So that in mind, here’s my new proposal 4097-E:

I know I said this before, and you already began it, but I say we together build a fresh lexicon, one term at a time, and check each off in 100% agreement. Starting from the lowest fundamental thing and building upon them, Euclid-style. We explore the sensorial, innate lexicon and the base inference system, tabula rasa as possible. The model flows from this as a foundation. For the record, I’m going to argue Kronecker’s “God made the integers” maverickism was 100% from this approach. It’s the distinction between an actual, objective fundamental truth vs. limitless, intractable, abstract theoretical invention.

Sound good? If so, what’s the most fundamental term? Point? Bit? Both equal?

 

100% believe mathematical objects have a “physical existence,” just 5D continuous origin. Pan to page 34 of our ToE here.

You're not alone in this; most mathematicians believe it, too. I still have a bunch of inconsistencies in my views on the subject. Perhaps you'll convince me.

To do this, one must define INFINITY not as a process, but as a set.

The reason we don’t know what the REAL numbers are is because the token REAL is a component of superset token REALITY. One can’t scientifically show partiality to using congenital token REAL and dismiss token REALITY. REAL is that which is part of the set REALITY. We use token REAL as the base token to describe “what is.” It’s either REAL or it’s fake and/or non-existent.

The reals are INFINITE and IRRATIONAL, as is the set of them called INFINITY, which could also be called REALITY.

To fractionate ℕ infinitely is to create ℝ. The quantity 1 can be fractionated by n as n -> ∞ and its fractions in turn transpose into set ℝ.

INFINITY is the asymptotic boundary of ℝ, and is the basis of REAL geometry, or indivisible geometric form that is the reference point for knowing what is.

The simplest machine which can take infinite ℝ inputs is f(x)=mx, and it spatializes itself as the most elementary INFINITE geometric OBJECT (line).

In order for the machinery of f(x)=mx to rationally input and output any of ℝ, it too must hail from REALITY or INFINITY as an actual object to do so.

Since INFINITY is defined as not a number but an extra-numeric set of numbers, the mathematical machinery must too be an extra-numeric object to accommodate it. The machinery is a MIND-based infinite object that is the basis of infinite geometric 5D form.

Incidentally, a machine using superset O I proposed, can represent and do calculations on any bounded element n from unbounded ℝ.

This will get tighter, but there’s a QED buried in there.

 

If we have a line with infinite points, every point can be graphed with the reals using some very basic f(x)=mx+b. To TRULY describe the line, we'd need the infinite ℝ and infinite f(x)'s to describe it at the *resolution it truly exists at* — and this is insane, impossible, and absurd from our vantage point.

I want you to notice that the "insane, impossible, and absurd" part of all this is not the line, but the fact that it's defined over the reals. We are perfectly capable of defining a "discrete line" over the integers, or even some finite set, in which case there's nothing "insane" about the line. To emphasize that it's the continuous aspect that's bugging you, consider that any line segment over the reals has precisely as many points as any non-terminating, infinitely-extending line. In other words, by invoking the reals, we can map every point in \( -\infty < x < \infty \) to a unique point in \( 0 < x < 1 \). That certainly is weird.

This insanity has nothing to do with lines or infinite equations; it's a property of the real numbers. Whenever we invoke ℝ, we necessarily accept all of its weirdness. As it turns out, if we want to use the tools of calculus -- which makes solving physical problems a lot easier -- we need to invoke ℝ. Feynman was bemoaning that by using the tools of calculus, though a calculational convenience, we are actually obscuring the inherent simplicity of nature.

Feynman is not alone in this. Many physicists have noticed that assuming a continuum model of physics leads to mathematical problems, particularly in the edge cases (very high energies, near-zero distances, etc.). Remember, we have no evidence that the universe behaves more like ℝ than ℕ; we simply prefer using differential equations to integer equations, which are much harder to solve.

He's speaking of the absurdity of being able to TRULY describe the infinite-resolution of continuous phenomena using our existing tools.

That's not a reasonable interpretation. Feynman was a top-shelf mathematician and particularly well-versed in the techniques of continuum mathematics. One of his crowning achievements was his path integral formulation of quantum physics, in which a particle's trajectory is calculated by summing over all infinite possible trajectories. To Feynman, this was not an "absurdity" by any stretch of the imagination. Rather, he had a hunch -- a gut feeling -- that something simpler was going on under the hood than the math would suggest. This is what he expressed in his quote.

 

I want you to notice that the "insane, impossible, and absurd" part of all this is not the line, but the fact that it's defined over the reals. We are perfectly capable of defining a "discrete line" over the integers, or even some finite set, in which case there's nothing "insane" about the line. To emphasize that it's the continuous aspect that's bugging you, consider that any line segment over the reals has precisely as many points as any non-terminating, infinitely-extending line. In other words, by invoking the reals, we can map every point in \( -\infty < x < \infty \) to a unique point in \( 0 < x < 1 \). That certainly is weird.

