Bottom line — information is different from "what" it's representing.

Then what it's representing isn't information, correct?

We only know the information, so there's no way for us to know what the information is representing.

Suppose you saw a large, enclosed container on the roof of a building. You can only see it from a distance. What's inside? Is there another container inside? Who knows?

 

Everything I say is making a CLEAR distinction between information and what it's representing; this is what you are not getting, and why you keep saying "I don't understand." You draw a distinction between INFORMATIONAL dimension and GEOMETRIC dimension, as if there *IS* a distinction between them in a discrete state processor!

There is a distinction, which I've spelled out several times. Both geometric dimension and informational degrees of freedom are CONCEPTs and they are very clearly different.

The processor does NOT know the difference between what kind of bits its computing with!!

This sentence doesn't make sense. Bits are an abstract unit of information; they don't have a "kind". We can say that an image in a bitmap contains a million bits of information, or that the music in a WAV file contains a million bits of information. The abstract notion "bit" can be applied to any form of information. We don't have image bits vs music bits. And, since we know the distinction between geometric dimension and informational degrees of freedom, we'd never ask, "What's the angle between the image bits and the music bits?"

The dog is MINIMALLY 3 dimensional, so we can measure x, y, z, in time and physical space. 100% empirical fact. You need minimally 3 GEOMETRIC dimensions to the dog to describe it (describe meaning "CONVEY INFORMATION" about the DOG that is ITSELF NOT information!)

You can't describe a dog using two spatial dimensions? Then, how do pictures work? Close one eye and look in front of you -- that's a 2D image!

Your brain interprets information from the relative sizes of objects as conveying spatial depth; moving your head introduces parallax, which gives more information. But all of this is interpretation.

A research scientist designed a pair of glasses that inverted the light coming through them. Putting them on made the world appear upside down. The scientist wore the glasses continuously for something like three weeks straight. In the first week, he had headaches and was constantly motion sick. By the second week or so, his brain said "f*ck it" and he woke up seeing "normally". He could read books, drive a car, etc. When he finally took the glasses off, it took his brain a couple of days to revert to the "old normal".

The point is, what you see is what your brain decides to see, not what is.

Physical space is *NOT* information. We get ALL information we know, and ALL computation on that information, from THINGS in physical space.

This is problematic. If physical space isn't a thing, then it's nothing. Then, what's between two things? If nothing is between them, then the two things must be touching. But then everything is touching, so then there is no space!

I very much share the modern view that physical space is a thing. It has physical properties -- e.g., electrical resistance -- it can store energy, etc. The "objects" that we experience at human scales are just different configurations of physical space.

I would call these "REAL" things (that is NOT a complete definition, but it is one everyone understands when we referencing things in space vs. conceptual ones). I say "REAL" as the OPPOSITE of "CONCEPT."

Let's suppose that "REAL" is the opposite of CONCEPT. How can you tell the difference between them?

 

What???? Bro, you think the meters have anything to do with 10 vs. 5 in a computer's computation? A programmer is concatenating "Meters," or "TV's" or "beef jerky" to the computation, and they have NOTHING to do with it! Separate bank of states! The computation of the numbers is ENTIRELY separate from any suffix???!? A METER exists in physical space as a measurement of a ruler or DOG. The computer only has 010101010 as a representation of the word METER, and then a representation of the physical METER!

What do you think happens when Google's algorithm parses "10 m / 5 m"? It determines that the "m" symbol stands for "meter", a unit of length. Since asking for a ratio of lengths is a reasonable request, Google proceeds to do the calculation and correctly reports "2" as the answer.

If you don't believe this, then enter "10 p / 5 p" in Google without the quotes. It won't do the calculation! Ask it " 10 TV / 5 TV" or "10 beefjerky / 5 beefjerky" and it won't do the calculation!

Does the Google software know about units of length? Yup. And does it know about unit-less magnitudes? Yup.

Therefore, since computers can know about unit-less magnitudes, your grunt theory of magnitudes must be wrong.

There is NO, ZERO, ZILCH difference between geometric and informational dimensions in a discrete bit state processor!!

