There’s therefore a componental element of “you.”

I can't parse this sentence. The CONCEPT of SELF definitely has many components, as it is specifically a set of associated states. Each of those states is a component in the CONCEPT of SELF.

And so I want to know which state represents the “self” to you, since no one gate or wire seems to care? Why does n-complexity yield an experiential “self?”

It's most definitely not a single state. You're asking the equivalent of "Which grain of sand makes a heap?" Like the heap, SELF emerges from a set of states, it is not a single state.

Complexity is a necessary, though not sufficient, criterion. There is a design aspect, as well. A processor must have enough states and memory (complexity) to be able to physically hold the CONCEPT of SELF, but it must also be wired to make the requisite associations. Brains were wired with this capability; CPUs can be wired to track its internal states; cables and buckets do not have this capability.

It is proven the chemicals of dopamine, serotonin, etc. are required to experience the self to some degree.

What?! There is no such proof. You're making the mistake of equating the particular with the general.

Again, you seem to be defining EXPERIENCE as "human experience" (or, perhaps, "animal experience"), in which case it is tautologically true that computers can not EXPERIENCE. I'm saying that EXPERIENCE is more general than humans or animals, and I have a cogent way to explain why I think this is so. I observe that the simplest animals (bacteria, amoeba, etc.) and even non-animals (plants, viruses, molecules, etc.) respond to their environment with basic attraction/revulsion impulses. Following the causal chain up to the increased complexity of human brains, I find a cogent pathway for human EXPERIENCE to be just a very complicated version of what viruses experience. And, since viruses and molecules and such are not much different than computer programs, I find it compelling to ascribe EXPERIENCE to computers, by transitive closure.

In contrast, your argument seems to rest on either a triviality (true by definition), or requires that you invoke "5D" souls and other inexplicable magic.

Load “self”,8,1?

LOL! It's been a long time since I've thought of the 1541. Thanks for bringing back those long dormant neural associations.

You say as long as there’s the ability for a certain n number of flip flops to register the presence of voltage or other flip flops, there’s a “you?”

No. As long as there's sufficient complexity and a sufficient design, then there's a SELF.

Every living creature on the earth would have a soul no different than man.

Ok, so do viruses have a soul? What about simpler molecules that can self-replicate, such as DNA? What about proteins? Where is the line drawn?

Physical is a weird term. Technically metaphysical objects would be a “physical” we perhaps can’t measure. I think “physical” means “existentially observable” in the end. If forces exist, a force has no observational properties. Are they physical? What about fields? If it’s knowable, it’s physical “somewhere.” We have to asymptotically triangulate it.

"Existentially observable" is far weirder than "physical". To me, "physical" is an easy one: something is physical if it can be measured (at least in principle), and its measurement is invariant with respect to frame of reference. So, for example, we can measure "force", but what we actually measure depends on our frame of reference. The "force" of gravity is 9.8 m/s^2 on the surface of Earth, but it's zero in free fall. Therefore, "force" is not physical.

The role that "frame invariance" plays in this definition of physical is to rule out all the sh!t that's not actually "out there". This is important because we -- as a creative, adaptive, and abstracting species -- impose an enormous number of conceptual heuristics to simplify our worldview. By enforcing frame invariance, we have a much better chance of exposing our abstractions. For example, electric charge is frame invariant, which is very strong evidence that we didn't invent it to simplify some other, more fundamental (physical) phenomenon.

100% believe mathematical objects have a “physical existence,” just 5D continuous origin. Pan to page 34 of our ToE here.

You're not alone in this; most mathematicians believe it, too. I still have a bunch of inconsistencies in my views on the subject. Perhaps you'll convince me.

 

IF the box is not 3D per your own definition, and you are not 3D per your own definition, and you can’t pinpoint either you or the box in your 1D brain, then, quite simply:

You don’t exist and neither does the box. QED.

(Because no 1D state processor has any above-1D forms in it.)

