consider the math to be "true" with respect to physical space?

 

No... she just asked you the question, and there are no qualifiers. What is your response?? And why?

"What do you mean, hon? Is this an open-a-bottle-of-wine type question?"

 

No, you have to accept that information cannot be KNOWN without time. QED?

Information is conveyed by changes in state, and change is impossible in zero time. Therefore, information requires time.

This was never in dispute.

 

Great question! Tricky question, too. I'll give you two answers and we can see where they lead.

1. We can do computations on irrational numbers. For example: \[ \sqrt{2} \times \sqrt{2} = 2 \]

Ok, let's go with 1 first. Can we look at using the most elementary means (Grunt OS)?

What is 2 in unary? @@.

What does the sqrt root do to it?

#1037 is connected to this post.

 

Information is conveyed by changes in state, and change is impossible in zero time. Therefore, information requires time.

This was never in dispute.

Ok, so why, if everything is states to you, can't TIME be considered just another state that acts as a delimiter?

 

Ok, let's go with 1 first. Can we look at using the most elementary means (Grunt OS)?

What is 2 in unary? @@.


What does the sqrt root do to it?

Check this out:

AXIOM: Numbers that involve a mantissa, operator, or fractions are not actual elementary numbers, they are numeric terms involving an arithmetical operator denoting a PROCESS on a number.

√2 is therefore not a number, it is a numeric PROCESS requiring additional computation to cognize than just a number. It is a question and answer involving the number 2: "What number when multiplied by itself yields 2?"

The "square root sign" is a built-in operator requiring arithmetic on the number to yield an answer to the term.

Proof: The number 2 stands alone as a number and doesn't require arithmetic to understand it as such. √2 denotes a process involving the number 2. Therefore, the set of ℝ involves NUMBERS and PROCESSES, and should not be compared to any other set that does not involve PROCESSES. QED.

 

Ok, so why, if everything is states to you, can't TIME be considered just another state that acts as a delimiter?

Time is not a state. Recall that I said that everything is states and transformations on those states. Transformations encompass the notion of time.

 

"What do you mean, hon? Is this an open-a-bottle-of-wine type question?"

"No, Javier. It's a throw yourself into the trash on trash night if you don't get the answer right kinda question."

 

Time is not a state. Recall that I said that everything is states and transformations on those states. Transformations encompass the notion of time.

Wait. You are a state processor machine. Time to you is...? And how can you define it outside a state?