The question of the existence of the conjecture is more relevant here per the “binary” point. For every “thing” in the mind, there must be first a hardware representation of its existence before further processing is done, otherwise how do you know what you’re even processing bits about?? You don’t know 9182929 switches are reflecting the query to begin with!

Let’s build a computer that’s going to model the Goldbach question’s potential.

Does the question have to exist as physical states before you employ its inquiry? The question is a thing that must exist or not exist before it has operational significance!

So, you're saying that in order for a state to contain information, the state must contain that information. Duh! Why is this even being argued? It's bewildering to me how you can insist that certain non-obvious things are obvious, yet not see how "existence" is trivially obvious.

Or, maybe you mean something else. Maybe you mean that, before the computer can model Goldbach's conjecture, it must must make a true/false "existence" claim on whether its internal states contain the information about the conjecture itself. But that implies that the computer already knows about the conjecture, otherwise, how would it determine whether or not the conjecture existed as an internal state?

Let's unravel this all the way down. How does a computer know it is being asked a question, any question? According to you, the computer has to first determine whether the question "exists" or "not exists". But how does it do that? It has to compare the question to something it already knows, right? Before it can say "this question exists", it needs to compare the question to some other set of internal states that the computer can pattern match on. But what about the first question it received? How does the computer know that the first question it received "exists"?

Then there's the "not exists" problem. Before a computer knows a concept, such as "question" or "dog", how does it determine if the input it receives is "not question" or "not dog"? It literally can't. Ah, you say, "But the computer can tell something is there, and that's the opposite of non-existence." Ah, I say, "But there is always something there -- there is never a time when something is not there." This constant stream of somethings is precisely what we experience. Information processors differentiate and organize the stream by forming concepts.

When you examine it, boil it down to its essence, "existence" is an empty concept because everything exists. "Existence" is trivially obvious. Every time you mention "existence" a philosophical puppy commits suicide.

This is not assuming low level enough. What dice? What question about the dice? In what space? Those are the true-false questions that even afford further questions of probablistic nature like that!

"What dice?" and "what space?" are not true/false questions. We can go as low-level as you want, for the universe -- contrary to Einstein's wishes -- is always playing dice.

At this very instant there is a lone neutron is floating around your room. It has a half-life of about 15 minutes. True or false: in the next 10 minutes it will decay into a proton.

 

Convenient?? Essential! The voltage is high or low. Unary is impractical for storage purposes.

Look at your own inconsistency. You call binary "essential" because unary is "impractical". That unary is impractical makes it convenient, not essential, to use binary.

Our brains associate the most elementary information unit as a shannon bit, otherwise even quantum computers wouldn’t pump out a 0 or 1 after their qubits oscillate!

No, again, we design quantum computers to pump out 0s and 1s because it is convenient. Our brains uses networks of neurons to process and store information. We can quantify information with the abstract concept of bits. That does not mean that networks of neurons are bits.

Also, I believe ever living thing feels “meaning” on some level, whether flea or even plant. It is not anthrocentric.

Great! If you can believe that a plant "feels meaning", then what's stopping you from believing a sufficiently complex machine can, too? What's the difference between an amoeba and a tiny computer that has been programmed to do amoeba-like things?

 

Question:

Your iPhone (pretend you have one) you named Herbert is put an incinerator and the ashes are splayed over the Atlantic with 10 miles in between each discrete piece of ash.

Does “Siri” in that phone, or does that phone itself exist as a phone? And if so, why do you define it as such without wires connecting all the parts to create function and identification in space?

This is the question we have to work on in my estimation, because I have to get at your abstraction routines to figure out a path of reason here.

Melting or otherwise destroying a phone breaks apart all the organization that allowed the materials to work like a phone. So, no, the burnt remains of a phone are not a phone.

 

Melting or otherwise destroying a phone breaks apart all the organization that allowed the materials to work like a phone. So, no, the burnt remains of a phone are not a phone.

But you said YOU “exist” as Javier in an “evolved state” as ash over the Atlantic, post-Coroner’s office processing. Do tell the difference at your earliest inconvenience. ;--)

 

Or, maybe you mean something else. Maybe you mean that, before the computer can model Goldbach's conjecture, it must must make a true/false "existence" claim on whether its internal states contain the information about the conjecture itself. But that implies that the computer already knows about the conjecture, otherwise, how would it determine whether or not the conjecture existed as an internal state?

