Negative, Houston. Your explanation, unlike quantum mechanics, has no foundation. Even if we are a deterministic hologram, we are a deterministic hologram that obeys the laws of quantum mechanics. It is necessarily so. Any theory that's more accurate than quantum mechanics will nonetheless have quantum mechanics within it. Bell's inequalities are indisputable and must ultimately be accounted for by any theory, including your 5D hologram.

Foundations, shmoundations! You worship these foundations in your church. I'm the murder hornet coming for the priest (not you, the new guy — you're sending in your pink slip). There is nothing about my explanation that doesn't find its way back to other plausible existing theories on the matter. They may not be canonized by your church, but that doesn't mean anything! That's why we're not using the church's starting place to build the objective model!

LOL, true, Newton was a mystical sunofabitch. Nevertheless, he well knew the difference between a good and a bad mathematical argument when he saw one. Note that numerology isn't wrong in the same way that saying "2 + 2 = 5" is wrong. Numerology is really just finding patterns where there are none, which is entirely different than making logical contradictions.

Yeah, but the "underlying machinery will not be described by a mathematical statement" per Feynman. It's why we're taking a novel BIOS-driven approach so that the machinery can reveal itself through internal observation, semantics, simple inference, etc. Newton believed in soul, God, divine intervention, providence, spirits, demon posession, etc. That is NO where in ontolo(). He would literally tell you, "God is directing the waves per observer" regarding that specific dress photo and not bat an eye. I guarantee that would be his explanation for that utterly grotesque anomaly in objective reality.

Einstein personally hated what quantum mechanics implies, but he never called it wrong -- he couldn't! What he did say was that quantum mechanics is incomplete, which it obviously is. But observers have nothing to do with it.

The hell they don't! It is PROVEN particles move differently in connection to their real-time observation. The observer's observation becomes a variable of the final function determining the particle's position! He also said at the end of his life that the same 4 fundamental forces are all "just one force" in the end. Funny, he never gave up on forces which are about seeing things as first-order causes, and not an effect.

My high school friend Scott was color blind. We'd drive around in his car together and, if it was late at night and there wasn't any traffic on the road, he'd ask me what color the traffic lights where. Without other cars to infer the stop/go condition, he had no idea what color the lights were. I highly doubt he's physiologically unique.

OMG — majoring on the minors much?! Your friend Scott had an M/L/S-cone DEFECT that less than 3% have most likely. He was an aberration from the 97% norm. If there wasn't a norm, we could not grok a defect!! Light is the norm, it is composed of objective colors. I got news for you. Your name isn't Javier, it's Hector, and you're a 32-year-old Haitian belly-dancer that likes to do maintenance on Timex Sinclairs in your spare time. You and I used to play pin-the-tail-on-the-Kronecker back on Miami beach in the late 90's. You remember that? And on our way back from the beach one time, a cop followed us and pulled us over for doing 80 in a 55. You told him even then there's no objective knowledge concerning the speed limit. The cop laughed his ass off and tacked on another charge to it. You remember. Don't deny it, Hector. Why are you laughing? Because I deviated from objective reality there using the same objective rules you use to create humor. "There is no objectivity," said the turds to the bull who just crapped them! And the guy at the psych-ward who ran outside, grabbed them, and is currently brandishing said turds to pitch them at the cafeteria personnel because he thinks that makes objective _SENSE to do. That guy is certainly not interested in an objective, undeniable model.

Erm, how would you know? Perception is, by its nature, personal and so any discrepancies are unlikely to be noticed except by dumb luck. People don't usually walk around describing their perceptions.

We are using words that are objective phenomena that permit discourse. The words are reflective of a reality that exists. If not? We don't exist, the computers don't exist, and we might as well sling SCSI terminators dipped in hot chocolate at each other instead of this futile activity, because there's "nothing to know."

You claim that The Dress is uniquely grotesque, except for Laurel vs Yanny (so not actually unique). But Laurel vs Yanny is not unique, either; there's, for instance, Brainstorm vs Green Needle. The fact that there's an entire catalogue of visual/audio illusions and curiosities speaks to the very fuzziness of perception. The McGurk effect is a profoundly grotesque example of how data from our senses mix in forming perceptions. The Dress is just one example of perceptual ambiguity, and you're claiming it as the unique glitch in the matrix that reveals the 5D infrastructure. I'll take Occam's razor for $200, Alex.

