Building off of definition of machine, infinity, and natural world information processor,
I believe this here is the beginning of an actual proof hashing that shows "thought is not happening in the brain":

IF the brain is limited to bits/numbers as its sole computational instrument and defining mechanism of the person who is supposedly representing it,

THEN

all of its references to such person and "things" are simply bits/numbers, and bits/numbers are POSITIVELY MEANINGLESS OR RANDOM to the medium storing them unless ANOTHER outside system attributes MEANING to them for THEMSELVES. The outside system must be something OTHER than bits/numbers, because again, same problem.

To the brain, any "thing" is a unique sequence of binary 0's and 1's. In these 0's and 1's there is no definition of YOU reasoning ANYTHING about ANYTHING. No one 0 cares about any other 1.

THEREFORE

IF human being = soft, carbon-based Siri Watson

Siri, when she "talks about a cube" is not referencing a cube from within the binary data that is causing the vibrations to emulate "talking."

AND

This leads to the absolute essentiality that: IF you exist, you do so apart from the bits/numbers, and YOU must be something super-numeric, and that MUST be part of the nature of axiom INFINITY and KNOWING itself.

——

Do you see how the brain is essential to the starting reasoning in order to prove it's not where thought resides, and how numbers and bits must be unified as part of this?

 

Also, 1 other constraint I think is needed to spell out: we have access to basic grade school nouns and verbs

 

It's somewhere! I know I read it. Will have to find it. Point is, he defined 1 on one side, and equated it to some kind of "reality" on the right that was not a number or logic state.

Until shown otherwise, I'm doubtful.

It is incongruous to add TRUE or FALSE. Yet, boolean algebra is doing this, no?

Ah, now we're getting somewhere. Hidden, implicit models abound!

You know what "add" means only because you're assuming a model of arithmetic, a model that contains a binary operator "+" with the usual axioms of associativity, commutativity, etc. Crucially, that model also includes a set -- its domain of discourse (or, to use Boole's language, its "universe") -- over which the "+" operator is closed. So, for any two elements \( A, B \) of the set, we know that \[ A + B \] is also an element of the set.

Naturally, your implicit model is the grade school arithmetic that's been drilled into your head for most of your life. Let's formalize this model as the ring \( \mathcal{Z} \) of integers. That is, \[ \mathcal{Z} = (\mathbb{Z}, +, \times) \] In other words, \( \mathcal{Z} \) let's us add and multiply integers in the usual way. The "universe" of \( \mathcal{Z} \) is \( \mathbb{Z} \), the integers; thus, its operations are incommensurable with elements outside of its universe. In particular, \[ \text{TRUE, FALSE} \notin \mathbb{Z} \] and so it makes no sense to use the "+" operator with these elements.

With this implicit model running in your background, you were probably surprised (maybe even delighted; I know I was) the first time you saw something like \[ \text{TRUE} + \text{FALSE} = \text{TRUE} \] Upon seeing such a curious and incongruous thing, and grokking its significance, it's perfectly understandable that one may draw the conclusion that logic states are numbers. But this is an unjustified conclusion! What's missing is the fact that the "+" symbol in "TRUE + FALSE = TRUE" is not the same operator as used in expressions such as "1 + 2 = 3". This is a crucial fact that, unfortunately, is completely invisible to everyone except those who study such things. The "+" of TRUE, FALSE expressions is as different from the "+" of grade school addition as gills are from lungs. Both gills and lungs are used to extract oxygen from the environment, but they work with different inputs and do different kinds of things to achieve their results. As the old saying goes, replace a man's lungs with gills and he'll die within a few minutes. Gills and lungs are incommensurable.

