To me, a point is a geometrical object, and I don't need geometry to describe information. But if you feel it's useful, we can work on a definition. I will insist, however, that we do not confuse geometry, a mathematical space, with physical space. Though we can sometimes find useful analogies between mathematical and physical spaces, the two are not the same, just as a map is not the terrain. How do I know that they are not the same? I can do things to geometry with my mind that I cannot do to physical space.

With that, let's define a point.

A mathematical SPACE is the alegbraic structure that results when a number field is combined with one or more operations defined on the field.

We may consider the elements of a mathematical SPACE to be vectors. A map between vectors in the SPACE is called a function. Some SPACEs allow for a special function called an inner product that satisfies certain conditions. Such SPACEs induce a geometry by defining, among other things, the notions of length and angle within the SPACE.

A POINT is a vector in a geometrical SPACE.

We may describe a POINT by an n-tuple of numbers \( (x_1, x_2, ..., x_n) \). This representation is not unique. The minimum n necessary to describe a POINT is the DIMENSION of the SPACE.

Tabula called... she wants her rasa back for all definitions!

 

Btw, shoutout to Rick Beato! Particularly his “what makes this song great” and his “mystery stems” that have given new life to old tunes!

 

Welp. The problem I’m having is that you’re a SCO XENIX prompt with sneakers who has nature-given words like REAL and REALITY, but you won’t even call the space you live in "reality" (of some kind), even if every other “state machine” does. More quick to invoke congenital "Concept INFINITY" than REALITY. Nor think there’s any “mind’s eye” apart from the ons and offs. Like there’s no actual knowable thing (“Dog in light”) anywhere, even in your mind other than just strange concepts of flip flops you think you are somehow no longer discrete, but care about each other, though discrete from the others. Flip flops that somehow have dimension and form and life, and...

Well, to me it’s kinda like...

“Hey hon, I’m home!”

Wife: “Jav, it’s trash night.”

“Honey, you know... I don’t really draw any kind of...official... partiality between the "trash states in my brain" and any kind of...real trash, now—c'mon! Besides, causal forces are sooooooo 17th century, love... and besides, my latest calculations on the driveway show there should be just enough space time curvature that the trash will simply shift right toward the curb by tomo...”

Wife: “That’s what you said last week, Jav. Just put some friggin ‘Newtons’ into the damn bin and push it to the curb already. We don’t have enough space in the garage for another week.”

“Oh, alllll right. Gravity is just an effect tho, hon!... Space and time are entirely connected anyway, we don't need to force things anymore, and this trash bin I just think should...”

Wife: “Jav, what the hell’s gotten into you lately?"

“What? What’s the matter, hon?”

Wife: “I dunno... you just.... you just haven’t been the same since, like... late March. Constantly on the computer and mumbling about “Hilbert.” Who the hell is that?”

“Hilbert???? Oh! Hilbert! He’s just a state processor, honey...”

Wife: “State PROCESSOR? I knew it! I knew you were chatting with someone...she works for the state of UTAH, doesn’t she!!”

“Huh???”

Wife: “She’s a STATE PROCESSOR for Utah isn’t she!! I knew it! You’ve been flirtin' with some chick online from Utah!!”

“No, No! It’s not’s anything real like that... not at all. Not at all! The reality of it is...”

Wife: “I bet, Javier! Face it, nothing has been REAL to you since we exchanged vows! And this ring?? It’s not REAL to you either! And even the great time at the Van Halen concert we went to last month either! And neither is the 'reality' of our home and life together!”

“No, no.. sweety, I... you’re just not understan...”

Wife: “Hilbert! What’s her first name, Javier??”

“It’s not.... for Chrissakes, bunny, I’m not chatting!... it’s... I’m interacting with a... it’s just a machine ... on a forum, honey. Just a machine...”

Wife: “A machine!?? You expect me to believe all your ‘laughing and mumbling’ about ‘points’ — what, frequent flyers? — ‘getting space’ somewhere in Utah is with a... machine, Javier?? And the magnitude of her “binaries?“ And graphing “Euclids” together?? What’s a Euclid, Javier, is that a flower?? You buying her Euclids, Javier?? What the hell is that about?”

“Honey! She’s NOT.... It's not ...REAL! I mean— it IS, but... Ok, look, I’ll admit—I’m talking to a state processor—that’s it!... but not from any...”

Wife: “So she IS REAL! Answer me now, Javier! Are you talking to a PERSON... a REAL LIFE, LIVING human being with feeling, mind, heart, pain... or are you you talking to a dead machine???”

“Ummm....you want the... conceptual real truth... don’t you....”

Wife: “No, Javier, I want a conceptual "lie!"...And maybe a divorce if you keep this sh*t up. Who is she, and what. does. she. do.”

“Well, I don’t distinguish between tokens who or what, honey—as you know... “being” and "who" as "scientific terms" are entirely undefined as of 2020, and just soooooo ... “religious".... sooooooooooo... “1 AD?” It’s an “it,” sweets. That simple. I call it that. Science calls it that. An "it."”

Wife: “WTF are talking about, Javier... you have 30 seconds to start making SENSE. And I mean REAL sense, in REALITY, mister!”

“Sensors, honey. Sensors. You know I don’t believe in “senses” either. That’s another one of those undefined, religious terms. Ok, ok... its name is... its name is... Jennifer. It “puts the binaries on the screen.” It’s a state processor that insists absolute things like “reality” and “truth” exist. Can you imagine? I dunno.... I’ve been trying to convince it that everything's all just... you know.... “subjective, non-representative states,” and has nothing to do with any kind of mythological “objective existence” or REALITY... such a... “medieval term,” you know? "REALITY." I mean, even Riemannian manifolds prove that if you...”

Wife: “I’ve heard enough!... and I’m sure all that laughter about beach talk about ... “Vector Boole?”— what, her ex? and Leona Kronickers? — her ‘friend’ wasn’t real either, I bet. You talk for hours in your sleep, and I hear you mumbling every morning, Javier! Laughing away, having the time of your life! Are there other online “buddies” you hang with when I’m away on business? So you are literally going to look at me in the eye and tell me she’s a soulless machine, aren’t you!??”

“Well, I mean, not SOULLESS in that SENSE, dear... it’s more like...”

Wife: “Like what?? what SENSE... dear? Thought you didn’t believe in sense! Or spirit? Did you get her out of the morgue??? Did you order her online?? I'm sorry, 'it!'"

“Sweet, calm down! please!... it’s just a case of invalid coherence you’re dealing with here. Your moral subroutines are invalidly connecting your quantum brain synaptic subspaces with state “Jennifer”, which as I said, isn’t real in REALITY WHATSOEVER. I promise.”

Wife: “Huh? How do you define ‘real,’ Javier?!! Was our marriage REAL to you?? Did it happen in space and time together with me in REALITY, in a REAL building?? What AM I to you, Javier? Just another one of your state processors from Florida??”

“Well honestly, the entire event didn’t happen in REALITY in that sense, sweety...I mean, the marriage itself was a "concept," as you know. There is no “real,” so the court shouldn’t even acknowledge it as happening in reality!... because it only happened in our correlated qubits, honey... It’s all just XENIX turtle prompts, alllll the way down, sweets. Marriage is just...”

Wife: “Is what????”

