#!##!!!##!##!##!!!!!###!###!##!#!# <- THAT is gravity to you (where each symbol represents a logic state)

Lol. Do you really think I thought that gravity is a 34-bit string? C'mon!

You literally think that "gravity" is simply a longer string! Yes??

And then the guy's hair below is simply a different size string of the same discrete voltage states, right??



And then this below dog's carpet sh*t streaks are just a different size string??? Nothing more, right??

 

You're wrong. For Pythagoras, we know from history that he considered what we would call rational numbers sacred, and that he was horrified by the discovery of an irrational quantity (the diagonal of a unit square). Newton and Leibniz were far more mathematically sophisticated. They certainly could appreciate the difference between integer equations (Diophantine equations) and real equations, In particular, they thoroughly understood that a calculus of increments required numbers even more finely spaced than the rationals. Newton called them "fluents" (flowing numbers), Leibniz called them infinitesimals. They were of course talking about the continuum of ℝ.

You're not hearing me, for the sake all that is holy science:

ℝ is shorthand for all numeric phenomena comprising all the “subsets” (other than complex numbers, which are really just an abstraction of ℝ) in a big bag. It contains all the elements of the other "sets." There's only one set in reality, the one those geniuses of yore implicitly used, and the one used today that we call ℝ. If ℕ is in ℝ, you can just say ℝ. If ℚ is in ℝ, you can just say ℝ. If ℤ is in ℝ, you can just say ℝ. There is no reason to have anything else. They got along just fine for centuries and they were implicitly referring to elements of ℝ. Tell me one actual computation worthwhile to physical space you can do that requires you to know specifically about ℚ vs. ℤ vs. ℕ vs. ℝ?

 

Even if I grant you that no currently available electronic machine has any notion of "meaning", so what? If indeed meaning is a matter of complexity -- and it surely seems to be, talking to you snails! -- then it is entirely possible that a sufficiently complex electronic machine will have meaning. You're denying that possibility outright without any justification other than "magic".

No, I'm denying what you think is magic, and that to what super-genius forefathers like Pythag, Leibniz, and Newton et. al., would say without any effort whatsoever, is metaphysics. I’m afraid yours is the magic here, my non-D, discrete friend! There is positively no rational link between complexity and the baseline meta-function that is "grokking" or experiential, living meaning or feeling, or you wouldn't be asking me my feelings about it. The answer would simply be? "MORE STATES!" eeek. ;—)

 

Unless god is what things? An equation? A ring of integers? Please show me how "2 + 3 = 4" can be a theorem in a ring of integers (i.e., elementary arithmetic).

Unless God is the underling grok mechanism. It’s this very mechanism that does not permit 2+3 to equal 4 because the underlying order structure doesn’t “sit right” in the being, and that’s the ONLY reason. If it “sat right,” and you had no internal protestation, 2+3=4 could be true!

 

But you can't do that with integer arithmetic, which was my whole point. You've been claiming that logic states -- which hopefully you now agree are arbitrary symbols -- are equivalent to numbers, but you can't swap 3 and 6 in " 3 < 6".

But you could swap them, if 6 was the glyph for 3 in some other language, and 3 was the glyph for 6, and you’d have the same issue. This is precisely why I insisted on the unary or binary base to do the proof! Because both numbers are represented by the same symbol, and this, with the position phenomenon, changes the entire proof’s approach! Parity of symbols AND positionality is key to revealing the equality.

Check this proof:

Axiom 1: All numbers can be written in a more elementary way: in binary, base-2 format.
Axiom 2: A binary computer represents and computes numerical and logical information interchangably as high and low voltage states.