Let's see what the gills of Boolean algebra look like by defining another ring, \( \mathcal{B} \), similar to \( \mathcal{Z} \), but over the set {0, 1} instead of the integers: \[ \mathcal{B} = (\{0, 1\}, +, \times) \] One of the defining properties that makes a boolean ring boolean is that the "\( \times \)" operator (generalized multiplication) is idempotent: for any element \( A \in \{0, 1\} \), it is always the case that \( A \times A = A \). If we stick to this property, and obey the usual axioms of commutative rings, we find that the "+" operator (generalized addition) behaves like this: \[ \begin{align} 0 + 0 &= 0 \\ 0 + 1 &= 1 \\ 1 + 0 &= 1 \\ 1 + 1 &= 0 \end{align} \] Notice that "1 + 1 = 0" is a true statement in boolean rings, and a false statement in the ring of integers (grade school arithmetic). This is incontrovertible proof that "+" is a different, incompatible operator in each system. However, if we associate the symbol "FALSE" with the symbol "0", and "TRUE" with the symbol "1", we immediately recognize that addition in boolean rings is equivalent to XOR (exclusive OR) in propositional logic.

We can do the same thing with the multiplication operator and find that the boolean ring version is equivalent to AND in propositional logic. So, what do we have here? \( \mathcal{B} \) is a mathematical object, a boolean ring over a set of numbers, that provides two arithmetic operators "+" and "\( \times \)" that are compatible with two of the logic operators in propositional logic. However, the "+" operator that kids use is incompatible with both.

We still haven't defined the boolean algebra we all know and love. Fortunately, with our boolean ring in hand, we can define a boolean algebra \( \mathcal{A} \) directly from our ring \( \mathcal{B} \): \[ \mathcal{A} = (\{0, 1\}, \vee, \wedge, \neg) \] where \( \vee \) is disjunction (OR), \( \wedge \) is conjunction (AND), and \( \neg \) is negation (NOT). To convert between the operators in the algebra (left side) and the ring (right side), do the following. For all \( x, y \in \{0, 1\} \), \[ \begin{align} x \wedge y &= x \times y \\ x \vee y &= x + y - x \times y \\ \neg x &= x + 1 \end{align} \] We now have a full-fledged boolean algebra (the boolean algebra, if you wish). The biggest difference between the ring and the algebra is that, in the ring, only multiplication is idemptotent, but in the algebra both operators are idempotent: \( A \vee A = A \) and \( A \wedge A = A \). But, as there's a one-to-one map between operations in the two, we can always convert boolean rings to boolean algebras and vice versa. They are, in this sense, equivalent.

With all this in mind, what does an expression such as "TRUE + TRUE = TRUE" mean? Replacing the set {0, 1} in \( \mathcal{A} \) with the set {FALSE, TRUE} is perfectly valid because, in the category of sets, any two-element set is isomorphic (equivalent) to any other two-element set. We could just as well use {SQUARE, CIRCLE} or {SHEEP, ORANGE} as the set. However, using the "+" symbol in the expression is an abuse of notation, as "+" is not defined in boolean algebras (recall that "+" belongs to the ring). Of course, we're allowed to use any symbols we want, but conventionally we reserve "\( \vee \)" for disjunction and "+" for addition. So, the proper expression is "TRUE \( \vee \) TRUE = TRUE", and there's no ambiguity about what is going on: we're simply taking the union of {TRUE} with {TRUE} and finding that it's {TRUE}. There is no "addition" happening, and {TRUE} is not a number.

To really drill this in, let's go back to using {0, 1} as the boolean algebra's set. Then, "1 \( \vee \) 1 = 1" makes perfect sense: the union of {1} and {1} is {1}. Now let's abuse the notation and write it as "1 + 1 = 1". Not only is this a false statement in the boolean ring, we have no way of mapping it to the ring without completely changing all the symbols. And since (as we saw) boolean rings and boolean algebras must agree on what they're saying, the expression cannot possibly be true in boolean algebra (again, unless we redefine all the symbols).

So, very long story short, I contend that you have (understandably) been misled by lazy authors who write things like "TRUE + TRUE" without explaining that it's an abuse of notation. Numbers are not logic states, though we can use sets of either to do cool sh!t.