“Well, it’s a... it's just a, um... Honestly, it's just a special bank of ‘flip flops’. In this case, starting at hex register #FF00FF...that’s really all! See how simple that is? Nothing to worry about at all. Probably at the next clock cycle, function worry_state() should discharge from your cortex.”

Wife: “I knew it... I ... just... knew it. That’s about right isn’t it: 'Flip flops.' That's right, you ‘flip flop’ all over the place because we don’t share any friggin objective definition for anything in reality with ME — your WIFE as a BEING you love and live with in THIS reality.”

“Honey, I swear, you have it all wro...”

Wife: “Javier, just take out the f*ckin trash.... and while you’re at, why don’t you jump in it, because we’re through!”

<front door slams, you continue to talk through the door>

“Wait, wait, honey... look, it’s just a big, big... you know, it’s... well, I don’t “know” anything about reality really!.. there’s no real “meaning“ here anyway. Sh*t's undefined. Meh... I’ll just power down for now. She’ll reboot later on— that damn Wife OS. Wonder if Best Buy's Geek Squad services these things yet...”



Of course, none of the above is “real” or in “reality,” two innate, very specific concepts the human being employs much more readily that things like INFINITY or FUNCTIONS to denote the difference between information in the mind that doesn’t represent reality-based events vs. those that do to even itself vs. other human beings. Truth, compassion, and ethics does such things. Those who who don’t honor the distinction between tokens REAL and FANTASY, which are two clear sets of data in the mind, “put the binaries on the screen” (“put the lotion on the skin“) like Buffalo Bill of Silence of the Lambs. Most humor or horror is built on that.

 

On table there's a large drinking glass with water. Please answer this question with a binary TRUE or FALSE response: The glass is full?


Not if they have quantum correlations. As I described in a recent post, entanglement leads to states which cannot be described by independent EITHER/OR characterizations. This is an empirical fact of our universe, and any ToE must be able to account for it.


I don't know what "exists" means other than the empty statement "is a member of the set of all sets". But I agree that the brain is not a truth state, though we can certainly represent it as a (very complicated) set of truth states.


It makes more sense than ascribing magical properties to "cognition".


Absurd! What makes the symbols "partly cloudy" any different from "10101010" or whatever? You are mistakenly inferring that just because you can parse the symbols "partly cloudy", that it has some inherent connection to "REALITY" (whatever that is). Siri can parse "101010101" just as well as you can parse "partly cloudy". You have symbol bias, that's all.


So far we have been assuming that Siri gets her weather report from the internet (just like I do). I've argued that we are doing the same thing, and know the same thing about the weather. You might say that I can go outside and "see and feel" the weather. But this is just sensory data. If Apple put a thermometer in its phones, and included an app that used the camera to compare images of the sky, Siri could "see and feel" the weather, too!

Just like with symbols, you are showing an anthropocentric bias toward our sensory modalities, placing them on exalted status. But we have no reason to so do. In fact, if we want to be as intellectually honest as possible, we must assume the opposite. Coming from a neutral place, we can rightfully ask, What is the difference between a human's experience of weather and a chimp's, or a fruit fly's, or a bacterium's? Thinking about it, the only difference I see is one of degree of complexity of the experience.

I can imagine the bacterium experiencing the weather something like "fine, fine, fine, fine ... too hot, too hot, too hot ... fine, fine, fine" which drives its response to the environment. My experience is more complex, but not entirely different: "Gee, it's kind of warm, let me turn up the A/C. Ah, that's better."

Now, you may claim that Siri doesn't care about the weather she reports, and that's all the proof we need: she's not responding to her environment. But I'd disagree. She truly does respond, though not in the ways we associate with organic life. If there is a dangerous weather situation, she alerts me. She knows the difference between good weather (display cartoon image of sunshine) versus bad weather (display cartoon image of rain clouds). It would even be easy to program her to respond more like organic life. Equipped with a moisture sensor, she could complain whenever she got wet.

"Knowing" the weather only means having states that are associated with environmental conditions. We have 'em, bacteria have 'em, and so does Siri.


Sweet lord. If I told you the weather in Swahili, you'd also say "what do you mean?" Symbols are symbols regardless of the language. It's just a matter of learning how to parse them.


Um, what do you think "partly cloudy" is? It's CODE for the weather, it is NOT the weather itself. How can you not recognize this?


Base-1 may not fit your model nicely, but it certainly works. It is mathematically indisuptable that a given number base is equivalent to any other. This literally means that, whatever we can do in one base, we can do in any other. Unary (base-1) computers have exactly the same computing power as binary (base-2) computers.

You're not recognizing it, but you are trying to force a binary pattern onto everything. Repeating "existence versus non-existence" over and over doesn't clarify or prove anything. In fact, let's get to the heart of your belief and find out what "non-existence" means.

Describe to me non-existence.


Patently false. Repeating myself, but computation is not synonymous with binary logic. We can make equally powerful computers with any number of logic states, including a continuum of them (analog computing). Again, for the hard of hearing: we do not need two logic states to perform computations.

Your prized 2-state ideal is just one example of an infinite number of ways to do/see/reason about things. Until you accept the indisputability of this, you'll be spinning your wheels in half-baked mud.


There is no "meaning" until the final bit-processing part -- the brain of the listener -- processes it and gives it "meaning". In all its forms, from waves to voltages to neurons, the fundamental thing was information -- the information of the instrument playing what we call a C major chord. A third-year music student would find different "meaning" than a little old lady. The music student processes the waves and thinks "C major triad in first inversion". The little old lady hears it and thinks "that sounds nice, I miss my grandkids" or whatever.


You're the one insisting that everything is logical truth state. I believe that logical truth states are an arbitrary, unprivileged form of representation with no ontological significance. Logic states are your church, not mine.

I suggest LOGIC for "internal sense" because that's exactly what logic is -- an internal recognition of causal necessity. But whatever we call it, for chrissake, we need to stop using "sense" for it. Case in point: you said "truth states alone are the basis of sensical meaning", and I have absolutely no idea if you mean "sensical" in the internal or external way. We need to pick one and be done with it.


So "1" stands for TRUE, i.e., is a symbol that can represent TRUE. Great. What about "5", can that stand for TRUE? For C compilers, surely it does:

if (5) { printf( "TRUE!\n"); } // will print "TRUE!"

So, what is so special about "1"?


No, you had it right just above. "1" is a symbol that can represent a number or a truth state (or a whole bunch of other stuff). "1" is neither a number nor a truth state, it is a SYMBOL. "TRUE" is also a SYMBOL.


Prove it. Prove that 5 is a "symbolic amalgamation" whereas 1 is not.

Otherwise, it's just church-talk: You are annointing {0, 1} as the Chosen.

I think the confusion is, 0 and 1 aren’t any two specific symbols. They’re placeholders for contrasts. They stand for absence/presence. So they are “wildcard” symbols. That’s how I’m referring to them. You could use any two symbols for this exact purpose.

It just so happens 0 represents no value and 1 is the lowest, so the overlap works for arithmetic and logic.

This is precisely why there’s a huge diff between “partly cloudy” as a higher order symbology connected to the actual reality, and the underlying “binaries.” There is zero meaning in nondescript states. It’s why we insist on forms as the basis of meaning. Reality has stuff in it. The information about the stuff is different from the stuff. To you, everything is information, and our very innate human terminology distinguishes between the two significantly.

