Machines are nothing more than telegraphers.

So, how do you propose a unary morse code or braille?

(Btw, if you suggest “time in between dot pulses,” you have made “time” the dash)

 

Huh? Qubits cannot be described in terms of binary states -- that's what makes them qubits and not regular bits.

You seem to be confusing the fact that we can compare qubits with bits, which is fine as they're both units of information.

If you want an out from quantum hell -- which I'd completely understand, since quantum computing completely destroys your binary MOTHER theory -- you can just point to the fact that we're not yet certain that quantum computation is indeed more powerful than classical computation. You'd be invoking the extended Church-Turing thesis, which -- as of yet -- has not been disproved. The recent result from Google's quantum computer is still up for debate.

Ummm... totally does NOT destroy it—in my estimation, simply bolsters it further... not sure on what planet a qubit is not simply a probablistic binary Shannon bit with the potential of occupying another Shannon bit in the same space:

Right from quantum computer manufacturer D-Wave’s site: “Computation is performed by initializing the quantum processing unit (QPU) into a ground state of a known problem and annealing the system toward the problem to be solved such that it remains in a low energy state throughout the process. At the end of the computation, each qubit ends up as either a [binary] 0 or 1. This final state is the optimal or near-optimal solution to the problem to be solved.”

Literally every scholarly page you read, the qubit is described in terms of the more elemental Shannon bit. Quantum computing is "packing more classical Shannon bits into a smaller space." The worth of any quantum calculation is its ability to yield a 0 or 1. That's it...

We call “multiple bits in the same space” qubits. A quantum computer is still implementing the same elementary binary "morse code", and you can’t telegraph morse code with a unary operator. That’s why Shannon crystallized the fundamental “meaningful” unit of information as a Shannon bit. The coin toss is heads or tails, not teads or hails. Quantum computing is just a load of binary computers occupying the same space.

"In quantum information theory, superdense coding (or dense coding) is a quantum communication protocol to transmit two classical bits of information (i.e., either 00, 01, 10 or 11) from a sender (often called Alice) to a receiver (often called Bob), by sending only one qubit from Alice to Bob, under the assumption of Alice and Bob pre-sharing an entangled state."

 

We are using "Truthy" as our basis alone (if you want to call it that) by insisting on some basic things like you did in the proof.

The word "true" is a communicatory and conceptual landmine. It is far too easy to mistakenly associate ontological significance with something that is merely formally valid. This is certainly the case for every logical proposition, where the usage of "true" is purely formal. To ensure that we're on the same page with this, let's review logical "truth".

In propositional logic, variables are syntactic placeholders for truth-value assignments. A variable "A" stands for TRUE or FALSE, and which value it takes depends entirely on the chosen model (the semantics we give to the system). We may say that "A" stands for TRUE, or we may decide that "A" stands for FALSE. Either way, the assignment occurs strictly within the formal system. Using these variables, we construct propositional statements in the language of the system. Then, once the model has been applied -- i.e., once all the variables have been assigned a truth value -- the system gives us a mechanical method to reduce each propositional statement to a single TRUE or FALSE value.

This is what makes propositional logical useful. If we can craft an argument into a causal sequence of propositional statements, we can easily show that the argument is valid by reducing each proposition to a single TRUE value. This proves the form of the argument, but it says nothing about the "truth" of the argument. We might, for instance, disagree on the details of the model.

Much confusion would have been spared had we used, say, GREEN and RED instead of TRUE and FALSE. Them, an argument is GREEN when all of its propositions are GREEN; otherwise, it is RED. Consider the proposition:

IF A THEN B

Syntactically, this proposition is FALSE only when A is TRUE and B is FALSE. In particular, when A is FALSE, the statement is TRUE regardless of B's value. So, for example, the following is a TRUE statement:

If 5 > 10, then Abraham Lincoln is the King of England

We feel weird calling such a thing "true" -- which points directly at our ontological confusion -- and so we label it vacuously true to assuage our sensibilities. Had we instead called it a GREEN proposition, we'd be conceptually in the clear and wouldn't have any cognitive dissonance.