This insanity has nothing to do with lines or infinite equations; it's a property of the real numbers. Whenever we invoke ℝ, we necessarily accept all of its weirdness. As it turns out, if we want to use the tools of calculus -- which makes solving physical problems a lot easier -- we need to invoke ℝ. Feynman was bemoaning that by using the tools of calculus, though a calculational convenience, we are actually obscuring the inherent simplicity of nature.

Feynman is not alone in this. Many physicists have noticed that assuming a continuum model of physics leads to mathematical problems, particularly in the edge cases (very high energies, near-zero distances, etc.). Remember, we have no evidence that the universe behaves more like ℝ than ℕ; we simply prefer using differential equations to integer equations, which are much harder to solve.


That's not a reasonable interpretation. Feynman was a top-shelf mathematician and particularly well-versed in the techniques of continuum mathematics. One of his crowning achievements was his path integral formulation of quantum physics, in which a particle's trajectory is calculated by summing over all infinite possible trajectories. To Feynman, this was not an "absurdity" by any stretch of the imagination. Rather, he had a hunch -- a gut feeling -- that something simpler was going on under the hood than the math would suggest. This is what he expressed in his quote.

And very, very important, was that this “simple thing” was NOT a mathematical statement. Which is precisely why I want to probe the internal-sensorial BIOS lexicon for clues as to that machinery, since such “hunches” only arise from that place.

Semantics all the way down here. We’re largely in agreement, just different angles. I was in fact implicitly referencing the reals with respect to that set being the very weird/absurd as the basis of it all, and a truly “real line” would be an unbounded spatialization of it. Feynman is articulating the frustration of cognizing the true nature of non-numeric infinite machinery vis-a-vis the bounded numeric and bounded infinity we have at our disposal. See my follow-up reply about the reals and my theory about them.

Though I’m not a “registered mathematician with the AMS,” I very much understand the underlying mechanics of most of it, including everything you have written thus far.

 

Again, remember our constraints. Due to our mind's ability to over-theorize and create concepts that are potentially ontologically irrelevant and extraneous to the core building blocks, we must stay in the bare-bones sensorial lexicon, Euclid-style. "A point is something with no part," etc.

This is problematic for multiple reasons. Foremost, a strictly sensorial lexicon is guaranteed to be both incomplete and inconsistent. I can't sense concepts, and the statement "A point is something with no part" is 100% conceptual. Even just the word "part" is full of conceptual baggage. How do we sense bits, logic states, computations, molecules, or wavelings? We can't, though presumably we still want them in the model.

Then there's the whole issue that our senses are notoriously unreliable. Why would we decide to build a rational model on the foundation of "seeing is believing", when there are countless examples of cases where that strategy has utterly and pathetically failed? No thanks, I'm not down with "seeing is believing".

Dimensions from base observation:

0D = no part
1D = x axis
2D = y axis
3D = z axis
4D = time (potentially)

These are simply understood by visualization.

It's almost funny how much conceptual baggage there is in this "visualization". Please get rid of any notion that describing space dimensionally is a visual thing; it's entirely conceptual.

More generally, though, you have a tendency to introduce a bit of math into the discourse as part of your argument, and then balk when I analyze the math at face value. For example, you suggest that "1D" brains cannot hold "3D" objects, using dimensionality as the basis for your argument. I point out that this dimensional argument doesn't work and you counter in effect with just assume it does. If you can use a mathematical topic such as dimensionality in your arguments, then I should be able to critique the argument mathematically. Fair's fair, yes?

Again, if "REAL" or "REALITY" token that is built in — and in my estimation, as simple as "the" or "LIFE" in terms of its obviousness, than any QED will flow from the OBSERVABILITY of simple actualities that are built-in, to be observed within the mind, and external to the mind as "a space where things exist" (REALITY), which the lexicon insists is happening.

If you are coming from the position that "REAL", "LIFE", and "the" all have the same level of obviousness, then we are very far away from a cogent discourse. So much so that I'm not sure how to proceed. There is simply no way that I can take "REAL" as an obvious given, and I don't know how to reasonably engage with someone who does.

Any suggestions?

 

I should have been more explicit. When I meant “sensorial” I actually meant first the INTERNAL senses of the mind’s eye (spatially conceptual), not the external (I’m so used to thinking from that perspective, I forgot to clarify).

We can conceptualize a “point” and describe it. Then we infer based on internal observation first. So let me know how you think about it now?

 

It could be argued the purpose of the math is to describe the spatial. The slopes of what? A curve. The area under it, etc. The math is not visual until it is transposed into a visual space. There is no calculus without first there being a curve to care about. I insist the spatial in the mind is not “the math” as we know it, but the truly unbounded 5D machinery to which Feynman alludes, where the mathematical objects reside.

To get there, we take it one point at a time and start conceptually gluing them together, pooling the lexicon into a holistic math/spatial framework. Yes?

 

I’m quite familiar with what Feynman’s breakthrough is all about at its core. Feynman summed the path’s amplitudes with highest probabilities to arrive at a statistically high probablistic solution to a 5D REAL and continuous determinism problem. My entire thrust of our discourse from post one is about the “REAL [continuous] cube borne of set INFINITY” and where it’s located in the 5D space of the mind, which I “gut know” is triangulable via semantic surgical probing of its BIOS.