Let's clarify this idea. A bit is one-dimensional; it has one binary degree of freedom. How many degrees of freedom do two bits have? You've noted all along that each bit is independent, therefore two bits have two degrees of freedom. By induction, an n-bit sequence has n binary degrees of freedom. Therefore, an n-bit sequence is an n-dimensional binary phase-space with 2^n possible configurations.

Note that what we're describing here is information degrees of freedom. We process information using discrete transformations, giving rise to Boolean algebras. This is entirely different from spatial degrees of freedom. An object in 3D space has six degrees of freedom (three translational, three rotational). But objects in 3D space are processed using continuous transformations, giving rise to Lie algebras. These transformations are represented by 9-dimensional matrices.

I say all this to emphasize that, though we're using the same words "dimension" and "degrees of freedom" to characterize them, the objects they characterize are very different things. An n-bit sequence is not a geometrical object; it isn't spatial in the way that a cube is. However, the spatial cube has information associated with it, and this can be represented by an n-bit sequence. Should you doubt this fact, notice that one of the many things your computer can do is play movies, which are 2D spatial images representing 3D spatial actions, all derived from 64-dimensional chunks of non-spatial bit sequences.

 

Someone else echoed my thoughts exactly on it:

“Feynman could be referring to several different things here, but I think most of them boil down to the following point: The currently accepted theories all assume some sort of spacetime continuum or otherwise continuously defined objects. Of course, a computer 'thinks' in terms of bits, and therefore does not deal with continuum variables or any other continuous objects. It therefore needs to 'chop things up', i.e. discretize.

Huh? That comment echos my thoughts, not yours. Differential equations work over the reals, the continuum of time that would require a computer to perform an infinite number of calculations for even the tiniest fraction of a second.

Your claim was that, according to Feynman, every infinitesimal piece of space requires an infinite number of equations to describe. I knew this couldn't be true, because Feynman himself helped work out the Lagrangian (a single equation) of spacetime in an electric field.

 

Let's clarify this idea. A bit is one-dimensional; it has one binary degree of freedom. How many degrees of freedom do two bits have? You've noted all along that each bit is independent, therefore two bits have two degrees of freedom. By induction, an n-bit sequence has n binary degrees of freedom. Therefore, an n-bit sequence is an n-dimensional binary phase-space with 2^n possible configurations.

Note that what we're describing here is information degrees of freedom. We process information using discrete transformations, giving rise to Boolean algebras. This is entirely different from spatial degrees of freedom. An object in 3D space has six degrees of freedom (three translational, three rotational). But objects in 3D space are processed using continuous transformations, giving rise to Lie algebras. These transformations are represented by 9-dimensional matrices.

I say all this to emphasize that, though we're using the same words "dimension" and "degrees of freedom" to characterize them, the objects they characterize are very different things. An n-bit sequence is not a geometrical object; it isn't spatial in the way that a cube is. However, the spatial cube has information associated with it, and this can be represented by an n-bit sequence. Should you doubt this fact, notice that one of the many things your computer can do is play movies, which are 2D spatial images representing 3D spatial actions, all derived from 64-dimensional chunks of non-spatial bit sequences.

Ohhhhhh... but he didn’t rebutt it!!! 29 pages! A moment of silence please! Let the record show this day!! He just wants to clarify it! He sees it as potentiality to work from!! I have won the 2020 discursive lottery Friday, May 1 at 2:14pm!

There’s some scripture somewhere on some stone:
“And when you shall see the sign of the 2090 T-9000 accept the possibility he exists outside of states, while Chronos abides in the 4th sidereal house of GTFO, know now this that the time is at hand!”

Representational vs. spatially geometric actual dimension FTW!

The 3D objects on the screen are bit-based representations, that your living mind even distinguishes from! No 1D brain knows the difference! QED 2.0! The _REAL vs. _REPRESENTATIONAL, the continuous vs. discrete!!

 

Huh? That comment echos my thoughts, not yours. Differential equations work over the reals, the continuum of time that would require a computer to perform an infinite number of calculations for even the tiniest fraction of a second.

