What is the ratio of 10 meters to 5 meters? Is it 2 meters? Nope, it's just 2. That "2" is a magnitude without any suffix.

Tabula rasa: says who? It is nothing but a bank of 1D switches to a discrete, componental state processor. You are insisting on attributing some kind of “higher comparative weight” to non-descript elements? No computer knows “2” or 010101 is a “magnitude” beyond any other. This is why I insist on the most bare-bones representation that reflects directly with the states of the hardware.

You're saying that I can't compare 6 vs 3? In other words, I can't meaningfully say "3 < 6"?

Nope, not at all. First, meaning isn’t defined, and meaning is the basis of what you’re using to make some kind of distinction. No computer does such a thing until the gates are arranged to make a distinction, and even then, 1D output of two 1D strings compared means positively nothing until the human ascribes this “mystery” meaning (which I know has something to do with converting to “higher dimension” of 2D and 3D! Because discrete is 1D, and continuous has to be higher — “geometric dog-in-light processor” anyone? With a side of ℕ vs. ℝ...).

Two, this is precisely what I was addressing in my “grunt” thesis. :—) It wasn’t about “counting” alone, it was about the ascription of arbitrary magnitude to non-descript, user-defined numbers.

Why do I get the sense you read 2 paragraphs of it and said, “meh, she’s just talking about counting?” Lol. It was hella deeper, that’s why I wondered how we just glided over it. This topic is where I wanted to start 10 days ago.

 

I also don’t see any 2D symbols anywhere.

You don't see symbols? Then how are you reading this?

I certainly can do the comp based on that, I can convert the numbers to binary true and false representation and do Boolean algebra on it to arrive at a string that I can call 323.

C'mon, you honestly add numbers by first converting them to base-2 and doing boolean arithmetic? No way. You're doing what we all do, which is the standard base-10 positional algorithm for addition. And where is the true/false in that?

What if we invent a new non positional number system where I have a symbol for each number.

¥ is 149
£ is 173

How do I know when I add these things that they equate to symbol § which is 323, until I set up rules?

You don't know, of course. The rules are what determine the relationships.

Roman numerals are a non-positional representation. The rules consist of a few assignments ("X = ten" and so on) and a few reduction principles ("when a symbol appears directly before a larger number, subtract them", "when a symbol appears directly after larger number, add them"). Arithmetic is generally a pain without positional notation, but with a reasonable set of rules it can be done. There's no fundamental difference between "149 + 173 = 322" and "CXLIX + CLXXIII = CCCXXII".

Abstract symbols is NOT where the computation is happening. It’s happening at the hardware level at the most elementary representation (grunts) thats why propositional logic and T/F, and {0,1} as both numbers and truth states fits so perfect to us innately.

The symbols are not abstract, they're concrete! We manipulate the symbols to perform computations. When you add 149 + 173, you're not counting fingers, you're applying a base-10 algorithm to the symbols themselves.

"9 + 3 is 12, which has two digits, so I have to carry the 1 to the next position. 4 + 7 is 11, plus the carried 1, is 12, which is two digits, so I have to carry the 1 to the next position." And so on.

How does a computer perform addition? We design circuits that implement the base-2 algorithm for manipulating symbols. For the circuit, voltages are the symbols.

 

This is the crux of the matter. You are assuming they are innate, when you haven’t defined yourself different from any other machine. They are not “anything” until something external PROGRAMS the machine to know the difference.

I'm assuming what is innate? I have no idea to what you're referring.

The so-called “concepts” in a computer, like the letter A on your keyboard, is nothing more than a bank of switches. To say “A” is special is to only say it’s wired to a bank, that when you press A, you are literally flicking a load of switches at once to initilaize them as high or low.

What makes "A" special is precisely that it's wired differently than, say, "B". This allows software to distinguish between "A" and "B" and use them as sources of information.

There are ZERO 2D symbols or concepts “to a 1D bit or uit machine.”

Again with the geometry confusion. A bit is not a one-dimensional object. A symbol can have any dimension we wish. We use 1D symbols all the time in the form of time-varying voltages. But even if we use 42D symbols, we can store their information in a long enough bit string. Bits are not geometrical objects! CATEGORY ERROR.

You use this term, but from the ontological hardware perspecrive, there are just banks of states, the MEANING thereof is only programmed by something that gave it rules outside itself. There is only 0 or 1, standing for two contrasting states at the hardware level!