Sigh. I said "the dress" AND "the Laurel/Yanny are 100% grotesquely unique" — one is the audio version of the other, and BOTH are the equivalent of 99% of the population confusing green and red traffic lights, or saying that EVH is opera. No "catalog of aberrational perceptions" has one thing in it that is but 1% that grotesque to the point married people were ready to get divorced over it!

 

And who says it's finite and not infinite at the same time? Like INFINITY we use as an axiom that is defined outside of numbers but ALSO bound it to make a number!

Who's to say 42 is not finite and infinite at the same time? George Boole, for one.

The set of things that are finite is the complement of the set of things that are infinite. To claim that they are the same set is to accept that "A AND NOT A" is true. And if you do that, you've broken Boole's logic beyond repair.

You were the guy who keeps saying numbers are not connected, and that 0111010 is not a number. Who is to say "42" is the "countable digit" after 41? Who's to say they're related?

I don't know what you mean by "connected" numbers, so I don't know if I actually said that. And "0111010", as a string, is most certainly not a number, any more than "42" is.

For some reason, you think base-2 representations are special, that they confer a pureness to the representation not present in other representations. But you never answered an earlier question I asked of you: If "0101" is the number five, then what number is"101"?

The answer is that none of those things are numbers, they're just symbols. Under one interpretation (unsigned), "101" can represent the number five; under another interpretation (two's-complement), "101" can represent the number negative three; under another (floating point), it might represent the number four-hundreths.

When we say that "42" follows "41", we don't mean that the symbol "42" follows the symbol "41". We mean that the number represented by forty-two follIows the number represented by forty-one. In base-42 representation, the symbol that follows "41" is "10", and this is expressing exactly the same thing that "42" follows "41" expresses.

Numbers are not their representations. Each number is a unique set of numeric properties; their representations are arbitrary and only have symbolic properties.

Says the guy who just said we can map every ℝ-based n to between 0 and 1??? That is no proof pi is a finite number. We're still counting. You think it's finite at the 900 quadrillionth digit? It hails from the relationship between the circumference and diameter which need to be defined INTERNALLY and built from scratch using the real infinite numbers, not in the FINITE world we live in that is bounding everything and their mother into discrete elements.

Gah, this is the pinnacle of wrongness. You've climbed Mt. Everwrong and planted a flag. The amount of digits in a number's representation has absolutely nothing to do with its magnitude or size. Do you really think that Pi, with over 900 quadrillion digits, is larger than 4, which has only one digit?

Did you know that 0.1 in base-2 has infinite digits?

Did you know that 42 in base-Pi has infinite digits?

Did you know that Pi in base-Pi has precisely two digits?

You really need to grok the difference between a number and its representation, otherwise you're going to be hopelessly confused about these things. Just as the representation "dog" -- a string of symbols -- is not an actual dog, the representation "0101" -- a string of symbols -- is not an actual number. And just as we can pick arbitrary representations for dogs, including "perro", we can pick arbitrary representations for numbers, including "5". Whatever properties hold for dogs do not hold for any of its representations; likewise, whatever properties hold for a number do not hold for any of its representations.

Exactly. I'm saying it IS part of an alien recipe for chicken soup. It is a LABEL for some unique infinity. You can't say we can make the infinite n to between 0 and 1 and not say it's weird we don't understand between the relationship of infinity and the numeric!

If you're using "42" as a label for some unique infinity (whatever that means), then it's no longer acting as the label for the number forty-two. Full stop. The instant you associate "42" with a property that is not in the set of properties of the natural number we typically associate with "42", you've stopped talking about that number and started talking about something else. Go ahead and look up the properties for the number 42; you will not find "infinite" or "infinity" among them. Therefore, what you label as "42" is not the number we typically associate with it.

And I'd like to burn that house down right now, because you only have base 2, two fingers to work with, and numbers are like 0101011011011100 and 10100110 and 1101010. And now tell me what is related to what. Computers have no problem dealing with numbers having no "properties."

I keep repeating myself: computers don't deal with numbers. Computers deal with voltages.

When we are taught how to add "142 + 19", by carrying the one and such, are we dealing with numbers? No! We are dealing with symbols that we call decimal digits, but they are not numbers. We teach kids recipes for manipulating these symbols, and we call these recipes "addition", "subtraction", etc. But these recipes are not mathematical operations, they are symbolic transformations.