Your claim was that, according to Feynman, every infinitesimal piece of space requires an infinite number of equations to describe. I knew this couldn't be true, because Feynman himself helped work out the Lagrangian (a single equation) of spacetime in an electric field.

Lol. No, my claim was that “describing it” is different than the “actuality that is”.

Every piece of space needs infinite numbers of equations to describe as it truly is—not as a discretized approximation. Every equational apparatus is attempting to make the infinitely unknowable a quantized reference point — essentially bounding the boundless to make it referential.

 

Ohhhhhh... but he didn’t rebutt it!!! 29 pages! A moment of silence please! Let the record show this day!! He just wants to clarify it! He sees it as potentiality to work from!! I have won the 2020 discursive lottery Friday, May 1 at 2:14pm!

There’s some scripture somewhere on some stone:
“And when you shall see the sign of the 2090 T-9000 accept the possibility he exists outside of states, while Chronos abides in the 4th sidereal house of GTFO, know now this that the time is at hand!”
Representational vs. spatial, actual dimension FTW!

The 3D objects on the screen are bit-based representations, that your living mind even distinguishes from! No 1D brain knows the difference! QED 2.0! The _REAL vs. _REPRESENTATIONAL, the continuous vs. discrete!!

Uh. . . if the rebuttal wasn't obvious from the clarification, then clearly I wasn't clear enough.

My brain can hold the concept of a 3D cube in what we could describe as an n-bit sequence of binary states. Do you disagree with that statement? If so, then how about this:

My brain can form the concept of a 3D cube from a 2D array of binary photoreceptors. Any problems with this? (It's how vision works.)

 

Every piece of space needs infinite numbers of equations to describe as it truly is—not as a discretized approximation.

LOL, but Feynman was saying that the opposite is true; that infinite information is not necessary to describe a piece of space. That it appears so is only a byproduct of the particular type of math we use to describe it.

Feynman believed the universe is fundamentally simple. He was using "infinite calculations" (not "equations") in an exasperated manner to emphasize how absurd that is. You were using his quote as evidence from authority that we do need infinite whatever. I'm certain Feynman would've disagreed with ya.

 

Uh. . . if the rebuttal wasn't obvious from the clarification, then clearly I wasn't clear enough.

My brain can hold the concept of a 3D cube in what we could describe as an n-bit sequence of binary states. Do you disagree with that statement? If so, then how about this:

My brain can form the concept of a 3D cube from a 2D array of binary photoreceptors. Any problems with this? (It's how vision works.)

No!!!! “Concept” is different than reality! Your brain holds discrete 1D bits over 500 miles. You have no right to invoke “spatial” anything. Your states are NOT the box itself!

 

LOL, but Feynman was saying that the opposite is true; that infinite information is not necessary to describe a piece of space. That it appears so is only a byproduct of the particular type of math we use to describe it.

Feynman believed the universe is fundamentally simple. He was using "infinite calculations" (not "equations") in an exasperated manner to emphasize how absurd that is. You were using his quote as evidence from authority that we do need infinite whatever. I'm certain Feynman would've disagreed with ya.

I 10000% disagree. His tone was very serious about the crazy TRUTH of it. Why did that learned individual reply that way on Stack Exchange. Infinity exists!! It is non-numeric! Where is its role here with the discrete?? They are different things!

 

YOU saw the 3D BOX in real LIFE (something your innate lexicon knows the difference about??, and uses as a reference).

You have NO idea what and where this 3D box is until you spatially observe from every angle independent of your 1D circuits.

Your 1D brain at best stores 1D video of the 3D geometry! It differentiates between the REAL 3D box it saw, and the 1D bits that might represent it, and has a built-in lexicon to prove it! The BOX is NOT first a 1D concept!

You are NOT squirming out of this! I just QED’d your 1D derriere against the wall! Lol.

 

No!!!! “Concept” is different than reality! Your brain holds discrete 1D bits over 500 miles. You have no right to invoke “spatial” anything. Your states are NOT the box itself!