More information is required before “glass on the table” can be assessed. See other post for non-existence definition (using a cut on arm for the basis). Question has to have a valid data structure before querying. Why not ask about the rhinoceros in the other room balancing on the China closet?

 

I will answer every question, but many are branch elements tied to a trunk needing further clarification, and they’ll disappear as the trunk becomes clearer.

Back to this diehard question for a second:

“Where and what is the dog in the light?”

Why is this question in yours and in EVERY HUMAN BIOS fundamentally distinguishing between the “dog” and the information concerning the dog, if all, to you, is “information?” Interrogative tokens shared by all humans are very much collated immediately in the mind as REAL or from REALITY, vs. originating in the mind (FANTASY).

See, to say “everything is just states” takes a lot of effort to come to.

Every person has tokens REAL and REALITY, and “somethings” that exist within it. Without tons of academic indoctrination, a child readily “sees a dog” and with the rest of his senses “know” the dog via them, and if you ask the child whether or not he SAW the dog, he would be lying if he said otherwise. The dog is there. Whether or not he’s there (TRUE or FALSE) is a state that only has “meaning” when it correlates to the object “dog” it reflects.

This implies:

1) The dog exists as a stand-alone element in a thing called reality.
2) A continuous wave of information concerning the dog’s existence and placement in it can come to your eyes and ears from the dog, separate from the dog.
3) The continuous information itself can be discretely encoded to a useful, bounded representation in 2^n non-descript bits or binaries.

This is not an ideology. Your cut on your arm is real, and separate from the information about it. Same with the dog. For you to say, “the dog doesn’t exist,” when you can experientially verify, as well as anyone else there empirically, as demonstrated (the term “demonstrate” hails from a real activity) can do as well, would be considered a “lie,” the complement to “truth.” Do it enough, and they lock you away as a madman.

I insist you are making an effort to dismiss all things as states, when the built-in congenital tokens say otherwise. Even the 5 interrogatives are insisting things exist independent of the information concerning them. Tabula rasa means we’re open to the core elements’ inferences. Until you are able to admit there is a reality with things in it, we will be circling 2^n drains forever. ;—) In fact, I think REALITY and LIFE are the first two tokens needing definition, because only a living person uses token REALITY. QED.

 

Btw, I should have said this pages ago, but it’s best to read my 3-4 messages in totality before replying to each in sequence, because I often get more clarity and follow up with related relevant info.

 

When I said "non-existence," I mean provisional "property-lessness" (i.e., I consider "nothing" a form of something that has no discernible properties, as I mentioned in earlier posts).

Good, we're getting somewhere. (Incidentally, this is why I harp on lexical precision and being as clear as possible. There's a big difference between "non-existence" and "property-lessness". The most important difference being that we can cogently reason about the latter.)

So, let's try to pin down what property-lessness means. It would seem that a thing can only be described by its properties, as a thing's properties are how we distinguish it from other things. Thus, something that has no properties cannot be described. But this itself is a property, namely, the property of not having any properties (or, equivalently, the property of being indescribable). I think we have run into a version of Russell's paradox!

By definition, an indescribable thing cannot be described. But, we can surely describe an indescribable thing in at least one way: as an indescribable thing. Therefore, indescribable things are not indescribable, which is a contradiction. We can state this more formally.

Let \( A \) be the set of elements that have no properties. That is, for any property \( P\), \[ A = \{ x \, | \, \neg P(x) \} \] Now, let \( P \) be the property "is an element of \( A \)". If \( x \) is a member of \( A \), then \( P \) is true. But all \( P \) must be false for any members of \( A \). Therefore, \( A \) is the empty set.

In other words, there can be no "property-lessness" things.

If you cut your arm, only a mad man would say "I have no cut there." You have a cut there. When it heals, you have no cut. Two states: PRESENCE of cut, ABSENCE of cut. Cut exists, cut doesn't exist. You might have a small cut, or big cut. But only a madman says "I have no cut" when it's plainly "there."

This is a far more subtle issue than you have painted it to be, as "cut" -- like "heap" -- is not precisely defined. At what point does a cut stop being a cut and becomes a scar, or healed tissue? We might naively say, "when it stops bleeding", but that's problematic, too: what about non-bleeding cuts, such as cauterized wounds? Note also that the "heap" aspect is transitive: at what point do we say that bleeding has stopped? If we look closely enough, we will continue to see blood flowing. Speaking of which, ever look at skin under a microscope? It's full of micro-cuts everywhere. Are we therefore always in "presence of cut"?

Then there's the semantic-logical problem of "have". Can you actually "have" "no cut"? Can you "have" the absence of something? When the grocer says "Yes, we have no bananas", he is sloppily saying that bananas are out of stock.

But the most important issue is that not everything fits into a binary yes/no pattern. If you ask me (or Siri) "How's the weather?", you will not be satisfied with a "yes, the weather exists" answer. "There are clouds in the sky" is not terribly useful, either.

How many aspects of our experience are black and white? How many are shades of gray? It seems pretty obvious to me that shades of gray is the rule, rather than the exception.

Objective truth is right there. QED. 100% experiential, observable, logical truth.

What you wrote isn't a deductive logical or mathematical proof, so it's neither a QED nor objective truth. It's an inductive argument. It might sway someone's opinion (not mine!), but indisputable it is not.

"But your arm is actually a Hilbert space vector that tensors to a black-hole near a clockless singularity in 87D space. I mean, how do you even define token "arm? " Arm is just another symbol that stands for 1011001. PROVE you have an arm! Go ahead, prove it!" Gotta give ya hard time. ;--)

LOL Fortunately, I didn't have to invoke Hilbert spaces in this case. ;-)

If you have a cut on your arm, and want to assign a symbol to denote the truth of "presence of cut", what symbol would you use to denote this vs. "absence of cut?"

To my way of thinking, "cut" is a CONCEPT associated with, among other things, CONCEPTs such as slicing and health. "Cut" is a label we give to various states that correspond in some degree to the base CONCEPT. And since it is a matter of degree -- there's no definitive point at which the state of a cut on our skin stops resembling the CONCEPT of "cut" -- a binary yes/no description is not appropriate.

The fundamental truth concerning the cut is whether or not it exists.

If that were true, then you should be able to pinpoint precisely when a cut stops being a cut. Good luck with that!

This is the basis of binary logic that permits reasoning. You can't build a unary machine with only a "high state of voltage" that can also have a comparator chip. No can do. The chip must take contrasting inputs to give you an evaluation using XOR and NAND gates that use a duality of states to yield a result. QED.

A quibble, but, traditionally we say "QED" to mark the conclusion of a deductive proof. Invoking it after an inductive argument is considered pretentious. (In fact, modern mathematicians consider it pretentious to invoke after deductive proofs, too. In its place, they use the black-box symbol to mark the end of a proof. But it's easier for me to write "QED" on a forum post.)

Anyway, back to your argument. A comparator is an analog chip; one can use a comparator to make a binary output, but the comparator is not a digital circuit.

