The entire point of my 2D matrix example was to show that information processors can interpret data using any dimensions they wish. Hopefully, after my latest few points, you can see the distinction.

Huh? Non-dimensional bits are non-dimensional. No dimension in information!

 

1/3 is .333... and is not in a state of "escalating finitude". 3/10 is the same as 33/100 is the same as 333/1000.... Finite number.

Erm, what do you think the digits of Pi are? Just as 3/10, 33/100, and 333/1000 are finite numbers, so are 1/10, 4/100, 1/10000!

Seriously, what's the significant difference between these two numbers: \[ \begin{align} \frac{1}{3} &= 0 + \frac{3}{10} + \frac{3}{100} + \frac{3}{1000} + \frac{3}{10000} + \cdots \\ \pi &= 3 + \frac{1}{10} + \frac{4}{100} + \frac{1}{1000} + \frac{5}{10000} + \cdots \end{align} \] I wanted you to see them side by side in their full glory, so that you can explain to me what the big difference is?

Tell me one "representation" element that isn't based on some dimensional spatial thing you learned.

How about "42" or "love" or "B-flat major 7" or "vector space"?

 

If you didn't know what anything was in physical space where each thing is minimally 2D, you couldn't describe hierarchy to anyone else! It would have no meaning. "Hierarchy" reeks of positionality.

Counterexample: consider a string of n bits. This is our first-order level. Subdivide the n bits into m groups; we've just defined our second level. Further subdivide the m groups into k groups. Third level.

Hierarchy is about organization, not geometry or spatiality. In a company hierarchy, the CEO is not spatially above the VPs.

 

But what are shapes to you if all is no-D information??? Shapes ARE dimensional!

A geometric shape is, by definition, dimensional. Geometrical shapes are abstract things. We experience certain patterns of light in ways that are best described as shapes. Indeed, we originally invented geometry to formalize what we experience as shapes. In other words, shapes came first, dimension came after.

 

Absolutely intellectually rigorous, of course — we're building a ToE here. I'm just saying, that what we "think" is rigorous might need re-evaluation at points lest we "over-rigidize," because some of these things we are BUILDING a definition for, and building that definition might require "universal innate use" as one of its metrics of rigidity.

The set of things that have the property "universal innate use" is empty.

 

Other than being information and mathematics itself as humanoid flesh and walking among us, I'm very curious what job Skynet programmed you with when you came through the time displacement wormhole from 2090 — i.e., I'm very curious what do you do with signal vs. noise for your job (if your circuits will permit disclosure)? ;--)

Lol. I design hardware and software that monitors the health of industrial machinery. One of the metrics we use is a measure of metal-on-metal friction, which is very much noise. :--) But this noise, as it modulates and grows, tells a story of the machine's health over time, which is very much signal. :--)

 

Erm, what do you think the digits of Pi are? Just as 3/10, 33/100, and 333/1000 are finite numbers, so are 1/10, 4/100, 1/10000!

Seriously, what's the significant difference between these two numbers: \[ \begin{align} \frac{1}{3} &= 0 + \frac{3}{10} + \frac{3}{100} + \frac{3}{1000} + \frac{3}{10000} + \cdots \\ \pi &= 3 + \frac{1}{10} + \frac{4}{100} + \frac{1}{1000} + \frac{5}{10000} + \cdots \end{align} \] I wanted you to see them side by side in their full glory, so that you can explain to me what the big difference is?

I think there's a significant difference. First, a repeating decimal is rational, whereas pi is irrational. You're not to cognize the rational repeating decimal in any sections; it's supposed to be seen as one infinite term to represent the fraction, otherwise it loses its value. This is not so with pi! You cannot rationally compare sections of .333... to pi (just like you cannot sanely compare God's integer set cardinality with some man-made fractionalized expressions set cardinality, without the death of a crate of puppies—but I digress).

