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.

Science: "a systematically organized body of knowledge on a particular subject."

AKA — the arrived-at truth concerning a subject's proven or verifiable nature. A "scientific fact" therefore = "the truth" on a matter.

True science = "objective truth on a matter" arrived at through principled inquiry concerning what is.

Any "QED" is considered "objective science." We have no business teaching anything as fact vs. non-fact otherwise.

Your'e constantly saying "No, no, no" and "Not quite" etc. as if there's something I should agree to as objective fact.

 

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

Agreed.

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

This is pure speculation on your part and a needs logical, cogent argument before I can accept it.

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

Agree with the first part. The second part is problematic. What is space made of? THINGS. So there are THINGs between the molecules in the dog? What are some properties of these THINGs between the dog's molecules?

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)

Note how similar this is to what I'm saying: each photon carries one bit of optical information about the dog. We agree on this, yes?

There are no other visual pathways to "know" about the dog other than set of photons coming from it, yes?

Light reflects off of the dog, transferring (incomplete, possibly imperfect) information about the dog to our eyes. The image so-formed in our retina is exclusively the information from the light. The brain processes this information and associates it with a bunch of other stored states and we perceive the dog. Tell me you agree.

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"?

Sure I'd agree, but not in any special way. In other words, "dog not in the room" is no different than "elephant not in the room", or "Jimmy Hoffa not in the room", or "married bachelor unicorn not in the room". It seems to me that PRESENCE is the fundamental thing. "Non-presence" is a redundancy, because it literally describes everything that's not in the room.

So, back to unary computing! There is only {@}! There is only TRUTH! There is only u-it!

(In case it wasn't immediately obvious, that last sentence was entirely facetious. It's funny -- at least to me, lol -- because it seems eminently silly to ascribe fundamentality to a representation based on how many elements it has.)

Every thing is composed of unique configurations of molecular presence vs. absence (presence of space being "nothing").

OMG this is it! This is the crucible from which we detangle our conceptual mess.

Every thing is composed of unique configurations. Period, full stop.

The imporant part is the unique configurations! "Absence" or "non-presence" just means a different configuration. Run with this or die! (JK, don't die.)

 

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

No, what the "what" token is representing — the "prompting of a particular type of information that is differentiating between reality-based information and contrived."

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.

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".

Same planet check! Let us invoke the very coiner of the term "field", Michael Faraday:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Line_of_force

The specific features of Faraday's "field concept," in its 'favourite' and most complete form, are that force is a substance (I'll take "JENNIFER'S CORE THEORY FOR $2 MILLION!!!" ALEX), that it is the only substance and that all forces are interconvertible through various motions of the lines of force. These features of Faraday's 'favourite notion' were not carried on. Maxwell, in his approach to the problem of finding a mathematical representation for the continuous transmission of electric and magnetic forces, considered these to be states of stress and strain in a mechanical aether (haha, thought that was "old tech" too!). This was part of the quite different network of beliefs and problems with which Maxwell was working.

Lines of force originated with Michael Faraday, whose theory holds that all of reality is made up of force itself. His theory predicts that electricity, light, and gravity have finite propagation delays. The theories and experimental data of later scientific figures such as Maxwell, Hertz, Einstein, and others are in agreement with the ramifications of Faraday's theory. Nevertheless, Faraday's theory remains distinct. Unlike Faraday, Maxwell and others (e.g., J.J. Thomson) thought that light and electricity must propagate through an ether. In Einstein's relativity, there is no ether, yet the physical reality of force is much weaker than in the theories of Faraday.[3][4]

Fields are nothing more than "the behavior of forces in specific contexts"!! You're getting 4 of these:

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

Again, underlying "desire," impulse, impetus, what-have-you that DRIVES the presence of the inquiry. The "WHAT" data structure, has 2 predominent "classes" in it: REALITY, NON-REALITY

 

Science: "a systematically organized body of knowledge on a particular subject."

AKA — the arrived-at truth concerning a subject's proven or verifiable nature. A "scientific fact" therefore = "the truth" on a matter.

What? Your "AKA" doesn't follow from the thing before it. No where does science speak of "truth" or "proven". No where. A "science fact" is a consensus between people who spend their time studying related things. These consensuses (consensi?) change as new evidence is gathered. Science marches on.