I see your “duh” and raise you a “damn right!”

“Ding ding ding,” Alex, for $2000.

Our magical states have words built in to reference things that don’t exist in the “physical world.” And not only that, but to communicate with others about them. Like “continuous-value sine waves.” Or the innate mathematical SDK and semantic axiomatic engine parser and concatenator that is the basis of sanity in “O space.”

Knowledge and modelability of an infinite-bit sine wave did not come from physical observation. Or the innate grokability of continuum vs. discrete in a discrete system, using built-in linguistic engine to reference and compare them. “Infinite value sine wave” is a phraseology referencing something never observed. QED.

Pray tell, from whence did it come?

 

Au contraire, I do understand perfectly. The continuous bits of a mathematical sine-wave are essentially identical to a qubit’s Hilbert-space continuum. . .

Huh? First, there is no such thing as a "continuous bit" -- that is a contradiction in terms. Second, a sine is a real-valued function over the reals. Hilbert space is the linear inner-product space over complex numbers of square-integrable functions. In particular, the sine function is not a member of any Hilbert space, as sine is not square-integrable.

So, not only are sine and Hilbert spaces not the same kinds of things, they're not compatible in any way. Again, you're making sh!t up to suit your theory.

A mathematical sine wave is “packed” with "densely packed infinite bits." Perhaps densely packed "u-its” (“elementarily identifiable ‘values’ of some kind”).

No, no, no. There are neither bits nor u-its in a sine wave. A sine wave is a function, which means it maps one set of values in ℝ to another set of values in ℝ. The entire mapping is what we call "sine". Here's one way to describe the map: \[ \sin(x) = x - \frac{x^3}{3!} + \frac{x^5}{5!} - \frac{x^7}{7!} + \cdots \] There are clearly no bits in there. Do you see this?

Classical machines are working with discrete bits, and quantum qubits are a "continuum of bits/u-its/values" yielding a final classical bit after discretization. Again, this is 100% proving my theory, that the computation mechanism is drawing upon a “continuum” phenonema in order to yield a final discrete resultant, where we can do further computation. Qubit processing is borderline poltergeist.

Sigh. You believe that a binary output of a continuous process is "100% proving my theory", but all you've done is describe an analog-to-digital converter. If you really believe that ADCs "prove your theory", then why bother with quantum computation? You could just point to a CD and say "QED!"

In any case, since you agree that a quantum computation contains the equivalent of a continuum of information, then you must surely agree that binary "true/false" cannot be the fundamental modality of the universe, right? Or are you claiming that quantum computations occur "outside" the universe?

The purpose of the continuum, like the infinitum of ℝ or ℂ is to specifically yield a sensical result for its designers, the human being, which means to constrain the output that’s optimally workable, most likely itself a quantum system that likes shannon bits for its discrete portion of input and output!

ℝ has a purpose? That's presumptive AF. I'd say that humans discovered ℝ by exploring the logical consequences of the counting numbers.

 

Great! If you can believe that a plant "feels meaning", then what's stopping you from believing a sufficiently complex machine can, too? What's the difference between an amoeba and a tiny computer that has been programmed to do amoeba-like things?

Because of an innate intuition shared by the likes of Newton and Einstein (and I hate name-dropping, but I feel I have to fold others' names in that are scientifically respected so that I'm not "alone" in this presupposition), that there is more going on than just computation, and perhaps a "knower" or "feeler" element tied to "consciousness" and "meaning". I feel these things' existences can be triangulated through proper sequential logic approach, their "machinery uncovered" so that it's not just willy-nilly baseless faith "required" to believe in them.

We do not know what "meaning," consciousness, and feeling "are," and we use them all day long.

 

Huh? First, there is no such thing as a "continuous bit" -- that is a contradiction in terms. Second, a sine is a real-valued function over the reals. Hilbert space is the linear inner-product space over complex numbers of square-integrable functions. In particular, the sine function is not a member of any Hilbert space, as sine is not square-integrable.

So, not only are sine and Hilbert spaces not the same kinds of things, they're not compatible in any way. Again, you're making sh!t up to suit your theory.


No, no, no. There are neither bits nor u-its in a sine wave. A sine wave is a function, which means it maps one set of values in ℝ to another set of values in ℝ. The entire mapping is what we call "sine". Here's one way to describe the map: \[ \sin(x) = x - \frac{x^3}{3!} + \frac{x^5}{5!} - \frac{x^7}{7!} + \cdots \] There are clearly no bits in there. Do you see this?