I can justify this claim by pointing out that, whatever number system we use, the result of an operation such as addition must be the same. In other words, 5 + 7 = 12 in base-10 must always agree with 0101 + 0111 = 1010 in unsigned base-2. However, the recipe for getting these results changes depends on the representation we're using. We can't follow the same recipe in base-10 to get the correct result in base-2 (or base-42 or whatever).

In other words, addition -- as a mathematical operation on numbers -- is invariant and independent of any particular representation. But symbol manipulation -- the recipes -- must always change with the representation. Therefore, addition and its symbolic recipe are not the same thing.

And just as we're not adding numbers when we manipulate decimal digits, a computer does not add numbers when it manipulates voltages. Computer arithmetic, like grade school arithmetic, is just a bunch of recipes. Recalling an earlier rant of mine, following recipes is not doing math, and this speaks directly to that fact.

 

A repeating number is INFINITE.

No, no, no. Sweet mercy, no.

The number represented by 1/3 has a non-terminating decimal representation: 0.333... The base-10 representation has an INFINITE (unbounded) number of digits, but the number itself is extremely finite -- it's almost zero!

Here's the fun, crucial fact: we can always choose another base in which the representation terminates. For example, in base-3, 1/3 has an extremely finite representation: 0.1.

So, if 1/3 is non-terminating when we represent it one way, but terminating when represented in another way, what does that say about the "reality" of representations?

 

Let's say 3 is just a label for a "UNIQUE" infinity-as-thing. Instantiate a theoretical cube of continuous points in your mind, each line containing infinite points. Label it 1. Then do another cube next to it. Label it 2. Then another cube. Label it 3. How does "3" relate to the geometry of the cube and its infinite points? Could 3 mean "this unique group of infinite points?"

But the fact that we labeled a distinct cube with 3 has nothing to do with what the cube is made of. I can equally say:

Imagine a finite point, label it 1. Imagine another next to it, label it 2. Imagine another next to it, label it 3.

The composition of the things being labeled is not what the label 3 is applying to; the label is applying to the discreteness of the objects being so labeled! There is no infinity anywhere near 3! Three is basically zero when compared to, say, a trillion.

Yes, I agree — though this is problematic(!) Because "REAL" is a token in the BIOS and is being used by something that may indeed not fully encapsulate it properly!

I have no such token in my model. As of yet, REAL is undefined.

 

I'm assuming you realize why the steps above are invalid and were just trying to be funny

Yeah, math is the only subject that counts.
I'll tone it down a bit.
You're a good guy I'll leave you alone.

Never discuss infinity with a mathematician you'll never hear the end of it.

 

Who's to say 42 is not finite and infinite at the same time? George Boole, for one.

The set of things that are finite is the complement of the set of things that are infinite. To claim that they are the same set is to accept that "A AND NOT A" is true. And if you do that, you've broken Boole's logic beyond repair.

And I keep repeating myself here: I give immense respect to Boole, but I don't give a sh*t in the end if we need to burn another house down! Boole had no idea what entanglement is either!

You yourself have said certain things are "weird" — that specific relationship of mapping n within 0 and 1 and ±∞. Weird really just means: "Our existing reference points might need to be burned down to get it!"

INFINITY is not a number, so who the hell is it anyone's business to say that when we TREAT it as a number, it becomes provisionally finite, but not ALSO maintaining both finitude and infinitude properties at the same time???! And who is to say 42 is not "ONE of those entangled things??"

And Kronecker not giving a sh*t about Des Cartes and his invention of the REALS???

We are probing UNDEFINED AREAS. The current DEFINITIONS don't WORK or they would have defined them by now!

Tabula rasa, base reference points only from both of us here: We need to get back to defining the model from this place, or it's game over. We cannot be limited by any foundation here besides our own engines and observations!

In terms of this scope and project, we cannot care what "42" is in base-11 as compared to base 268, decimal lengths, and all these other abstractions. We don't even know what a symbol is yet, or what a "symbolic transformation" is. These have nothing to do with this new house's foundation based on zero-and-one foot pedals, and not someone's Visual Basic SDK!!

 

I still think a lot of what these things you're referencing are not necessarily based in the fundamental ontology of existence and how numbers correlate to what is, but how "number theoretics have defined them based on abstract building blocks that are not the elementary phenomena." I.e., there MAY or MAY not be ontological truth to them. I don't see "base 3 or base 10" ontologically. I only see base 2, based on literal observation. Kronecker's thought that the integers are "all that is" is along the same lines of trying to get to the core elements: e.g., if he made a bunch of statements challenging the nature of sets and their elements and interrelations, you might argue them from your existent database of abstractions and say he too was on the top of Mt. Everwrong. ;--)

So, tabula rasa, this is one of the terms on the list — "What specifically is a number by your definition?" And how does a bit, as a "fundamental QUANTITY" connect to this definition? And how do these definitions relate to the voltage high and lows in your brain?