Reality is a concept. How do you know what's really "real" and what's not?

The "box of tissues" is a concept in my brain, too. Is there something "really" there that causes me to see a box of tissues; maybe! Whatever the "real" box of tissues is, the photoreceptors in my brain respond to the light from it. Each photoreceptor is a 1D information object, just like a bit. My brain maps the infromation from the n 1D photoreceptors to some jxk neural representation. This triggers a sh!t load of other processes on associated states in my memory, with the result that the "box of tissue" concept -- i.e., every spatial, emotional, etc. association of this neural pattern -- becomes part of my awareness.

If I were asleep and someone gently propped my eyelids open and placed the box of tissues in my field of vision, I would "see" it (our sensory sub-circuits are still online while we're sleeping). But I wouldn't be aware of seeing it -- I wouldn't have the experience of seeing it, as all the spatial, emotional, etc. associations wouldn't be made by my sleeping brain. The CONCEPT of "box of tissues" is the experience, not the wavelengths of light that reflect it.

 

I 10000% disagree. His tone was very serious about the crazy TRUTH of it.

Sweet lord, let's read the damn thing together:

"It always bothers me that, according to the laws as we understand them today, it takes a computing machine an infinite number of logical operations to figure out what goes on in no matter how tiny a region of space, and no matter how tiny a region of time. How can all that be going on in that tiny space? Why should it take an infinite amount of logic to figure out what one tiny piece of space/time is going to do? So I have often made the hypothesis that ultimately physics will not require a mathematical statement, that in the end the machinery will be revealed, and the laws will turn out to be simple, like the chequer board with all its apparent complexities."

The bold part tells the true story. He's bothered, as in annoyed, that the mathematics we use to describe the laws of physics can't even in principle be calculated by computers. He's annoyed because he feels, in his heart of hearts, that the laws are actually very simple (so simple a computer can calculate it!) and that we won't need fancy math to describe them. He makes an analogy with a checkerboard, which has "apparent" mathematical complexity (2^64 possible configurations!), but is so simple that any child can describe it without any math at all.

Get it now?

Why did that learned individual reply that way on Stack Exchange.

"Learned individual" is a hilarious epithet. Maybe he is, maybe he isn't. In any case, the poster focused on the continuous vs discrete aspect of differential equations vs computers. Nothing he said was wrong, but it buried the lead. Feynman's main point wasn't that computers can't calculate with real numbers (duh, everyone knows this), it was that the universe is simpler than the mathematics we use to describe it would suggest.

This is why Feynman concludes his "It always bothers me" thought with "ultimately physics will not require a mathematical statement". In other words, Feynman would vehemently disagree with you that we need "infinite equations" to describe a point in space.

 

Reality is a concept. How do you know what's really "real" and what's not?

The "box of tissues" is a concept in my brain, too. Is there something "really" there that causes me to see a box of tissues; maybe! Whatever the "real" box of tissues is, the photoreceptors in my brain respond to the light from it. Each photoreceptor is a 1D information object, just like a bit. My brain maps the infromation from the n 1D photoreceptors to some jxk neural representation. This triggers a sh!t load of other processes on associated states in my memory, with the result that the "box of tissue" concept -- i.e., every spatial, emotional, etc. association of this neural pattern -- becomes part of my awareness.

If I were asleep and someone gently propped my eyelids open and placed the box of tissues in my field of vision, I would "see" it (our sensory sub-circuits are still online while we're sleeping). But I wouldn't be aware of seeing it -- I wouldn't have the experience of seeing it, as all the spatial, emotional, etc. associations wouldn't be made by my sleeping brain. The CONCEPT of "box of tissues" is the experience, not the wavelengths of light that reflect it.

How do I know what "real" is and not? In the same way you use your built in definer to insist you know what "1D" and "bit" and "concept" even is.

We cannot, from this point forth, "cherry-pick" from the congenital lexicon, or there will be no truth. This is positively necessary.