We can predict where a particle will go with almost full certainty, but not quite, but no true mathematician believes “God throws dice.” The probablism is the frustration of being on the other side of the studio glass at Infinite Studios, where the producineer is Dr. Infinitus Reali, and we are The Finite Band.

 

Again, you seem to be defining EXPERIENCE as "human experience" (or, perhaps, "animal experience"), in which case it is tautologically true that computers can not EXPERIENCE. I'm saying that EXPERIENCE is more general than humans or animals, and I have a cogent way to explain why I think this is so. I observe that the simplest animals (bacteria, amoeba, etc.) and even non-animals (plants, viruses, molecules, etc.) respond to their environment with basic attraction/revulsion impulses. Following the causal chain up to the increased complexity of human brains, I find a cogent pathway for human EXPERIENCE to be just a very complicated version of what viruses experience. And, since viruses and molecules and such are not much different than computer programs, I find it compelling to ascribe EXPERIENCE to computers, by transitive closure.

In contrast, your argument seems to rest on either a triviality (true by definition), or requires that you invoke "5D" souls and other inexplicable magic.

There is no discussing any of this without some kind of magic wand somewhere.

There is no definition of LIFE (magic wand #1), so how is it one can discuss a causal chain of "life?" It's one of the impactions of science, and no different than following the causal chain of a Univac to a Timex Sinclair to a 286 to a Quadcore and the loads of mystery "phases" in between. What connection is there between a Honda Asimo, an Amiga 3000 and a Roomba? Or a C-64 and an iMac? "They all came from state _NATURE as state processing machines by unknown, unobserved physics." Um... "If you could just go ahead and give me a better explanation as to why your TPS reports weren't handed in with a more solid explanation, Peter, that would be greeeeaat."

<ASSTONE>
You think Darwin had one scintilla of a clue about the information theory elements behind his "correlation-implies-causation-chance-as-physics" quasi-religious propositions? He had none. Talk about using the physical senses only to make a theory!!

Macro-evolution is 99.6% information correlation and .4% real-world physics causation to match it. Every bit in the DNA must be accounted for by real physics to have a real theory. His explanation back then was "random forces" as a definition of "design." Either the forces are computed, or they're random. His purpose was to show "random mutation" from "random forces" was how things evolved. He had no explanation for the progressive augmentation of information on how Ape OS 1.0 turned to Ape OS 3.4 with more function calls and more binaries that intelligently relate to the physical substance they're driving, which is the whole true soul of the theory of "evolving complexity."

And no, the "every possible outcome has occurred via QED theory" doesn't cut it for me. As one brilliant scientist put it toward an evolutionary biologist, "Is there any physics to this theory such that a physicist could understand, or that an engineer could implement?" No answer. "But we've correlated 99% of the DNA from X species to Y species from state "nature!" (But don't ask us to tell you why we think they're alive any more than any other inert object!)" Very proud of ya correlations, guys! I got news for ya! I've also correlated 99% of the code from NeXT OS to Mac OS. If one has no definition for life in the BIOS as his starting point, one has no right to cogently discuss "life" and its physics-less "evolution" any more than you do from NeXT OS to Mac OS or a blind man does selling digital billboards, or a deaf man does selling tube mics.

The purpose of correlating a "smoking gun" to "x room" is so that one can pinpoint a cause in a mental "court of reason." Otherwise the correlation has no point. And such is the case with macro-evolution. I don't believe randomness nor freewill exists (except for a very core concept that is too complex to describe in this paragraph), and that is the engine of this theory. "Haphazard forces moved the stuff into place. Never mind the fact that the origin of the stuff might have something to do with the information and computation theory that put it into place."

I invoke "higher 5D machinery" as my sole magic wand, as does many intelligent scientific minds. Anything alive on the planet and seeks to preserve its life has a soul. One knows _LIFE when he sees it.

I believe _SIZE is somewhat an illusory comparative byproduct of bounding REALS in INFINITY (as are _TIME and _CHANCE 5D illusions) — so technically if there was a life-size bacterium that was 5 feet tall, this kind of thing would still apply. The beaver and snail SEEM more complicated, and their calculations certainly are, but in the end, the calculations resolve to one latch of pleasure, because whether 1 state or 10 million, it all resolves to one state. The use of nebulous terms like taste and texture, etc. work in as well (and that's more on this topic than this post can handle). And yes, because I believe the 5D is an "originating" parent, computing substance, I believe there are 5D versions of these substances first before there are 4D ones. So I actually do not believe man is technically "conscious". I believe it has a consciousness component that drives the circuitry that pulls the latch, like the skunk or cat.