For the record, I take equal responsibility for NOT responding tabula rasa myself and detouring into the use of terms that overlap in the existing nomenclatures.

 

What's wrong with LOGIC or LOGICAL for a word that captures the internal "makes conceptual sense" meaning? I offered a few other candidates, as well.

You're comfortable using LOGIC for spatiality as well as for equational elements?

Ugh, that is not obvious to me at all. In fact, I disagree with its premise. Assuming that we know what we mean by "IN MY MIND" (hah!), when I close my eyes I most definitely see something. My optical system doesn't stop working just because my somewhat opaque eyelids have covered my photosensors. I see changing colors and shapes and patterns. A simple experiment easily demonstrates that we are indeed still seeing -- point a bright flashlight near your closed eyes and turn it on. Try it.

There's a difference between your "eye sensors" and what you envision in your _MIND, though. You're making them a direct correlation as if you can't separate them. You can close your eyes, and 5 minutes later after you've reset the space within it, and discharged all of the external stimulus, envision a specific toaster that you did not see through your physical sensors at any time in the past 24 hours. When you make the toaster appear, would you declare, with respect to that thing:

IN MY MIND, I SEE SOMETHING​

And if you make it disappear, in its space, you'd say,

IN MY MIND, I SEE NOTHING
​

?

In most situations, the seeing my closed eyes are doing is external (proven by the flashlight experiment). There are ways to drastically reduce external stimuli, such as sensory deprivation chambers, and even in those cases the (external) senses are still working. People in such chambers report strong hallucinations after a while, as it seems that the brain -- in its struggle to latch on to whatever sensory input is available -- amplifies and augments the data with its own.

This is again not seeing a distinction between internal and external though. I'm talking about just the thought realm.

I can, however, get on board with the SOMETHING/NOTHING dichotomy. To wit,

SOMETHING is the CONCEPT developed by associating the detection of an external stimulus as a distinct STATE.

For example, as you're walking through the woods, the auditory system is responding to various sounds -- birds chirping, wind blowing through the trees -- that the brain deems unimportant. Each of these acoustic events is processed but not given a distinct state. Suddenly, you hear the loud crack of a branch breaking nearby. Your brain deems this acoustic event important and gives it a distinct state; you heard something, possibly indicating a threat.

As this detection process goes on essentially constantly in our lives, with all of our senses, we develop an association of such distinct perceptual events that is abstracted from the particular details of any single event. This absract association is the CONCEPT of SOMETHING, The SOMETHING stands for any particular sound we hear, movement we see, etc. It is the distinction itself. And from SOMETHING, it's a short conceptual step to recognize NOTHING, i.e., the absence of SOMETHING.

Again, this is all based in externality. I'm JUST talking internally.

I'd say that "I BELIEVE SOMETHING IS THERE" is more accurate. I take KNOW to imply something infallible; I KNOW that 2 + 2 = 4.

We have not defined BELIEVE yet, though. We have to deal first with the observation of what is THERE in the _MIND.

But that is a BELIEF of existence, and doesn't speak to any ontological truth. A person having a psychotic episode may strongly believe that Abraham Lincoln is attacking him with a machete, but we wouldn't say that Abe has existence. Hopefully you will agree that "exists to me" is not a sufficient property of EXISTENCE.

Well, you have a lot of issues with that, Dr. State Machinelli. Like Siri knows what the weather is or anything outside her. But we won't go back there yet. EXISTENCE is a group of states to you, so I'm not sure how you're giving them all sorts of "outside and inside" properties or really any kind of dimensionality whatsoever.

But I'm talking specifically about when you close your eyes, and 10 minutes later, after there is no stimulus, and you can get your mind clear as possible, what is SOMETHING vs. NOTHING to you internally?

