“Reality is all that is.”
“Reality is physical space.”

Problem with both of these: What if “all that is” is a meta-substrate that suffuses all of physical reality, and there is a provisional distinction between “something” and “nothing” and “infinity” and “discrete” in it? Jar is “something” on the table. Take it off the table and “nothing” is there. Two possible states for the jar. Space is “nothing” by default but then contains “Properties of jar” (something) and then back to nothing.

And what is the “place” outside reality, infinity or God? Interminably more of it.

 

It just dawned on me we seriously have to define INFORMATION vs. REALITY. Both are entirely contrasted in every data point of the mind. Concept of dog in MIND vs. ACTUALITY of dog in REALITY.

In fact, our discourse’s entire inception point divergence was at this fork in the road. There are rules in reality that are not in the mind.

What is the difference between these things, that, for example caused us to laugh at the readily-filed-as fictitious story about your taking out the trash?

Our very emotional system is highly tuned to non-real (concept) events vs. reality events and instantly has a differentiator between them. What business does a state process have in doing such a thing, and how is it doing it??

The 6 interrogatives are intrinsically built-in to parse the distinction of where the information is coming from, and what its nature is!

“Where” is the dog in the light within the CONCEPT of such thing in the mind, vs. “Where” is the dog in the light within REALITY. Both are evidence the interrogative tokens must stand outside both!

I deleted the definition I proposed for REALITY... the above is more relevant.

We need to probe the presumptions of the interrogatives!

 

Update to #683 above, deleted REALITY definition.

 

The very fact that the WHAT token has within it a database query for the question “Does there exist SOMETHING without properties (NOTHING) vs. something that does” means that it is seeking information outside the mind in REALITY. For example, in every high school they teach “the nature of” “forces.” F=ma is defined in terms of an observable mass at a rate of acceleration, yielding a quantity of “something” having no properties (a “Newton”, which is described in terms of mass). Centripetal force is considered “something” by the WHAT token but the force itself is not observable.

The WHAT token has a mystery database of queries it has access to that presume a distinction between CONCEPT and REALITY. In fact, if providing this prompter something it intrinsically knows is NOT based in REALITY, it will probe using any of the other 5 interrogatives to gain “clarity” on how the concept “truly exists.” Why is it distinguishing, why does it care?? WHY being a parent interrogative that’s challenging the order of WHAT interrogative! Implying that WHY (“reason” or “sanity”) is tied to, and can readily grok the difference! You see how much presumption is in these congenital interrogative data prompters all science is built on???

 

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!

Nope. ;—) I have a starting place that’s not “brain plus bits”, that’s all. ;—) Hope that’s clearer now...

 

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.

Science and math have a long history of poorly-named things. Mostly this is a result of conversational languages being far better at diverse expression than precision of thought.

Back in the 1400s or so, the concept of using a symbol ('x') to stand for an unknown quantity was beginning to take hold. Mathematicians at the time got quite excited with this shiny new toy, and for a while all of mathematics was focused on solving equations with unknowns.

Nearly two thousand years prior, a curmudgeonly fella named Pythagoras had discovered, much to his horror, that some numbers are incommensurable. He considered the lowly square of unit length and innocently wondered, what is the length of its diagonal? Any 10th grader can tell you that \( c^2 = a^2 + b^2 \), where c is the length of the diagonal, and a and b the length of the sides. Therefore, \( c = \sqrt{a^2 + b^2} \) tells us the length of the diagonal. Way back then, Pythagoras didn't have these symbols at his disposal, but he was clever enough to figure out that the length of the unit-square's diagonal is a magnitude that can't be expressed as a ratio of two counting numbers. \[ c = \sqrt{1^2 + 1^2} = \sqrt{2} \] Rumor has it that Pythagoras had his followers swear to never reveal this inharmonic slight on the perfectness of counting numbers. When one of them let it slip at the monthly social, Pythagoras had him killed, so it's said.

For thousands of years, these inharmonic numbers were known as irrational, not as an insult to those who might believe in them, but simply as a literal "no ratio" number. Fast forward back to the 1400s, and an Italian fella named Cardano is playing around with the new-fangled algebra of solving equations for an unknown value. In the process of solving some of these equations, he realizes that sometimes a curious "number" -- the square root of negative one -- would pop up in an intermediate step. He didn't worry to much about this, because by the end of the solution the queer number would cancel out. He thought of it as a symbolic trick, and not a "proper" number in its own right. But there it was in his writings, plain for anyone to see.