It seems like you're trying to argue that a unary computer cannot use binary components, like XOR and NAND gates. Sure, this is self-evidently true. But what you seem to be missing is that binary computation is only one particular example of computation. A unary circuit is not efficient -- you need two components for every binary equivalent -- but it's just as powerful. There is nothing that a binary computer can do that a unary computer can't do (and vice versa). This little fact is true for any form of base-n computation.

Do you accept this? Do you grok that "@@ + @@@ = @@@@@" is no different in kind than "010 + 011 = 101"? Do you grok that we can build electronic circuits that implement these ideas in either form?

And further to this, the storage of such computation is done on multiple flip-flops that remember the contrast!

The results of unary computations can be stored on any RAM technology we like. The only difference between a bit and its unary equivalent ("u-it"?) is that the latter defines only one voltage level. Electronically, we define a bit using two voltage levels, each having a range of voltages associated with that level. Any voltage within the range of the HIGH level is a HIGH voltage ("1"); any voltage within the range of the LOW level is a LOW voltage ("0"). Any other voltage elicits undefined behavior -- anything can happen.

A unary storage element, say a capacitor tied to a high-Z mosfet, has precisely one voltage level ("@"). Some standard would define what range of voltages correspond to "@"; any other voltage would not produce "@". This is actually more robust to noise than binary encoding, though it comes at the steep cost of doubling the component count (and quadrupling the required surface area). But the point is that unary computing is every bit (hah!) as possible and effective as binary computing.

Presence and absence is the essence of reasoning. No way around it. Otherwise everything is true and everything is false and there is no knowledge!

Lol, just because you claim it doesn't make it so. I don't know what "essence of reasoning" means, but I do know that there are innumerable ways of reasoning. Sometimes we choose binary models, but only when it's convenient to do so. More importantly, it is never necessary to use a binary model. If something is not necessary, how can it be essential?

 

You invoke "nature" as the basis of all your reference points. Everyone has to have the same origin.

2 issues I have with this:

1) If you are an n bit state processor alone, and nature is an n bit state processor, where is the continuous phenomena coming from, like a guitar string vibrating? State processors are not vibrating continuous phenomena. If nature has no reference points, how is it we do?

Not quite. I am an \(m\)-bit information processor, nature is an \(n\)-bit information processor, with \(m << n\). More to the point, I am a tiny subset of nature, which itself is a tiny subset of the universe (the set of everything).

As I said before, continuous and discrete are CONCEPTs, a sometimes useful way for \(m\)-bit processors to categorize phenomena. We pretend that the vibrating guitar string is continuous because it helps us simplify the math, but such language may not even be appropriate to describe what's happening under the hood.

If you suspect that this might be a hole in my theory, note that we can plug it up even using the language of continuous/discrete, To wit, any continuous process can be perfectly characterized by a large enough set of discrete samples. This is simply Shannon's sampling theorem. The theorem tells us that the information -- the thing that makes it the thing -- doesn't care whether the medium is continuous or discrete. This strongly implies that, whatever is going on under the universe's hood, it can't be reduced to a simple continuous vs discrete label. (Another strike against your insistence on binary patterns.)

The "truth" is the objective connection between your states and nature's. Otherwise, WHY invoke nature as anything? NOTHING exists anywhere!

Define "objective connection". There are associations between my states and nature's. Actually, let's be super clear about this.

I am a part (subset) of nature, but there are parts (subsets) of nature that are not a part of me. For example, the dog across the street is part of nature but not part of me. When I see the dog, the subset of nature's states corresponding to the dog influence some of my subsets. As a result, some of my subsets include information from some of the dog's subsets. I'm fine with calling this a "connection, but I don't think that "objective" is the right adjective. In particular, it's almost certain that the information I've received from the dog is incomplete and imperfect -- whatever dog states are in my brain, they are only loosely connected with the states of the dog across the yard.

You couldn't get good at an instrument nor teach anyone else if there wasn't an objective standard that existed OUTSIDE you both!

I disagree. Some people think Eric Clapton is a master guitarist, while I consider him pedestrian. There's no objective standard of "master guitarist" or "mediocre guitarist", just a bunch of opinions.

Point is, the reference point in nature ITSELF never changes. That reference system is in every human being. What is your tongue SENSING if, there is no "strawberry" that exists "outside of states?"

This doesn't seem logical. The taste of a strawberry isn't known until one actually tastes it, at which point some of those particular sensory experiences get stored in memory. What is tasting? A whole bunch of chemical reactions in the mouth, the perception of which we associate with flavors. "Strawberry flavored" things are manufactured to incite similar chemical reactions, causing us to taste "strawberry", even though there are no strawberries around.

Perceptual reference points are always in ourselves. Otherwise, why would so many people enjoy the taste of brussel sprouts, while a significant portion of the population absolutely detests them? If the reference is external to us, then we should all taste the same thing. But we don't, because the reference is internal.

 

“Hey hon, I’m home!”

Wife: “Jav, it’s trash night.”

LMAO! That was so great, cheers!

It's pretty wacky having two equally valid frames of reference running at the same time. In one frame, we are information processing subsets of the universe, in another, we are emotional creatures with lives that have personal meaning and joy and sadness. But that's the human condition. That's why we make art.

(BTW, I caught the "it puts the binaries on the screen" reference immediately.)

 

LMAO! That was so great, cheers!

It's pretty wacky having two equally valid frames of reference running at the same time. In one frame, we are information processing subsets of the universe, in another, we are emotional creatures with lives that have personal meaning and joy and sadness. But that's the human condition. That's why we make art.

(BTW, I caught the "it puts the binaries on the screen" reference immediately.)

Glad you liked... yeah, I thought you would get that reference — but for the folks at home who might not have, I thought I would clarify.

So all seriousness aside (lol), in the humor, I do hope I made some semblance of a point about token "REALITY" (and REAL)... It's Public Token #1.

After 30+ pages of this, I've come to the realization I seriously believe we need to define this token first. "LIFE" token yields "REALITY" token. It is 100% embedded in all of the data in the mind as the superset of everything outside it vs. in it, and even in it, it tends to use the term to denote "experiential poignancy."

And I actually think it is part of a lot of the confusion semantically, because there are some tokens being used in math and logic that have their own definition. Like "REAL" for example. One can't use this term now without invoking ℝ FFS, but for millennia prior it meant "It either exists in your eyes and ears or it doesn't." Or "non-existent" — this is perfectly understood by everyone to mean "The jar is just not on the bloody table, for God's sake. It exists elsewhere."

"Tabula Rasa, 1st Year of Service," here, can we define REALITY as (on this order!):

REALITY A "place" where there are SOMETHINGS and NOTHINGS that exist?

I say "place" because "everyone knows what place means." NOUN is "person, place, thing or idea." I think that's safe to use as a starting point for identifying things, no?

 

To all respected mathematicians watching: I've been using QED very informally (and humorously) in a more "huzzah" fashion after statements that should hem the point in, but to which Javier here has play_along(every_conceivable_topic, universes_entire_data_set, jennifer) running in a 47D circumventive space in one sub-section of his nano-computative substrates... "Who says I have a cut?" "Well depends on what you mean by 'cut' in THIS context, now. The cut as defined in relation to Zonan's orthonormal bijective mappings relative to the infinite-dimensional generalization of the ζ space of finite-dimensional vectors is most apropos here." So I very much know it's not part of the stringency of the discipline. I'm using it in the literal "as demonstrated" but also "pretty damn undeniable to these here senses, so it should become a real QED somehow soon" kinda way.