Set O uses the symbols 0 and 1 to represent numbers 0 and 1 for base-2 representation of all representable numbers. {0,1}
Set L utilizes the symbols 0 and 1 to represent logic states FALSE (F) and TRUE (T). {0,1}
Set V utilizes the symbols 0 and 1 to represent low voltage and high voltage. {0,1}

When written using set O, example numbers 3 and 6 are rendered:

3 = 011
6 = 110

When written using set L, the same numbers 3 and 6 are identically rendered:

3 = 011
6 = 110

When written using set V, the numbers 3 and 6 are identically rendered:

3 = 011
6 = 110

For all 3 sets, 011 < 110, and 011 + 110 = 1001

1001 represents 9, the sum of 3 and 6 in base 10
1001 represents 4 logic states: TFFT
1001 represents 4 voltage states: High, Low, Low, High

Proof: Any arithmetic and logic evaluation can be performed as voltage states representing either logic states or numbers in base 2. A classical 2-state bit represents numbers in base 2, bivalent logic states T/F, as well as high and low voltage to physically represent them. This is proven in any modern binary turing machine. QED.

bulletproof??

 

You literally think that "gravity" is simply a longer string! Yes??

You're quoting yourself. I said "Then consider how many neurons are working in my brain to allow me to hold the concept of gravity. " In other words, my concept of gravity can indeed be characterized by a very long string of bits. As for the phenomenon of gravity itself, it's a set of state transformations, not a set of states. Presumably, however, we can characterize those transformations with a set of bit strings (in some basis). Note that such a characterization is not gravity, it's just a representation (description) of it.

 

You're not hearing me, for the sake all that is holy science:

And you're not giving Newton and Leibniz enough mathematical credit.

ℝ is shorthand for all numeric phenomena comprising all the “subsets” (other than complex numbers, which are really just an abstraction of ℝ) in a big bag. It contains all the elements of the other "sets." There's only one set in reality, the one those geniuses of yore implicitly used, and the one used today that we call ℝ. If ℕ is in ℝ, you can just say ℝ. If ℚ is in ℝ, you can just say ℝ. If ℤ is in ℝ, you can just say ℝ. There is no reason to have anything else.

Whoa, what happened to Kronecker? ;--)

They got along just fine for centuries and they were implicitly referring to elements of ℝ. Tell me one actual computation worthwhile to physical space you can do that requires you to know specifically about ℚ vs. ℤ vs. ℕ vs. ℝ?

If you're a physicist or an engineer, you pretty much only need ℂ. If you're a programmer, you pretty much only need ℚ. But if you're a mathematician, you need all of 'em.

Among other things, Newton was interested in the solutions to polynomial equations (you may have heard of Newton's method for finding such roots). Mathematicians love polynomials because they're very simple objects that lead to surprisingly rich theories. You get different theories by restricting the type of solutions you'll allow a set of polynomials to have. Perhaps surprisingly, the more restrictive you are with the solutions, the more difficult the theory becomes. For example, if we only allow integer solutions (ℤ), we get the Diophantine equations, which have been studied since antiquity. Of course Newton studied these as well. But it wasn't until the late 20th century that Diophantine equations were shown to be undecidable -- there is no general algorithm for determining whether an arbitrary Diophantine polynomial will have a solution.

On the other hand, if you allow for any type of solution, including complex solutions (ℂ), every polynomial equation is decideable (though quintics and above are not necessarily solvable). Indeed, if we let n ∈ ℝ, then Fermat's last theorem (the most famous Diophantine equation) has infinite solutions! Did Newton work's include ℂ? Most definitely. In fact, he used a geometric proof to show that complex solutions to polynomial equations must always come in pairs.

Whether you like it or not, mathematicians organize numbers by their properties into sets. This process itself is difficult and has interesting mathematical consequences, and it's been happening since antiquity.

 

No, I'm denying what you think is magic, and that to what super-genius forefathers like Pythag, Leibniz, and Newton et. al., would say without any effort whatsoever, is metaphysics. I’m afraid yours is the magic here, my non-D, discrete friend! There is positively no rational link between complexity and the baseline meta-function that is "grokking" or experiential, living meaning or feeling, or you wouldn't be asking me my feelings about it. The answer would simply be? "MORE STATES!" eeek. ;—)

Let me ask you forthright: Do you believe that it is possible that meaning can be an emergent property of complexity? Yes or no, please.