I ask you again: Tell me a single scientific objective truth.

Any "QED" is considered "objective science." We have no business teaching anything as fact vs. non-fact otherwise.

QEDs are only valid in logic and math. Science is an empirical field, and there are no empirical QEDs. We teach the "facts" as best as we know them. Newtonian mechanics has been shown to be inadequate to describe certain dynamics, but its "facts" were the best we had. They're not wrong now, but they're incomplete, and so we augment them with more accurate "facts". One day, hopefully, the "facts" of GR and such will be augmented, too.

Your'e constantly saying "No, no, no" and "Not quite" etc. as if there's something I should agree to as objective fact.

No, no, no. My admonishments are typically ellicited by either logical errors, which are indisputable, or historical errors. The latter are not exactly indisputable, but certain historical facts have a degree of certainty that's not attainable with scientific facts. To wit, F = ma is a "scientific fact" that has validity only under certain strong conditions, and is categorically false otherwise. That Newton expounded F = ma in his Principia is a "historical fact" that no reasonable person could deny.

 

No, the "what the token is representing" — the "prompting of a particular type of information that is differentiating between reality-based information and contrived."

An information processors uses the token "what" to ask a question. What is the big deal?

Same planet check! Let us invoke the very coiner of the term "field", Michael Faraday:

Pro tip: in an argument about modern vs old physics, quoting an old physicist isn't going to be helpful.

"Lines of force" is as antiquated to physics as blood letting is to medicine. Just sayin'.

Fields are nothing more than "the behavior of forces in specific contexts"!!

Again, you can find "force" used in introductory textbooks and pop-sci expositions. Look up the Lagrangian of a QFT and show me a "force".

The underlying "desire," impulse, what-have-you that DRIVES the presence of the inquiry. The "WHAT" data structure, has 2 predominent "classes" in it: REALITY, NON-REALITY

Lots of things can drive a question. When I hold a button on my phone, Siri asks "What can I help you with?" She was programmed to ask the question in response to my action. That's her drive. Where does human curiosity come from? Probably from the basic drives that organisms share. It's likely that some form of "WHERE IS FOOD?" is percolating through the processors of most animals. Mammals, being more complex, likely have a wider range of questions, such as "WHAT'S THAT SOUND?", which seems to be exactly what a deer is asking itself when it hears something, stops, and turns to look at it.

Big deal?

 

The underlying "desire," impulse, what-have-you that DRIVES the presence of the inquiry. The "WHAT" data structure, has 2 predominent "classes" in it: REALITY, NON-REALITY

Lots of things can drive a question. When I hold a button on my phone, Siri asks "What can I help you with?" She was programmed to ask the question in response to my action. That's her drive. Where does human curiosity come from? Probably from the basic drives that organisms share. It's likely that some form of "WHERE IS FOOD?" is percolating through the processors of most animals. Mammals, being more complex, likely have a wider range of questions, such as "WHAT'S THAT SOUND?", which seems to be exactly what a deer is asking itself when it hears something, stops, and turns to look at it.

Big deal?

The big deal is in the second statement. ;--)

 

What? Your "AKA" doesn't follow from the thing before it. No where does science speak of "truth" or "proven". No where. A "science fact" is a consensus between people who spend their time studying related things. These consensuses (consensi?) change as new evidence is gathered. Science marches on.

I ask you again: Tell me a single scientific objective truth.


QEDs are only valid in logic and math. Science is an empirical field, and there are no empirical QEDs. We teach the "facts" as best as we know them. Newtonian mechanics has been shown to be inadequate to describe certain dynamics, but its "facts" were the best we had. They're not wrong now, but they're incomplete, and so we augment them with more accurate "facts". One day, hopefully, the "facts" of GR and such will be augmented, too.

LOGIC AND MATH ARE THE VERY PILLARS OF SCIENCE!