I use what term? So what if meaning is programmed?

You keep saying that the hardware level is fundamentally boolean, so I want you to answer me this question directly: do analog computers exist?

 

Take ANY geometric symbol or shape. WHERE is it in the brain *as-described* directly? It is ONLY represented in 1D discrete states. If you do an MRI or other scan, there are ZERO actual 2D geometric symbols or forms.

You're confusing the "shape" of a symbol with the information the symbol conveys. We can't put a "shape" in the cells of RAM, but we can certainly store information about the shape. I'm baffled why you find this difficult to understand.

 

And the software is nothing more than a gateway to hardware that uses 1D states to initialize other 1D states as high and low!

Software provides control, guidance, etc. You might even say it gives a purpose to machinery.

Do you believe that DNA is a genetic program for cellular behavior?

 

You're confusing the "shape" of a symbol with the information the symbol conveys. We can't put a "shape" in the cells of RAM, but we can certainly store information about the shape. I'm baffled why you find this difficult to understand.

I understand it perfectly.

One can’t separate information from geometry in the end.

You don’t know a 2D or 3D geometric dog exists in the light, or any other symbol when you’re a “non-dimensional” (1D) discrete state processor. You are banks of high and lows that don’t know what “3D or 2D geometric object” they represent.

“Where is the dog” is a question of asking, “where is its 3D locale in 3D space?”

 

I'm assuming what is innate? I have no idea to what you're referring.


What makes "A" special is precisely that it's wired differently than, say, "B". This allows software to distinguish between "A" and "B" and use them as sources of information.


Again with the geometry confusion. A bit is not a one-dimensional object. A symbol can have any dimension we wish. We use 1D symbols all the time in the form of time-varying voltages. But even if we use 42D symbols, we can store their information in a long enough bit string. Bits are not geometrical objects! CATEGORY ERROR.


I use what term? So what if meaning is programmed?

You keep saying that the hardware level is fundamentally boolean, so I want you to answer me this question directly: do analog computers exist?

Absolutely... and they deal with continuous phenomena. There is no doubt an analog processing component in the human mind. The value of the continuous computation, like a quantum system, is discrete bits in the end.

In either case, analog or digital, neither know what they are doing computations about.

 

Tell me, why do you ask the question, “Where is the dog in the light?”

The question implies information ABOUT the dog is separate FROM the dog ITSELF as a phenomenon, no?

If not, ALL is information, and nothing exists.

The dog is true geometric 3D in 3D space minimally, and the information is informational 1D about it.

Information is independent of HOW it is represented.

But information is DEPENDENT on WHAT it’s representing, or there is no existence!

Do you vibe this??

 

Tabula rasa: says who?

What do you mean "says who"? A computer can compute the ratio between 10 meters and 5 meters, yes? That ratio is 2.

No computer knows “2” or 010101 is a “magnitude” beyond any other.

Huh? Open up Google.com and type "10 m / 5 m" without the quotes. It will literally return "2".

Nope, not at all. First, meaning isn’t defined, and meaning is the basis of what you’re using to make some kind of distinction.

"Meaning" is some magical thing in your theory, in mine it's extremely simple: associations between states. When I write "x = 10;" in a computer program, I am telling the computer that the "meaning" of symbol 'x' is the value 10.

No computer does such a thing until the gates are arranged to make a distinction, and even then, 1D output of two 1D strings compared means positively nothing until the human ascribes this “mystery” meaning (which I know has something to do with converting to “higher dimension” of 2D and 3D! Because discrete is 1D, and continuous has to be higher — “geometric dog-in-light processor” anyone? With a side of ℕ vs. ℝ...).

Stop with the geometric category errors, please.

Two, this is precisely what I was addressing in my “grunt” thesis. :—) It wasn’t about “counting” alone, it was about the ascription of arbitrary magnitude to non-descript, user-defined numbers.

Why do I get the sense you read 2 paragraphs of it and said, “meh, she’s just talking about counting?” Lol. It was hella deeper, that’s why I wondered how we just glided over it. This topic is where I wanted to start 10 days ago.

I read the entirety of you grunt thesis, which started fine but then became an unparsable mess (probably right where you got into the magnitudes). In any case, 2,500 years ago Pythagoras proved that there are magnitudes for which we can't simply grunt.

 

I understand it perfectly.

You clearly don't!