 

Ah, but you’re forgetting something in the above. You don’t know what Boolean rings are per the constraints. Remember, you are working with bits alone, and the bare obvious evaluative elements a circuit can employ to create new sequences of bits. Presence or absence of voltage. You are a brain circuit with capacitance and gates (OR gates in this situation).

I contend that the above is all abstract derivative invention, as Kronecker might. Sophisticated AF, but it’s not necessarily reflective of how things work at the very base level. I contend my proof says otherwise without invoking anything but the base, observational axiomatic elements built into human reason such as “add” and “logic OR” that a 6 y/o could employ.

Let’s try again under the constraints

 

Until shown otherwise, I'm doubtful.

It doesn’t matter what’s on the right as long as it’s not a bit or number!

Let 1 equal or represent the truth state of some axiom on the right.

Otherwise, what other bit would you like to place on that right side that makes the statement meaningful??

 

And honestly, too... please answer me this at your earliest inconvenience:

You are a brain. You process bits. What’s up with your magic “awareness” of “numbers” outside the voltages and neurons and bits again!??

 

Of course! I have a sense, all right. "School..." he says. "Hong Kong..." he says. I don't buy a word of any of the above! I think you ARE Boole (iDead® module insert)! And you have some kind of function running called play_along()....

LOL!

With that in mind — so you're Ken Jennings, and you're playing against Watson. Watson is a piece of software running on hardware. Discrete 0's and 1's incredibly well organized.

What are "you?" (serious question to gauge where your baseline reference is)

Watson is not made of 0s and 1s, rather its programmers used strings of "0"s and "1"s to reason about Watson. Watson is made of various metals, non-metals, and plastics. When plugged in to a power source, Watson can process information by switching voltage levels (changing state). Watson can do this very fast, and has a very large memory to store all this state. These are Watson's biggest advantages. Watson's biggest disadvantage is that it was designed by people who are just learning how to make processing machines, so it is no sense optimal at anything. Future AIs will consider it a blithering idiot.

I'm not made of 0s and 1s, either, though I sometimes use strings of "0"s and "1"s to reason about stuff, including myself. I'm made of various metals and non-metals. In my set of LIFE states, my brain can process information by switching voltage levels. It can do this fairly fast, but not nearly as fast as Watson. I also have much less memory than Watson. These are my biggest disadvantages. My biggest advantage is that my brain was designed through trial and error over hundreds of millions of years to be really good at certain useful tasks, like pattern matching. I can pattern-match the sh!t out of Watson.

 

Ok, got it — we have INFINITY in the model defined as a token of meta-numeric "unboundedness." If it's not a bit in the information processor, what is it?

Great question! INFINITY is a concept, and concepts convey some (generally copious) amount of information, which require multiple bits to store. In other words, INFINITY is a state. We might say that a person or machine "knows" the concept of INFINITY if one of its sub-states contains the information associated with INFINITY. Note that this allows for realistic fuzziness, as not everyone conceptualizes everything in precisely the same way. If one possible representation of the information state of the concept of INFINITY (or dog or "baseball games" or whatever) is a billion-bit matrix, and we change a few of the bits, we're still going to be talking about the same informational concept, even though a few of the details might be different.

I think this is a great pivot point for us: INFINITY is not a single bit that we tack onto the end of a bit stream, it's a concept that needs a whole bunch of bits to represent/store/whatever.

One of the very earliest questions that spawned this was, "where is the dog in the light." Problem is, in a bit processor with no one bit truly connected to any other without the user making "sense" of it, "dogs, "lights," or any other object, or existence itself is not anywhere to be found.

Again, there is no dog in the light. The light carries information, which we may quantify in terms of bits, about the dog, but the dog is not in the light. The CCD camera does not need a user making sense of it to process the information of the dog that's present in the light. The information is there regardless of any user's experience. Take a fresh cadaver out of the morgue, put a bikini top on it, and leave it out in the sun for a few hours. The information about the bikini will literally be burned into the cadaver, "user" or not.