A century later, in the second-most regrettable event in the history of naming, Descare named this number "imaginary". Any solution that included this number was an imaginary solution -- because, c'mon, obviously the square root of negative one is a fiction. To distinguish fictional solutions from nonfictional solutions, he called the latter "real", which takes the cake as the most regrettable name in history of naming.

Of course, later we would learn that \( \sqrt{-1} \) is no more fictional than any other number, but the "real" and "imaginary" names stuck. These names are entirely arbitrary -- Descartes could have called the elements of ℝ "red numbers" and the unit of ℂ a "cyan number", and no one would confuse red numbers as being closer to "reality" than cyan numbers. But here, unfortunately, we are. F*ck you, Rene.

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

Except Hilbert, Banach, et al had 2,000 years of mathematical development to build on. Euclid, in comparison, was a baby trying to express that he wants the banana puree today, not the carrot puree, and only able to get out "goo goo gaa gaa".

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.

You keep saying "REALITY" and I don't know what you mean by it. You seem to associate "REALITY" with that which is observable, or that which is intuitive, and neither work. Observable "reality" is limited to that which humans can observe? Why are humans special? What about things that we cannot observe, are they not real? What happens when humans disagree on what is being observed? What about things that we all observe but is clearly not accurate, such as the Sun rising and setting?

As for intuition, it tells us that the Earth is still. In fact, nothing is more "obvious" than the Earth being perfectly still. Intuition is a lousy scientist.

We don't let anyone else's definitions matter.

So we have to invent our own language? We don't need to invent words, we just need to be as precise as possible when we use them.

(Euclid went with "That which has no part" for a point — can you get any more bare? How much difference is that than what I hazarded? Why aren't you chastising him?)

Oh, but I do. Euclid's definitions suck.

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.

Define "REALITY" already, damnit. Feeling-based intuition is a logical quagmire of misconceptions and inconsistency. Hell no. Both of your definitions of LFO are "mind", but the first has more information; the second is a simplification, just enough to say "ok I guess I know what that means". We can't build a ToE on hunches.

"If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough" said Einstein.

I'd love to see Einstein try to explain GR simply!

"Ja, easy peasy: \( G^{\alpha \beta} = 8 \pi T^{\alpha \beta} \). See? Of course, der resulting manifold is pseudo-Riemannian because die metric tensor is not positive-definite, but this is all captured by the Ricci tensor, ja?"

The dog true/false presence binary potential can't be mapped by a trit, a quat.

Of course it can. Any true/false state can be perfectly characterized by, say, a true/false/unknown state. Here's a perfectly compatible map from bits to trits for you: {0,1} → {-1, 0, 1}. QED.

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.

I'm not sure if you wrote this before or after my earlier post where I ripped this notion to shreds. A single photoreceptor in my retina has a presence/no-presence response to a single photon being reflected from the dog. But the perception of the entire dog -- "we see the dog" -- is a 100th-order amalgamation that requires an enormous number of bits. The perception of the dog is not a presence/no-presence event. Indeed, if the dog is far enough away, or it's night time, we can see it but not be sure it actually is a dog -- perhaps it's a coyote. This speaks directly to the fundamental thing being information, not a simple presence/no-presence event.

2) I would say it's utterly essential for you to be entirely tabula-rasa-level like you've never been. . .

Why is it essential for me and not for you? Your reliance on common-sense and observation is not tabula rasa, it's a choice to use one background context (intuition) over another (logic).

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?

What if dolphins debate Russian literature when no one's watching? What if saying the word "purple" backwards makes you immortal? What if the universe has negative parity and everything that is true is false, and false is true? What does "what if" have to do with building a ToE?

Are you OPEN to such potential ground-shaking "truths"?

If I weren't, then I wouldn't believe in GR, quantum physics, high-dimensional mathematical spaces, and a whole slew of other ground-shaking ideas. I'm open to logical arguments, no matter how fantastic or unimaginable their conclusions.

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?

What it's saying is that there are as many numbers in all of ℝ as there are in any subset of ℝ. This has nothing to do with discrete number systems (it's decidedly not true for ℕ), and it has nothing to do with dogs.