You only know what '1D' is because you are using your built-in lexicon. Similarly, you know what SELF, BIT, CONCEPT is because of it.

If you first define yourself as a 1-bit processor using your lexicon, and then you look at yourself and allow the light waves bouncing off yourself to go into your "eye sensors" and rationally conclude, "I'm a 3D object in space that came from nature", the "CONCEPT" of yourself in your mind is a low-resolution "snapshot" that is WAY different from the actuality of what you are observing in real-time.

TO your own circuitry, you define YOURSELF as a 3D object in space and time, both of which are baseline empirical elements.

If you want me to try to convince you of something "I'm not alone about," it starts here: You cannot cherry-pick the dictionary and say you are not willing to believe what is lexically obvious and part of the discourse. 1D switches are NOT sufficient to "know" that "YOU" exist in the light as an above-1D "something" or you are breaching the lexical framework that you are using to inquire.

QED all day long.

 

YOU saw the 3D BOX in real LIFE (something your innate lexicon knows the difference about??, and uses as a reference).

No, I have no idea what you mean by "real life". All anyone can do is interpret data; we don't have a book of truth to compare our data against.

It bears mention that you're making several assumptions about the "reality" of the tissue box. You keep calling it "3D", as in three spatial dimensions, but that it is a minimal conceptual model. Physics tells us that the tissue box requires four spatial dimensions, so already you have a conflict. If we consider the tissue box in terms of its constituent parts, QFTs tell us we need several infinite-dimensional fields to minimally describe it. What you casually call "real" is not in any way obvious.

Your 1D brain at best stores 1D video of the 3D geometry! It differentiates between the REAL 3D box it saw, and the 1D bits that might represent it, and has a built-in lexicon to prove it! The BOX is NOT first a 1D concept!

Again, you seem excited about the "1D" aspect of bit sequences and the "3D" aspect of our most familiar geometry. I take it you think that, since 1 ≠ 3, there must be some extra stuff (5D soul!) going on to explain this irreconcilable interface.

You know the saying about comparing apples and oranges? I never liked that saying, because I can surely compare lots of things between apples and oranges, including shape, weight, taste, whatever.

A better way of expressing the idea is that we can't add apples to oranges. If I have four apples and three oranges, how many apples do I have? Four. How many oranges do I have? Three. You can't add apples and oranges. Why not? Because apples and oranges have different types. Addition requires that its operands have the same type, else the result doesn't have any meaning.

When you compare 1D bit sequences with 3D geometry, you are trying to add apples and oranges, because bit sequences and geometries have very different types. "What's the angle between two bits?" is as meaningless a question as "What's the entropy of a circle?" Two entirely different domains; we can't use the properties of one in the other. So, the "1D" aspect of bit sequences is completely unrelated to the "3D" aspect of Euclidean geometry. It is nonsensical to wonder whether a 3D geometrical object can "fit" inside a 1D bit sequence. It is as nonsensical as wondering about the angle between two bits.

Now, with that in mind, let's recall what bit sequences represent: information. The loveliest thing about information is that it's exceedingly general. Information is information, whether it represents facts about Utah or details about tissue boxes. So, as long as our bit sequences are long enough to hold the information, we can use them to store everything relevant to anything whatsoever. That's the great power of information. (Behold, the internet.)

In particular, a long enough sequence of bits can store all the relevant information of a tissue box, including all of its "3D" spatial details. This is the way a digitized movie about a tissue box works. If this weren't the case, then we wouldn't see a tissue box when we see the movie. You may protest, It's an illusion; there is not an actual "3D" tissue box in the movie. To which I'd say, the camera that captured the "3D-ness" of the tissue box did so using a matrix of 1D bits. These bits were used to modulate light sources on a monitor, which our eyes received on a matrix of 1D bits (photoreceptors). Our brain decodes the information from the light, arranges it in a matrix of 1D neural patterns, which we experience as "3D-ness".