So, to bring this back to our model, I'm perfectly willing to acknowledge "formal truths" (GREEN statements) as they occur within formal systems, but completely unwilling to assign ontological significance to such statements. For example, I can recognize the law of the excluded middle -- that "A OR NOT A" is a GREEN statement in boolean logic -- without necessarily believing that it is a fundamental "truth" of the universe.

 

There is a LOT of sense to be made when we consider the potential for an infinite point source, just sayin'.

Very little of that made logical sense to me. I think you're trying to express why you associate 1 with infinity, and so I'll let slide your enormous assumptions about the "source". But, even granting an infinite, continuous "source", there's a big difference between describing it as infinite in (spatial?) extent, and counting it as one thing.

We can get much simpler and with far fewer assumptions by just considering the Euclidean plane. A line has infinite points, and so "carries" with it some notion of infinity. But we can count points, and -- since two points characterize a unique line -- we can therefore count lines. Notice, however, that the oneness, twoness, threeness, and so on of counting lines has nothing to do with the infinity of points on each line. Taken as distinct objects, lines are countable, even if the lines themselves contain an uncountable number of points.

This conceptual "zooming out" changes the domain of discourse: the oneness of counting has nothing to do with the infinity a zoom level lower.

 

I did in my “grunt” thesis! That was the whole point: A number is essentially a wildcard label for any one thing, and there is no cardinality or ordinality to them until a user-defined relationship is made between them. Yes?

To me, that looked like a definition for "counting numbers", which is fine (that's where I started, too). But there are non-counting numbers, like magnitudes. Are they part of the model or are we skipping them for now? If they're to be included, then you need to define them. (Personally, I'd rather just accept all mathematical theories as given.)

 

In agreement 73.49%.

I would counter, however, that I think there is some kind of “default formal system” we are employing by just using these things called “words“...A kind of built-in “ontological practicality quotient” that exists within us conscious humans that would seem almost hypocritical to wholesale dismiss as “just another formality.”

For example, while the combination of words has a subjective element of implementation, there is an ontological insistence they are a baseline. If I started randomly replacing words as our “default system,” and insisting they are relevant, you would get annoyed:

“Did you know that ℝ is the set of complex numbers and klezmer bands only? There are no integers and only 24 Muslim Catholics in it.”

Pissed and/or laughing? Why?

I wouldn’t call that just a “formal system.” I’d call that “the default formality of ontology and its baseline sensibility.” We are assuming default absolutes in words and propositional logic to even have a starting place of determination whatsoever. The same real life truth framework that says, “You have skin, X colored eyes, and work as a Haitian bellydancer while fixing Timex Sinclairs... or not.” There are inherent truth assumptions just to scientifically reason or discuss anything.

Perhaps as part of the model we delineate a default ontological formal system based on the universal obviousness and applicability of a certain minimal n of existing word tokens as the basis of an ontological truth to the best we can surmise?

 

To me, that looked like a definition for "counting numbers", which is fine (that's where I started, too). But there are non-counting numbers, like magnitudes. Are they part of the model or are we skipping them for now? If they're to be included, then you need to define them. (Personally, I'd rather just accept all mathematical theories as given.)

I’m not sure a magnitude is always “just a number,” rasa-level. I think it is often considered a number paired with “some thing”:

5 vs. 5 inches vs. 5 brooms.

I think we need to define the difference.

In a set of 5 elements, token “5“ is simply a nondescript label until arranged in a user-defined comparative ordinality with respect to 4 and 3. The set’s cardinality or magnitude may be 5. But that cardinality only exists when 5 is seen in context with all the “prior” numbers user-defined.

But I don’t think there is “TRUE,” applicable cardinality without infinity.

1 kilometer is 1000 meters, is 1 million millimeters, is 1 billion micrometers, is 1 trillion nanometers, is “perhaps scientifically relevant on some level and pragmatically irrelevant.”

In real life, we have practical measurability limits. In the mind, how does one measure the “length” of a certain section of a mathematically infinite sine wave?

 

Very little of that made logical sense to me. I think you're trying to express why you associate 1 with infinity, and so I'll let slide your enormous assumptions about the "source". But, even granting an infinite, continuous "source", there's a big difference between describing it as infinite in (spatial?) extent, and counting it as one thing.