Hold the phone! Tree = 01100110101101010101111010101010101010110 to you, being a brain. NO one 1 or 0 is concerned with any other! Where is the tree again? You can't see any "tree" anywhere in that. There's neither tree nor the word "tree" to identify the tree!

No. When I look at a tree, the light reaching my eye carries with it information about the tree, which my optical system converts to voltages that my brain stores neurally. There are no 0s or 1s anywhere in this process. I can, in principle and after the fact, map the state of my neural network after seeing a tree to a string of "1"s and "0"s, but that is just a transfer of information, from my brain to a bit string. Neither representation -- brain or bit string -- is the tree. I associate the bit string with the tree because I'd defined the association myself. My brain associates the neural voltage pattern with the tree because a couple hundred million years of evolution have wired it that way.

Observed actuality = something you can empirically sense directly like a "brain" or "tree",

The word actuality connotes "how it really is", which is putting the cart before the horse, eh?

 

More crystallization:
The true nature of ℕ is base 2.

No, no, no. Whatever "true nature" means, the numbers in \( \mathbb{N} \) have no preferred representation. The symbols "5", "101", "V", "cinco" all equally denote the same number. There is no sense in which "101" is closer to, or better representative of, the number than "cinco" is. The token "101" is exactly like the token "tree". You wouldn't suggest that "tree" is closer to the thing it represents than "arbol", would you?

. . . I'd hazard ℝ is really just a subset of ℕ . . .

It's actually the opposite relation: \( \mathbb{N} \subset \mathbb{R} \). Though you're on to something with the subsets idea. Indeed, a cool way of thinking about \( \mathbb{R} \) is as the powerset -- i.e., the set of all subsets -- of \( \mathbb{N} \). This perspective is actually quite useful, because -- unlike Dedekind cuts and such -- it provides an intuitive sense of how f*cking enormous \( \mathbb{R} \) is. (Try making subsets of natural numbers for a few minutes and you'll see why.)

The powerset construction also gives us a palatable perspective on why number theory is so damn hard. Number theory is well-known for having problems that are incredibly simple to state yet perhaps impossible to solve. One of the most famous, asks us if there exist three natural numbers \( a, b, z \) such that \( a^n + b^n = z^n \) has a solution for any \( n > 2 \in \mathbb{N} \). So simple to state, yet its proof to the contrary took 200 years and required ridiculous amounts of uber advanced math. Using our powerset perspective, we can see why this might be so: Any such equation is really a question about subsets of natural numbers, and the subsets of natural numbers are the reals, which we don't know sh!t about.

Anyway, hope that was a mildly interesting interlude.

The magic here is also linguistic in nature: the specific intersection of the definition of "number" and "logic state" lies at the linguistic intersection between "disjunction" and "addition operator" — i.e., the seamlessly synonymous use of "OR" and "+" as Mr. Boole laid out in Laws of Thought (and yes, that's what I believe Shannon's essential takeaway was with him).

You wrote this before I did my spiel on boolean ring vs boolean algebra. After reading that, do you still believe in the synonyminity of "OR" and "+"?

 

If Siri captures a pic of a cube with the camera and identifies it as a cube, does Siri KNOW what the cube is, and does Siri have an archetypal definition of it that involves 8 hard corners? Nope.

Not so fast. You're right that one possible implementation of cube recognition is to give a computer the bitmap of a cube and instruct it to announce "CUBE" anytime it can match its input with the bitmap to some acceptable margin of error (say within a few hundred bits). Besides being a terrible identifier of cubes, it's clear that the computer doesn't know anything at all about cubes.