Did you recently get a concussion or something? I can quite literally program a computer -- a discrete state processor -- to recognize the difference between geometric notions of dimension and informational degrees of freedom. They are two entirely different concepts with entirely different domains of discourse.

What do I have to do to convince you, banks of transistors or neurons do NOT KNOW WHAT THEY'RE REPRESENTING, whether GEOMETRIC or otherwise!!

Do you "know" what your banks of neurons are representing? If you say you do, then how? Perhaps because other banks of neurons are telling you?

Does a blood cell know what it's doing? Probably not, right? A blood cell, glorious though it is, is probably not complex enough to have self-awareness. Yet you agree that a blood cell is "special" because it is a living thing. So, you recognize that there are degrees of complexity that have something to do with consciousness, with what you might call "knowing". But you can't see the connection with silicon, because of magic?

There is no "METERS" in a computer (the letters of which are SIMPLY more discrete states representing pixels on a screen) other than simply more 0's and 1's when you do 10/5.

METER is a concept, which can certainly be stored and used by a computer or a brain.

 

Any kind of model of existence can't "pretend" that information and "what it's representing" aren't separate.

I'm not sure why you keep harping that information is different from the thing it represents. I've never disputed this, and have several times explicitly agreed to it.

"Where is the dog in the light?"

"Where is the person asking the question?" "Where is his mind asking the question?"

They exist in this same mystery place. Whatever "actual things" are in space, if they're not information, what are they? This implies the question is not coming from the brain, because the brain is a state processor that doesn't know what the information is reflecting, it only has bits from the light and sound!

Let's assume that the dog and the brain are in the same "mystery place". The brain forms a series of questions, "Where is the dog? Where am I?" The brain has information about the dog from light and sound.

How does this imply that the question is not coming from the brain? It only knows the dog through the information provided by light and sound, and it knows it only knows the dog through this information. Therefore, "Where is the dog?" is a reasonable question. You're jumping to the conclusion that the question must come from "elsewhere", but you give no plausible reason why this must be so.

If I say random words and numbers to you — 92, 1084, 2918, BIRD, JOHNSON, LIGHTHOUSE — you will say "Huh?? WHAT are you talking about? Your words have no MEANING." I.e., “WHAT is the information REFERRING to in physical space (as default — vs. a Hilbert or some other conceptual space).“ Meaning is the phenomena that connects information to THINGS in this space.

As I've been saying all along, meaning is the phenomenon of associating concepts. Associations connect ideas to each other, providing richer experience, i.e., providing meaning.

Information concerning the movement of things in space is telegraphed to us through light's refection of the physics of the event. Light is the principal information carrier concerning REAL things in space.

Note our eyes can only see a tiny sliver of the full electromagnetic spectrum. If we could see the full spectrum, we would have an entirely different experience. You wouldn't be so quick to call "REALITY" three-dimensional.

Thought experiment for you: If I were the size of a molecule of oxygen -- i.e., if my peephole of experience was dominated by molecular-scale phenomena -- how much would you trust my description of what is "REAL"?

LIght is sending discrete 1D photons to our brains. This makes no sense with respect to WHAT it's reflecting. What it's reflecting MUST exist BEYOND the 1D info-carrying photons.

You say "this makes no sense", but what exactly doesn't make sense? Each photon carries one bit of information, which your brain processes and amalgamates with all the other bits of information coming from the other photons. Your brain quite literally constructs an interpretation (a model) of the information it has received, which you experience as visual image.

This makes perfect logical sense.

Siri does NOT know the weather directly. She has information concerning the weather.

How do you know the weather? Certainly not "directly". Even if you step outside, you only have information concerning the weather. You get your information the same way a digital weather station does, with sensors.

But has no idea whether or not the information is representing weather, flag poles, or a TV show. The data is agnostic to its source, unless a human being, with its mystery "REAL" vs. "CONCEPT" differentiator can inquire about it further.

Demonstrably false. Siri has a well-formed concept of weather that is 100% distinct from her concept of flag poles or TV shows. You can verify it for yourself; just ask her about the weather or a TV show.

If objects exist in this thing called physical space, and an inquirer does as well, then WHAT is the "interrogative" element that knows the difference?