In the fraction 1/3, where the numerator is less than the denominator, this fraction is not to be seen as "1 divided by 3," because, again, 1 cannot be divided by 3 (see scripture II Kronecker 1:3). The expression 1/3 is really one of dependent utility: "one times something else, and then divide THAT something by 3," that's why its repeating decimal representation is of no utility in and of itself. The fraction 1/3 has no worth unless it's a fraction of something else. A repeating decimal phenomenon is entirely different phenomenon than an irrational one. So it's hella different than something like 22/7, where 22 can be divided by 7 3 times, and there is a "dimmer switch left over with variable finiteness to fill in the remainder". 22/7 is saying "Take 3 finite whole numbers, and then ADD something left over that has modulatable rheostat-like finitude adjustability."

This is why "representation" here is clouding the true meaning of how the value system works of this expression. What good is calling the representation finite, when clearly this "dimmer switch" is a "finitude modulator value add-on?"

Seriously, if pi's value can be defined as 3.14 OR 3.141592 OR 3.14159265358979 and EACH have different ontological applicability in the physical world—where the likes of NASA can't use all but 14 digits—then it's insane to call them "all pi" and not at least make some kind of delineation. The delineation is the granularity of finiteness. No different than a dimmer switch with levels of fineness: If the dial itself is the integer, then the finiteness/smoothness of its operation is the mantissa. "Pi" as a value has different meaning at different levels of finiteness, and any kind of "fixed representation" ascription is clouding that core truth and is simply inaccurate.

Pi, as any irrational machine, is a dynamic numeric expression device-in-flux, not a finite integer! To dub this wonderful innate property as finite is a compromise of pi and the very term finite!

How about "42" or "love" or "B-flat major 7" or "vector space"?

Easy:

1) As a child, 42 was uttered to you and then written down when you were taught numbers and associated them with objects or drawings of them as a kid (or at least numbers leading up to it, to infer such). You only know what "42" means because you were taught "1" and then successive copies of "1" to yield integers as a child with dimensional blocks and writing its dimensional glyph down repeatedly, so you understood "42" meant "42 somethings." Then later on you divorced 42 from explicit somethings and made it a generic ascription device.

2) Love only exists when describing objects that are minimally some dimension to you in physical space. Humans are minimally 2 spatial dimensions or they don't exist.

3) Bb maj 7 is associated with vibrations coming from dimensional objects of guitar or piano, for example. Dimensional guitar or piano strings yielded the chord.

4) Vector space can't be described without a Euclidean-esque plane having minimally 2 dimensional axes.

 

Nope, all of them are remaining as discrete switches in a machine that does not "know" anything, because no one is home to know. “Know” is alll about dimension, at least provisionally. You’re discussing a computer that itself requires dimension to even begin describing. You ascribe artificial connection between non-dimensional states that are, well, non-dimensional. As any non-dimensional information processor, you don't even know the compiler exists.

I defy you to find any one person that will agree with you above. If you do, I will pay you cash.

Ummm

 

Ummm

<lumberg voice>

Mmmm... Yeahhh... I'm gonna have to go ahead and ask you if you know any other experts that can say the same thing, I'd appreciate it. K? Thanks!

</lumberg voice>

 

<lumberg voice>

Mmmm... Yeahhh... I'm gonna have to go ahead and ask you if you know any other experts that can say the same thing, I'd appreciate it. K? Thanks!

</lumberg voice>

You’re changing the game. Originally you asked for ANYONE who agrees with bogosort. Now, you want an expert.

 

You’re changing the game. Originally you asked for ANYONE who agrees with bogosort. Now, you want an expert.

That was confusing, sorry. I meant, YOURS works, AND humorously implying if you have any additionals that can say the same as well (although you didn't actually answer, lol). You’re an expert in at least one portion if not all of the topic here, so I assumed “others like you.” I meant “experts” plural originally. We need a consensus here, because this thing has come up before with no resolution.

I’d bet $10K 5 people can’t be found, I am that sure no one shares this notion (no offense to my robo-friend Javier here who is Ava’s replicant brother in Ex Machina who passes the turing test with flying colors :—)

 

Lol. I design hardware and software that monitors the health of industrial machinery. One of the metrics we use is a measure of metal-on-metal friction, which is very much noise. :--) But this noise, as it modulates and grows, tells a story of the machine's health over time, which is very much signal. :--)

Wow, what a coincidence! I work for a factory that makes cyborgs that perform that very task. In fact, if you get a mirror, check it out—you might be able to see a very small 18-digit serial number imprinted in the small of your back. If it begins with JAV107, let me know, because an entire lot had to be recalled for insisting noise equals signal on the job. If so, please drive yourself to 3.14 Pi Lane, Miami, Fl. so we can upgrade the firmware. Thanks!