We can get much simpler and with far fewer assumptions by just considering the Euclidean plane. A line has infinite points, and so "carries" with it some notion of infinity. But we can count points, and -- since two points characterize a unique line -- we can therefore count lines. Notice, however, that the oneness, twoness, threeness, and so on of counting lines has nothing to do with the infinity of points on each line. Taken as distinct objects, lines are countable, even if the lines themselves contain an uncountable number of points.

This conceptual "zooming out" changes the domain of discourse: the oneness of counting has nothing to do with the infinity a zoom level lower.

Sure—that’s why I folded in the “sine wave” example. Same thing. I was treating “God” in that “Euclidean line” way.

Two countable points have uncountable points in between them to create the line with “infinite points.”

If we call point A one end, and point B the other end, can we label an arbitrary segment of the line using 2 additional points, M and N?

What have we done here? Left line 1 intact and created line 2 from it. Have we not counted “M and N” to do so and somewhat discretized infinity?

 

You said it earlier.... there’s no objective truth or reality, just information/states.

No, I did not. I've said many times that I believe that we cannot know a thing "as it actually is". Maybe there is a god, and maybe it knows the objective truth. But we do not appear to have that ability, as everything we experience seems to be subjective.

Please note the distinction between "I believe we cannot know objective truth" and "there is no objective truth". The latter statement claims to have objective truth on objective truth! Give me more credit than that, eh?

I’m not sure why you think binary can’t literally answer everything outside qualitative “feel” elements (“do you like the strawberry?”) and “beliefs” (Does God exist?)... all other things can be done Watson-style.

So, do you like the strawberry?

You need to say “It is true X exists” before you start discussing states of X!

LOL, I do?! I was discussing the Goldbach conjecture the other day -- did I assume it was true or false before I started?

What is a “state??” States are NOT existence. States DESCRIBE the STATE of existence. I have a “dog.” He is state hungry.
The dog exists, INFORMATION concerning HIM reflects the STATE of his existence and what he’s doing!

Whatever "existence" means to you, your only access to it is through the states that describe it. The states are what matter to us, not the "existence".

Absurd? Please tell me all about that red parrot you own.

Sure. I bought the red parrot on Lunar Station 5, while getting space gas on a cargo hauling mission. I named the red parrot Charlemagne, after my uncle. Once, while teaching the parrot the binary language of moisture vaporators, I thought I had proved Goldbach's conjecture, but it was actually Riemann's hypothesis.

"The stuff must have existence apart from the information for there to be any meaningful awareness of it."

Where does my red parrot Charlemagne exist?

The concept of truth or truthiness HAS to have some kind of externality to it, or what's the point?

Now there needs to be a point? That' presumptive, to put it mildly.

The same way a face detecting algorithm works or a song ID algorithm works! It progressively matches truth statements in its database concerning components of what it’s picking up via camera or microphone and determining if something is there! How is this not obvious?? We have algorithms doing it in binary systems right now!

Again you confuse the representation with the thing. The face detection algorithm works because the principle that it is implementing -- e.g., principle component values of eigenfaces -- extracts and distills information. The information can be in binary form, or it can be in decimal form, or it can in n-space of n-dimensional matrices over the complex numbers. (The latter is almost certainly how it was created.)

Please explain how the space of n-dimensional matrices over ℂ is "fundamentally binary".

Again, it’s about contrast of voltage to represent two elemental states. I can take all of the data about the dog and morse code that data to you with dots and dashes.

Ugh. So f*cking what? You can represent any information in any base. That's the entire point -- no single base is "fundamental". Why do you not recognize this? The math is telling us that it's all the same.

The switch itself is not binary, the data is binary being stored in a super positional “switch” representing essentially more compact binary processing of 0’s and 1’s! We are STILL working with binary data!! Literally undisputable. Look up any scholarly article on it. The qubits are essentially Shannon “super bits.” If I have a binary string k as 101010110111101010, and I can encode that with 18 flip flops in a classical system, but in a quantum system I can encode those binary states AND string j as 10101101010100, I can do hella more computations per second because I can do way more processing on way more Shannon bits! Shannon bits are true or false!

SIGH. You claim that the switch is not binary, but the "data" is. The data, by the way, is the universe. And the biggest lesson that quantum mechanics has taught us is that fundamentally the universe cannot be described by binary "there/not-there" proclamations. Quantum computers leverage this mix of "there/not-there" to find solutions to certain classes of problems faster than strictly "there/not-there" computers can.