A QED is an "undeniable fact" concerning objective truth which will ultimately involve REALITY (you don't see reality in your thinking). Objective scientific facts are innumerable. We are using computers that are constructed using scientific facts about material elements and their interrelations. It is a FACT that silicon can be used to create IC's to work with voltages to permit computation and storage. It is a fact we can divide light up into frequencies and create 2D grids of pixels to display information from it. It is a fact that I cannot believe you think there is no such thing as objective scientific fact. :--D. It's not just "agreed upon". It is DEMONSTRATED — it's called EMPIRICAL. A QED is about "demonstration" of not just CONCEPTs in the mind, but actuality put into practice and observation!

 

This is pure speculation on your part and a needs logical, cogent argument before I can accept it.

Every thing is composed of unique configurations. Period, full stop.

The imporant part is the unique configurations! "Absence" or "non-presence" just means a different configuration. Run with this or die! (JK, don't die.)

Wow, patience pays off here... we're getting somewhere!

This is a definite semanticluster™. How's this for detanglement:

If ALL IS, then ALL is presence — just different states of presence.

I argue 2 different fundamental states of presence in existence.

The Default State (TDS): A theoretical state of zero amount of measurable or knowable things. Perhaps this state is asymptotic, and akin to a "kelvin zero". On earth, space largely contains "air." A vacuum has none. Outer space, with no air, is closer and purer to that "line" that defines The Default State. Most importantly: Light (or sound) as the information carrier concerning states in existence travels THROUGH this state, and does not reflect BACK from anything to denote the presence of a THING. TDS is the "default" state because there's more of this state in existence than the state described below. We may label state TDS as a whole as 0, but this is not useful, because localities require unique strings to denote the TDS for that area. For example, a dog might be in a room, but if it's not in the same locality 2 seconds later, that locality will require a unique string to describe the same "boundaried" space the dog occupied vs. when it left it.

The Augmented State (TAS): A minimal localized cluster of elements to trigger the mind's identification capacity for that cluster. This is a THING. All THINGS, being molecular, contain intramolecular TDS. And all things can contain countable number of "SUB-THINGS" on or in it, each with levels of TDS. A dog has myriad "parts" to it that are also THINGS with elements of TDS. In order for a "bit" to exist, we have to have something else, like "light," convey the information about a THING to our senses where we can parse and identify a THING. The only difference between one THING and another is the configuration of TDS to TAS. We may label TAS as 1, but this again is not useful for the same reason above: a dog might be in a room, but if it's not in the same locality 2 seconds later, that locality will require a unique string to describe the same space with dog vs. WITHOUT dog.

The chief difference between these two fundamental states is that light as information carrier travels continuously through TDS but only reflects back existential locality data with TAS.

This is important: when it comes to defining what something is, TDS GOES AWAY. Photons reflecting off a THING like a dog, are reflecting unary presences of 1-state bits that are filed into the mind and matched with the bits that reflect object "dog" to ID the dog in that space.

(Paranormal Hotline side-note alert that requires much discussion: how does the brain know where the 3D dog is in 3D space outside of itself if all it has are photons with 1D bits in the same state to reflect the dog?? In this case, the bits are ALL set to state TAS, or 1!)

Though the monolithic definition of something can be unary, if we were to not denote the difference between TDS and TAS as a binary difference, we would have no way of denoting the presence of a THING in a given local vs. the absence of a THING in a given locale, nor could we build machinery to represent this difference in circuitry to do logical evaluations concerning presence and absence of things in locales (which is the basis of information processing).

Existence is binary at its core, because in the case of sufficient TDS in SPACE 1, light continues through and doesn't pick up the information concerning a THING to "report back on." If SPACE 1 is replaced with a DOG, TAS is now the state of SPACE 1, and therefore light will carry information concerning SPACE 1's augmented state back to observer rather than continue to travel unobstructed.

So we generally use a high voltage as TAS, and a low voltage as TDS. Unique but discrete concatenations of low and high states representing TAS and TDS permit logic evaluations using gates that are themselves made of TDS and TAS.

This is why I propose O set of {0, 1} to reflect TDS vs. TAS of reality, because it is through TDS and TAS and unique concatenations of them that we can employ light and sound to know that things exist or don't exist in different spaces and perform every kind of logic evaluation and comparison concerning THINGS these 2 base states.

Tell me that's not QED'able material!