Note that the tissue box information is always 1D. Our brains use that information to project a 3D scene, but the data is always 1D. A CPU can do the same trick; indeed, this is how drones can fly in 3D space using 1D sensors. Bits are one-dimensional, but a whole bunch of bits can store the information of anything, including all the details of a 1024D hyperspace.

 

How do I know what "real" is and not? In the same way you use your built in definer to insist you know what "1D" and "bit" and "concept" even is.

On the contrary, I defined "bit" and "concept" from first principles. "1D" is merely a mathematical technical detail of the degrees of freedom of a bit. It's implicit in the definition of "bit", but if you insist I can give a formal accounting of nD, for any n.

"Real", on the other hand, encompasses an entire universe of assumptions. I know what a "bit" is because I defined it; how do you know what "real" is?

If you first define yourself as a 1-bit processor using your lexicon, and then you look at yourself and allow the light waves bouncing off yourself to go into your "eye sensors" and rationally conclude, "I'm a 3D object in space that came from nature", the "CONCEPT" of yourself in your mind is a low-resolution "snapshot" that is WAY different from the actuality of what you are observing in real-time.

I'm pretty sure I'm more complex than a 1-bit processor. And when this processor looks in the mirror, it definitely interprets the data as being an object with three spatial dimensions. But this processor does not conclude that it is a 3D object in space. A significant portion of this processor's memory holds a bunch of information about physics, which cause it to be fairly certain that, whatever this processor is, it is not a 3D object.

You cannot cherry-pick the dictionary and say you are not willing to believe what is lexically obvious and part of the discourse.

The word "the" is lexically obvious; the word "soul" is not. Those are roughly the two ends of the spectrum, as I see it. Anything closer to "soul" than "the" needs explicit definition, or at least acknowledgement that it's not lexically obvious. Agree?

 

Sweet lord, let's read the damn thing together:

"It always bothers me that, according to the laws as we understand them today, it takes a computing machine an infinite number of logical operations to figure out what goes on in no matter how tiny a region of space, and no matter how tiny a region of time. How can all that be going on in that tiny space? Why should it take an infinite amount of logic to figure out what one tiny piece of space/time is going to do? So I have often made the hypothesis that ultimately physics will not require a mathematical statement, that in the end the machinery will be revealed, and the laws will turn out to be simple, like the chequer board with all its apparent complexities."

The bold part tells the true story. He's bothered, as in annoyed, that the mathematics we use to describe the laws of physics can't even in principle be calculated by computers. He's annoyed because he feels, in his heart of hearts, that the laws are actually very simple (so simple a computer can calculate it!) and that we won't need fancy math to describe them. He makes an analogy with a checkerboard, which has "apparent" mathematical complexity (2^64 possible configurations!), but is so simple that any child can describe it without any math at all.

Get it now?

"Learned individual" is a hilarious epithet. Maybe he is, maybe he isn't. In any case, the poster focused on the continuous vs discrete aspect of differential equations vs computers. Nothing he said was wrong, but it buried the lead. Feynman's main point wasn't that computers can't calculate with real numbers (duh, everyone knows this), it was that the universe is simpler than the mathematics we use to describe it would suggest.

This is why Feynman concludes his "It always bothers me" thought with "ultimately physics will not require a mathematical statement". In other words, Feynman would vehemently disagree with you that we need "infinite equations" to describe a point in space.

Ah, semantic crossed-wires here.

If we have a line with infinite points, every point can be graphed with the reals using some very basic f(x)=mx+b. To TRULY describe the line, we'd need the infinite ℝ and infinite f(x)'s to describe it at the *resolution it truly exists at* — and this is insane, impossible, and absurd from our vantage point.

"The physics in the end will NOT require a mathematical statement (such as the differential equation you proposed earlier)" speaks to the simplicity of what I'm proposing (and which I believe can be QED'd through proper discourse), that there are "5D forms of continuous, infinite resolution" that mathematical objects are derived from"; a SIMPLE statement, and a simple concept, and if "this" IS the underlying machinery, these are NOT describable using 4D discretizing phenomena — ONLY approximated.