I say "believe" because I cannot prove this, anymore than Feynman can about "higher machinery" or you when you say "we can't KNOW what is" (which damn —is that one interesting statement.. it's as if you feel "something" exists apart from the states?? ;=)

I'm open to the concept that there are certain animated things I don't necessarily call "alive." Bacteria and plants might fall into this category. I mean, does COVID molecule have a "soul?" Nah. I think they might have _LIFE to a degree there's animation, but no experience of being "alive." One might call a pencil sharpener to have "LIFE" by that definition, but has no soul to make it ALIVE. Those are some things I'd like to work out through 5D observation of the mind.

But again, I hope this shows the importance of probing the BIOS further! Perhaps "LIFE" reveals itself more by methodically and procedurally pinging those semantic elements that are built-in?? And we can observe "organisms" in the mind first, see their first-order state, perhaps, and theorize further from there as a novel approach.

</ASSTONE>

 

In other words, by invoking the reals, we can map every point in −∞<x<∞−∞<x<∞ to a unique point in 0<x<10<x<1. That certainly is weird.

This is quite literally the basis of my reasoning and entire point from my original post! We're discretizing the continuous "REAL" SET of UNBOUNDED 5D REALITY/INFINITY ℝ into rational, resolved, or digitized/bounded 4D ℕ form! Enter the "5D fabric" I was referencing from 20 pages ago. The weirdness I was articulating as, "Where in the actual f*ck is the ℝ-set derived continuous cube as natively represented in the discrete countable-parts-by-ℕ brain?"

The REALS speak to simultaneous "infinite divisibility AND indivisibility of any one n". Transposing the concept to the spatial is entirely the basis of what I'm trying to articulate with respect to deducing continuous mathematical forms being the baseline of _INQUIRY and _REASON. And yes, I don't believe they're defined whatsoever mathematically, so they're outer-model.

My entire contention is that the mind has essentially "two different beasts": #1 — the digital one it perceives through the physical senses that is componental — i.e., integer-countable. Everything in this physical world is countable. There is a discrete number of particles making up every "thing." Back to the damn dog™ again, if it has 2.5x10⁷⁷ atoms or whateverTF, it's still countable — I don't care what the exponent is, e here is still a number and not infinity. #2 — the internal conceptual senses (and where we get token "SENSE" from — pan to Frege — which is the plumb line of organization based on these forms) which are of "first order" nature. The mind is even powerful enough to instantiate a digital one within itself even aside from the observed one in the physical senses.

If you start to "delete" a sufficient number of atoms from the physical dog, the mind can NO LONGER identify the dog as "any one thing" from its first-order reference point, because it loses its definable, continuous, first-order referential form mapping. There must be an indivisible definition of dog in order to cognize the dog in the senses. By the same token, it is infinitely divisible. So one can generate ∞ number of ThoughtDogs from that 1 dog, and the 1 dog never loses identity or resolution. Effectively, the REAL numbers speak to infinite resolution, continuous resolution, or "infinite-bit". The dog has infinite bits of information in it by the nature of the fact that we can zoom in on any point and graph it as a discretized bounding, in effect integer-izing so we can think of it as "1" thing (pan to the function you showed earlier which essentially equates 1 with infinity — in the same way .9 repeating = 1).

I contend that the original "version" of the things we are seeing first arise from the 5D where they exist as infinitely divisible AND infinitely indivisible mathematical forms — the "underlying machinery" Feynman alludes to. When I mention "amalgamater" I'm speaking directly to this phenomenon. One could almost say "differentiation" has its semantic roots in the mind's "differentiating between infinite 5D ℝ and discretized 4D ℕ by arbitrarily resolving infinity to a bounded state to map digital phenomena to infinite."

This is candidly why I have an issue with a countable number of molecules in the brain dealing with the actuality of the 5D. By its very nature, the brain is a discretizer. It cannot represent each element of "absurd" ℝ, and yet it insists it even exists outside of its own discrete self. The 5D must be something else to me rationally!

Here's where you need to whip out your swiss army kit and QED that into a pulp! lol. I just have the theory, but I bet you can crystallize it formally!

 

How do we know what "real is?"

Again, using the most elemental, congenital, linguistic components to every human (or we have no building-blocks of any kind for science):

REAL is an experiential term involving the senses. One defines something as REAL that can be touched, tasted, seen, heard, or smelled.

Equating "real" with "capable of being sensed" is fraught with difficulties. Foremost, it both excludes things that we might want to call real, and includes things we might not want to call real. We cannot sense radio waves or electrons, yet I'd consider both "real". What about illusions and hallucinations? Is the amputee's phantom limb "real" because he can feel pain in his missing hand?

What about concepts, such as love, politics, or Utah? We can't sense concepts, so are you prepared to say that Utah is not "real"?

The term is connected to FACT and TRUTH. TRUTH is the ability to SENSE (using the 5 senses) a REAL thing outside the mind as having occurred in SPACE and TIME and verified (root of "ver" or truth) by one's own SENSES or someone ELSE'S (in the latter case, BELIEF is required).