The concept of SELF, which we've already talked about.

Something within the being KNOWS the difference, and is using a mechanism that TRANSCENDS information itself to do it, otherwise there is NO explanation.

You assume "transcendence", I assume associations of state. Which seems more plausible? Which requires more "deus ex machina"?

Truly, it is _LIFE and _CONSCIOUSNESS that is responsible for this innate ability that seems to transcend information itself. What are these two things that are imbuing the human being with this strange ability to differentiate between a thing in physical space and the information concerning it?

Strange ability? It is a pedestrian ability! My robot car differentiates between physical things and information.

Whatever they are, they insist information represents something other than itself as the basis of meaning...

Never in dispute.

 

Because there are certain numbers that do not terminate, there is technically no way to delimit them as elements in a set. Therefore, ℝ cannot exist as an actual set of number elements (plural), because there can be no discretizing or delimiting the non-terminating elements!

Then ℚ is not a set of numbers, either, since it contains numbers that have non-terminating representations, e.g., 1/3, 1/9, etc.

So, you are Kronecker after all. The only set of numbers is ℕ.

Ok, herr Doktor, if we only have counting numbers, then what are we to make of magnitudes? We can compare magnitudes using the same relations we use on ℕ, e.g., "less than", "equals to", and so forth. We can do arithmetic on magnitudes just as we can on numbers in ℕ. Isn't there a saying that goes something like, If it walks like a number, and smells like a number?

 

I propose 2 "universes" of discourse here (however you would denote them):

{INFORMATION}
{ALL THAT IS NOT INFORMATION}

My problem with this is that we quite literally don't know anything about the second universe of discourse. We can only know a thing through the information we get from the thing.

For example, when we build a digital computer, a "thing" in this "physical space" (whatever you want to call it — nature?) — we're using a power source as the basis of the computation. The power source has essentially 2 states that are being filtered through various switches to create computation and representation of information on a screen.

No, the power source has many possible states. The power in your wall cycles through all of these states 60 times every second.

 

What I say is foundational is both continuous and digital.

This is a contradiction of terms. They are literally opposites; how can something be both?

The value of analog computation is still discrete, which in the end is digital.

No, just because we can digitize an analog process does not make all analog processes digital. The result of an analog computation might be a waveform of a specific frequency, or the level of water in a tank.

So, I ask again, how can you say that T/F is foundational when an analog computation may not have any T/F whatsoever?

 

Formal shmormal, tho. The dog is NOT 2D in real life! Am I on candid camera here? I think you’re gaslighting me. Get a REAL ruler out and measure the REAL dog in real life. You have 3 principal values, full stop. The area of your kitchen floor is x * y. You are y tall, x wide, z long. Measurements in “REAL space” are inarguably 3D, no more complexity required geometrically. Time is another dimension, but the geometric element is 3D all day long. The information is 1D, the objects are 2D/3D.

Sigh. This is you: "I see in 3D; therefore, the universe must be 3D."

The funny part is that your retina actually presents a 2D image. You literally see in 2D, but your brain uses cues from light, sizes, motion, etc. to form a 3D model. But you happily assume that the 3D interpretation must be "REAL". Sorry, but I don't buy that assumption.

 

Please do me a favor if you will: Briefly define these 5 things in plain language, precisely how you’re using them, in relation to each other and how it relates to continuous vs. discrete concepts:

-Words
-Numbers
-Sequences of logic states
-Geometric dimension
-Informational dimension

 

Sigh. This is you: "I see in 3D; therefore, the universe must be 3D."

The funny part is that your retina actually presents a 2D image. You literally see in 2D, but your brain uses cues from light, sizes, motion, etc. to form a 3D model. But you happily assume that the 3D interpretation must be "REAL". Sorry, but I don't buy that assumption.

For the record, there are other senses integrally part of the scientific method, including touch, and hearing... why do you treat your brain as more “trustworthy?“ How do you know the image is 2D, when all you’re presented is 1D info?? As if the wires to each grid element of the CCD know they’re part of a chorus to “form a 2D image from discrete photons?“ Or as if a computer knows the nondescript banks of bits correlate in a 2D way to a grid of pixels on a screen?