From "our" vantage point, this "simple element" of continuous, mathematical objects *translates* into *what WOULD be* infinite equations to describe every element of them in space, and that is entirely absurd. He's speaking of the absurdity of being able to TRULY describe the infinite-resolution of continuous phenomena using our existing tools.

 

No, I have no idea what you mean by "real life". All anyone can do is interpret data; we don't have a book of truth to compare our data against.

It bears mention that you're making several assumptions about the "reality" of the tissue box. You keep calling it "3D", as in three spatial dimensions, but that it is a minimal conceptual model. Physics tells us that the tissue box requires four spatial dimensions, so already you have a conflict. If we consider the tissue box in terms of its constituent parts, QFTs tell us we need several infinite-dimensional fields to minimally describe it. What you casually call "real" is not in any way obvious.


Again, you seem excited about the "1D" aspect of bit sequences and the "3D" aspect of our most familiar geometry. I take it you think that, since 1 ≠ 3, there must be some extra stuff (5D soul!) going on to explain this irreconcilable interface.

You know the saying about comparing apples and oranges? I never liked that saying, because I can surely compare lots of things between apples and oranges, including shape, weight, taste, whatever.

A better way of expressing the idea is that we can't add apples to oranges. If I have four apples and three oranges, how many apples do I have? Four. How many oranges do I have? Three. You can't add apples and oranges. Why not? Because apples and oranges have different types. Addition requires that its operands have the same type, else the result doesn't have any meaning.

When you compare 1D bit sequences with 3D geometry, you are trying to add apples and oranges, because bit sequences and geometries have very different types. "What's the angle between two bits?" is as meaningless a question as "What's the entropy of a circle?" Two entirely different domains; we can't use the properties of one in the other. So, the "1D" aspect of bit sequences is completely unrelated to the "3D" aspect of Euclidean geometry. It is nonsensical to wonder whether a 3D geometrical object can "fit" inside a 1D bit sequence. It is as nonsensical as wondering about the angle between two bits.

Now, with that in mind, let's recall what bit sequences represent: information. The loveliest thing about information is that it's exceedingly general. Information is information, whether it represents facts about Utah or details about tissue boxes. So, as long as our bit sequences are long enough to hold the information, we can use them to store everything relevant to anything whatsoever. That's the great power of information. (Behold, the internet.)

In particular, a long enough sequence of bits can store all the relevant information of a tissue box, including all of its "3D" spatial details. This is the way a digitized movie about a tissue box works. If this weren't the case, then we wouldn't see a tissue box when we see the movie. You may protest, It's an illusion; there is not an actual "3D" tissue box in the movie. To which I'd say, the camera that captured the "3D-ness" of the tissue box did so using a matrix of 1D bits. These bits were used to modulate light sources on a monitor, which our eyes received on a matrix of 1D bits (photoreceptors). Our brain decodes the information from the light, arranges it in a matrix of 1D neural patterns, which we experience as "3D-ness".

Note that the tissue box information is always 1D. Our brains use that information to project a 3D scene, but the data is always 1D. A CPU can do the same trick; indeed, this is how drones can fly in 3D space using 1D sensors. Bits are one-dimensional, but a whole bunch of bits can store the information of anything, including all the details of a 1024D hyperspace.

Again, remember our constraints. Due to our mind's ability to over-theorize and create concepts that are potentially ontologically irrelevant and extraneous to the core building blocks, we must stay in the bare-bones sensorial lexicon, Euclid-style. "A point is something with no part," etc.

Dimensions from base observation:

0D = no part
1D = x axis
2D = y axis
3D = z axis
4D = time (potentially)

These are simply understood by visualization.