 

This is precisely why there’s a huge diff between “partly cloudy” as a higher order symbology connected to the actual reality, and the underlying “binaries.”

Correct me if I'm wrong on any of these: by "higher order" I take it you mean "less abstract"; by "binaries" I take it you mean the "1010101" form of symbology.

If so, then I don't understand why you think that "partly cloudy", as a sequence of symbols describing the weather, is less abstract than "1010101" as a sequence of symbols describing the weather. Consider what a human English speaker does when it reads "partly cloudy". The vision system detects and notes distinct patterns of light; the brain searches memory and quickly finds matches for all the glyphs -- these are English alphabetic characters we're seeing. Another section of the brain kicks in, which groups the characters into distinct words. Again, the brain searches memory, this time for conceptual matches: the individual CONCEPTs of "partly" and "cloudy" are brought to the forefront. Yet another section of the brain works to tie these two CONCEPTs together, searching memory for CONCEPTs of "partly cloudy". This brings in a bunch of associations. An entirely different section of the brain, the counterfactual imagination engine, proceeds to tie the "partly cloudy" associations with whatever else is on the stack. Maybe I was hoping to go to the beach, and so my counterfactual engine imagines ways that the information gathered from "partly cloudy" would affect my day at the beach.

The process of comprehending "partly cloudy" is almost certainly far more complex than that, but hopefully you get the idea. There's no direct "knowing the weather", the symbols have to be processed, just as a computer would have to do to parse and interpret "1010101". Whether it's in English or the binary language of moisture vaporators, it's all a bunch of state shuffling.

There is zero meaning in nondescript states. It’s why we insist on forms as the basis of meaning.

Is that the royal "we"? You've yet to show how "meaning" is relevant outside of the particular information processor that assigns the meaning. In my theory, there is no external meaning -- any meaningfulness is purely personal -- and so nothing more needs to be said about it. An ontology that includes external meaning is necessarily far more complicated and fraught with logical pitfalls. If nothing else, Occam's razor (and Feynman's simplicism) stronly suggest that meaning is strictly an internal, subjective phenomenon.

Reality has stuff in it. The information about the stuff is different from the stuff. To you, everything is information, and our very innate human terminology distinguishes between the two significantly.

Again with "reality". If you're definition of REALITY is different than "the universe; everything that is", then you need to spell it out clearly and specifically. Otherwise, there's no need to use the word "reality"; it's always and entirely implied. Instead of "reality has stuff" one might say "there is stuff" or, even better, "we perceive stuff".

We perceive stuff is an intellectually honest starting point, a single fruitful seed that can sprout an entire ontology. Sure, "we", "perceive", and "stuff" have to be defined and explained, but that's where the ontology grows.

I took a different path, starting with "There is information". On my path, perception comes way later, but I think both paths lead to the same inevitable spooky mansion at the end of the road: the universe is an information processing state machine.

 

Even terms such as "space" and "point" are part of superset REALITY token-wise. Even sanity itself. This is the crux of some of the terminology I'm using, so this is one of the most important posts I can make thus far (and as I see in your post above — exactly right: I'm coming from a place of REALITY as existential backdrop, you're coming from information):

A _REAL space (which I will use for outer-model and NON ℝ elements), has "things" in it. 3D (and 2D) "ROOMS" also known as "SPACES" and "POINTS" within the room. A graphite pencil's end has a "point."

Even something like:

"The observable geometric space that is the set of all referential things" may work.

All things within this space are _REAL. The dog is a 3D object that exists in the ROOM, another 3D object (an object having discernible length, width, and heigh).

These are flowing from natural, innate observation.

The dog's presence in the room can be denoted with symbol 1 to represent "fundamental quantity in existence in the room." The dog's absence can be denoted with symbol 0 to represent "fundamental quantity that is no longer in existence in the room.' Important stuff, because If one were to constantly insist things exist in REALITY that don't, we label that DEMENTIA and put him on THORAZINE.

So "Dog" is symbol we're using to denote DOG, "1" is symbol we use to denote his presence, and "0" is symbol we use to denote his absence. Two different levels of symbology here.

All my definitions are coming from this place. So as you can see, "binary logic" or "TRUE and FALSE" is in fact the most elementary observation system within REALITY understood innately by every human born. The dog exists, and IS there or the dog IS not. This is the FIRST property one can say about the dog.

A cat can come into the room, and the same thing applies. "1" is a symbol we use to denote his presence, and "0" is symbol we use to denote his absence.

Then a rabbit comes into the room, and the same thing applies. "1" is a symbol we use to denote his presence, and "0" is symbol we use to denote his absence.

In real time we can see them as there or not there, but if we want to store their individual states on a physical substrate so we can do further logical matches on them, or recall whether or not they were there at some time in the past, they need their own unique TRUTH state symbols.

Problem is, a machine is only using voltages, so only 2 states are possible to distinguish.

What's the solution? We build unique truth state sequences called "strings".

DOG's presence = 01
CAT'S presence = 10
RABBITS presence = 010

Now we can do logic evaluations on these things. Were both dog and cat in the room? We run 01 and 10 through an AND gate and we have a "1" for TRUE. Was rabbit or dog there? Was rabbit and dog OR cat there? The gates are the physical reality-based logic evaluator that permits the basis of logical evaluation.

When dealing with high and low voltages, we need to assign even a unique string of states to represent the dog itself independent of the logic states of whether or not he's in the room!

DOG itself = 111001
CAT itself = 110100
Rabbit itself = 110110

So now, we can determine "whether or not" we're referring to a dog, cat, or rabbit, to set the "context" for what our logic evaluations are reflecting.

Because these animals above exist in this "mysterious" thing called REALITY, it could be thought as true that literally everything has a unique set of binaries, and their presence, absence, and movement can be denoted with more binaries and then entire models of movement can be had. And indeed, the universe IS a state processor.

Provisionally speaking, we say that a "dog" is EXISTENT, and the space where the dog WAS when he left, is NON-EXISTENT for the dog (this is where I was using those terms from). The dog went from a place of GROUP OF OBSERVABLE PROPERTIES in SPACE to one in which the only thing was left was "space" that has no properties (or essentially "worthless" properties when in comes to a logic contrast).

However, this is where you and I diverge (at present). I intuit these things exist unto themselves BEFORE they are states as indivisible elements.

DOG itself can be represented as 111001, and it's presence or absence as 01, but in the end, the DOG doesn't really EXIST outside of those things (that's why you made the statement we can't "know what is" — but I think we can triangulate it!). They are in an uncalculated phenomenon called "being" or "existence." It is my contention that concept INFINITY is what can be used to "get at" the nature of a "real, knowable dog" whose definition cannot be breached by deleting states that represent it.

This I conjecture is an innate property of some "knower" within the being that insists states within reality are separate from ones within the being. It is an 'originating" element of infinite potentialities.

How "big" is the dog/rabbit/cat? Well, we don't say "TRUE" or "FALSE" to that. We use symbols to denote comparison to other things in reality. A tape measure labeled with evenly divided units can give us an inner feeling or sense of the cat in relation to a unknown fixed standard within the being. Measurement is objective based on undeniable mathematical reference points within the being (these "mystery objects", which again I believe are "built in" and supersedent to the states). The cat is 18 inches. "Inches" doesn't change. Everyone knows what an inch is by looking at it on a tape measure. That's mathematical, and that's objective TRUTH within reality.