By your definition, things that we'd indisputably consider true are not TRUTHs:

• The definition of "bachelor" is an unmarried man
• \( A \vee \neg A \)
• \( 10^{100} \times 10^{100} = 10^{200} \)

Furthermore, one can't sense space or time. We conceptually infer space by the distance we perceive between the objects that we can sense, but take away the objects and there is nothing to sense. Likewise with time. Thus, according to your definition of "real", space and time are not REAL. Therefore, your definition of TRUTH is a contradiction.

It's at this level of discourse that any true ToE must be built from the ground up.

This level of discourse is far too loose and assumption-laden to be a foundation for any ToE. You think that Euclid-like observations are "pure", that we can rely on the obviousness of certain things, but a ToE cannot take anything for granted.

 

If the box was blue, and everyone that saw it agreed, including you by using the base lexicon and observation system— and I came in and said it's red, and INSISTED on arguing this FACT, from my concept of TRUTH, independent of us both, you would get hella pissed at me for not speaking the TRUTH of the matter, using the basic human building blocks of reason, concerning the objective observational existence of the box outside of us both.

This is exactly my point: there is no objective observational existence. At best, we can get bunch of people to agree on something, which we then call a "fact". But this isn't as simple as you make it seem, especially when taken from a sensorial perspective.

Is this dress blue or gold?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_dress

I see it is blue; half of my family sees it as gold. So, which is it? Either a whole bunch of people are wrong -- in which case, what does that tell us about our senses? -- or no one is wrong, and we just accept that our senses our subjective.

How does your "reality is what we can sense" dictum account for The Dress?

You were annoyed I was interpreting Feynman incorrectly? If the quote is just a concept in your mind, who's to say my mind even has access to the same information? What is the arbiter of any of it, if it's just banks of switches with no reference point in the observable senses?

You're presenting a false dichotomy: either you're "just banks of switches" or you're an arbiter, capable of deciding the accuracy of an interpretation. I can be both. I know this because computer systems are often designed to arbitrate between conflicting sensor information, and computers are just banks of switches.

 

So that in mind, here’s my new proposal 4097-E:

I know I said this before, and you already began it, but I say we together build a fresh lexicon, one term at a time, and check each off in 100% agreement. Starting from the lowest fundamental thing and building upon them, Euclid-style. We explore the sensorial, innate lexicon and the base inference system, tabula rasa as possible. The model flows from this as a foundation. For the record, I’m going to argue Kronecker’s “God made the integers” maverickism was 100% from this approach. It’s the distinction between an actual, objective fundamental truth vs. limitless, intractable, abstract theoretical invention.

Sound good? If so, what’s the most fundamental term? Point? Bit? Both equal?

I'm good with that, but first I need a better sense of how we're going to deal with the "obviousness problem". What you and I consider obvious seems to be vastly different.

You claim that "real" is as obvious as "the", whereas I have "real" way over on the "soul" side of the obviousness spectrum. This is a major barrier to clear discourse, so we need to get a handle on it, as it pervades everything we say and interpret.

For example, to you, Euclid's definition of "point" as "that which has no parts" is perfectly obvious and fits your "senses first" approach. Consequently, you'll invoke "point" as part of an argument without giving it too much thought. When I read "point", however, I don't know exactly what you mean, and so the point of the argument goes over my head.

To me, Euclid's definition is ambiguous at best, and -- more importantly -- is not a sensorial concept. I have never sensed an indivisible thing, and I find nothing obvious about a zero-dimensional spatial reference.

So, before we even get started building a lexicon, we have to agree that obviousness is not sufficient and must find some other way to have efficient communication.

 

I should have been more explicit. When I meant “sensorial” I actually meant first the INTERNAL senses of the mind’s eye (spatially conceptual), not the external (I’m so used to thinking from that perspective, I forgot to clarify).

Ok, see, this is exactly what I'm having a problem with. The primary, nearly universal usage of the word "senses" refers to our interface with the external world. It is "obvious" to me that someone saying sensorial means "pertaining to our senses of sight, smell, sound, etc." I'm pretty sure you even used those specific senses in your definition of REAL.

Now you're telling me that, all along, you were actually using it to mean internal senses, as in the "mind's eye"?! I have no idea what either "internal senses" or "mind's eye" means to you, so I'm completely at a loss for how to respond.

We can conceptualize a “point” and describe it. Then we infer based on internal observation first. So let me know how you think about it now?

This furthers my confusion and frustration.

 

I'm good with that, but first I need a better sense of how we're going to deal with the "obviousness problem".

See if this makes _SENSE to you:

We have agreed on a few relatively sophisticated axioms at this point. Any human would agree, "We made SENSE of what was considered senseless or devoid of sense, and procedurally and preceptively came to what one would consider objective scientific truth." It made no sense to see INFINITY as a number. It was "obvious" when we "got there." It wasn't obvious until we GOT there. The information or machinery "revealed itself" (a la Feynman) and was organized as sufficient signal vs. worthless noise, thusly becoming "SENSible" vs. "nonSENSE".