Sigh. You believe that a binary output of a continuous process is "100% proving my theory", but all you've done is describe an analog-to-digital converter. If you really believe that ADCs "prove your theory", then why bother with quantum computation? You could just point to a CD and say "QED!"

In any case, since you agree that a quantum computation contains the equivalent of a continuum of information, then you must surely agree that binary "true/false" cannot be the fundamental modality of the universe, right? Or are you claiming that quantum computations occur "outside" the universe?


ℝ has a purpose? That's presumptive AF. I'd say that humans discovered ℝ by exploring the logical consequences of the counting numbers.

Dammit, here we are again, Hilbert G. Realset & Sons. All of this "no, no, no"-rrhea is someone else's thoughts on the matter! Lol. I don't care what anyone "thinks," if I haven't said this 900 times. People who push things further often start from scratch because other's presumptions are based in bullsh*t-on-rye.

If you take the proven concept that all computation can be done in OBSERVABLE HARDWARE in a unary or binary system, and a string of infinite 0's and 1's can represent all of these "number sets" theoretically, if we had infinite physicality to store it on, then any one value can be considered a "bit" in an infinite continuum of bits. If there is VALUE in the sine-wave, it can be considered a unit of information.

The sine waves in our minds with "infinite value" often create sine waves in nature. We can discretize elements of those sine waves to get data from them. You can reference portions of the infinite sine wave in your mind. Those individual portions are data, or "bits" of some kind, I don't care what anyone says.

In a quantum system, values in the system are occluded during the computation, but they are still "bits of information" being parsed until one final one is outputted!

Ugh, but you'll just keep playing Hilbert and the Spaces Band until I literally pass out. :--(

 

No, no, no. There are neither bits nor u-its in a sine wave. A sine wave is a function, which means it maps one set of values in ℝ to another set of values in ℝ. The entire mapping is what we call "sine". Here's one way to describe the map:

sin(x)=x−x33!+x55!−x77!+⋯

There are clearly no bits in there. Do you see this?

And do you see that each one of those elements is represented SOMEWHERE in your brain or in a computer as a bit or bits to even discuss it???

A sine wave is NOT just a function or PROCESS, it is a THING!

And I am relating the VERY core elements of infinitum of a sine wave to the infinite Hilbert space. I'm talking about the extremely core elements of infinitum. Grok my zoom level if you will: INFINITE INFORMATION is there (as Feynman said, and which you do NOT want to admit to. ;--) )

 

No matter how you cut the cake, you need 2 discrete components at bare minimum to make sense. Whether time is being used or a stop bit or whatever. If everything is monolithic and unilateral, there’s no meaning. You need a divider to create bytes. You must somehow onboard this or I feel we’re entirely hopeless. There is an elemental notion things are built on. The shannon bit is that notion. The “continuous” bit is the qubit, it’s very purpose is to discretize continuum so we can conclude a truth from it.

Then, according to your criterion, binary is actually ternary in time: { 0, 1, f(t) }, or ternary in space: { 0, 1, g(x) }. You can't distinguish bits without some delimiter in time and/or space.

So, uh, which is it? Are we talking about binary as ternary, or are you ok with calling binary {0, 1} and unary {@}?

Your answer in a prior post concerning the dog‘s 1D data is that the dog is 2D and not a real 3D object in physical space, correct?

No, I pointed out the inconsistency in how you're using dimensionality. Informationally, the n-bit data of a dog has n dimensions.

Geometrically, we usually model objects in three spatial dimensions. I pointed out 3D is neither necessary nor sufficient.

We have a clear BIOS that has geometric 3D definitions as it relates to physical (O space) vs. conceptual, and we can walk around 3D elements in physical space to prove it, and then do this same "phenomenon" in our minds.

"Walking around" is not a proof. Maybe this time you'll answer this question: how does an autonomous drone navigate what we consider 3D space? All of its navigation abilities come from "1D bits", so how is it able to fly around without crashing into anything?

I believe there is a substance of actual geometric 3D nature in between our ears.

I have no doubt that you believe it. The trick is to still believe it after rigorous analysis.

I believe the dog and bird are uncalculated, continuous 3D objects in the mind space and O space, and there is also a physical matter component that is countably discrete. The substance is an uncalculated phenomena, like fur vs. steel, or strawberries vs. hair.