We need to define REALITY, TRUTH, SOMETHING, and NOTHING as our first order of business in my estimation.

"REALITY" is a superfluous fluff-word. "TRUTH" can be defined in terms of logic states. I'm fine with the notion of THING as an element of a physical space; the extra "SOME" in "SOMETHING" seems superfluous and needlessly complicating. I've proved that "NOTHING" can only be associated with the empty set.

Science *IS* objectivity.

No. Science is the methodology that attempts to remove as much subjectivity as possible. Science wants to be objective, but -- as a practice performed by humans with no small share of greed and egotism -- cannot be objective.

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.

Ok, let's assume that "IN REALITY" the universe is comprised of "augmented OR gates". An electronic OR gate can be made with diodes or transistors; when we use the latter, we have several transistor technologies to choose from, and a couple of different circuit topologies. What does the "actual" OR gate used by the universe look like? It's abstract, right? It's a physical THING in physical SPACE. So, describe it.

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

LOL. Such words we use to pepper our steaks. How about: "You represent a naive, intuitionistic engine, and I represent a sophisticated logic engine that has coalesced 5,000 years of the best of human thought."

 

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.

Indeed! So, you agree with me that the "what" portion is a complex state. You also agree with me that the "presence of a dog" perception is a complex state. Then, what is this {0,1} presence/non-presence business actually referring to?

 

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.”

All of this needs to be made way more precise. You say the dog is not a state, it's a THING. What differentiates one THING from another?

Consider the simplicity of my description: a dog is comprised of THINGs, which are the elements of physical SPACE. A dog is one particular configuration (state) of THINGs; a cat is another particular configuration (state) of THINGs. Please provide a similarly clear description of what you believe a dog to be.

As for "feel", it has a whole bunch of connotations in common use, though none of them are "knowing the existence of something outside of whether or not it exists". Either pick a better word or define the sh!t out of "feel". Please do so in the original context: when I perceive the dog, some of the dog's information is transferred to me. The only thing I know about the dog is the information that was transferred. You chimed in with something about "feel".

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.

WTF? I have a "base state" of Cm inside my chest? Which Cm would that be, the one tuned to just intonation or the one tuned to equal-temperament? How did these Cm and dog base states get into my chest? And why my chest? What organs are they interfaced with?

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 knowledge and energy are the same thing, and I have all knowledge within me (somehow), then I have all energy within me. But if all the energy in the universe is within me, then there is no energy outside of me. Therefore, there is nothing outside of me -- I am the universe! Therefore, you only exist as my personal manifestation. Hello, personal manifestation!

 

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.

Huh? Music is one of the most subjective forms of expression we have. Eastern cultures disdain the major scales that so delight us in the West. Arabic scales sound cacophonous to our Western ears. We don't "get" Indian music, which relies almost entirely on microtonal expressions; they don't "get" our complicated harmonic progressions filled with static notes.

There's absolutely nothing objective about music. And you're only considering human perception of sound. We make instruments and compose music that work within the particular constraints of our specific physiology; to other auditory systems, the sounds we make wouldn't be perceived as "music", if they could even be perceived at all. You are anthropocentrizing "objective".

One may claim EVH better over Clapton, but EVH claims Clapton as a point of learning the laws of music.

There are no laws of music, only ever-changing aesthetic tastes.

 

“Reality is all that is.”
“Reality is physical space.”

Problem with both of these: What if “all that is” is a meta-substrate that suffuses all of physical reality, and there is a provisional distinction between “something” and “nothing” and “infinity” and “discrete” in it?

You're exploding a simple definition with undefined terms like "meta-substrate". In the original definition, "reality" and "all that is" are equivalent synonyms.

"What if reality is a meta-substrate that suffuses all of physical reality".

WTF does that mean?

Jar is “something” on the table. Take it off the table and “nothing” is there.

I disagree. Take the jar off the table and the table is still there. On top of the table is, at the very least, air. "NOTHING" is not logically tenable, much less physically tenable.

And what is the “place” outside reality, infinity or God? Interminably more of it.

The usual word for the place outside reality is "fantasy".

 

It just dawned on me we seriously have to define INFORMATION vs. REALITY.

"REALITY" is superfluous and unnecessary. Everything is "REALITY".

INFORMATION is measurable quantity. Full stop.