We then invoked a token "QED" which could be thought of as a synonym for, "The aforementioned makes sense to any rational person, and if it doesn't to them, they can feel free to continue smearing their own fecal matter on the wall and counting styrofoam cups while talking to their deceased Aunt Ida as their reference point—because objective sense or sanity is not their plumb line. They are not SANE if they deny the traffic light is green and it is objectively and obviously red per their SENSES (more on the "dress" below)."

QED essentially signifies "objective truth, proven as demonstrated" — where? I would say in some reasonable ratio of the inner AND outer senses, which are objectively existent to each person. "Inner sense" is another term for "sensible concept". The inner sensible concept needs to ultimately connect to what's happening in the real world for it to be SCIENCE.

So to conceptualize is to make inner sense of things through logic and geometric form. But caveat worthlessness: one can make inner sense of things that don't necessarily correlate to the outer world's working. That's called a fantasy. One may make a complete, even self-contained mathematical model that "makes sense" internally. But if others don't see it as reflecting the outer sensed world, one might tell them to "come to their SENSES" on the matter; in this case, the outer ones as the basis of that statement.

So it's necessary to start right here: What exactly is sense? And is it different from sensor? Frege does a lot of great work on this, but I think it would be good to start as unencumbered as possible by other definitions.

Do you agree:

SENSE is built into the lexicon as a foundation keyword, as is AXIOM. It is the ability to see, hear, smell, taste, or touch ORDER within oneself or external to oneself. There's a strawberry on the counter, and one in your mind. You can sense both and have experiences with both externally and internally. Both are an OBJECT, which is some kind of ORDER. ORDER involves the building blocks of perceivable polygonal elements, like circles, squares, triangles, to build macro assemblages of more complicated orders. A strawberry is assemblage of those elements along with things like texture and flavor.

SENSE is integral to literally every step of scientific discourse, and we use it, and have used it, to indicate the presence of agreed-upon objective order that is self-affirming through the tools of logic and base innate geometric forms.

What about concepts, such as love, politics, or Utah? We can't sense concepts, so are you prepared to say that Utah is not "real"?

As spoken above, we can "sense" concepts internally (as geometric form), and key them off external sense. What is Utah? It's a state. What's a state? It's a land mass. Utah is under sensible set "land mass" that can be entirely defined by sight first using external sense, and then add other abstract senses to associate and build upon. The use of "external and internal" is a provisional distinction, because they are probably extensions of the same phenomena at different potential manifestations. Abstract senses, or concepts, are built on core sensible building-block elements. Utah as a land mass is tagged with "Government body" invoking "government" which is an observable group of people with authority.

Politics? The set of what politicians are and do. A politician can be defined as someone who lies for a living as someone who advocates a given stance within given socio-economic ideologies. Each of the words I'm using have a geometric, sensible element to them that can be dismantled into sensible geometric building blocks.

What is love? The phrase invokes tons of imagery and feeling that indicates some kind of base SENSAtion of a "warm goodness" between people or other creatures. Felt is a synonym with "touched" — touch being one of the senses. It "touched me," or I "felt it" or "I feel that" can also be used often to mean "it makes sense to me." EVH's music makes hella "sense." You can feel the sense he makes. He uses real-time improvisational "audible algebra" to balance sets of notes, add them together, and intersecting them with others in meaningful ways to a LIVING person.

A bachelor? Invokes "man" that can be sensed. He's unmarried. Married is a ceremony that can be sensed, with a ritual that yields token "married" to prefix to "man."

What about 10¹⁰⁰ × 10¹⁰⁰=10²⁰⁰ ?

We know what token "10"/ten means because we learned in grade school to map token "ten" as the number after nine and then further map them to objects like our sensed fingers. We have 10 of them, most likely why we use base 10 to begin with. Instead of fingers, we can use any sensible "somethings." So we can literally boil that expression above down to one number multiplied by another to equal, or yield, over a vigintillion discrete somethings. We have defined abstractions that represent groups of somethings, and we call them numbers. (This goes back somewhat to what we were discussing before in terms of a bit vs. a number. If we string multiple bits together, we have a "hyper-bit," "super-bit," "byte," or some kind of grouping of bits that I think is something involving the REAL geometry to do). That grouping can be spatially represented. Incidentally, there's a TED speaker Daniel Tammet who is the most incredible manipulator of numbers in the world, and he uses spatial representation and colors to manipulate numbers to unheard of levels and speed.

What about "the dress?" Glad you brought this up — the greatest perceptual anomaly of all time aside from Laurel and Yanny recording of 2018! I've looked quite deeply into both.

This is a complete glitch in existence to the point of "everyone calling red lights green" and vice versa. There's never been anything like it. The dress is patently blue and black in real life, and no one disagrees with this in actual person, nor about the original photo on the company website. This one specific photo is somehow "broadcasting" a white and gold version and a blue and black version as a quantum whack-out. Experts saying it's "angles and lighting" are entirely clueless. One does not mistake white for midnight blue, and gold for black any more than mixing up green and red traffic lights. Literally ever.

It's like Neo was screwing with the 5D code associated with the photo as a test of human perception. I do believe the photo represents the actual dress, but is disseminating different waves out somehow from that one photo of it. It's NOT the people viewing it.