In other words, if the data were binary as you suggest, then quantum computers would not be any faster than classical computers. You would become instantly famous if you could prove this.

Correct. And “if 4=5 then I am god” is complete and utter nonsense, and its truth value is WORTHLESS to a human being where meaning IS ontological. Come on! What good is it to not make ontological truth the basis??? Zero!

It's almost hilarious how opposite our conclusions are. Logic's value -- why we use it in debates, computers, etc. -- comes directly from its cold formalism. Logic is mechanical, and that's why it useful.

As for "meaning" being ontological for humans, I'd disagree. Most humans don't give much thought (if any) to ontology. They know what a dog is empirically (subjectively) and through shared associations with other subjective humans. The "meaning" of dog doesn't go beyond that.

 

LOL, I do?! I was discussing the Goldbach conjecture the other day -- did I assume it was true or false before I started?

Why, yes — yes, you do, in fact: You have the believe the CONJECTURE EXISTS TO YOUR MIND before you even entertain its truth value!

 

Whatever "existence" means to you, your only access to it is through the states that describe it. The states are what matter to us, not the "existence".

I find it so funny that you insist there is even something such as EXISTENCE that you can know or not know! Obviously there is evidence to you that there is the possibility of something that does in fact exist that your states can reflect. So tell me, what is the mechanism within you that a sh*t gives about such things outside the states, or what is informing the states of this? More states?

 

"There is information" is your starting point from an older post, above.

Mine is: "stuff" exists independent of information, and information's sole purpose is to describe it.

What other way do we know about "stuff" except for the information we receive about it? We cannot experience the stuff itself, only its information.

In my model, states are the "stuff". We don't know anything about what states actually are or what they're made of. But states convey information. We only know about the states through the information we convey. That's why we talk about the information and not the states themselves.

The "stuff" itself is not information. There is no point of any kind of inquiry unless the "stuff" exists independent of the information. This is the basis of "truth" to the "degree that we can know it": when the "stuff" in one's mind reflects the condition of what's going on outside it, there's "truth" about it.

I would say it like this: When a subset of our internal states reflect a subset of external states, we say that we "know" or preceive the thing that is being associated with the external states.

The TV exists. It can be in "state on" or "state off." The channels are states, etc. But states are behavioral elements, not existential "actualities."

The TV is comprised of many, many states. All of the plastic and electronics in it have their own state, the sum total of which we call "the TV". Some states correspond to the TV being on, some with it being off. Some states correspond with it being tuned to channel 7.

 

Sure. I bought the red parrot on Lunar Station 5, while getting space gas on a cargo hauling mission. I named the red parrot Charlemagne, after my uncle. Once, while teaching the parrot the binary language of moisture vaporators, I thought I had proved Goldbach's conjecture, but it was actually Riemann's hypothesis.

Where does my red parrot Charlemagne exist?

And there it is, in the text-flesh... your insistence that there is just unary-hood. "Where does your red parrot exist?' A better question is, what the hail is the interrogative "where()" that is even caring about such a question, or making such a distinction between the existence of Charlemagne and the states that reflect him? Pan to my desire to plumb this mystery interrogative. It is NOT the same thing as "Hey Siri, what's the weather? Match me the 0's and 1's that reflect this fact." Especially since "feel and meaning" are integral to you as a being, which involves the very distinction between Charlemagne, you, and the states.

Now there needs to be a point? That' presumptive, to put it mildly.

There is always a point, however localized or small. Your point is that "this dialogue is worth your time experientially, as is mine." You'd readily say "it has no point," if it didn't.

 

Again you confuse the representation with the thing. The face detection algorithm works because the principle that it is implementing -- e.g., principle component values of eigenfaces -- extracts and distills information. The information can be in binary form, or it can be in decimal form, or it can in n-space of n-dimensional matrices over the complex numbers. (The latter is almost certainly how it was created.)

Please explain how the space of n-dimensional matrices over ℂ is "fundamentally binary".

Let us frame this one here, because it's utterly foundational.