 

This deserves its own post about "flat earth":

Anyone who believes in that abomination of anti-knowledge need purchase a satellite phone and travel to the Sahara. Make a successful call. Then travel to the Great Sandy desert and do the same. Then pick up a Sirius radio while there and tune into your favorite station, and then go to the Mojave desert and do the same. If you need to, go to 5-6 other deserts around our globe and repeat. After you have demonstrated it's insane to think that the circuitry in both of these products—which are but two of hundreds of satellite-utilizing ones— aren't electronically engineered to work with the frequencies of geo-orbital satellites around a geoid planet, and hence STILL think the earth is flat, you need to search online for lobotomy coupons.

<end of post>

 

INFORMATION and REALITY are not defined, but both are essentially the base tokens of existence.

So I rolled a Thorazine joint and parachuted out of the 68th floor of the ward wearing just a hospital apron for this thought experiment:

Pretend both INFORMATION and REALITY do not exist.

What is there now?

The being's question, What is there now implies 3 things:

1) The existence of a thing called SELF independent of information and reality
2) The existence of information describing something with respect to the self and reality
3) The existence of reality, knowable via information

Information has no purpose outside of a description for things in reality.

It would appear their definitions are inextricably correlated.

REALITY That which exists outside of INFORMATION, triangulated as THINGS in SPACE
INFORMATION A mechanism for reflecting the states of THINGS in observable reality

?

 

This following is, of course, your area.

But I aptitudinally understand enough about the mechanics of math and physics to grok core concepts and drivers in a system quite quickly.

But from what I'm seeing literally everywhere I look about it, Langranian mechanics are quantifying the energies in a system rather than the forces themselves. And what is energy? The ability to do work, or exert force over time. "Forces" might be "old tech semantically" — which I fully see here and appreciate, in the same way most don't program in assembler—because it's better to look at the energy dynamics themselves at "4GL" levels—but to say "forces don't exist" is an utter blue screen of death.

If there are invisible agents responsible for the movement of the smallest of particles in various fields, these things themselves must be part of the ToE at the zero-and-one-foot-pedals level.

For example, in our BIOS, we can intuit the concept of a 1st order cause, or "prime mover." Meaning, that which moves objectively independent of any identifiable prior causality. For this concept to even EXIST in our deterministic engine is utterly crazy. What if forces are discrete, geometrically describable THINGS that move in accordance with specific laws and our math is "charting their path or highest probable path"?

 

The "WHAT" data structure, has 2 predominent "classes" in it: REALITY, NON-REALITY

That's more forced than a Hollywood script! If we're going to coerce "what" to be a data structure, at least let's be genuine about how it should look. If we take this idea seriously, we might consider a few "what" examples and find what's common between them:

What are you eating?
What's that smell?
What is your problem?
What do you think we should do about global warming?

The commonality seems to be that "what" refers to some thing, a referent. The referent may be an object, an idea, a plan, whatever. But "what" behaves like an unassigned pointer; presumably, once the query is answered, "what" will point to the referent of interest. In C, we might use something like:

struct What
{
  void *referent;
} what;

We make "referent" a void pointer to reflect its generality: it may point to a THING, or to a CONCEPT, or whatever. Here's an example usage:

int main(void)
{
    char *question = "What is your problem?";
    what.referent = "wine is finite";

    printf( "%s %s\n", question, (char *)what.referent );

    question = "What size is that?";
    what.referent = &(int){42};

    printf( "%s %d\n", question, *(int *)what.referent );

    return 0;
}

This displays

What is your problem? wine is finite
What size is that? 42

Note that properties such as existence vs non-existence, or even "reality" vs "non-reality", are properties of the referent, not of "what".

Agreed?

 

LOGIC AND MATH ARE THE VERY PILLARS OF SCIENCE!

Right, science uses logic and math, but it is neither logic nor math. Science is purely empirical, logic and math are purely abstract. Very different things.

A QED is an "undeniable fact" concerning objective truth which will ultimately involve REALITY (you don't see reality in your thinking).

We've been using QED as shorthand for proof. There are no proofs in science; there can't be.