What is the difference between these things, that, for example caused us to laugh at the readily-filed-as fictitious story about your taking out the trash?

Imagination, i.e., counter-factual reasoning. It is a form of information processing in which the information does not come directly from external stimuli.

The 6 interrogatives are intrinsically built-in to parse the distinction of where the information is coming from, and what its nature is!

A newborn baby has no concept of interrogatives. They are learned CONCEPTs, the distinction between things, self, others, etc.

 

"F*ck you, Rene." LOL!

1) First of all, I am ENTIRELY all about raw logic as part of built-in precepts of tabula rasa. And of course, intuition. What I mean by tabula rasa is about abandoning insistence, for example, that humanity is just material, just a brain, just a "state processor from Utah" or GR is entirely ontologically true vs. a new model that obliterates it. I am making no insistences other than "be open to anything rationally deducible." That's what I mean by tabula rasa. You quote many things like it's obvious that "billions of years of evolution" are responsible for X, gravity is an effect exclusively, and space-time is warped, and other things as 100% true. I've insisted on none of those things. I say, be open to Mr. Roger's aunt Jodie having made you in a 5D lab, macro-evolution might be the result of information theory correlation-as-causation philosophy-as-science agendaville, etc. in the same way you might be open to your TV's molecules correlated to particles on the planet Vulcan in this "unintuitive universe."

2) You want to say I'm "intuition based" and you're "academic based" but then cherry-pick the references of science you think is legit or non-legit that many scientists think, which makes science entirely subjective to each person. When I say SCIENCE, I mean QED'd science, objective to all. And certainly not payola "science" that isn't science. Euclid's statements are considered QED'd and a baseline science that most science adheres to—even Hilbert and Banach is built on it! It's based on very basic internal observation and logical conceptual extension of it. If TRUE SCIENCE isn't objective, it isn't science, it's Graft & Payola, Attorneys At Law. SCIENCE, as I'm using it, is the pursuit of objective understanding of what is, and including the mechanisms that describe what is. There would be NO music theory, music books, music schools, in ANY country if the fundamentals of music weren't objective absolutes!

3) A baby banging on a piano vs. Beethoven. You want to say "all tones are music, and there are no standards." I don't care if there are 1/4-step, 1/3-step, whatsoever. I've heard lots of music from other places. I may not "dig it." But I would still call it music. It's subjective in terms of stylistic preference, not the underlying science of music. A rock-beat is real, a 4-on-floor beat is real, a swing beat is real. They are objective and as real as the mathematical objects that can describe their waves. One has NO RHYTHM if you can't play them. I don't understand why you think there's no standards there.

Re: Feeling, we can talk about that more of course, but when EVH plays a rip-roaring solo, it goes right through your chest. The feeling is real, in your heart, your chest area, curiously not in your head. You "know" the guitar playing through that "sense" of feeling, through your ears to your "heart", and that is not your physical one.

 

The very fact that the WHAT token has within it a database query for the question “Does there exist SOMETHING without properties (NOTHING) vs. something that does” means that it is seeking information outside the mind in REALITY.

Huh? When I use the word "what", there is never any hint of "does something exist without properties". Literally never. Whatchu talking about, Willis?

For example, in every high school they teach “the nature of” “forces.” F=ma is defined in terms of an observable mass at a rate of acceleration, yielding a quantity of “something” having no properties (a “Newton”, which is described in terms of mass). Centripetal force is considered “something” by the WHAT token but the force itself is not observable.

If old-timey "forces" didn't have properties, then we couldn't calculate them, much less describe them.

The WHAT token has a mystery database of queries it has access to that presume a distinction between CONCEPT and REALITY. In fact, if providing this prompter something it intrinsically knows is NOT based in REALITY, it will probe using any of the other 5 interrogatives to gain “clarity” on how the concept “truly exists.” Why is it distinguishing, why does it care?? WHY being a parent interrogative that’s challenging the order of WHAT interrogative! Implying that WHY (“reason” or “sanity”) is tied to, and can readily grok the difference! You see how much presumption is in these congenital interrogative data prompters all science is built on???

The tokens are just tokens. Some information processors tend to catalogue and catagorize things. And?

 

Nope. ;—) I have a starting place that’s not “brain plus bits”, that’s all. ;—) Hope that’s clearer now...