#1, "I confuse the representation with the thing." And you insist they're all just state-arrhea, and I don't get the partiality "wand" you employ to do that, like states in nature are different than your own (you need to seriously grok this discrete-to-continuous you-vs-nature wand that you employ). As if Siri cares about what states are flicked high or low at any moment! You insist consciousness may play a role (which is the discrete-to-continuous converter), but anyway..... bold alert:

At THE VERY MOST BASIC ONTOLOGICAL LEVEL OF OBSERVATION, would you agree that to IMPLEMENT EIGENFACES ALGORITHMS of space of n-dimensional matrices over ℂ, we are.......... wait for it...

USING BINARY COMPUTERS TO DO SO?

If so, would you agree that space of n-dimensional matrices over ℂ are MORE COMPLEX than the discrete TRUE/FALSE SHANNON bits that can be arranged to "do all of it"?

Would you agree that Hydrogen and Oxygen are more fundamental ontologically upon which H20 is built?

 

Machines are nothing more than telegraphers.

So, how do you propose a unary morse code or braille?

(Btw, if you suggest “time in between dot pulses,” you have made “time” the dash)

Morse code uses time duration to distinguish between symbols, so our "unary code" gets to use it, too.

Same thing with spaces for braille.

The fact that you're still trying to find an information system that can't use the equivalent of base-1 clearly indicates that you haven't grokked the essential point. Information is independent of its representation.

 

Morse code uses time duration to distinguish between symbols, so our "unary code" gets to use it, too.

Same thing with spaces for braille.

The fact that you're still trying to find an information system that can't use the equivalent of base-1 clearly indicates that you haven't grokked the essential point. Information is independent of its representation.

We’re past that 101 level and trying to find the intersection between information and the element in space, which, btw, I believe is tied to the term FEEL and MEAN.

If the unary needs time in between codes, the time is the distinguishing element, like a stop bit.

Information is independent of how it is represented, but you don’t distinguish yourself from information, essentially.

Information is independent of what it represents, too?

So where is Charlemagne vs. Fido in physical space, and how do you distinguish between them?

 

Ummm... totally does NOT destroy it—in my estimation, simply bolsters it further... not sure on what planet a qubit is not simply a probablistic binary Shannon bit with the potential of occupying another Shannon bit in the same space:

Right from quantum computer manufacturer D-Wave’s site: “Computation is performed by initializing the quantum processing unit (QPU) into a ground state of a known problem and annealing the system toward the problem to be solved such that it remains in a low energy state throughout the process. At the end of the computation, each qubit ends up as either a [binary] 0 or 1. This final state is the optimal or near-optimal solution to the problem to be solved.”

FYI, most quantum information peeps don't consider D-Wave to have achieved quantum computing. But that's besides the point. Indeed, the measurement of a qubit results in a classical binary state. But the computation -- the thing we're talking about -- occurs in an infinite-dimensional complex Hilbert space.

Literally every scholarly page you read, the qubit is described in terms of the more elemental Shannon bit. Quantum computing is "packing more classical Shannon bits into a smaller space." The worth of any quantum calculation is its ability to yield a 0 or 1. That's it...

We call “multiple bits in the same space” qubits. A quantum computer is still implementing the same elementary binary "morse code", and you can’t telegraph morse code with a unary operator. That’s why Shannon crystallized the fundamental “meaningful” unit of information as a Shannon bit. The coin toss is heads or tails, not teads or hails. Quantum computing is just a load of binary computers occupying the same space.

If you are indeed reading "scholarly pages" on quantum computing, then you're not understanding them. We can discuss the details of quantum physics if you want, but I think I can explain the idea without using any quantum math.

Considering only classical binary computers, it's clear that a 64-bit CPU running at 3 GHz is much faster than an 8-bit CPU running at 33 MHz. My desktop PC can do things in less than a second that would require several hours on an Arduino. We can quantify this difference in performance in units of information. For example, an algorithm to multiply two \(n\)-bit numbers might require \( n^2 \) steps. The running time of such an algorithm on my PC might be 100 times faster than on Arduino, in which case the performance of the Arduino relative to mine is \( 100 n^2 \). Relative to my PC, the performance of the nav guidance computer on the Apollo missions might be \( 10000 n^2 \).