The term SENSE also moves into subjective areas involving "experiential worth." This is an extended definition element, but can often be tied in. We "like" making sense of existence by creating a ToE. It makes SENSE to do this activity experientially right now.

One can view an order external to their mind — the tissue box stuffed with artichokes and small rabbits while worn on a sombrero with black and orange colors as a Christmas outfit doesn't make sense for those that define Christmas in the most widely understood sense. "Well what if it makes sense to the person?" They're welcome to it, but I would call that "subjective truth" and "subjective experiential sense," not "science" which is concerned with objective order. "Smearing fecal matter on the wall" makes "sense to the person doing it" it as well. They're the only one with that "sense" most likely in that case.

I personally believe there is such thing as objective beauty sense as well, but that gets controversial real quick.

So does that all make "sense?" "Grok" is probably another term for it in reality.

Essentially we take each term at a time and we explore what "makes sense" as a definition for the core BIOS. It is "sensorial" in the sense that we are using an obvious combination of elements one block at a time to arrive at sensible things.

Is "soul" obvious? Not necessarily. But we get to that later on and it might become so.

The key is that we start very small, check each thing off, and build from conSENSual, agreed obviousness.

Agreed?

 

So....

Not even a comment on what I wrote about the reals, etc.???

 

We have agreed on a few relatively sophisticated axioms at this point. Any human would agree, "We made SENSE of what was considered senseless or devoid of sense, and procedurally and preceptively came to what one would consider objective scientific truth." It made no sense to see INFINITY as a number. It was "obvious" when we "got there." It wasn't obvious until we GOT there. The information or machinery "revealed itself" (a la Feynman) and was organized as sufficient signal vs. worthless noise, thusly becoming "SENSible" vs. "nonSENSE".

There is a big difference between "obvious" and "undeniable". For instance, once you've seen a proof, it's undeniable that the cardinality of the real line is exactly equal to the cardinality of the real plane. But there's nothing obvious about it. In the interest of clear communication, I propose that we restrict the use of "obvious" to things that don't require a lengthy explanation or justification. Something is obvious if it is immediately undeniable. INFINITY is not obvious.

Along the same lines, the word "sense" has multiple connotations, including associations with "reasonableness" and "meaning". All of them are perfectly valid uses of the word. However, for a discussion in which perceptual sensory data is a key aspect, it is terribly confusing to use "sense" in any other sense than the perceptual connotation. In particular, "sensorial" should refer strictly to the sensor systems that comprise our interface to the external world.

There are plenty of other fine words that unambiguously convey "internal reasonableness", including reasonable, rational, logical, cogent. Let's be as clear as possible with our words.

Agree?

SENSE is built into the lexicon as a foundation keyword, as is AXIOM. It is the ability to see, hear, smell, taste, or touch ORDER within oneself or external to oneself.

How about this:

A STIMULUS is a change of INFORMATION.

SENSORs are simple information processors designed to react to specific types of stimuli.

A complex information processor with one or more SENSORs has the capability to SENSE its environment, that is, to receive external INFORMATION through its sensors.

ORDER involves the building blocks of perceivable polygonal elements, like circles, squares, triangles, to build macro assemblages of more complicated orders.

We haven't defined POLYGON yet. It's certainly a CONCEPT, though I don't think it's necessary or fundamental in any way.

The CONCEPT of ORDER is more interesting. It seems strongly related to INFORMATION, though on a more abstract level. We can try to hash it out.

 

So....

Not even a comment on what I wrote about the reals, etc.???

Sorry, I tried, but I couldn't make heads or tails of it.

When you reference notions such as "5D REALITY" or "infinite divisibility AND indivisibility of any one n", I don't have any idea what you mean. These notions seem to be crucial to what you're trying to explain, but for me they represent discontinuities -- empty holes devoid of meaning -- in your explanation, and I cannot follow along. To my linguistic parser, it's quite literally as if you wrote "Because of ______ we know that ______ must be true." I have nothing to fill in the blanks with, so I don't know how to respond.

 

Sorry, I tried, but I couldn't make heads or tails of it.

When you reference notions such as "5D REALITY" or "infinite divisibility AND indivisibility of any one n", I don't have any idea what you mean. These notions seem to be crucial to what you're trying to explain, but for me they represent discontinuities -- empty holes devoid of meaning -- in your explanation, and I cannot follow along. To my linguistic parser, it's quite literally as if you wrote "Because of ______ we know that ______ must be true." I have nothing to fill in the blanks with, so I don't know how to respond.

Lol. Yeah, that post was out there in TheoryLand and certainly not "too terribly obvious (speaking of)." I was actually more talking about the theoretics in this previous post, which is more ultimately model-bound in my estimation:


To do this, one must define INFINITY not as a process, but as a set.

The reason we don’t know what the REAL numbers are is because the token REAL is a component of superset token REALITY. One can’t scientifically show partiality to using congenital token REAL and dismiss token REALITY. REAL is that which is part of the set REALITY. We use token REAL as the base token to describe “what is.” It’s either REAL or it’s fake and/or non-existent.