But what if we programmed the computer to recognize orthogonal lines, which is actually a simple thing to do. Then, what if we gave the computer the definition of a square using its notion of orthogonal lines. Our computer would recognize squares. Then, what if we told it the definition of cubes in terms of squares. It would certainly be able to recognize all manner of cubes. So, why shouldn't we say that the computer "knows" what a cube is? If in the computer's state-space of memory there is a section that holds the concept of cube, what's the difference between that and the state-space of memory in the brain that holds the concept of cube?

I'd like to use "Any Natural World Information Processor". . .

I think "natural world" is redundant, at least until we've made a meaningful distinction between "natural" and "unnatural" world. The base position needs to be "everything is natural" until proven otherwise. (To me, "natural" means "within this universe".)

 

I've realized something.

Being you are Jav-9000 here, you've got literally universes of stuff going on in your head, but in the end you can create an entire model that is actually MORE sophisticated than what's actually going on in reality (which you don't yet believe in)!

LOL!

Watson is not made of 0s and 1s, rather its programmers used strings of "0"s and "1"s to reason about Watson. Watson is made of various metals, non-metals, and plastics. When plugged in to a power source, Watson can process information by switching voltage levels (changing state). Watson can do this very fast, and has a very large memory to store all this state. These are Watson's biggest advantages. Watson's biggest disadvantage is that it was designed by people who are just learning how to make processing machines, so it is no sense optimal at anything. Future AIs will consider it a blithering idiot.

I'm not made of 0s and 1s, either, though I sometimes use strings of "0"s and "1"s to reason about stuff, including myself. I'm made of various metals and non-metals. In my set of LIFE states, my brain can process information by switching voltage levels. It can do this fairly fast, but not nearly as fast as Watson. I also have much less memory than Watson. These are my biggest disadvantages. My biggest advantage is that my brain was designed through trial and error over hundreds of millions of years to be really good at certain useful tasks, like pattern matching. I can pattern-match the sh!t out of Watson.

O. M. G.

Yet again, I must invoke a small choir of these:



But you don't know what those are... and because there is no dolt in the light saying "WTF."

"Watson is not made of 0s and 1s, rather its programmers used strings of "0"s and "1"s to reason about Watson."

Reason is not defined by your brain, and Watson is a set of binaries stored across servers in a data center!!!!

My biggest advantage is that my brain was designed through trial and error over hundreds of millions of years to be really good at certain useful tasks, like pattern matching. I can pattern-match the sh!t out of Watson.

And you also "know" how your "brain" was "designed?" You don't know you have a brain! You don't know what design is! You don't know what hundreds of millions of years are. And neither does Watson!

As much as it's been fun talking, I don't know if it's possible to make this happen!!... your software is so sophisticated, but you insist you exist in it no matter what! And you won't see the dog for the light!

There is zero existence in a trillion 0's and 1's, a quadrillion smoke signals, or gazillion dots of braille. And that's all we got if we cannot make them represent something other than themselves.

 

Not so fast. You're right that one possible implementation of cube recognition is to give a computer the bitmap of a cube and instruct it to announce "CUBE" anytime it can match its input with the bitmap to some acceptable margin of error (say within a few hundred bits). Besides being a terrible identifier of cubes, it's clear that the computer doesn't know anything at all about cubes.

But what if we programmed the computer to recognize orthogonal lines, which is actually a simple thing to do. Then, what if we gave the computer the definition of a square using its notion of orthogonal lines. Our computer would recognize squares. Then, what if we told it the definition of cubes in terms of squares. It would certainly be able to recognize all manner of cubes. So, why shouldn't we say that the computer "knows" what a cube is? If in the computer's state-space of memory there is a section that holds the concept of cube, what's the difference between that and the state-space of memory in the brain that holds the concept of cube?

Huh??? Don't make me invoke the WTF graphic again.

What is "TOLD" the computer the "definition" mean??? You mean have a bunch of 0's and 1's in flip flops? Because that's all it is!?? There is nothing in the computer but binaries! It doesn't know what ANY of those binaries reflect or represent!