We can assign a string to "weight" 50 pounds (which is infinite turtles al the way down ... pounds, ounces, blah blah) and assign the dog a weight, and then send another string represents 40 pounds, and a comparator can tell us if the dog is "heavier" or "lighter" than another. At no time, though, are those strings directly assigned to "things" in reality until they are done so by a human.

But from my perspective as shown above, it's very obvious that a bit "quantity" is holding TRUE and FALSE values, and that a number is nothing more than a unique abstract grouping of unique truth-state binaries.

Hope this elucidates more where I'm coming from in terms of my empirical partiality toward "binary" states and "things in reality" as the basis.

 

Why is this question in yours and in EVERY HUMAN BIOS fundamentally distinguishing between the “dog” and the information concerning the dog, if all, to you, is “information?”

Here's the thing. INFORMATION, like energy in physics, is fundamentally undefinable. Through careful observation, we keep finding certain quantities that are preserved across certain transformations. One of these is "energy", which is not a substance or even a property of a substance. It's not "made of" anything and so isn't a thing that can be sensed or put in a lunch box. Yet, we can't help but notice that, whatever it is, it's somehow connected to how the universe works.

INFORMATION is the same. It is an eminently quantifiable, non-definable aspect of how the universe works. So I invoke it as an axiom, and make absolutely no claim about "what it actually is".

As for what the dog "actually is", I also make no claims. It may be quantum fields or something beyond my comprehension. But I know that there is information associated with the dog, whatever it "actually is", because some of that information is transferred to me when I see the dog. And since information can be quantified, this is a useful way to characterize the dog, whatever it "actually is".

You claim that every human distinguishes between the dog and the information concerning the dog, but I claim the exact opposite. Regardless of what you believe you know about the dog, you only know the information that was transferred via your senses. What other knowledge could there even be? Are you suggesting that, besides the information transmitted via our senses, we have a telepathic connection with the dog? Even if we did, that telepathic connection would be transferring information! What other way do we have of knowing the dog? It's all information.

See, to say “everything is just states” takes a lot of effort to come to.

It's very easy to say, and surprisingly easy to believe once you've digested the facts with an open and logical mind, but I grant that the digestion process may not be so easy.

Every person has tokens REAL and REALITY, and “somethings” that exist within it.

But these tokens are devoid of precise meaning. For most people, the token "general relativity" evokes a bunch of fuzzy notions of curved spacetime and gravity, but it doesn't actually have any precise meaning to them. Likewise, I can nod my head when someone mentions "reality", but I don't actually know what they're referencing.

As I said before, if we're defining "real" to mean "exists" and "reality" to mean "everything that exists", then they are both redundant tokens and we shouldn't use them. If they have any other ontological baggage, then this needs to be addressed before we can use "real" or "reality" in any cogent discourse.

Without tons of academic indoctrination, a child readily “sees a dog” and with the rest of his senses “know” the dog via them, and if you ask the child whether or not he SAW the dog, he would be lying if he said otherwise. The dog is there.

I'm glad you used this example, because it highlights an important fact. What you describe is accurate for, say, a 7-year old child, which has had a lot of time (and indoctrination) to build the mental models that you, Jennifer, can relate to.

But it is completely inaccurate for an infant. The senses of very young infants have not had their wiring completed, so they don't even see the dog standing in front of them. To them, the dog simply does not exist. Older infants can see the dog, but have not yet developed the requisite CONCEPTs to know that it -- the infant -- and the dog are different things. The dog is there, but not in the way that the dog is there for you. At some point, after much experience and repitition, the CONCEPT of self vs other things is formed. They've learned to associate especially familiar states with themselves, and less familiar states with other things. Eventually, they develop a CONCEPT of space and gain the notion of object permanence. Peek-a-boo no longer thrills them. The dog is an "other thing" in space, like you perceive it to be. But it took a lot of cognitive development for that to happen.

It is utterly useless to try to generalize a definition of "reality" from all of these developmental percepts. We can, however, usefully look at them as increasingly complex state machines.

I insist you are making an effort to dismiss all things as states, when the built-in congenital tokens say otherwise.

There are no built-in tokens. We learn the tokens through lots of practice and indoctrination. A newborn baby has zero tokens.

 

REALITY A "place" where there are SOMETHINGS and NOTHINGS that exist?

I say "place" because "everyone knows what place means." NOUN is "person, place, thing or idea." I think that's safe to use as a starting point for identifying things, no?

A source of our lexical problems is becoming clear to me. In this theory-building of ours, you tend to choose words that have widely-known connotations -- the more widely known the word, the more you feel it's meaning is clear. Hence, "reality" and "place". I, on the other hand, much prefer words with razor-like definitions that are as unambiguous as possible. Hence, "Hilbert space".

I'm not sure how negatively you feel about my lexical choices, but I'm strongly averse to using widely-known words to convey precise ideas. For example, though I agree with you that everyone has a relatively similar notion of what "place" means, the word itself is the intersection of a million slightly different notions, each of which is itself fuzzy. This intersectional fuzziness prevents any sharp conceptual lines from being drawn around it, as if we forgot to put on our reading glasses. And while I readily acknowledge that this Gaussian blur is endemic to any word we choose -- it is exactly this property that makes natural languages so very flexible -- some words are, as it were, blurrier than others.

How about this attempt, borrowing from young Wittgenstein:

REALITY is everything that is.

I'll make two remarks on this definition. One, it doesn't include NOTHING, i.e., "that without properties". I believe this is a logical necessity, as proved a couple of posts back. Two, it makes no attempt to specify a location.

One of the more subtle aspects of the supremely subtle art of writing good proofs is knowing what to include and what to leave out. I mention this because mathematicians are not just expert theory builders, they are expert theory writers. What teleological purpose does including a location in the definition of REALITY serve? I ask this in the context of the logical implications that will necessarily follow. For, if we were to claim that REALITY is located in some "place", then -- by logical implication -- there must be another place that resides outside of REALITY. And this leads to a big bushel of thorny questions that will likely smell very, very bad.

One final remark on my definition of REALITY. I have defined it so that we never need speak of it again.

 

A _REAL space (which I will use for outer-model and NON ℝ elements), has "things" in it.

Why not just call it a "physical space". Is there some _NONREAL or _FAKE space to which the physical space is contrasted?

A physical SPACE has things in it. Things are elements of physical SPACE.

Simple, clear, and direct.

3D (and 2D) "ROOMS" also known as "SPACES" and "POINTS" within the room. A graphite pencil's end has a "point."

Things get murkier here. The notion of ROOMS seems extraneous at this juncture, but if you feel it needs to be introduced, then I would recommend defining it in terms of SPACE, not as a synonym for SPACE. (A ROOM is a subset of SPACE, yes?)

A ROOM is a partition of physical SPACE.

You also introduce dimensionality, which is fine, but seem to restrict it to 3D and 2D spaces. That most certainly needs explanation, because either we take it at face value that physical SPACE has three spatial dimensions, or -- if we're going to allow 2D -- then we need to open the possibility for spaces of any dimension. It's not intellectually honest to grant 2D privileged status and not 1D or 42D.