You didn't answer the question: where exactly is my imaginary parrot?

 

"An important difference is that we can never extract more than a binary piece of information from a qubit. The laws of physics themselves prevent us from finding out what exactly they are doing. We can’t ask a qubit for the exact details of its superposition state. We can only ever force it to choose between two opposite points on the sphere (like 0 and 1). If it is anything other than these two states, it will just have to randomly decide one or the other."

https://medium.com/qiskit/how-to-program-a-quantum-computer-982a9329ed02

This is what I mean about you quoting things you don't understand. The article is referring to the well-known Holevo bound, which quantifies the limits that we can know about the intermediate states given the result of a quantum experiment. When you apply the Holevo bound to an n-qubit quantum computer -- which, by definition, has an n-bit (classical) output -- we get the result stated in the article: we can only get n bits of information from an n-qubit quantum computer. In other words, we have no access to the information in the intermediate stages of the computation.

But if you actually look up Holevo's theorem, you'll see that it is far more general than qubits and applies to any quantum system. But you saw an article describing specifically how to program qubits, where of course they're going to relate the Holevo bound in terms of bits, and then assumed that it was some kind of universal law that quantum computations must result in binary values.

In short, no.

 

Then, according to your criterion, binary is actually ternary in time: { 0, 1, f(t) }, or ternary in space: { 0, 1, g(x) }. You can't distinguish bits without some delimiter in time and/or space.

So, uh, which is it? Are we talking about binary as ternary, or are you ok with calling binary {0, 1} and unary {@}?

Good question. I would say since time is a given delimiter in every context, we don't need to specify it as part of the distinguishing component. It's always there, it's just that it becomes THE distinguishing component in a unary situation. So I would agree to the above.

No, I pointed out the inconsistency in how you're using dimensionality. Informationally, the n-bit data of a dog has n dimensions.

Geometrically, we usually model objects in three spatial dimensions. I pointed out 3D is neither necessary nor sufficient.

I'm aware of the difference. I really feel old x,y,z is hella sufficient to describe geometry in O space (I love "hella" as an adjective for some reason, it's hella versatile). Every single object.pixel of that dog can be mapped to a 3D observable O space that we all are born into, the same one a drone uses to map from. No?

"Walking around" is not a proof. Maybe this time you'll answer this question: how does an autonomous drone navigate what we consider 3D space? All of its navigation abilities come from "1D bits", so how is it able to fly around without crashing into anything?

Because a human being that knows the difference between 1D information and 3D geometry programmed it to map 1D data to a "theoretical 3D model using 3D-to-1D spatial mapping." It wouldn't be able to do it unless a human being that knows the difference could give it the parameters required to represent true 3D spatial awareness as discrete 1D bits. Btw, there is no "true 2D" geometrically in O-space. There is always some amount of measurable z to every object.

I have no doubt that you believe it. The trick is to still believe it after rigorous analysis.

Yes, or in your case, to initially believe it after rigorous analysis.

You didn't answer the question: where exactly is my imaginary parrot?

Can't remember if we're talking about a parrot in O space, but the same would apply:

The one internally to you is in "M space" (mind-space) which is a theoretical space within the being that has 3D continuous mathematical objects in it that you can KNOW through mystery token _FEELING that needs hard-ass rigorous definition.

The one externally to you would be in "O space" which is an observable space that we are all born into that has 3D discrete componental objects that find their origin in M space substance.

 

This is what I mean about you quoting things you don't understand. The article is referring to the well-known Holevo bound, which quantifies the limits that we can know about the intermediate states given the result of a quantum experiment. When you apply the Holevo bound to an n-qubit quantum computer -- which, by definition, has an n-bit (classical) output -- we get the result stated in the article: we can only get n bits of information from an n-qubit quantum computer. In other words, we have no access to the information in the intermediate stages of the computation.

But if you actually look up Holevo's theorem, you'll see that it is far more general than qubits and applies to any quantum system. But you saw an article describing specifically how to program qubits, where of course they're going to relate the Holevo bound in terms of bits, and then assumed that it was some kind of universal law that quantum computations must result in binary values.

In short, no.

But I really do understand it, and I'm familiar with the Holevo bound — I'm just using a different zoom level than you for this.