Let me ask you forthright: Do you recognize a trend of increasing degrees of meaning in the following organisms: amoeba, worm, mouse, dog, chimpanzee, human? Yes or no, please.

Let me ask you forthright: Do you recognize a trend of increasing complexity in the previous list of organisms? Yes or no, please.

 

Unless God is the underling grok mechanism. It’s this very mechanism that does not permit 2+3 to equal 4 because the underlying order structure doesn’t “sit right” in the being, and that’s the ONLY reason. If it “sat right,” and you had no internal protestation, 2+3=4 could be true!

This is problematic because it implies that the "sits rightness" of a theorem is implicit in the person reading the theorem. But this doesn't seem likely.

Let p be a prime number and m an integer coprime with p. (Two integers are coprime when the greatest common factor between them is 1.) Now, without googling it, is the following statement a theorem of ℤ? \[m^{p-1} \equiv 1 \mod p \] In other words, if we raise m to the (p - 1) power, is it in the equivalence class of 1 modulo p? An example of "mod" is clock arithmetic: \[ 13 \equiv 1 \mod 12 \] In other words, we write "13" as "1" in 12-hour time.

I was very explicit about what all the words and symbols mean because I want you to feel the "sit rightness" of the statement without any confusion about what it's trying to say.

So tell me, how does the statement sit?

 

And you're not giving Newton and Leibniz enough mathematical credit.


Whoa, what happened to Kronecker? ;--)


If you're a physicist or an engineer, you pretty much only need ℂ. If you're a programmer, you pretty much only need ℚ. But if you're a mathematician, you need all of 'em.

Among other things, Newton was interested in the solutions to polynomial equations (you may have heard of Newton's method for finding such roots). Mathematicians love polynomials because they're very simple objects that lead to surprisingly rich theories. You get different theories by restricting the type of solutions you'll allow a set of polynomials to have. Perhaps surprisingly, the more restrictive you are with the solutions, the more difficult the theory becomes. For example, if we only allow integer solutions (ℤ), we get the Diophantine equations, which have been studied since antiquity. Of course Newton studied these as well. But it wasn't until the late 20th century that Diophantine equations were shown to be undecidable -- there is no general algorithm for determining whether an arbitrary Diophantine polynomial will have a solution.

On the other hand, if you allow for any type of solution, including complex solutions (ℂ), every polynomial equation is decideable (though quintics and above are not necessarily solvable). Indeed, if we let n ∈ ℝ, then Fermat's last theorem (the most famous Diophantine equation) has infinite solutions! Did Newton work's include ℂ? Most definitely. In fact, he used a geometric proof to show that complex solutions to polynomial equations must always come in pairs.

Whether you like it or not, mathematicians organize numbers by their properties into sets. This process itself is difficult and has interesting mathematical consequences, and it's been happening since antiquity.

Again, I have NO issue with organizing them.

I have an issue of DEFINING their existence ONLY as a function of such organization.

Big difference.

And God created the integers (really just 0 and 1) which are the numbers themselves that are used to create fractionated expressions in ℝ. So it‘s either “God’s ℕ“ or “man’s ℝ.” And C is a “complex” amalgamation, yet again.

 

You're quoting yourself. I said "Then consider how many neurons are working in my brain to allow me to hold the concept of gravity. " In other words, my concept of gravity can indeed be characterized by a very long string of bits. As for the phenomenon of gravity itself, it's a set of state transformations, not a set of states. Presumably, however, we can characterize those transformations with a set of bit strings (in some basis). Note that such a characterization is not gravity, it's just a representation (description) of it.

Again with the “quantity” as “quality” though! Your whole argument rests on a certain number of non-dimensional bits becoming “dimensional“ to you somehow with non-dimensional photons reflecting supposed dimensionsl objects. Not possible as a discrete number of bits! Either dimension exists as an independent phenomena, or nothing exists outside of non-D bits. QED.

 

Let me ask you forthright: Do you believe that it is possible that meaning can be an emergent property of complexity? Yes or no, please.