 

I’m also realizing why you keep feeling the need to clarify “information is independent of its representation.”

I am insisting discrete truth states are not the same thing as to-be-proven “continuous symbols”. For example, using 1 as a number vs. a truth state. The symbol is being used for both “orders,” whereas @ is more discrete from the overlap. Discrete vs. continuous are digital (numeric) vs. first-order analog (e.g., sine waves having infinite values... if there are no sine waves in nature, wtf is the one in our minds!)

 

This is a contradiction of terms. They are literally opposites; how can something be both?

If ℝ is continuous, ℕ is discrete, and ℕ ∈ ℝ, then ℝ is both continuous AND the set of all discrete numeric phenomena. QED. This is the source of the mind-f*ck that is ℝ (and the foundation of my model).

No, just because we can digitize an analog process does not make all analog processes digital. The result of an analog computation might be a waveform of a specific frequency, or the level of water in a tank.

Either discrete or continuous as an output. See proof above.

So, I ask again, how can you say that T/F is foundational when an analog computation may not have any T/F whatsoever?

See proof above.

 

Please do me a favor if you will. Define these 5 things, precisely how you’re using them, in relation to each other:

-Words
-Numbers
-Sequences of logic states
-Geometric dimension
-Informational dimension

I'm not sure what you mean by "in relation to each other".

Words are the "discrete" units of sound that humans treat as lexical units for communicating information. The (semi-)formal organization of these units is called a language.

Numbers are mathematical objects. We organize numbers by their mathematical properties, some of which make them useful for quantification, e.g., counting, labeling magnitudes, etc.

A sequence of logic states is a string of true/false values in some formal language.

A geometry is a mathematical theory that abstracts and formalizes the concept of "space" by making precise the notions of length, angle, shape, etc. Every geometric space is a vector space. The dimension of a geometric space is the cardinality of any set of its basis vectors. For example, the vector space of the Euclidean plane is \( \mathbb{R}^2 \). As any basis of \( \mathbb{R}^2 \) has two vectors, the dimension of the Euclidean plane is two.

Information is conveyed by state. The amount of information a state can convey is a function of the number of degrees of freedom in which the state can be configured. Colloquially, we may call these degrees of freedom the "dimensions" of the information conveyed, though this in no way implies "spatiality" to the information.

 

For the record, there are other senses integrally part of the scientific method, including touch, and hearing... why do you treat your brain as more “trustworthy?“

What do you mean? The brain integrates all these senses to form your perceptions. I most definitely do not consider the brain trustworthy; it is demonstrably fallible.

How do you know the image is 2D, when all you’re presented is 1D info??

We know the image is 2D because we can open up the eyes of other humans and inspect how the photoreceptors are arranged. Like a CCD matrix, your photoreceptors can only present two spatial dimensions. Your brain fabricates a three-dimensional perspective using other information, e.g., by integrating data from both eyes, comparing the changes in successive images, associating learned concepts like parallax, "big means close, small means far", etc.

Your information processing brain is what makes things appear 3D. Ironic, eh?

 

I’m also realizing why you keep feeling the need to clarify “information is independent of its representation.”

I am insisting discrete truth states are not the same thing as to-be-proven “continuous symbols”. For example, using 1 as a number vs. a truth state. The symbol is being used for both “orders,” whereas @ is more discrete from the overlap. Discrete vs. continuous are digital (numeric) vs. first-order analog (e.g., sine waves having infinite values... if there are no sine waves in nature, wtf is the one in our minds!)

I don't understand what you're saying. But I definitely prefer to restrict the symbol "1" to numeric usage, as it helps keep clear what we're talking about. Using "1" to represent a logic state is like using the variable name "lastname" to represent a counter. It's perfectly valid, but terribly misleading. It helps everyone when we name counter variables things like "count" or "i". We kill puppies when we name our counter variables "lastname" or our user name variables "i".

As for sine waves in our brains, they exist as a concept. We certainly do not hold every value of sine, just as we don't hold every value of ℕ.

 

What do you mean? The brain integrates all these senses to form your perceptions. I most definitely do not consider the brain trustworthy; it is demonstrably fallible.