 

And honestly, too... please answer me this at your earliest inconvenience:

I'm embarrassed to admit how much work I've delayed engaging in this discussion.

You are a brain. You process bits. What’s up with your magic “awareness” of “numbers” outside the voltages and neurons and bits again!??

What magic? Just as my brain can hold the concept of COUNTING as a state that keeps track of other states, it can hold the concept of NUMBER. NUMBER is an abstraction of COUNTING, a distillation of the particular things being counted.

When I count sheep, I internally associate each sheep with a state. Elsewhere in my brain, some other state (the COUNTING state) keeps track of the sheep-state transitions. How does it keep track? By changing some other state. The concept that this "keep track" state is completely independent from the sheep I'm counting is the final abstraction. By associating these "keep track" states with new concepts -- zero, one, two, three, ... -- my brain now has the concept of NUMBER.

 

I'm embarrassed to admit how much work I've delayed engaging in this discussion.

Haha

What magic? Just as my brain can hold the concept of COUNTING as a state that keeps track of other states, it can hold the concept of NUMBER. NUMBER is an abstraction of COUNTING, a distillation of the particular things being counted.

When I count sheep, I internally associate each sheep with a state. Elsewhere in my brain, some other state (the COUNTING state) keeps track of the sheep-state transitions. How does it keep track? By changing some other state. The concept that this "keep track" state is completely independent from the sheep I'm counting is the final abstraction. By associating these "keep track" states with new concepts -- zero, one, two, three, ... -- my brain now has the concept of NUMBER.

Here's where I must say "No, no, no."

You are a collection of gates, capacitors, wires and a counter on an old abandoned cutting board from the Unabomber's cabin. "You" are no where to be found.

There is no "concept of number." There. are. only. high. and. low. voltages.

A computer is an "adding machine" only! And it does so with the voltages that represent boolean logic states!

Where is the "sheep" in that whole getup (insert 900 question marks in 40 fonts here)?

 

Haha





Here's where I must say "No, no, no."

You are a collection of gates, capacitors, wires and a counter on an old abandoned cutting board from the Unabomber's cabin. "You" are no where to be found.

There is no "concept of number." There. are. only. high. and. low. voltages.

A computer is an "adding machine" only! And it does so with the voltages that represent boolean logic states!

Where is the "sheep" in that whole getup (insert 900 question marks in 40 fonts here)?

Caveat-cordless-parachute here:

If you you say "you don't know," then YOU don't exist either, and we have unfortunately checkmated this conversation permanently.

 

You wrote this before I did my spiel on boolean ring vs boolean algebra. After reading that, do you still believe in the synonyminity of "OR" and "+"?

Yes, I very much do, because this is a classic case where, unlike something such as GR, it actually STARTS from real-world observation, not mental abstraction and complex theory.

Simple: If bits weren't both logic states and numbers, you couldn't load up a calculator app and calculate new values with it AND ALSO do if-statement evaluations in a compiler with the same bits. 100% facts and proof right there.

Literally, I can write a program on this box right now that takes the bits stored in the box, and do logic evaluations between the bits, and also use the same bits to "add" them and create a result. Tell me, if all I have are bits, how can I do logic evaluations and ALSO work with a calculator app if the bits and numbers are not the same thing?

Computing is done with voltages, wires, switches and a timer (and some output device, like a 2D array of pixels) which store and shift switch-based bits with voltages that are "presence or absence of a bit." At no time do the bits "become some separate number definition" to the computer, if you want to keep them separate. They are still bits. Your abstracting them is no different than any other abstraction element such as "YOU" defining and working with "NUMBER SETS," "SHEEP" or "DELOREANS." No past, present, or future. These do not reside in the domain of the same bits in the same space. It's Photoshop 1.0 basics—but you're responding with a CS12 "context-sensitive" AI-based transform tool that's extrapolating everything into orbit beyond the simple existential reality that can be observed.