Positively not, because meaning is tied to information’s connection to physical space, and we need to account for a mechanism that insists the dog is minimally 2D with non-D photons delivering the info about it. Nature/God has programmed us to interpet the dog as 2D, so something about nature is inherently spatial. I believe information innately has a dimensional attribute that we need to get to, and it’s NOT a function of non dimensional elements.

Let me ask you forthright: Do you recognize a trend of increasing degrees of meaning in the following organisms: amoeba, worm, mouse, dog, chimpanzee, human? Yes or no, please.

No. Meaning to a dog is equal to meaning to a human, just more ways of deriving the same “good or bad” sensation. Meaning itself is a sensation attributed to information. The complexity of the information is a needlessly complex rube goldberg machine where the final product is the same. A dog’s bone is his bone, which he gets chiefly through mastication and swallowing mechanism. A human’s bone might be selling cars, boxing, or debating a ToE on the Internet. Same dopamine release, different informational configurations to trigger the same end soul latch.

Let me ask you forthright: Do you recognize a trend of increasing complexity in the previous list of organisms? Yes or no, please.

Increasing implies causality to account for increasing complexity, as well as increase in information, and which implies equal parts correlation to causation to achieve higher complexity.

I recognize a quantitative difference in complexity, like I recognize iOS is more complex than OS/2, or a pentium PC is more complex than an Amiga 500. To say one is “increasing” as a smoking gun nakedly without also treating the smoking gun as a parallel indicator of hard causality per stage (engineering!) to achieve such is crazy-talk. The correlation‘s purpose involved with a smoking gun is to identify a causation that makes sense. Different degrees of complexity in bio-machinery is a smoking gun of programming only, and there is no other indication one can rationally derive. This is Newtonian and Leibnizian thinking vs. information-ignorant Darwinian. There is zero connection between the complexity of a moth and an elephant, period. Different hardware and software, as different as a T-82 calculator from a RAZR. There is no path of “speciation” from Tandy desktop systems to Android phones, despite pretty pictures on the wall with vapid physics and info theory connecting each “supposed stage.”

To link stages of them is the basis of bio-mythology, when we haven’t even identified the mechanism of nature’s programming. Here is where using the senses alone as the basis for truth without further analysis of information and causality is insane! Macro-evolution is a f*cking programmatic myth created by a guy with zero information theory awareness, and I’m surprised a mind of your capacity fell for that magical “senses-only” bullsh*t.

 

But you could swap them, if 6 was the glyph for 3 in some other language, and 3 was the glyph for 6, and you’d have the same issue.

No, no, no. You're simply relabeling the symbols, but that's an empty change. In propositional logic we can swap every T with F, every F with T, and every AND with OR, and end up with exactly the same theorems. This is the duality principle and, unlike simple relabeling, it has significant consequences (e.g., De Morgan's laws). There is a very specific mathematical reason why we can do it in propositional logic, and it comes from a theorem of group theory: every finite Abelian (commutative) group has an equivalent dual.

Propositional logic is isomorphic to the two-element boolean algebra, which makes it a finite group under either operation (AND, OR). Both operations are commutative and so the theorem applies. This is why AND and OR are each other's duals.

The theorem does not apply to rings of characteristic 0 (like ℤ). There is no equivalent "dual ring of integers". Consider that the natural "dual" of addition is subtraction, but subtraction is not even commutative and so cannot be equivalent.

I don't know how to deep we need to get with this before you'll accept that logic values and numbers are not the same types of things.

This is precisely why I insisted on the unary or binary base to do the proof! Because both numbers are represented by the same symbol, and this, with the position phenomenon, changes the entire proof’s approach!

By using the same set of symbols, all you are doing is fooling yourself into thinking there is an equivalence.

Axiom 1: All numbers can be written in a more elementary way: in binary, base-2 format.

There is nothing more "elementary" about base-2 over, say, base-10. All bases are equally "elementary".

Axiom 2: A binary computer represents and computes numerical and logical information interchangably as high and low voltage states.