We are using computers that are constructed using scientific facts about material elements and their interrelations. It is a FACT that silicon can be used to create IC's to work with voltages to permit computation and storage. It is a fact we can divide light up into frequencies and create 2D grids of pixels to display information from it.

These are not scientific facts! They're historical facts. It's historically true that we can build computer chips out of silicon, etc.

Let's get this clear, since you seem to be using a much looser connotation of "scientific fact". Scientific facts come from scientific theories, just as mathematical facts come from mathematical theories. A scientific theory makes claims (facts) about the universe that we corroborate with empirical evidence. A mathematical fact is always and forever valid; a scientific fact is valid up until evidence suggests otherwise.

Here's a clear example of a scientific fact: a star with less than 1.4 solar masses will eventually become a white dwarf. This is a scientific fact according to the theory of stellar evolution as currently agreed on by most astrophysicists. Should new, confounding evidence be discovered, the theory will be amended and the "fact" will no longer be considered valid.

Here's an example of something that is not a scientific fact: iron melts at 2800 °F. This isn't predicted by any scientific theory, it's just a historical fact: we heated a bunch of iron and noted the average temperature at which it melted.

This is why "rocks dropped from the air fall to the ground" is not a scientific fact -- there's no science behind it. Newton's universal law of gravitation, however, is a scientific fact because it comes from a scientific theory of motion.

My criterion is simple and effective: a fact is not scientific unless it comes from a scientific theory. Otherwise, the epithet is innacurate. Of course, we can still talk about observations and historical facts, but these are of a different type.

 

If ALL IS, then ALL is presence — just different states of presence.

Yes, yes, yes.

The Default State (TDS): A theoretical state of zero amount of measurable or knowable things. Perhaps this state is asymptotic, and akin to a "kelvin zero". On earth, space largely contains "air." A vacuum has none. Outer space, with no air, is closer and purer to that "line" that defines The Default State. Most importantly: Light (or sound) as the information carrier concerning states in existence travels THROUGH this state, and does not reflect BACK from anything to denote the presence of a THING. TDS is the "default" state because there's more of this state in existence than the state described below. We may label state TDS as a whole as 0, but this is not useful, because localities require unique strings to denote the TDS for that area. For example, a dog might be in a room, but if it's not in the same locality 2 seconds later, that locality will require a unique string to describe the same "boundaried" space the dog occupied vs. when it left it.

The Augmented State (TAS): A minimal localized cluster of elements to trigger the mind's identification capacity for that cluster. This is a THING. All THINGS, being molecular, contain intramolecular TDS. And all things can contain countable number of "SUB-THINGS" on or in it, each with levels of TDS. A dog has myriad "parts" to it that are also THINGS with elements of TDS. In order for a "bit" to exist, we have to have something else, like "light," convey the information about a THING to our senses where we can parse and identify a THING. The only difference between one THING and another is the configuration of TDS to TAS. We may label TAS as 1, but this again is not useful for the same reason above: a dog might be in a room, but if it's not in the same locality 2 seconds later, that locality will require a unique string to describe the same space with dog vs. WITHOUT dog.

The chief difference between these two fundamental states is that light as information carrier travels continuously through TDS but only reflects back existential locality data with TAS.

This is important: when it comes to defining what something is, TDS GOES AWAY. Photons reflecting off a THING like a dog, are reflecting unary presences of 1-state bits that are filed into the mind and matched with the bits that reflect object "dog" to ID the dog in that space.

I think I'm following, but I'm having a problem with your notion of light. All is presence, and there are two fundamental categories of presence states: TDS and TAS. Light travels through TDS and reflects off of TAS, but what state is light? Light has presence, too, yes?

In my model, there are states and there are state transformations, processes that change state. Stuff "happens" because of state transformations. Our experience of time comes from state transformations. What we call the phenomenon of light is a particular form of state transformation.

Here's an absurdly simplistic state model of an empty room: \[ \begin{bmatrix} 0 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 0 \end{bmatrix} \] Here's a "wave" traveling through the room, from top to bottom: \[ \begin{bmatrix} 1 & 1 & 1 \\ 0 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 0 \end{bmatrix} \qquad \begin{bmatrix} 0 & 0 & 0 \\ 1 & 1 & 1 \\ 0 & 0 & 0 \end{bmatrix} \qquad \begin{bmatrix} 0 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 0 \\ 1 & 1 & 1 \end{bmatrix} \] At each step of time, the state of the room is transformed in a way that we interpret as motion. We'll call this string of "1" symbols a "light wave".