 

I think this is a great pivot point for us: INFINITY is not a single bit that we tack onto the end of a bit stream, it's a concept that needs a whole bunch of bits to represent/store/whatever.

Again, the linguistic partiality to “concept.” There is no “concept” you can reference any more than the dog in the light. There is scientifically none of the kind in any size collection of gates, timer, wires, and lightbulbs (or any output device) that is a computer, which is a bit-processing and bit-telegraphing (to pixels, lightbulbs, half-tone dots, facial expressions on a robot etc.) device. There is no referencing INFINITY as anything either in this discrete bit device, and no pretending we can. More nondescript bits is not going to cut it.

Again, there is no dog in the light.

Then there is no “you” to ask the question, either, and to insist there is when you don’t define it separate from the nondescript bits that have nothing to do with each other, is incongruous.

The light carries information, which we may quantify in terms of bits, about the dog, but the dog is not in the light. The CCD camera does not need a user making sense of it to process the information of the dog that's present in the light. The information is there regardless of any user's experience. Take a fresh cadaver out of the morgue, put a bikini top on it, and leave it out in the sun for a few hours. The information about the bikini will literally be burned into the cadaver, "user" or not.

And as a bit processor, you’re no diff than the cadaver. Because “information” that consists of binary bits without their representation is not really a complete definition of information. Why are you showing partiality between the “signal” that represents “dog” and the signal that represents “light”? Or insisting one collection of bits has more _MEANING to you??
Then at the same time say Siri Watson doesn’t care, but “you” do? Huh?

The word actuality connotes "how it really is", which is putting the cart before the horse, eh?

But what horse?? What cart?

You see, you can’t make that question without using a starting differentiation between bits/numbers, and actualities that they represent. There is *certainly* some kind of horse and cart in your mind, along with “you” if you’re (glibly) “hypocritically” referencing them as the basis of your question but then insisting they don’t exist within your mind to do so. You at the same time insist Watson and Siri don’t either, but you want to differentiate yourself from them merely because of billions of years of bit+shifting in your grey matter. Sorry, NO sense was made that day.

By using INFINITY as an unbounded extra-software and extra-hardware element (which it is!!) them we can triangulate something in the being as the basis of Frege’s “sense!” Anything else is literally _INSANITY.

 

Ok, this is where the rubber meets the road for me. Hopefully you can be on board with this. If not, we must “abandon hope all ye who enter” when it comes to a ToE.

Proposition: Without a definition for what something is, the scientific term “information” is incomplete.

The string 01011 might be information, but without an ontological correlation, it is fully meaningless. E.g., An advanced concept such as a Boolean “ring” assumes definition of “Boole” as a person and discourse context and “ring” as an object, both of which are unknowable at present and meaningless, unless one can define the process of definability and its objects, no different than “dog” or ”light” or “car.” Central to this is identifying the mechanism of meaning which is an innate signal-to-noise definer, parser and collator mechanism.

The token “is” is the operative element here.

Therefore, in order to complete the definition of information, further proposition and analysis must be made.

Yes?

 

...Any information processing machine is able to function by use of contrasting states of voltage (high and low).

By directing the flow of voltages in relation to switches—specifically “state retaining” switches called “flip flops”— one can employ these two discrete states upon which all information can be represented, processed and telegraphed.

Proof:

Any modern computer can use these states to compute with numbers of any set as well as evaluate logic states all the same. These are bits — a bit is a number and a logic state.

The states can be called “presence” and “absence” and will be called a new, base number set called “O”, for “ontology,” which is composed of exactly two numbers {0,1}. These numbers also empirically double as logic states FALSE and TRUE. They are the foundation of information theory, and the concatenation of unique strings of these numbers are the basis of all numeric representation and the basis of all logic state representation and arithmetic. This implicitly proves the “+” operator and “OR” are interchangeable, or real circuits could not be used to both ADD AND evaluate logic states.