One can’t separate information from geometry in the end.

Further evidence. Information about a geometrical object is not itself geometrical. The symbols "y = x" are not a line, yet they convey information about a specific class of lines.

You don’t know a 2D or 3D geometric dog exists in the light, or any other symbol when you’re a “non-dimensional” (1D) discrete state processor. You are banks of high and lows that don’t know what “3D or 2D geometric object” they represent.

What is a geometric dog? Geometry is a particular type of formal system; the domain of geometry is abstract shapes, not dogs.

You're looking at a dog, superimposing a 3D grid over it, and saying "there, 3D". But you can superimpose a 2D grid and just as validly say "there, 2D". It can't be both 2D and 3D, right? So, what's wrong with saying it's neither?

 

Absolutely... and they deal with continuous phenomena.

So, if analog computers exist -- and they are, by definition, not true/false digital -- why do you say that true/false digital is foundational?

 

Tell me, why do you ask the question, “Where is the dog in the light?”

The question implies information ABOUT the dog is separate FROM the dog ITSELF as a phenomenon, no?

The information I receive from the dog is received through my senses and filtered by my brain. Experience shows that this a lossy information transfer process. Furthermore, my senses are limited in what information they can convey -- I have no sense, for example, of the dog's electromagnetic state beyond a very narrow band that we call visible light.

So, the information I have about the dog is not the same as the dog's information as it is independent of me. I'm essentially seeing the dog through a peep hole of experience. Importantly, I cannot say anything about the dog outside of this limited experience.

The dog is true geometric 3D in 3D space minimally, and the information is informational 1D about it.

You assume the dog is three dimensional, but what does it actually matter? Geometric dimensions make no difference to our ability to reason about them. I can understand theorems in a 1024D Euclidean space just as easily as I can theorems in a 2D Euclidean space. Information has no geometry, so we can reason about any geometry equally well.

Information is independent of HOW it is represented.

But information is DEPENDENT on WHAT it’s representing, or there is no existence!

I wouldn't say "no existence", but I agree that information is dependent on the things we associate the information with.

 

Bottom line — information is different from "what" it's representing.

Then what it's representing isn't information, correct?

 

The information I receive from the dog is received through my senses and filtered by my brain. Experience shows that this a lossy information transfer process. Furthermore, my senses are limited in what information they can convey -- I have no sense, for example, of the dog's electromagnetic state beyond a very narrow band that we call visible light.

So, the information I have about the dog is not the same as the dog's information as it is independent of me. I'm essentially seeing the dog through a peep hole of experience. Importantly, I cannot say anything about the dog outside of this limited experience.


You assume the dog is three dimensional, but what does it actually matter? Geometric dimensions make no difference to our ability to reason about them. I can understand theorems in a 1024D Euclidean space just as easily as I can theorems in a 2D Euclidean space. Information has no geometry, so we can reason about any geometry equally well.


I wouldn't say "no existence", but I agree that information is dependent on the things we associate the information with.

Everything I say is making a CLEAR distinction between information and what it's representing; this is what you are not getting, and why you keep saying "I don't understand." You draw a distinction between INFORMATIONAL dimension and GEOMETRIC dimension, as if there *IS* a distinction between them in a discrete state processor!

The processor does NOT know the difference between what kind of bits its computing with!!

The dog is MINIMALLY 3 dimensional, so we can measure x, y, z, in time and physical space. 100% empirical fact. You need minimally 3 GEOMETRIC dimensions to the dog to describe it (describe meaning "CONVEY INFORMATION" about the DOG that is ITSELF NOT information!)

Physical space is *NOT* information. We get ALL information we know, and ALL computation on that information, from THINGS in physical space. I would call these "REAL" things (that is NOT a complete definition, but it is one everyone understands when we referencing things in space vs. conceptual ones). I say "REAL" as the OPPOSITE of "CONCEPT."

 

What do you mean "says who"? A computer can compute the ratio between 10 meters and 5 meters, yes? That ratio is 2. Open up Google.com and type "10 m / 5 m" without the quotes. It will literally return "2".

What???? Bro, you think the meters have anything to do with 10 vs. 5 in a computer's computation? A programmer is concatenating "Meters," or "TV's" or "beef jerky" to the computation, and they have NOTHING to do with it! Separate bank of states! The computation of the numbers is ENTIRELY separate from any suffix???!? A METER exists in physical space as a measurement of a ruler or DOG. The computer only has 010101010 as a representation of the word METER, and then a representation of the physical METER!