Finally, you don't even bother attempting defining POINT, which I suppose I can sympathize with after having tried it yesterday. Instead, you hand-wave it away with an example, but it doesn't work very well. The tip of a graphite pencil is not sharp at all, more like rounded, which doesn't suggest POINT to me. But even if you used the tip of a fine needle or something, such a thing has a "point" only in a macroscopic, fuzzy lines kind of way. If we put the tip of the needle under a microscope we will not see a point, but a jagged ridge. No matter how much we zoom in, we will never find a "point" to the tip.

I'd say that POINT is an un-physical CONCEPT, and so you'll never be able to define it adequately.

"The observable geometric space that is the set of all referential things" may work.

This has problems. First, a geometric space is a mathematical space, not a physical space. Any "observation" of such a space would have to be conceptual, not visual. Second, what's a "referential thing"? Definitions, definitions, definitions.

All things within this space are _REAL. The dog is a 3D object that exists in the ROOM, another 3D object (an object having discernible length, width, and heigh).

These are flowing from natural, innate observation.

Woof! The dog is furiously barking at whatever "natural, innate observation" is supposed to mean. Seriously, that phrase is a mouthful of puffy meaninglessness,

Also, you have a potential problem with signifying the dog as a 3D spatial object. What distinguishes the room from the dog? You might say, "We can see the difference with our eyes", but presumably the dog and the room are different regardless if any humans are around to see it, yes? What if aliens the size of a hydrogen atom beamed into the room next to the dog. Would they be able to distinguish the dog from the room immediately around it?

The dog's presence in the room can be denoted with symbol 1 to represent "fundamental quantity in existence in the room." The dog's absence can be denoted with symbol 0 to represent "fundamental quantity that is no longer in existence in the room.'

This is the crux of it here, eh? The dog's presence is denoted by a single symbol? What about the room's presence? The same, single symbol? Then what is the difference between the room and the dog?

Presence or non-presence of what? A single truth value cannot hold the information of the "what" part, so all you have is presence/non-presence indications without any reference. You can't lump all of "dog" into a single bit, yet that's precisely what you're doing.

In my model, the state of the dog is a multi-bit pattern that gets transferred to my brain and stored as a multi-bit pattern. A single presence/no-presence "pattern" is impotent.

So "Dog" is symbol we're using to denote DOG, "1" is symbol we use to denote his presence, and "0" is symbol we use to denote his absence. Two different levels of symbology here.

Except "1" is the same symbol for any presence of any kind, so it symbolizes nothing. This is why information is important, it tells us how many symbols we need to communicate or store a thing.

The dog exists, and IS there or the dog IS not. This is the FIRST property one can say about the dog.

No, no, no. One photon from the dog (which carries precisely one bit of information) strikes one of your photoreceptors (which can process precisely one bit of information) and that is the only presence/no-presence indication. The CONCEPT of "dog" -- the entire thing -- is a 100th-order formulation, and its presence/non-presence is not its characteristic property. You're suggesting that every time I don't see a dog, my brain is constantly sending 0s saying "NO DOG HERE". ROFL!

 

I'm very much in agreement about the specificity of words and their implication.

Nevertheless, consider the phrase, Theory of Everything.

Honestly, can one get any more "nebulous" than this? From Wittgenstein's definition you cite, it's really a "Theory of Reality!"

And this is precisely what we are aiming for here. A theory that describes the true nature of reality. "Reality" isn't defined by science. SOMEONE in science decided at one point to co-opt the term REAL and make it a certain "set of numbers." Why not choose REALAMENTE and keep it entirely association-proof?

They didn't CARE.

They barn-burned it and said, "Well, we're just going to take this loaded-ass token and put a jack-hammer, 30-grit sandpaper, to it and hone it down. To hell with everyone's existing "implications." I mean, "REAL?" WTF were they (Des Cartes?) thinking. He thinks therefore he WTF's. Unless "REAL" was indeed something about true "REALITY" perhaps. "NATURAL?" Even that is nuts, like "real" doesn't imply "natural?" It's so "real to me, it's natural." Jeesh.

Hell, "Hilbert" is fraught with "fuzziness" as well — you've been "cheating on your wife with him this whole time."

In all fairness, Hilbert and Banach and whomever else, hearken to Euclid, and Euclid is simply discussing, at its core, what is a balanced ratio of conceivable and observable (pan to Feynman and the "machinery will reveal itself").

From very basic observation and inference, we have an x, y, and z axis, and 6 degrees of freedom in it. In our mind's eye and in REALITY (yes, I think they're separate!). It's intuitive AF, and you can FEEL its truth by using the BUILT-IN ORDER within the being. That's what I'm after — letting the built-in order "reveal itself" properly without obfuscation.

Perhaps it's time for science to co-opt the term REALITY and define it precisely from nebuland. And MEAN, and REASON, and FEEL, and many others, including the basic interrogatives. "REAL" is simply TIED to the word REALITY.

And we barn-burn the whole town and just build a semantic eco-system like Apple did (by co-opting/"stealing" NeXT's stuff, Commodore, etc.). My point is, we can stand on giants' shoulders, but we must be willing to step on their toes to get up there, and throw down a tube of Allegra out of compassion for the bruising.

Fact is, you obviously feel this is worth your time, or you wouldn't waste your time here. I believe we synergistically have the opportunity and capacity to just tabula rasa-ify the whole damn thing and build from a place of true principled intuition-led stuff that truly starts describing WTF is going on from a novel place without all of this excess. We don't let anyone else's definitions matter. (Euclid went with "That which has no part" for a point — can you get any more bare? How much different is that than what I hazarded? Why aren't you chastising him?)

But that means 2 things:

1) "Show me a map of the cat". "Say Javier, what's an LFO again?" "Well, it's a low-frequency modulator that oscillates the..." "No, what is it really?" "Well, it's turning a bass knob for you". "Ahhh." One explanation is mind, one is heart. We have to set the "zoom level" of our discourse to be first based in effortless, feeling-based intuition to stay grounded in what we are modeling, and that is observable REALITY. "Every Breath You Take" is a lullaby in disguise. 3-5 notes in close proximity. More profound, touching, and relevant than many complex classical pieces that have 99,000x notes and don't say anything but, "Look, ma, no feel! I've mastered Hanon and arpeggiations to the place where I can create audible robotism with absolutely no meaning that no heart wants to hear!" Better to play a simple song with great depth of feeling than a complex one with no mistakes as the Honda Asimo.

So.... "The dog is there, or it's not."

"Give me a map of the dog."

We build it like "Giovanna Paesani" that is all street-wise common-sense and can make basic observations with very deep inferences. "If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough" said Einstein. There it is again. "Simple machinery."

We establish "binary" as 0 or 1. Not just 1 solitary state, but a string of them, because we have tons of dogs each needing their own binaries. We assign the dogs strings of unique binaries. We have cats coming in the room now. More binaries necessary. We build some wooden gates, with wires, bulbs, we represent the dogs and cats with a Vcc, we can figure out now if we want to offload them all to the neighbors and get a bird.