Again, if "REAL" or "REALITY" token that is built in — and in my estimation, as simple as "the" or "LIFE" in terms of its obviousness, than any QED will flow from the OBSERVABILITY of simple actualities that are built-in, to be observed within the mind, and external to the mind as "a space where things exist" (REALITY), which the lexicon insists is happening. The tissue box *in* the mind is lexically separate from the one *outside* it in REALITY. If I asked the question, "Did you see the box?" "Yes, I saw it." "Where?" "In my room." "Do you now have a "concept of the box" that you SAW?" "Yes, I have a concept in my mind of what I saw in my room." This is all 4 y/o congenital linguistics.

What is observable is all we have to work with, and simple inferences from these things. All science has been built on it up to this point. We HAVE to limit ourselves in this regard, because there are theories within theories within theories in the mind — 1024D hyperspace, etc. Talk about what Feynman said(!): Getting to the BASIC elements and letting them reveal themselves is what we must do here. We must do that by building a model for reason by delineating the built-in lexicon with respect to basic ontology! We have the linguistic skills to do so!

My proof before was based on the most basic of elements. It was as solid a proof as anything Euclid QED'd from base observation elements. If REALITY *IS* REAL *beyond* a "mental construct" and a stand-alone place where 5D infinite objects exist, including the SELF (the very fact this registers as a possibility is evidence of the case!), then if we continue to dance around the basic lexicon, we will NEVER get to it understanding a real model. The propositions must flow, like Euclid's, from THE most basic of building blocks we agreed to use.

So can you try to respond again from those constraints?

 

How do we know what "real is?"

Again, using the most elemental, congenital, linguistic components to every human (or we have no building-blocks of any kind for science):

REAL is an experiential term involving the senses. One defines something as REAL that can be touched, tasted, seen, heard, or smelled.

The term is connected to FACT and TRUTH. TRUTH is the ability to SENSE (using the 5 senses) a REAL thing outside the mind as having occurred in SPACE and TIME and verified (root of "ver" or truth) by one's own SENSES or someone ELSE'S (in the latter case, BELIEF is required).

A REAL thing has SENSIBLE properties (the tissue box can be seen, touched, etc.)

The term _REALITY is the set of all things _REAL.


It's at this level of discourse that any true ToE must be built from the ground up. We will then arrive at truly observable and relevant definitions to build the model.

If you read my initial QED again from the simple observational starting points, it really is a QED.

 

If we take this tact, we can see GR was envisioned from a thought experiment, where Einstein envisioned bent space to render gravity as an effect.

Brilliant idea.

But one could also envision an object moving in the same "unbent" space by its own accord and volition, where gravity is entirely arbitrary and self-defining on a per-object basis irrespective of even mass. Gravity here is a cause.

In fact, quantum particles seem to move "on their own volition" (or higher 5D progammatics) and this speaks to the potential of this phenomenon in real life.

Perhaps this system is what gravity is really about, and it's simply programmatically limited right now as a function of mass.

When people watch Superman, et. al., on the screen and can "feel" this actuality through the senses, this registers more experientially true to the base lexicon and experiential built-in system of reason, that even a child registers, vs. seeing gravity as an "effect."

Which is more readily reflective of the senses-based ontology as the baseline for inquiry?

 

And again, going back to the tissue box and using the senses as the arbiter of scientific inquiry:

If the box was blue, and everyone that saw it agreed, including you by using the base lexicon and observation system— and I came in and said it's red, and INSISTED on arguing this FACT, from my concept of TRUTH, independent of us both, you would get hella pissed at me for not speaking the TRUTH of the matter, using the basic human building blocks of reason, concerning the objective observational existence of the box outside of us both.

The box therefore can't be an arbitrary "concept" of switches in your head and one in "my head" and have either of us give a flying rat's fecal droppings WHAT IS concerning it. There is no science, no objective reality, no truth, no facts, nothing but nondescript switches.

You were annoyed I was interpreting Feynman incorrectly? If the quote is just a concept in your mind, who's to say my mind even has access to the same information? What is the arbiter of any of it, if it's just banks of switches with no reference point in the observable senses?

The observable senses—where we can perceive things and set the standard for truth, justice, and the scientific way—is how we must do business here, or we have no business, because everything is rendered as effectively equally true and false at the same time.