It is upon the newly defined O set that all derivative number sets are based, including ℕ, ℝ, ℂ and others. The manipulation, processing, and evaluation of all numeric sets including logic and its branches, condition branching and matching are all empirically proven in the 20th century with the widespread use of personal computers using O as its basis.

At no time is any computer that is executing such manipulations correlating them to “what is,” and therefore no meaning is derived by the rules it is human-programmed to follow.

 

Ahhh, and here I have stumbled upon something very pivotal as well. How to deal with the conundrum of 1+1=0.
And how the "+" operator is ENTIRELY EQUAL to the "OR" operator as is represented in the hardware empirically.

The truth is, 1 + 1 = 0 is NOT true as-is. The circuitry proves this out. The proper boolean way of seeing 1 + 1 is

1 + 1 = 10

or

TRUE + TRUE = TRUE AND FALSE SUPERPOSITION

I.e., 0 + CARRY-BIT ... the carry-bit phenomenon is the very basis of the rules of how to deal with the digits in this new foundational O set, and what is being used in every digital computer to represent information and computation (including both numeric and logic evaluations and comparison)

AND — drum roll please — check this puppy out! Again, using the observable, empirical elements of the hardware and voltage as our elementary starting point:

1 + 0 = 1
0 + 0 = 0
0 + 1 = 1
1 + 1 = 10

10 being a SUPERPOSITION of 1 and 0, TRUE AND FALSE at the SAME TIME, and the basis of QUANTUM ENTANGLEMENT!! which is handled in hardware by splintering it into a NEW-INSTANTIATION COLUMN/CYCLE/ENTITY for handling the next computation required to represent the totality of the n-bit NUMBER or UNIQUE LOGIC STATE STRING through BIT CONCATENATION.

If my theory is correct, in that numbers or bits ONLY have _MEANING when they are representing "something that is"
which is the damn point of this entire thing (lol). I.e., no amount of bits/numbers makes Siri, Watson, or ME AND YOU KNOW what the WEATHER IS.

The only thing we have to begin with here, is in connecting numbers to something supra-numeric to build on the PROOF we have that INFINITY IS NOT A NUMBER BUT THE NEW DOMAIN OF "that which is" (The F*CKING "YOU" + "DOG" and "LIGHT!"). Because a computer is using discrete NUMBERS and BITS (which again are USELESS without "what they represent") INFINITY CANNOT be represented in it without reducing it to a bounded numeric state for workability, which is at ODDS with its TRUE DEFINITION OF AN UNBOUNDED NON-NUMERIC PHENOMENON. To NOW bridge the bit/number/logic-state as the discrete unique labels of uniquely SPAWNED infinities,

We can thusly denote:

1 == UNIQUE INFINITY (unbounded somethingness)
0 == UNIQUE INFINITY (complement — infinite nothingness)

(again, if INFINITY is not a bit, PERHAPS, JUST PERHAPS it is the basis of the 5D FABRIC of scientific inquiry of "what is"!!)

Because one cannot add to INFINITY and create more of itself (it doesn't change definitions), this boolean expression:

1 + 1 = 10

Is read as 1 + 1 = 0 AND CARRY the 1 to the NEXT INSTANTIATION of calculation in order to arrive at the UNIQUE SEQUENCE OF BITS to REPRESENT THE ANSWER! This is EMPIRICALLY happening, PROVEN in any modern computer/bit-processing device.

...right here is describing the necessity to spawn a NEW infinity that must be ASSOCIATED with the current number place but STARTS THE PROCESS OVER AGAIN. So, 1 + 1 says "I have an infinity and I want to add another infinity, but I cannot in the same space, so I will now spawn a NEW one and implicitly connect it to the first one via CARRY-BIT or SUPERPOSITION!"

This is BANK-BREAKING, empirical, procedural, preceptively based, using ACTUAL ONTOLOGICAL HARDWARE as its starting point, my friend, if you can at all follow it with my "uber refined semantics". lol