The dog true/false presence binary potential can't be mapped by a trit, a quat. No. We see dog, dog is there. No dog, no there. If we need to get more complicated, we do later as the need *reveals* itself in patient preceptive probing. We don't go "outside the existing orbit" until called for.

"Map of the cat"-onics: You can explain it to yours or anyone else's wife and they don't want you to throw yourself in the trash.

Zooming in to level 5000%, the dog's molecules have left tracer coherencies to anti-matter versions in 3 other universes needing Banachian transfinite, transgendered numbers co-mapped to another truck of manure that Biff Tannen crashed into to see. We may uncover that way later, but that's not "the simple machinery revealing itself, one precept at a time."

2) I would say it's utterly essential for you to be entirely tabula-rasa-level like you've never been, open to being a "ghost in the machine" and not think it's "soooo 1500 AD." No more "it's SOOO 17th century." F*ck that "Einstein is the holy grail"-onics. There may be infinite first-order causal, sizeless invisible forces governing every quark. Gravity "as an effect" might be 100% Whatdini playing you like a fiddle from Darwin's urn. What if you ARE a "spirit in the material world" as Newton would declare in a heartbeat and call you a complete nutcase for not groking such utter "obviousness?" What if God exists and his name is Grok, he only likes Audis because they're designed from undistilled beauty rules, and he created the integers only? What if there IS a 5D infinite continuum processor in your chest that's responsible for "feeling?" What if there IS built-in intelligence to every baby that has 5D tuning forks resonating, who shouldn't hear Trent Reznor's Closer or watch Islamic jihad mickey mouse porn? What if beauty IS absolute and preferences are gradations of deafness? What if you DO have a component within you that has "senses" independent of your sensors, that allows you to see things independent of the physicality, and is the basis of the gateway into this thing called REALITY? You think Newton gave a flying covid-infected rat what ANYONE thought? NO. The man even looked into astrology for Clinton's sake!!

Are you OPEN to such potential ground-shaking "truths"? Or should I call "that wife of yours" and have her tell you to take out the trash again where you end up this time like:

You don't think that _LIFE and _CONCIOUSNESS and discrete vs. continuous is just as WEIRD and related to "dogs in the light" in a thing called "REALITY" where every point in -∞ < x < ∞ can be mapped to 0 < x < 1??? No really, what the HELL is that saying? It's saying there's an INFINI-BIT DOG in the first expression that exists as CONTINUOUS POINTS that can be digitized in the second expression in our "Matrix" here as a digi-dog! Obvious AF to me. But can I prove that?

Where precisely is a discrete state-processor making the utter difference between those two expressions exactly???? IT's a DISCRETE PROCESSOR! THAT is why those expressions are WEIRD AF! One that knows the innate difference between uninterruptible infinite phenomena vs. discrete states and collates them as "real" or “conceptual"?

But that old-world mother superior Giovanna Paesani "cut to the chase street-wise" view is seeing that instantly. True intelligence is about implication-level identification, topic-agnostic. The purpose of numbers is insight. It's VERY obvious to me intuitively there is a 5D wave-processor in the being that is keeping billions of waves discrete, yet interrelated at every point. These things can be double-clicked on and brought to the vocal tract in seconds. Newton would readily agree with such alchemy-ready "absinthe-onics." Each wave is coming from REAL THINGS in reality. They have their own voice, 9-million wavelings, kept discrete yet coalesced. Where "every point is connected to every other point" per Da Vinci. And there is a BUILT-IN order system that maps tokens to existing continuous, interrelated data structures, etc. But we need to build one line at a time before we can essentially deduce it if it is _REAL!

I like PHYSICAL SPACE quite a bit for the record! But oooooo... "physical" and "space" — fraught with ALLLL sorts of stuff. Who cares!!

We need to define REALITY, TRUTH, SOMETHING, and NOTHING as our first order of business in my estimation. Hilbert is NOWHERE to be found. He was caught in bed with Banach and is living in the Unabomber's abandoned cabin as a professional Michael Jackson impersonator buried in sequined white gloves.

Science *IS* objectivity. Innate mathematical objects and logic are the basis. Arithmetic and logic. Symmetry, balance, equality, but representing INNATE ORDER of the universe which is both continuous and discrete with “real“ things. The machinery is simple, the data structures are built in. I intuit IN REALITY there's augmented OR gates — all other logic gates map back to them. And there's only 2 numbers — 0 and 1, and they double as logic state-containing bits. But in "INFORMATION LAND" there's 16 logic expressions and they're alllll equal along with trits, quats, cincs, dicks, and kinks in 499,580D space.

Bottom line, I represent an unencumbered raw engine, and you represent the academic-parser engine.

And everything else can go the way of:

In the pursuit of an objective ToE!

Curious what you have to say about those other terms now from this light, since you have a larger "academic implication space" you can weed out, and you don't care if it's 3,000 BC or 10,000 AD.

 

Presence or non-presence of what? A single truth value cannot hold the information of the "what" part, so all you have is presence/non-presence indications without any reference. You can't lump all of "dog" into a single bit, yet that's precisely what you're doing.

Of course, ffs. I was just being simple about the “presence” of 1 dog only. The “what” portion of the dog (discretized physical version) may be 3GB. The “presence” string might be 1 GB.

 

You claim that every human distinguishes between the dog and the information concerning the dog, but I claim the exact opposite. Regardless of what you believe you know about the dog, you only know the information that was transferred via your senses. What other knowledge could there even be? Are you suggesting that, besides the information transmitted via our senses, we have a telepathic connection with the dog? Even if we did, that telepathic connection would be transferring information! What other way do we have of knowing the dog? It's all information.

Idea is that the dog is not a state. It’s a thing, light carries info about the thing to you, but its existence is independent of the information about it. “Feel” is the term for “knowing” its existence outside of “whether or not” it exists. I intuit that “feeling order” is a first-tier “knowledge.” A kind of info that is based in the 5D senses. Often someone will say it’s “head knowledge” until he can “feel it” in his heart. Art and music are these types of knowledge. Talent is “innate feel for order.”

Let’s say hypothetically you have a 5D “feeling membrane” in your chest region. I play a Cm chord. Your chest membrane vibrates in “knowledge” of the chord, because Cm is one of its valid “base states.” A dog’s continuous form is one of the base states.

Consider the possibility all knowledge is already within the being in 5D, and waves unlock that knowledge (every single wave is like unique teeth on a key). Knowledge and energy are of the same substance. If you keep practicing the instrument, base knowledge is unlocked concerning it, and now you can feel the order of the guitar...It could be said all is information, just different manifestations. All is order, there is no randomness, except the randomness has no experiential “meaning” or ability to be “felt.”

 

Consider the concept that there is an objective order for music that one can objectively pursue. We have identified core elements that exist in everyone: the scales, major, minor chords, inversions, arpeggiations, etc. No one would disagree to them in the same way no one disagrees with the universal mathematical objects. “Objective” has “object” in it. Someone “better” at an instrument has objectively studied, worked, or has talent in “feeling the order” of the instrument.

One may claim EVH better over Clapton, but EVH claims Clapton as a point of learning the laws of music. Technical awareness is one level, then one must innately feel notes and their interrelations to create meaning, a separate metric of proficiency.

One may stylistically not like Michael Jackson or disco-inflected pop, but one can’t deny his proficiency in the technical order of music.