Certainly not. The ALU in a computer -- the circuit that actually performs computations -- has distinct sub-circuits for performing logic and performing arithmetic. An ALU requires data as well as an instruction code to tell it what to do. Computers do not compute logic and arithmetic "interchangeably". An arithmetic SHIFT is not the same thing as a logical SHIFT.

Set O uses the symbols 0 and 1 to represent numbers 0 and 1 for base-2 representation of all representable numbers. {0,1}
Set L utilizes the symbols 0 and 1 to represent logic states FALSE (F) and TRUE (T). {0,1}
Set V utilizes the symbols 0 and 1 to represent low voltage and high voltage. {0,1}

The only thing you've accomplished by doing this is to increase confusion. Let O, L, and V respectively be the symbol sets for the languages O*, L*, and V*. What language is this string from? "101"

When written using set O, example numbers 3 and 6 are rendered:

3 = 011
6 = 110

When written using set L, the same numbers 3 and 6 are identically rendered:

3 = 011
6 = 110

When written using set V, the numbers 3 and 6 are identically rendered:

3 = 011
6 = 110

For all 3 sets, 011 < 110, and 011 + 110 = 1001

Sigh. The reason you come to these invalid conclusions is because you're oversimplifying all the details away.

Set L is logic states, right? So L is the domain of a two-valued logic system. Therefore, every binary operation in L is a function \( f: \{0,1\}^2 \to \{0,1\} \). There are no binary operations that produce "1001", which is a string from an entirely different language. You're making up the rules as you go!

The same is true of the language of set O, which presumably is a 2-valued boolean algebra. There is no number 1001 (or 011, etc.) in this boolean algebra!

Presumably the same is true of set V, where the functions are of the form \( g:\mathbb{R} \to \{0,1\} \). Of course, you've simplified away all the details, so we can't be sure what you're talking about.

Proof: Any arithmetic and logic evaluation can be performed as voltage states representing either logic states or numbers in base 2. A classical 2-state bit represents numbers in base 2, bivalent logic states T/F, as well as high and low voltage to physically represent them. This is proven in any modern binary turing machine.

A few posts back I gave some detail on how a binary computer actually uses the different levels of abstraction to perform computations. All you've done here is hand-wave away all the details, presented an example of base-2 addition over a ring of integers, and declared it "proof" that numbers and logic states are equivalent.

That's not how a computer works. That's just how you're interpreting the results.

 

Again with the “quantity” as “quality” though! Your whole argument rests on a certain number of non-dimensional bits becoming “dimensional“ to you somehow with non-dimensional photons reflecting supposed dimensionsl objects. Not possible as a discrete number of bits! Either dimension exists as an independent phenomena, or nothing exists outside of non-D bits. QED.

Sigh. Dimensions again. Did you not agree that the "1D" (or whatever you want to call it) drone computer can recognize and navigate "3D" spatiality? What do dimensions have to do with anything?

 

Positively not, because meaning is tied to information’s connection to physical space, and we need to account for a mechanism that insists the dog is minimally 2D with non-D photons delivering the info about it.

If you cannot even allow for the possibility of consciousness from complexity, then perhaps we should conclude our discussion.

To link stages of them is the basis of bio-mythology, when we haven’t even identified the mechanism of nature’s programming. Here is where using the senses alone as the basis for truth without further analysis of information and causality is insane! Macro-evolution is a f*cking programmatic myth created by a guy with zero information theory awareness, and I’m surprised a mind of your capacity fell for that magical “senses-only” bullsh*t.

I'm a layman in biology and evolution, but all the evidence that I've seen points strongly toward evolution through natural selection as the best explanation for the enormous diversity of species. I'm not aware of any competing theories that even come close.

 

Sigh. Dimensions again. Did you not agree that the "1D" (or whatever you want to call it) drone computer can recognize and navigate "3D" spatiality? What do dimensions have to do with anything?

Sigh?! Handwaving beyond here. It is a human BEING that knows the difference that programmed(!) the drone to navigate based on the use of various sensors that provide data that is *hand programmed* to "do something specific" as a result of that data. The HUMAN that knows the DIFFERENCE between non-dimensional information and dimensional space.