The reals are INFINITE and IRRATIONAL, as is the set of them called INFINITY, which could also be called REALITY.

To fractionate ℕ infinitely is to create ℝ. The quantity 1 can be fractionated by n as n -> ∞ and its fractions in turn transpose into set ℝ.

INFINITY is the asymptotic boundary of ℝ, and is the basis of REAL geometry, or indivisible geometric form that is the reference point for knowing what is.

The simplest machine which can take infinite ℝ inputs is f(x)=mx, and it spatializes itself as the most elementary INFINITE geometric OBJECT (line).

In order for the machinery of f(x)=mx to rationally input and output any of ℝ, it too must hail from REALITY or INFINITY as an actual object to do so.

Since INFINITY is defined as not a number but an extra-numeric set of numbers, the mathematical machinery must too be an extra-numeric object to accommodate it. The machinery is a MIND-based infinite object that is the basis of infinite geometric 5D form.

Incidentally, a machine using superset O I proposed, can represent and do calculations on any bounded element n from unbounded ℝ.

This will get tighter, but there’s a QED buried in there.

 

There is a big difference between "obvious" and "undeniable". For instance, once you've seen a proof, it's undeniable that the cardinality of the real line is exactly equal to the cardinality of the real plane. But there's nothing obvious about it. In the interest of clear communication, I propose that we restrict the use of "obvious" to things that don't require a lengthy explanation or justification. Something is obvious if it is immediately undeniable. INFINITY is not obvious.

Along the same lines, the word "sense" has multiple connotations, including associations with "reasonableness" and "meaning". All of them are perfectly valid uses of the word. However, for a discussion in which perceptual sensory data is a key aspect, it is terribly confusing to use "sense" in any other sense than the perceptual connotation. In particular, "sensorial" should refer strictly to the sensor systems that comprise our interface to the external world.

There are plenty of other fine words that unambiguously convey "internal reasonableness", including reasonable, rational, logical, cogent. Let's be as clear as possible with our words.

Agree?

How about this:

A STIMULUS is a change of INFORMATION.

SENSORs are simple information processors designed to react to specific types of stimuli.

A complex information processor with one or more SENSORs has the capability to SENSE its environment, that is, to receive external INFORMATION through its sensors.

We haven't defined POLYGON yet. It's certainly a CONCEPT, though I don't think it's necessary or fundamental in any way.

The CONCEPT of ORDER is more interesting. It seems strongly related to INFORMATION, though on a more abstract level. We can try to hash it out.

Yeah, should have specified there — I wasn't formally pitching that ORDER definition with that, as polygons are certainly down the line.

Agreed with everything you wrote, except for a chronological element and potential use of SENSE internally only. Because there is an "outer physical sense" vs. an abstract internal "conceptual sense" (as in what you wrote above... you wanted to get a better "sense" of the obviousness element), I think we might need to start internally only.

I understand the dilemma — and perhaps we can set these off somehow — but for internal conceptual use, SENSE is specifically used obviously and liberally and never SENSOR, so I feel like not defining SENSE as part of the mental BIOS might be problematic (and please feel free to suggest a word for this — Congenital Semantic Architecture? Innate Human Lexical Framework? Native Linguistic Schema? Something to denote the nativity of these terms). I think also we could have a meta-sheet for each term if necessary to show the reasoning behind defining them.

There's a definite chicken-egg situation here. Here's a hash-out of the terms I think need attention first, and perhaps one will inform the other — and yes, I do believe we can define these terms with very essential scientifically sound essences and emancipate them permanently from Nebuland:

SENSE

KNOW

SOMETHING

NOTHING

TRUE

FALSE

FACT

NONFACT

EXISTENCE

THOUGHT

CONCEPT

BIT/POINT

LINE

OBJECT

WAVE

SPACE

DIMENSION

NUMBER

INFINITY

ORDER

DISORDER

SIGNAL

NOISE

AXIOM

REASON

MEAN

REAL/REALITY​

Sketching:


When one closes one's eyes, and clears it entirely, one can make a base observation upon the intended state of his own mind. The most basic, obvious phrase one can utter is:

IN MY MIND, I SEE NOTHING.​

"SEE" in this case is an internal sense, because one can extrapolate this phrase to all 4 remaining senses: "I touch/taste/smell/hear NOTHING in my mind." NOTHING is defined in terms of SOMETHING as the potential state of SOMETHING.

Due to all internal senses being part of what it means to conceptualize in the mind, this could be rewritten then as:

IN MY MIND, I SENSE NOTHING.​

Within seconds, SOMETHING might appear within the mind, and one can utter:

IN MY MIND, I SENSE SOMETHING.
​

After one SENSES what's THERE, one can now utter this phrase:

I KNOW SOMETHING IS THERE.​

To KNOW SOMETHING IS THERE is to declare a FACT to one's self concerning its EXISTENCE in the mind.


Agree?