It's not. If, by your reckoning, presence/non-presence is fundamental, then every instance of "non-presence" is instantiated in some way, perhaps over the "5D" megastore's PA system. "Attention shoppers: No dog presence, no dog presence."

 

Do you realize the enormity of the statement, "There is no objective science/truth?"

It means everyone can have their own definitions of quite literally everything.

It means words don't have any meaning, because we can't learn what they mean with respect to the space we all live in, and so there's no communication.

It means there is no logic, because your truth statements are your own vs. mine. We have no discourse here because we're not trying to find out "anything is true."

It means math is meaningless, because who cares what flip flops you have vs. mine, and what any of the mathematical objects are "implicating" via the combining of states. Why do you want me to agree with any QED?

It means there's no such thing as a truth state with respect to quite literally anything! Why do people expect to buy an iPhone and ask Siri what the weather is about? What is the weather? My definition — "My states" = purple-clad vantriliquist who sells full-body lubricants on 32nd Ave in Queens.

I just do not understand why you ascribe "differences" to one group of states or another. Quadrillions of switches. Each are on and off. They are NOT connected or continuous. They are DISCRETE bits. You want to say the weather is in "that" vs. a new Taylor Swift record without correlating it to any "thing in reality". I say "reality" here as "anything outside your mind."

If there wasn't "something" outside our mind as a base reference, there would be no objective truth to pursue or anything to know, otherwise everything would be a lie and true at the same time!

You will ask "what the dog is," but not differentiate it between the concept of dog?

 

Huh? When I use the word "what", there is never any hint of "does something exist without properties". Literally never. Whatchu talking about, Willis?

I'm saying the very token can grok the difference, Mr. Drummond!

If old-timey "forces" didn't have properties, then we couldn't calculate them, much less describe them.

Describe the "properties" of the "thing" that is attracting to magnets. It's a "Field." That doesn't cut it. It's energy isotopes. Doesn't cut it.

Describe the wind without using force. The movement of air molecules? And forces in between the molecules What are they? They have no discernible properties. There are 4 of them with different rates of attraction, that's it. That's why they're very careful to "describe the NATURE of forces" in physics classes, not the forces themselves.

The tokens are just tokens. Some information processors tend to catalogue and catagorize things. And?

HUH? "WHAT" is a "token" that is insistent on collating things in relation to "REAL THINGS" vs. "CONCEPTS." The conversation in your MIND with me is different than the one we're having in REAL LIFE.

 

What I mean by tabula rasa is about abandoning insistence, for example, that humanity is just material, just a brain, just a "state processor from Utah" or GR is entirely ontologically true vs. a new model that obliterates it.

I've never used the word "material", nor have I claimed that GR is an ontological theory, so what exactly are you attributing to me that needs to be wiped clean? Information? I believe that information is a good starting point for a ToE, so I won't tabula rasa it away just because you ask nicely. Convince me, just as I'm trying to convince you.

You quote many things like it's obvious that "billions of years of evolution" are responsible for X, gravity is an effect exclusively, and space-time is warped, and other things as 100% true.

You don't believe that organisms evolve over time? Do explain.

As for gravity, I don't believe in mysterious "forces", especially the action-at-a-distance type. Einstein made the incredibly simple observation that if we were in a window-less elevator, there's no way for us to know if the reason we were standing on the elevator floor is because of gravity or because the elevator was accelerating upwards. Therefore, we might as well think of gravity as an effect of acceleration. I believe this because it is both simple and perfectly logical. As a bonus, it doesn't require invoking mysterious forces.

As for "warped spacetime", GR is not an ontological theory. It makes no claim about what space actually is. Rather, GR is a geometrical model that we can use to quantify the physics of gravity. In GR, mathematical space is curved. I believe GR because its results are extremely accurate. Note that this does not mean that I believe that physical space is curved (whatever that even means). I believe that the universe can be more accurately modeled with a curved geometry than a Euclidean geometry. That's it.

I've insisted on none of those things.

No, instead you've insisted on "5D" chest fabrics that resonate with primordial Cm chords, the fundamentality of binary sets, "NOTHING" being a part of "REALITY", and a bunch of other stuff I couldn't parse.

2) You want to say I'm "intuition based" and you're "academic based" but then cherry-pick the references of science you think is legit or non-legit that many scientists think, which makes science entirely subjective to each person.