If physical space and objects therein exists and are the basis of knowing what anything is, it MUST have spatiality. You can't have any existence with "non-D" data! How can you refer to yourself in space without some degree of spatiality?

You didn't learn ONE mathematical theorem without first having some degree of spatiality that was NOT non-D information. You have said "we can't know specifically what the DOG" is in space. Well, that goes for quite literally every object, including yourself and any piece of chalk you ever picked up to write a theorem on a chalkboard, or computer on your desk. It's crazy-talk to assume that if information is separate from physical space, that physical space does not have SOME kind of dimension to it as a baseline of what it means to know anything!

My point is to suggest there is an innate connection between "non-dimensional" information and spatial phenomena — or we wouldn't even call it a "space" any different from any informational Euclidean or other space!

Answer me this: Is the "dog in the light" or ANY object, if it is separate from information, *what is it*, and how do you account for light bringing non-dimensional information about it to you and you turning into 2D or higher without nature/God itself knowing the difference??

 

If you cannot even allow for the possibility of consciousness from complexity, then perhaps we should conclude our discussion.

If you can't allow for the potentiality of a Leibniz-Newton-Pythag level metaphysical explanation, then we have the same issue. What if consciousness, for example, is an indivisible, "infinite non-componental phenomenon" that causes awareness independent of any information or componental value through "feeling" in space? Can you picture, for example, a 3D form that exists in space that cannot be divided, and can "know" its surroundings without machinery, but uses the "extra-informational" concept of FEELING to describe it? This is where this thinking comes from. How in the HELL can you even grok the potentiality of such a thing if it's not even a potential thing??

I'm a layman in biology and evolution, but all the evidence that I've seen points strongly toward evolution through natural selection as the best explanation for the enormous diversity of species. I'm not aware of any competing theories that even come close.

And it's 100% sensory based, so you know. From your hardcore perspective, if you looked into it further on that level, you'd probably vomit. Consider it from a computer science/info theory/physics perspective, and don't just take the 10GL "sensory evidence" of those who came up with the theory using NONE of those tools. There is NO EVIDENCE whatsoever, unless you consider C++ to have "evolved" from Pascal (with new capabilities and functions) on its own, or each iteration of the Motorola RAZR hardware and software evolved on its own. There is NO scientific definition for LIFE from a biology perspective. NONE. Trust me on that one.

I aim to present an alternative, but we are a WAYS away from that yet... it's a function of getting at the information theory that backs that fallacious claim. There are zero physics to that theory, and almost no information theory that makes any sense. There is zero explanation for increasing order/information and augmentation from one species to the next, and no evidence of global speciation. It's a "Correlation Replaces Causation" religious myth at its finest. Prior to this religion, you would have thought of a metaphysical element as the core of your reasoning, as did the greatest minds who have ever walked this earth. It's due to this specious failosophy-turned-science that the question of metaphysicality has been occluded.

 

No, no, no. You're simply relabeling the symbols, but that's an empty change. In propositional logic we can swap every T with F, every F with T, and every AND with OR, and end up with exactly the same theorems. This is the duality principle and, unlike simple relabeling, it has significant consequences (e.g., De Morgan's laws). There is a very specific mathematical reason why we can do it in propositional logic, and it comes from a theorem of group theory: every finite Abelian (commutative) group has an equivalent dual.

Propositional logic is isomorphic to the two-element boolean algebra, which makes it a finite group under either operation (AND, OR). Both operations are commutative and so the theorem applies. This is why AND and OR are each other's duals.

The theorem does not apply to rings of characteristic 0 (like ℤ). There is no equivalent "dual ring of integers". Consider that the natural "dual" of addition is subtraction, but subtraction is not even commutative and so cannot be equivalent.

I don't know how to deep we need to get with this before you'll accept that logic values and numbers are not the same types of things.


By using the same set of symbols, all you are doing is fooling yourself into thinking there is an equivalence.