 

What do you think of the below (I say objects and m-objects are different [feel free to rename].. one is integer-based, and one is infinite/continuous, and I insist “knowing” what an object is consciously is different from Siri’s “match discrete states” of one m-object to another in a state machine):

SPACE A field of infinite potential points

POINT A fundamental spatial something that is discrete, countable, and observable

OBJECT A first order continuous and infinite group of points forming an observable 2D or 3D form (AKA a symbol)

M-OBJECT A second order, derivative, simulative object with finite points identifiable only through Interpolation to its first-order object version

BIT State of existence concerning a point or object (there or not there)

NUMBER SET A special pointer object containing ordinal linked objects called NUMBERS that can be mapped to objects outside the parent pointer object

NUMBER An object of a NUMBER SET


See, this is why a symbol and object are identical to me.

Instantiate an object in your mind having a 100 billion points (beyond capacity of physical brain). You can count each bit, but they are not stored in the neurons (not enough space!), nor can they be spatially observed as described!

 

The problem with “logical” for inner conceptual sense is that it has zero observational indication, which is the actual point.

At any moment, you can invoke 1 of 5 internal senses to interact with forms in your mind, entirely irrespective of any prior recent stimulus. A memory from 20 years ago involving a car. You can see the car, enter it, smell it, throw a stone at it.

Who or what is doing this in your states? Zero recent residual imagery from your sensors!

And then you can do separate logical operations on what you are “internally sensing” years after the original stimulus, assigning wave tokens to specific parts of the geometry, etc. Every last detail... this is also on a timer with only voltage states and flip flops? The instructions randomly generated by “state nature?”

 

The hell they don't! It is PROVEN particles move differently in connection to their real-time observation. The observer's observation becomes a variable of the final function determining the particle's position!

Not quite. What you are attributing to observation is just quantum decoherence, which happens whether or not anyone is "watching".

An electron that's completely isolated from everything else in the universe is in a pure state, a superposition of all possible quantum states that the electron can physically have. Mathematically, the pure state-space of the electron is a complex-valued Hilbert space, which we'll call \( V \). Let's suppose that the electron's current state is represented by a vector \( v \in V \).

Imagine that the electron is in a very high quality, well-shielded vacuum chamber. Within the chamber, we can fire a single photon at the electron. The state-space of the photon is a Hilbert space \( W \), and we prepare the photon to be in a pure state \( w \in W \). We fire the photon at the electron, causing them to interact (become entangled). What happens to the electron?

Intuitively, we'd expect the electron's new state to be a combination of the original pure states, that is, the tensor product of the original state vectors: \( v \otimes w \). But what actually happens is that the entire state-spaces combine into a larger Hilbert space \( V \otimes W \). This is noteworthy because the tensor product of an m-dimensional space with an n-dimensional space is an mn-dimensional space. In other words, there are more states in \( V \otimes W \) than can be represented by independent linear combinations \( v \otimes w\), for any \( v \) or \( w \) in their respective spaces.

These "extra" states are the entangled states. Since they are linearly dependent, they represent correlation. And that's exactly what entanglement is, correlation. The state of the electron, after interacting with the photon, is correlated to the photon -- we can no longer describe the electron's state independently from the photon.

Note a couple of things here. First, the entanglement happened without anyone needing to "observe" it. Indeed, the photon might have been absorbed by the electron, in which case -- without a photon to hit the eye -- no one could have "seen" the event. Second, imagine what would happen to the electron's state-space if it were suddenly no longer protected in a vacuum chamber. The electron would very quickly become entangled with things in its environment (each of which is entangled with other things in the environment). Within an instant, the electron's state-space would explode with correlations.

We call this phenomenon quantum decoherence, and it explains why we don't normally see pure quantum effects: whatever quantum weirdness existed at the pure-state level is statistically buried in correlation noise from the environment. Out of all the possible states in the uber-large Hilbert space of decohered objects, certain states have symmetries that make them statistically favorable -- these states correspond to the classical behavior that we normally see.

Incidentally, this is what Bell's theorem is all about. His inequalities quantify what classical correlations would predict, and since his inequalities are empirically violated, we know that the universe must have quantum correlations.

He also said at the end of his life that the same 4 fundamental forces are all "just one force" in the end. Funny, he never gave up on forces which are about seeing things as first-order causes, and not an effect.

Physicists have already unified the electromagnetic interaction with the weak nuclear interaction ("force" is so 17th century), and continue to look for a theory that can unify them all.