Stop with the geometric category errors, please.

Stop with the non-tabula rasa responses! There is NO, ZERO, ZILCH difference between geometric and informational dimensions in a discrete bit state processor!! Do I have to call in 500 Ph.D's in computer science to corroborate this? Exhume Claude Shannon, George Boole, and John Von Neumann? I mean this in ALL respect and levity: What do I have to do to convince you, banks of transistors or neurons do NOT KNOW WHAT THEY'RE REPRESENTING, whether GEOMETRIC or otherwise!! The ACTUAL physical space "dog" or a "meter" is SEPARATE from the information (and the information can be represented in ANY way, of course! although I will argue there are only 2 "elemental" ways to do it, unary or binary grunts)! There is no "METERS" in a computer (the letters of which are SIMPLY more discrete states representing pixels on a screen) other than simply more 0's and 1's when you do 10/5.

I wish someone here would chime in and corroborate the above.

Honestly, if we can't agree to this, there is ZERO hope.

 

Any kind of model of existence can't "pretend" that information and "what it's representing" aren't separate.

It's just a fact.

In fact, a "Theory" (information) of EveryTHING" itself humorously implies the theory (information) is separate from the things its describing!

When you are born, you start taking in stimulus, and eventually you start labeling that stimulus, counting that stimulus, and then you start asking "questions" about it using 6 built-in interrogative tokens that assume things exist independent of the information. All you know "about it is," of course, is what light and sound tell you.

But light and sound are obviously "carriers" of information about "things". What are these things?

What's most important here is to say what they are NOT. They are NOT one and the same with information about them. I don't care if you're talking about a vacuum cleaner, a dog, a hairpiece, or dirigible.

All of these "elements" exist in this thing we all call "physical space." Light and sound carry "information" to us about these things, and the question system that is within us exists to ask about THESE THINGS and their movements specifically, so we can know more about these things. That means there's a storage facility within us that is "designed" to contain information about these things.

This means there is a CLEAR distinction between the "concepts" in our minds and the "things" the concepts are "about".

When making any inquiry about things, we use the 6 interrogatives of "who, what, when, how, where, why". These are prompting for information ABOUT things in physical space, and insist the information about the thing is separate from the thing itself. All of them assume minimally 3 measurable dimensions within the space of x, y, and z. No house exists as length and height alone. It must have width. Likewise for the other dimensions.

But just as equally important are these mystery tokens is the term "real" or "really" that goes along with them.

For example:

"I had a flying dream last night."

This is a fact concerning some state you were in when you were asleep.

Someone else might ask: Was it "in your dreams," or did it "really happen." I.e., "Was it conceptual or did it happen in physical space (which most every human will readily call reality?)"

To which the dreamer might respond: "What kind of question is that? Of course the dream (IT) wasn't REAL (state of "THING in physical space"). It didn't REALLY happen in physical space, silly!" In fact, most humor comes from this very differentiation. When someone thinks something is really happening and they're "in their own world" and not the shared REAL one. The story I wrote early on emphasized this VERY thing, that contrast was the very thrust of the humor.

The very phenomena of "what" we're talking about can only be triangulated in physical space with the assumption that it and its behavior are separate from information to inquire about it.

This has immensely strange implication, because it also implies the same phenomenon of "there-ness" applies to whomever is asking the question, which implies the mechanism to ask the question itself shares the same mystery.

You exist in the same space as whatever you're talking about, so the same question applies to you as anything you're talking about.

"Where is the dog in the light?"

"Where is the person asking the question?" "Where is his mind asking the question?"

They exist in this same mystery place. Whatever "actual things" are in space, if they're not information, what are they? This implies the question is not coming from the brain, because the brain is a state processor that doesn't know what the information is reflecting, it only has bits from the light and sound!

Any ToE worth its salt is going to have to attempt to triangulate mystery elements into a model for how things work, because this is the bread-and-butter of what's going on. Everything else is just information with no real connection to it.

If I say random words and numbers to you — 92, 1084, 2918, BIRD, JOHNSON, LIGHTHOUSE — you will say "Huh?? WHAT are you talking about? Your words have no MEANING." I.e., “WHAT is the information REFERRING to in physical space (as default — vs. a Hilbert or some other conceptual space).“ Meaning is the phenomena that connects information to THINGS in this space.