There is nothing more "elementary" about base-2 over, say, base-10. All bases are equally "elementary".


Certainly not. The ALU in a computer -- the circuit that actually performs computations -- has distinct sub-circuits for performing logic and performing arithmetic. An ALU requires data as well as an instruction code to tell it what to do. Computers do not compute logic and arithmetic "interchangeably". An arithmetic SHIFT is not the same thing as a logical SHIFT.


The only thing you've accomplished by doing this is to increase confusion. Let O, L, and V respectively be the symbol sets for the languages O*, L*, and V*. What language is this string from? "101"


Sigh. The reason you come to these invalid conclusions is because you're oversimplifying all the details away.

Set L is logic states, right? So L is the domain of a two-valued logic system. Therefore, every binary operation in L is a function \( f: \{0,1\}^2 \to \{0,1\} \). There are no binary operations that produce "1001", which is a string from an entirely different language. You're making up the rules as you go!

The same is true of the language of set O, which presumably is a 2-valued boolean algebra. There is no number 1001 (or 011, etc.) in this boolean algebra!

Presumably the same is true of set V, where the functions are of the form \( g:\mathbb{R} \to \{0,1\} \). Of course, you've simplified away all the details, so we can't be sure what you're talking about.


A few posts back I gave some detail on how a binary computer actually uses the different levels of abstraction to perform computations. All you've done here is hand-wave away all the details, presented an example of base-2 addition over a ring of integers, and declared it "proof" that numbers and logic states are equivalent.

That's not how a computer works. That's just how you're interpreting the results.

Okay — I will take your word for this due to the extensive theorem work done in other areas that seems to preclude their DIRECT definitional overlap. However, I think there is an implicit reason-model intersection via the other proof I began, at the more foundational "MEANING" layer (the one you said was clear and well done — thanks btw). I'll stick to unifying those concepts under that proof. I'm working on a take 2 for that, will have it soon.

 

How are we supposed to build a Theory of Everything if we do not scientifically define what a "thing" is?

If you agree information is separate from physical space, then what precisely is physical space, and what are things in physical space? And are you a thing in physical space? What role does light play in yielding you non-dimensional information concerning a "space" outside of the non-dimensionality of information?

Any Theory of Everything must rigorously pursue the issue of defining a thing to the best that we can.

Earlier you said something poignant — "Can information refer to itself?" It's as if you defined yourself as information there, almost as if existing AS an element of information independent of the "thing" that is your body in physical space. Am I correct here? Why is a physical spatial object not considered a thing?

 

The very first basis of reasoning is basic observation, which is the cornerstone of the scientific method. If 5 kids jump in a pool, all things equal, with no hydrophobic coating, when they all get out, all are wet. This is is an ontological truth that I don't believe should be held in different esteem than theorems. One might debate the truths of how much wet, how the water affects the skin, how fast each kid will become dry, etc. But not the FACT that they are wet. Truth is the ability to declare the states within the being reflect some basic presence or absence of an attribute in space.

The reason I say this is because the same ontological mechanisms are what guide our ability to first acknowledge the truth that we exist in a room and can, say, get to a classroom to even learn about mathematical theorems we might hold in higher esteem. You must internally on some level acknowledge/declare "green light TRUE— GO" to get past a traffic light, you must say "door closed to building; door open" to get through it. You must say "I have $X amount to pay tuition," or "I have $X amount to buy a book or a computer to learn."

You can't expect to get medicinal treatment unless a company has declared ontological truths about the nature of their medicine that it is TRUE that it works in controlled studies, TRUE that it was approved, and TRUE you can take it.

Things happen FIRST in space. The concept of truth is built HERE first. While it isn't the FINAL arbiter of what is going on, it is the starting point and it's based in a distinction between person, space, and information describing the relationship of one thing to another.

I would like to build formal rules for what the "bare bottom line" is for ontological truth, and I started with that TDS/TDS concept (The Default State/The Augmented State) concerning THINGS in space. This is where we begin to acquire information and map it to things in space, and build worthwhile meaning.

What are you thoughts on this?