No, I said I was "logic based". Granted, there's a ton of academic stuff that I find very useful, but I'll drop any of it for a good logical argument. Sometimes I'll use academic stuff to suss out the logical flaws in an argument, but I won't deny a logical conclusion, regardless of what the academic stuff has to say about it.

When I say SCIENCE, I mean QED'd science, objective to all.

There is no such f*cking thing. A science "fact" cannot be proven; it can only accumulate evidence until either 1) we get bored of questioning it, or 2) we find a counterexample. There is no such thing as an objective science fact. If you disagree, then name one!

Euclid's statements are considered QED'd and a baseline science that most science adheres to—even Hilbert and Banach is built on it!

Euclid speaks to math, not science. Euclidean geometry doesn't even apply to Earth! You're not going to tell me that Earth is flat, are you?

There would be NO music theory, music books, music schools, in ANY country if the fundamentals of music weren't objective absolutes!

Seriously? This is ludicrous. The music theory books of the 17th century had "theorems" like "never use parallel fifths", because that was the aesthetic of the time. What do you think they would have said if they read a 20th century music theory book's section on 12-tone row composition? They would have sh!t themselves over how "wrong" it is. There is nothing objective about music!

You want to say "all tones are music, and there are no standards."

I never said such a thing. I very clearly said that music is a subjective art, with aesthetic tastes that vary between cultures and times. The tastes determine the "standards" in use at any time or in any culture. Diatonic composition is a "standard" of modern Western pop music, but it's not by any stretch an invariant law of music. Two-five-one progressions were once a "standard" of jazz music, though now they're considered old fashioned -- they're no longer "standard" in modern jazz.

 

Indeed! So, you agree with me that the "what" portion is a complex state. You also agree with me that the "presence of a dog" perception is a complex state. Then, what is this {0,1} presence/non-presence business actually referring to?

We axiomized earlier what a bit is, how it has two fundamental states, and any info state processor is 2ⁿ states.

{0, 1} is really short for {thing_component is, thing_component isn't (space)}

The dog is made of n discrete countable molecules. In between the molecules are space.

The photons are carrying binary-state bits which are reflective of the image of the dog (note I say "image" OF the "dog", two different things) — enough bits carry "TRUE" that curvature of ear belongs "here", or "FALSE" that they're there. This applies for every part of the dog that carries the image information.

You would agree there is a fundamental difference between the group of molecules of the dog being "there" in the room, vs. "not there in the room"? THING has "presence" metatag, and NOTHING is thing with "absence" metatag. Yes? Every thing is composed of unique configurations of molecular presence vs. absence (presence of space being "nothing").

 

Do you realize the enormity of the statement, "There is no objective science/truth?"

Please be more careful what you attribute to me as a quote. I never spoke about "objective truth" because I don't even know what the expression means in this context. I specifically said there is no such thing as objective science. And none of the great atrocities you subsequently listed are a consequence of what I said.

 

I'm saying the very token can grok the difference, Mr. Drummond!

WTF? A token -- a sequence of symbols -- can conceptualize and understand differences? WTF?!

Describe the "properties" of the "thing" that is attracting to magnets. It's a "Field." That doesn't cut it. It's energy isotopes. Doesn't cut it.

Are you kidding? Surely you recognize that the difference between a magnetic field and, say, a gravitational field is ONLY the properties of the field. Without different properties, they would be the same exact thing. Here's a property that's true of the magnetic field but not true of the gravitational field: it's divergence is zero.

Describe the wind without using force. The movement of air molecules? And forces in between the molecules What are they? They have no discernible properties. There are 4 of them with different rates of attraction, that's it. That's why they're very careful to "describe the NATURE of forces" in physics classes, not the forces themselves.

Only introductory physics classes talk about "forces". Modern physical theories quantify dynamics through field interactions. To do so rigorously requires some heavy-duty math, so intro physics classes stick with the old-timey notions of "force". This is acceptable because the materials intro physics students study aren't meant to teach them how the universe actually works, just how to start to "think like a physicist".

HUH? "WHAT" is a "token" that is insistent on collating things in relation to "REAL THINGS" vs. "CONCEPTS." The conversation in your MIND with me is different than the one we're having in REAL LIFE.

A token can be "insistent"? We clearly have very different conceptions of what "token" means. Please explain yours.