Information concerning the movement of things in space is telegraphed to us through light's refection of the physics of the event. Light is the principal information carrier concerning REAL things in space. LIght is sending discrete 1D photons to our brains. This makes no sense with respect to WHAT it's reflecting. What it's reflecting MUST exist BEYOND the 1D info-carrying photons.

So there are 3 principal elements:

- REAL THINGS in physical space (which I have no problem calling REALITY).
- Light on these THINGS, SOUNDS from these things.
- Information transferred to us as both discrete BITS and continuous information.

The information in us is *agnostic* to what it's representing, if all we are is discrete state processors. Even analog processors are agnostic. If one loads up any waveform in a digital audio workstation, the waveform is representative of an event in physical space. Immediately one might begin to "know" what the waveform represents in an event that happened at some "time" in this physical space. This implies the waveform is tied to the mystery token of what which has within it the innate differentiation between mental concepts and actualities that happened in the space—a CLEAR difference between information and WHAT it's representing.

This is the FIRST-order definition of "know" in my estimation. Siri does NOT know the weather directly. She has information concerning the weather. But has no idea whether or not the information is representing weather, flag poles, or a TV show. The data is agnostic to its source, unless a human being, with its mystery "REAL" vs. "CONCEPT" differentiator can inquire about it further.

If objects exist in this thing called physical space, and an inquirer does as well, then WHAT is the "interrogative" element that knows the difference? It's clearly not a physical object that is agnostic to the difference!

Something within the being KNOWS the difference, and is using a mechanism that TRANSCENDS information itself to do it, otherwise there is NO explanation.

Truly, it is _LIFE and _CONSCIOUSNESS that is responsible for this innate ability that seems to transcend information itself. What are these two things that are imbuing the human being with this strange ability to differentiate between a thing in physical space and the information concerning it?

Whatever they are, they insist information represents something other than itself as the basis of meaning...

 

New thought on the number set cardinality:

Because there are certain numbers that do not terminate, there is technically no way to delimit them as elements in a set. Therefore, ℝ cannot exist as an actual set of number elements (plural), because there can be no discretizing or delimiting the non-terminating elements!

Therefore |ℕ| < |ℝ| is NOT a valid comparison whatsoever. It's not that it's false or true, it's that it is incongruous, and to say it's true is not logical, because ℝ is not a "set" of numbers, it is a theoretical set of numeric continuum that comprises numbers and operations upon them.

 

I propose 2 "universes" of discourse here (however you would denote them):

{INFORMATION}
{ALL THAT IS NOT INFORMATION}

The second domain must use the senses as a key-off point. For example, when we build a digital computer, a "thing" in this "physical space" (whatever you want to call it — nature?) — we're using a power source as the basis of the computation. The power source has essentially 2 states that are being filtered through various switches to create computation and representation of information on a screen. A human being, when it does propositional logic, is looking for a T or F based on the data. That intimates a connection between T/F, states of voltage representing it, and the usage of said states to compute using both logic and numbers.

 

So, if analog computers exist -- and they are, by definition, not true/false digital -- why do you say that true/false digital is foundational?

What I say is foundational is both continuous and digital.

The value of analog computation is still discrete, which in the end is digital. Qubits are doing continuous computations, and the only way to make sense of the continuum is when its output is digitized.

The foundation of the digital portion is binary T/F.

 

You clearly don't!


Further evidence. Information about a geometrical object is not itself geometrical. The symbols "y = x" are not a line, yet they convey information about a specific class of lines.


What is a geometric dog? Geometry is a particular type of formal system; the domain of geometry is abstract shapes, not dogs.

You're looking at a dog, superimposing a 3D grid over it, and saying "there, 3D". But you can superimpose a 2D grid and just as validly say "there, 2D". It can't be both 2D and 3D, right? So, what's wrong with saying it's neither?

Formal shmormal, tho. The dog is NOT 2D in real life! Am I on candid camera here? I think you’re gaslighting me. Get a REAL ruler out and measure the REAL dog in real life. You have 3 principal values, full stop. The area of your kitchen floor is x * y. You are y tall, x wide, z long. Measurements in “REAL space” are inarguably 3D, no more complexity required geometrically. Time is another dimension, but the geometric element is 3D all day long. The information is 1D, the objects are 2D/3D.