When I say "bits," from now on in this kind of context, I mean "u-it" values. I don't care HOW you cut the cake, if classical bits are going into a set of Qubits, the qubits are working WITH some kind of values. Call them "u-its"if you want. It is "keeping track of the values" in some way as to yield a result that has computative value relevant to the human parameters used to set up the computation.

So perhaps classical bits in, u-its on the continuum, and classical bits out. If the qubits only popped out 1's, do you think we'd be able to understand what it determined??

You want to say a qubit is not working with values???

In short, no.

 

Seriously, tabula rasa, where does this statement come from? If there wasn’t literally thousands of obvious elements to every human, how could we even shop for groceries?

This is flabbergasting to me. Something that is "universally obvious" must be 100%, unfailingly agreed upon by every possible observer in every possible situation. Not just all humans, but all possible forms of sentience using all possible forms of perception. Otherwise it's not "universal". How many things do you think can meet that criterion?

 

But you said YOU “exist” as Javier in an “evolved state” as ash over the Atlantic, post-Coroner’s office processing. Do tell the difference at your earliest inconvenience. ;--)

Exactly, there is an evolution over time. At some point, the new states no longer have enough similarity to the old states to be recognizable. Whether this point comes after a long time (decomposition of my bones) or a very short time (incineration) is irrelevant.

 

ℝ has a purpose? That's presumptive AF. I'd say that humans discovered ℝ by exploring the logical consequences of the counting numbers.

Nothing has a "purpose" to you, as I assume? Purpose is some kind of utility to things in space, or even to itself. Everything has a purpose or nothing has one. It could be said it's presumptive AF to say it doesn't have one.

 

This is flabbergasting to me. Something that is "universally obvious" must be 100%, unfailingly agreed upon by every possible observer in every possible situation. Not just all humans, but all possible forms of sentience using all possible forms of perception. Otherwise it's not "universal". How many things do you think can meet that criterion?

"Universally obvious to the most complex form of reason and awareness." In your model, orangutans just haven't evolved enough to "know" as much as us. So you can't use them or dogs and cats, or spiders in this example, because #ridiculous.

To "human reason," there are uncountably obvious starting places. Study anything, get a job, get married, have kids, go grocery shopping, eat, or live a life. We've built a society on shared awareness of reason in O space.

I'm not talking about grey areas here. I'm talking about starting points. Sorry to be such an "absolutist," but there are base-line universal "obviousness" elements to every human reasoning system, and we are trying to model human reason as part of this. So you know what words are to use them with me right now. 10's of thousands of them. What are they? Strung together audible objects that everyone knows are referential in O space that we're all born into. It's obvious in 2 seconds if someone can't spell or use words properly. You know what a smile is when someone smiles. You know what it means when they cry. You know what it means when you complement someone or deride them using said words. You know what it means to move in space. You know what it means when a musical note is played. You know what it means when I say I could go on forever with "obvia" that is shared by humanity. No starting places == Straight jacket in the ward.

Tell me, could any technology be built by humanity if there wasn't an immense degree of starting places of discourse? No.

 

Exactly, there is an evolution over time. At some point, the new states no longer have enough similarity to the old states to be recognizable. Whether this point comes after a long time (decomposition of my bones) or a very short time (incineration) is irrelevant.

You're just as unrecognizable as the iPhone example. Assume the iPhone was cremated as you. I don't get the partiality in the reasoning here.

Also, by your definition, there's no distinction between evolve or devolve, correct?

 

Our magical states have words built in to reference things that don’t exist in the “physical world.” And not only that, but to communicate with others about them. Like “continuous-value sine waves.” Or the innate mathematical SDK and semantic axiomatic engine parser and concatenator that is the basis of sanity in “O space.”

Knowledge and modelability of an infinite-bit sine wave did not come from physical observation. Or the innate grokability of continuum vs. discrete in a discrete system, using built-in linguistic engine to reference and compare them. “Infinite value sine wave” is a phraseology referencing something never observed. QED.

Pray tell, from whence did it come?

Sine waves and Goldbach's conjecture are CONCEPTs, derived from other concepts that ultimately came from the counting concept. That's whence it came.

In my model, there are no magical states and no magically "non-physical" things.

 

Look at your own inconsistency. You call binary "essential" because unary is "impractical". That unary is impractical makes it convenient, not essential, to use binary.

How’s this: it’s impossible to use unary, now that I’ve pointed out that time is the “other” communication element. So it’s binary as the minimum all the way down.