The point is that making faster CPUs -- packing bits more densely, as it were -- definitely improves performance, but only by a constant factor: an \( \mathcal{O}(n^2) \) algorithm is still quadratic in the size of its input, regardless of how fast the CPU is.

Now, if we consider quantum computers, we find a very different situation. Certain classes of problems, such as prime factorization, seem to require classical algorithms that are exponential in their input size, yet can be solved by quantum computers in polynomial time. This difference cannot be understated: exponential speedup means that what might take a quantum computer a few seconds could take a classical computer ten thousand years. This is not merely packing bits more densely; it's an entirely different form of computation.

"In quantum information theory, superdense coding (or dense coding) is a quantum communication protocol to transmit two classical bits of information (i.e., either 00, 01, 10 or 11) from a sender (often called Alice) to a receiver (often called Bob), by sending only one qubit from Alice to Bob, under the assumption of Alice and Bob pre-sharing an entangled state."

What was the point of quoting this?

 

SIGH. You claim that the switch is not binary, but the "data" is. The data, by the way, is the universe. And the biggest lesson that quantum mechanics has taught us is that fundamentally the universe cannot be described by binary "there/not-there" proclamations. Quantum computers leverage this mix of "there/not-there" to find solutions to certain classes of problems faster than strictly "there/not-there" computers can.MmIn other words, if the data were binary as you suggest, then quantum computers would not be any faster than classical computers. You would become instantly famous if you could prove this.

The data on the in is Shannon binary, and the data on the out is Shannon binary. The qubit is “Shannon Bit AF,” just super efficient, processing way more at once (perhaps tapping into a fundamental unary-meet-infinity foundational element, but then to make it relevant to “knowability” gets processed into discrete 2-state Shannon bits). Paper here:

From page 14 of an Oxford University press paper (https://www.gla.ac.uk/media/Media_344957_smxx.pdf):

Quantum communications differ from their classical counterpart in that the transmitted signal is carried by a quantum system. At its simplest, classical information is expressed in bits; and is carried by a physical system with two distinct states (for example a high or low voltage or the presence or absence of an optical pulse). One state is used to represent the logical 0 and the other a logical 1.

We can take the same approach in quantum communications and use two orthogonal quantum states to represent 0 and 1. We label these, naturally enough, as |0⟩ and |1⟩. The additional element brought in by using a two-state quantum system is that we can also prepare any superposition state of the form

|ψ⟩ = α|0⟩ + β|1⟩ , (2.1)​

where α and β are complex probability amplitudes. A quantum bit, or qubit, is such a two-state quantum system.

2.1 Qubits

Before getting into the theory of quantum communications, we pause to elaborate on the idea of a qubit and the mathematical tools used to describe it. A qubit can be any quantum system with two orthogonal states. We choose a basis, often called the computational basis in quantum information, and label the two states in this basis
as |0⟩ and |1⟩. It is convenient to think of this as a spin-half particle; this is not literally true in most cases, but it has the benefit that we can use the Pauli-operators to describe the properties of the qubit. There are four Pauli operators, which are σˆ ,ˆσˆ , σˆ and the identity operator I. We can define each of these by their action on the xyvstates in the computational basis:

σˆ |0⟩=|0⟩ σˆ |1⟩=−|1⟩
σˆ |0⟩=|1⟩ σˆ |1⟩=|0⟩ xx
σˆ |0⟩ = i|1⟩ σˆ |1⟩ = −i|0⟩ yyˆˆ
I|0⟩ = |0⟩ I|1⟩ = |1⟩ .​

 

Let me state this formally:

I believe existence is both unary and binary, and nothing more. These are elemental states, and all other ways of reasoning about it is abstractive.

There is discrete mathematics, and continuous mathematics.

Discrete is essentially binary, continuous involves infinity and is also unary in nature.

A mathematical sine wave has infinite values that cannot be counted, but they are a continuum of inseparable “1’s” if you will. Infinite bits, “all high.”

When we refer to the wave itself, or a segmented component thereof, we must use binary reason to determine there/not-there fundamentals. Where it is, where it’s not.

 

We got tangentialized again. We need to let proofs reveal themselves in safe mode. Are you able to notarize the “grunt” micro-thesis? I talk about magnitudes in there too.