OMG — majoring on the minors much?! Your friend Scott had an M/L/S-cone DEFECT that less than 3% have most likely. He was an aberration from the 97% norm. If there wasn't a norm, we could not grok a defect!! Light is the norm, it is composed of objective colors. I got news for you. Your name isn't Javier, it's Hector, and you're a 32-year-old Haitian belly-dancer that likes to do maintenance on Timex Sinclairs in your spare time. You and I used to play pin-the-tail-on-the-Kronecker back on Miami beach in the late 90's. You remember that? And on our way back from the beach one time, a cop followed us and pulled us over for doing 80 in a 55. You told him even then there's no objective knowledge concerning the speed limit. The cop laughed his ass off and tacked on another charge to it. You remember. Don't deny it, Hector. Why are you laughing? Because I deviated from objective reality there using the same objective rules you use to create humor. "There is no objectivity," said the turds to the bull who just crapped them! And the guy at the psych-ward who ran outside, grabbed them, and is currently brandishing said turds to pitch them at the cafeteria personnel because he thinks that makes objective _SENSE to do. That guy is certainly not interested in an objective, undeniable model.

LOL. Still, even if it's just 3% of the population, that's still hundreds of millions of people. It is an incredible understatement to say that perception is fallible.

Sigh. I said "the dress" AND "the Laurel/Yanny are 100% grotesquely unique" — one is the audio version of the other, and BOTH are the equivalent of 99% of the population confusing green and red traffic lights, or saying that EVH is opera. No "catalog of aberrational perceptions" has one thing in it that is but 1% that grotesque to the point married people were ready to get divorced over it!

I think you're missing the point. Even if The Dress is the most extreme example, there's an enormous sh!t load of extreme examples of sensory WTFness. Given how gullible and ridiculously unreliable our perceptions are, I don't understand how anyone would want to use them as the starting point for truth!

 

And I keep repeating myself here: I give immense respect to Boole, but I don't give a sh*t in the end if we need to burn another house down! Boole had no idea what entanglement is either!

But the mathematics of entanglement of are perfectly clear, and in no way contradict basic propositional logic.

You yourself have said certain things are "weird" — that specific relationship of mapping n within 0 and 1 and ±∞. Weird really just means: "Our existing reference points might need to be burned down to get it!"

I've never mapped n to ±∞, though -- given the notational ambiguity -- I can see how you would interpret that. In the context of functions and sets, the notation "a → b" is often used for "a maps to b". On the other hand, the notation "n → ∞" is shorthand for "in the limit, as the variable n increases without bound". There's even a third usage: in logic, "A → B" is a common shorthand for "if A, then B".

Usually the context is clear, but even if not, the symbols surrounding the arrow can help disambiguate. Set elements (and so, by extension, the inputs and outputs to functions) are almost always written with lowercase letters. So the arrow in "a → b", "x → y", and "n → m" are all very likely referring to set/function maps. Propositional statements are almost always written with uppercase letters, usually starting from A or from P. So, "P → Q" probably means "if P, then Q". Finally, if you see an arrow and an infinity sign, it almost certainly implies a limit, a process, as there very few mathematical fields that treat infinity as something that can be mapped to.

INFINITY is not a number, so who the hell is it anyone's business to say that when we TREAT it as a number, it becomes provisionally finite, but not ALSO maintaining both finitude and infinitude properties at the same time???!

What?! One can't validly treat INFINITY as number, so what are you talking about?

And who is to say 42 is not "ONE of those entangled things??"

I don't understand why what anyone says matters. YOU can say that "42" is an entangled thing, but then you're co-opting the symbol for something else. You would NOT be talking about the number that we usually associate with the symbol "42".

I can say that "dog" means "cellphone". Big whoop.

We are probing UNDEFINED AREAS. The current DEFINITIONS don't WORK or they would have defined them by now!

No, no, no. ℝ is not an undefined area, it's an incredibly well-studied area, and the current definitions DO work. If you want to invent something else, fine, but don't call it ℝ.

Tabula rasa, base reference points only from both of us here: We need to get back to defining the model from this place, or it's game over. We cannot be limited by any foundation here besides our own engines and observations!

But then you can't invoke things like ℝ as part of your argument, because when you do, you necessarily bring all of the foundations that ℝ implies.

 

I don't see "base 3 or base 10" ontologically. I only see base 2, based on literal observation.

I'm truly flabbergasted why you think that base-2 has exalted ontological status over base-n for any other n. I mean, what's special about the number 2 over any other number?

Why not base-1? If any base were fundamental as a "literal observation", then base-1 would be it! The number five is @@@@@, clear as day!

Seriously, what is special about the number 2?