That sounds interesting. So basically you’d say the signal is the hours you’re talking here in this thread, and the
noise is your job? :—)

 

I’d say:

Signal vs. noise is tied directly to this issue of meaning vs. meaninglessness. Both signal and noise are effectively signal. One signifies direct meaning, one signifies indirect meaning in its direct meaninglessness. The latter is signal that doesn’t signify knowable order in and of itself.

One can’t understand noise without contextualizing it somewhere with signal. One can‘t understand any signal via noise.

Two same-length strings:

The words I’m writing here are signal but as soon as %*-=$;@‘lweh noise is there, it’s not.

vs.

#$&#(@(#*(@@@@@-*# This is signal#$*#(#/$@(#(#/#/@($/#(#(#;#(#;#(#(-/(##;#/

Signal was directly cognizable, noise was not outside of being described using signal.

yes?

 

Djsfantasi: update to post 1411 above.

 

Counterexample: consider a string of n bits. This is our first-order level. Subdivide the n bits into m groups; we've just defined our second level. Further subdivide the m groups into k groups. Third level.

Hierarchy is about organization, not geometry or spatiality. In a company hierarchy, the CEO is not spatially above the VPs.

You just described all of it using spatiality though!!

There are no "strings" without writing them out in a 2D screen or paper to describe the hierarchy. The CEO is a 3D dimensional person within a 3D company, and to accurately describe a hierarchy, you'd typically label him above the others on an organization chart, or somewhere spatially set-off from the rest to denote the meaning, or you would somehow gesticulate the spatiality with your hands.

No spatiality, no meaning.

 

(Post #1407 was edited at 2:45am EST — hopefully you have the latest text you are responding to, because I edited it heavily and some of the original wording needed hella changing.)

 

Djsfantasi: update to post 1411 above.

Thanks for your reply. I have nothing to add at this time.

 

You just described all of it using spatiality though!!

There are no "strings" without writing them out in a 2D screen or paper to describe the hierarchy. The CEO is a 3D dimensional person within a 3D company, and to accurately describe a hierarchy, you'd typically label him above the others on an organization chart, or somewhere spatially set-off from the rest to denote the meaning, or you would somehow gesticulate the spatiality with your hands.

No spatiality, no meaning.

Spatiality implies a meaning. The meaning doesn’t imply spatiality. Suppose you had a list of employees sorted by title. The Assistant to the HR Director is not more important than the CEO. Let’s color code the levels of a hierarchy. No Spatiality, but there is meaning. Once again, you’re confusing representation with value.

 

Nope, all of them are remaining as discrete switches in a machine that does not "know" anything, because no one is home to know. “Know” is alll about dimension, at least provisionally. You’re discussing a computer that itself requires dimension to even begin describing. You ascribe artificial connection between non-dimensional states that are, well, non-dimensional. As any non-dimensional information processor, you don't even know the compiler exists.

Notice that you're trying to refute my argument that a computer can distinguish between a representation and the thing represented by claiming that compilers don't exist, or that I can't know that they exist. That's some weak sauce, lady. If computers exist, then compilers exist. And compilers know the difference between a value and the variable name that represents it.

I defy you to find any one person that will agree with you above. If you do, I will pay you cash.

You will pay me cash if I can find someone who agrees that compilers distinguish between representation and value? How much cash are we talking?

 

Sand == word describing mystery object in physical space — neither of which is defined! Same for “heap” thereof!

What are you talking about? Whether objects in physical space are states or magical fairies, we certainly experience them. If you can use words, then so can I.

You cannot describe sand without ascribing at least provisional dimension to it using “dimensionless” information!

Again, wtf are you talking about? I experience the world in "3D" just like you do. So does my neighbor's drone. I can describe sand just fine. The drone can fly around buildings.

I get the impression that you're using a debate tactic, rather than a genuine argument.