We know the image is 2D because we can open up the eyes of other humans and inspect how the photoreceptors are arranged. Like a CCD matrix, your photoreceptors can only present two spatial dimensions. Your brain fabricates a three-dimensional perspective using other information, e.g., by integrating data from both eyes, comparing the changes in successive images, associating learned concepts like parallax, "big means close, small means far", etc.

Your information processing brain is what makes things appear 3D. Ironic, eh?

You mean kinda how light is a magician that only makes the dog appear like it's stand-alone 3D phenomena in space? Why do you trust light as the basis for providing you the information to make computations, and trust them, but don't trust the fact that if you measure the dog and come up with 3 distinct values in space, it's not 3D?

 

I'm not sure what you mean by "in relation to each other".

Words are the "discrete" units of sound that humans treat as lexical units for communicating information. The (semi-)formal organization of these units is called a language.

Numbers are mathematical objects. We organize numbers by their mathematical properties, some of which make them useful for quantification, e.g., counting, labeling magnitudes, etc.

A sequence of logic states is a string of true/false values in some formal language.

A geometry is a mathematical theory that abstracts and formalizes the concept of "space" by making precise the notions of length, angle, shape, etc. Every geometric space is a vector space. The dimension of a geometric space is the cardinality of any set of its basis vectors. For example, the vector space of the Euclidean plane is \( \mathbb{R}^2 \). As any basis of \( \mathbb{R}^2 \) has two vectors, the dimension of the Euclidean plane is two.

Information is conveyed by state. The amount of information a state can convey is a function of the number of degrees of freedom in which the state can be configured. Colloquially, we may call these degrees of freedom the "dimensions" of the information conveyed, though this in no way implies "spatiality" to the information.

That's good, thanks — but I just need a little more zoom...

Numbers — "mathematical objects" ? What are they in relation to the physical substrate's representation limitations (the brain you are using)? Side-note: it is proven that the brain can interface with binary computers (we can move limbs and cursors with brain-based controllers) — more evidence for our propositional logic desires to have a T/F value.

Geometry — So you're saying there's no "real" difference between 1D and spatial 3D in the end? Essentially there's no such thing as true spatial geometry, am I reading that right?

 

If ℝ is continuous, ℕ is discrete, and ℕ ∈ ℝ, then ℝ is both continuous AND the set of all discrete numeric phenomena. QED. This is the source of the mind-f*ck that is ℝ (and the foundation of my model).

Lol, not quite. First, the elements of ℝ are not sets, and ℕ is a set. Therefore, ℕ ∉ ℝ.

What's true is that ℕ ⊂ ℝ, i.e., N is a subset of R. But that fact says nothing about the properties of either. For example, let A be the set of birds, i.e., A is comprised of winged animals. Let B be the set of all animals. Clearly, A ⊂ B, but that does not in any way imply that every animal has wings.

See proof above.

You need a stronger set of criteria for what you're willing to call proof.

 

What do you mean? The brain integrates all these senses to form your perceptions. I most definitely do not consider the brain trustworthy; it is demonstrably fallible.

But you somehow trust external data from it to form hard mathematical relationships?

We know the image is 2D because we can open up the eyes of other humans and inspect how the photoreceptors are arranged. Like a CCD matrix, your photoreceptors can only present two spatial dimensions. Your brain fabricates a three-dimensional perspective using other information, e.g., by integrating data from both eyes, comparing the changes in successive images, associating learned concepts like parallax, "big means close, small means far", etc.

Your information processing brain is what makes things appear 3D. Ironic, eh?

"Appear 3D." And you know the difference between appear and actual how? Are you making a distinction between appearance and REAL in that statement potentially? ;--)

 

You mean kinda how light is a magician that only makes the dog appear like it's stand-alone 3D phenomena in space? Why do you trust light as the basis for providing you the information to make computations, and trust them, but don't trust the fact that if you measure the dog and come up with 3 distinct values in space, it's not 3D?

The light doesn't make the dog appear 3D, your brain does. You don't have to trust me on this, there is a plethora of well-documented research on the subject.