I'm really trying to understand your position, so help me out here. Do you acknowledge that a number is independent of its symbolic representation? Like, do you get that we can write the number eight as "8", "ocho" "1000", "10" and countless other ways, and all of them are exactly equivalent?

Kronecker's thought that the integers are "all that is" is along the same lines of trying to get to the core elements: e.g., if he made a bunch of statements challenging the nature of sets and their elements and interrelations, you might argue them from your existent database of abstractions and say he too was on the top of Mt. Everwrong. ;--)

Yup, old Kronecker and I would disagree on a bunch of stuff. But he would most certainly agree with me that numbers are independent from their representations. ;-)

So, tabula rasa, this is one of the terms on the list — "What specifically is a number by your definition?" And how does a bit, as a "fundamental QUANTITY" connect to this definition? And how do these definitions relate to the voltage high and lows in your brain?

A NUMBER is an abstraction of COUNTING (a process I've already defined). Specifically, NUMBER is the association that the thing being counted is independent from the process of COUNTING. It is the recognition that the STATE in the COUNTING process corresponding to three sheep is the same as the STATE corresponding to three lemons.

As defined before, a BIT is a discrete unit of INFORMATION. We measure INFORMATION by COUNTING how many BITs we need to represent it. We can represent BITs with strings of 0s and 1s, though that representation is neither unique nor necessary. There are many other ways to represent bits: on and off light source, high and low voltages with respect to some reference voltage, phase change with respect to some reference frequency, etc.

BITs are discrete and can be counted. By COUNTING BITs, we can associate bit strings with NUMBERs. One possible map associates the string "101" with the NUMBER "five". Another possible map associates "high-low-high" voltages with the NUMBER "negative three".

 

You're comfortable using LOGIC for spatiality as well as for equational elements?

The phrase "makes internal sense" conveys that a concept is logically sound. When we look at an Escher print, we have a "doesn't make internal sense" feeling, because the spatial depiction is not logically sound. The external stimulus is right there, so this is purely an internal thing. So, yes, I'm comfortable with LOGIC for spatial "internal makes senseness".

There's a difference between your "eye sensors" and what you envision in your _MIND, though.

I can't know for sure because we haven't defined what _MIND is. To move the conversation along, I'll assume _MIND/MIND refers to internal associations, i.e., a set of brain states that are primarily self-referential.

You can close your eyes, and 5 minutes later after you've reset the space within it, and discharged all of the external stimulus, envision a specific toaster that you did not see through your physical sensors at any time in the past 24 hours. When you make the toaster appear, would you declare, with respect to that thing:

IN MY MIND, I SEE SOMETHING​

And if you make it disappear, in its space, you'd say,

IN MY MIND, I SEE NOTHING
​

?

Within the model, I would say "A state associated with a toaster has been loaded into the self-referential state that is associated with my optical states." Deleting that state is just a matter of loading another state. My friends who practice meditation work at keeping this self-referential state as empty as possible.

We have not defined BELIEVE yet, though. We have to deal first with the observation of what is THERE in the _MIND.

BELIEF seems easy: it's the probability calculation that a state or set of states is accurate with respect to some other state(s).

Well, you have a lot of issues with that, Dr. State Machinelli. Like Siri knows what the weather is or anything outside her.

Siri absolutely knows what the weather is -- ask her! In fact, she probably knows a lot more about the weather right now than I, sitting at a desk, do.

EXISTENCE is a group of states to you, so I'm not sure how you're giving them all sorts of "outside and inside" properties or really any kind of dimensionality whatsoever.

UNIVERSE is the total set of states. EXISTENCE is a property of a state that is true if it is a member of UNIVERSE, and false if it is not. I don't know think we can cogently say much more about it.

 

I need to ask you this question before I reply to the other stuff:

Do I, or any people you know, exist outside the states in your brain that correlate to them, and if they do, what are they objectively?

I need to grok the totality of your reference point with respect to objective vs. subjective argument.

 

SPACE A field of infinite potential points

What's a "field"? What's "potential"? By "infinite" do you mean INFINITY? Be as precise possible, please. Also, it's customary to order definitions so that they build on each other, e.g., POINT is defined before SPACE, since SPACE requires POINT.

POINT A fundamental spatial something that is discrete, countable, and observable

By "spatial", I assume you mean a three-dimensional object, which jibes with its property of being observable. So, what does a POINT look like?

OBJECT A first order continuous and infinite group of points forming an observable 2D or 3D form (AKA a symbol)

What does "first order" mean? You've equated OBJECT and SYMBOL by definition, but this is opposite to the usual notion of SYMBOL as something abstract that refers to an OBJECT. This needs to be justified or changed.

M-OBJECT A second order, derivative, simulative object with finite points identifiable only through Interpolation to its first-order object version

What does "derivative, simulative object" mean? What is "interpolation"?

BIT State of existence concerning a point or object (there or not there)

This is problematic. What definese "existence", i.e., where is "there"? Presumably the "there" is not the same place as where the state of thereness (the BIT) is stored, right?

If one BIT is a state of existence (there or not there), then what are ten BITs? You've stated before that BITs are independent, so then ten BITs must be the states of existence of ten things. Everyday we transfer tons of information with "bits", most of it requiring state that is far more complex than a simple "there/not there" state. My address book in Outlook uses a whole bunch of bits to encode varied information about pretty much everyone I know. How do you reconcile your definition of BIT with the "bits" we use daily?

NUMBER SET A special pointer object containing ordinal linked objects called NUMBERS that can be mapped to objects outside the parent pointer object

What's a "pointer object". What's an "ordinal"?

NUMBER An object of a NUMBER SET

I'd give you this one, but you called NUMBER an OBJECT, which means that it has "2D or 3D form". So, what is the shape of a NUMBER? What do NUMBERs look like?

See, this is why a symbol and object are identical to me.

Yeah, because you defined them to be identical. You didn't actually show that what appear to be two different things -- objects and symbols -- are actually the same thing.

Instantiate an object in your mind having a 100 billion points (beyond capacity of physical brain). You can count each bit, but they are not stored in the neurons (not enough space!), nor can they be spatially observed as described!

This is sloppy. First, you can't visualize anywhere near 100 billion points; beyond thirty or so, whatever you imagine will no longer be a set of discrete things. So, how exactly do you "instantiate" such a thing? Second, even if you somehow could perform such an instatiation, you cannot actually count each bit. Even if each point could be represented by a single bit (which, according to you, it can't, as points are spatial in extent), and even if you could sustain a rate of 10 bits per second, it would take you well over 300 years. Not to mention that your brain can't hold a count for very long -- it would take extraordinary practice and energy to hit 100,000. Try it!

 

At any moment, you can invoke 1 of 5 internal senses to interact with forms in your mind, entirely irrespective of any prior recent stimulus. A memory from 20 years ago involving a car. You can see the car, enter it, smell it, throw a stone at it.

Who or what is doing this in your states? Zero recent residual imagery from your sensors!

There is always residual sensory data, even when we are sleeping. Our senses do not go offline.

In any case, our sensory data is stored in memory. From my childhood memories, I can evoke the smell of my mom's cooking decades later by thinking about it. So what? The associations are there, some particularly deep/strong. Recalling a memory is an information process. Why do you think this is magical or not explainable by simple state transformations?

 

I need to ask you this question before I reply to the other stuff:

Do I, or any people you know, exist outside the states in your brain that correlate to them, and if they do, what are they objectively?

I need to grok the totality of your reference point with respect to objective vs. subjective argument.

I can't be sure of anything. But, after thinking about it for most of my life, I'd put the probability as "very likely" that the states which I associate with you and everyone else I know are reflective of other state machines, (mostly) independent of my own. There is always some correlation, as we are (likely) all part of the single universal state machine.

 

I can't be sure of anything. But, after thinking about it for most of my life, I'd put the probability as "very likely" that the states which I associate with you and everyone else I know are reflective of other state machines, (mostly) independent of my own. There is always some correlation, as we are (likely) all part of the single universal state machine.

Flip flops (neuronal or otherwise) are on or off. Banks upon banks of them. They store the data that represents everyone. Does any one or arbitrary group of flip flops know the difference between your bank teller, your family member, or me?

 

Flip flops are on or off. Banks upon banks of them. They store the data that represents everyone. Does any one or arbitrary group of flip flops know the difference between your bank teller, your family member, or me?

Some of the flip flops are dedicated to memory storage, others are dedicated to input processing; some to internal systems regulation, and yet others are dedicated to pattern recognition. Any single flip flop doesn't know anything about the whole contraption.

But when my wife walks into the room, the groups of flip flops associated with my input processing cause my pattern recognition flip flops to search through memory. Upon finding a match -- hey, hon -- a bunch of other groups of flip flops come online and I think, "shit, I forgot to take out the trash".