Now let's put an object ("2") in the middle of the room and pretend that we're at the bottom of the room, "receiving the light": \[ \begin{bmatrix} 1 & 1 & 1 \\ 0 & 2 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 0 \end{bmatrix} \qquad \begin{bmatrix} 0 & 0 & 0 \\ 1 & 2 & 1 \\ 0 & 0 & 0 \end{bmatrix} \qquad \begin{bmatrix} 0 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 2 & 0 \\ 1 & 2 & 1 \end{bmatrix} \] The light has "carried" information about the object to us. Obviously, this is not really how reflection of light works, but it hopefully helps clarify the transformation idea.

(Paranormal Hotline side-note alert that requires much discussion: how does the brain know where the 3D dog is in 3D space outside of itself if all it has are photons with 1D bits in the same state to reflect the dog?? In this case, the bits are ALL set to state TAS, or 1!)

Excellent question! There is a profoundly simple answer, and I'm convinced of it: the 3D dog is not actually 3D.

The brain itself builds an internal model of space. Our spatial model has three orthogonal dimensions. Why three? Probably a byproduct of how we're neurally wired; three spatial dimensions is sufficient for finding food, fleeing from threats, etc. An alien species with different biological requirements might experience their world through seven or whatever spatial dimensions.

What is space actually like, dimensions-wise? We don't know, but when we zoom in really closely, all the evidence suggests that it's not comprised of three independent, orthogonal dimensions.

Though the monolithic definition of something can be unary, if we were to not denote the difference between TDS and TAS as a binary difference, we would have no way of denoting the presence of a THING in a given local vs. the absence of a THING in a given locale, nor could we build machinery to represent this difference in circuitry to do logical evaluations concerning presence and absence of things in locales (which is the basis of information processing).

Here's one thing: \[ \begin{bmatrix} 9 & 3 & 7 \\ 2 & 2 & 0 \\ 1 & 9 & 5 \end{bmatrix} \] Here's another: \[ \begin{bmatrix} 2 & 2 & 8 \\ 5 & 0 & 0 \\ 1 & 6 & 3 \end{bmatrix} \] The symbols are arbitrary, but I can differentiate them. Crucially, I require more than just thing/not-thing binary to characterize their differences. A cat is somewhat like a dog, but the differences are not simply "dog/not-dog".

Existence is binary at its core . . .

Everything is existence, no thing can be non-existent. So, existence seems, if anything, unary.

A dog leaves the room. Saying "the dog does not exist in the room" is awkward at best, even for everyday English. A much more accurate assessment is that the state of the room does not include the state of the dog.

 

Right, science uses logic and math, but it is neither logic nor math. Science is purely empirical, logic and math are purely abstract. Very different things.


We've been using QED as shorthand for proof. There are no proofs in science; there can't be.


These are not scientific facts! They're historical facts. It's historically true that we can build computer chips out of silicon, etc.

Let's get this clear, since you seem to be using a much looser connotation of "scientific fact". Scientific facts come from scientific theories, just as mathematical facts come from mathematical theories. A scientific theory makes claims (facts) about the universe that we corroborate with empirical evidence. A mathematical fact is always and forever valid; a scientific fact is valid up until evidence suggests otherwise.

Here's a clear example of a scientific fact: a star with less than 1.4 solar masses will eventually become a white dwarf. This is a scientific fact according to the theory of stellar evolution as currently agreed on by most astrophysicists. Should new, confounding evidence be discovered, the theory will be amended and the "fact" will no longer be considered valid.

Here's an example of something that is not a scientific fact: iron melts at 2800 °F. This isn't predicted by any scientific theory, it's just a historical fact: we heated a bunch of iron and noted the average temperature at which it melted.

This is why "rocks dropped from the air fall to the ground" is not a scientific fact -- there's no science behind it. Newton's universal law of gravitation, however, is a scientific fact because it comes from a scientific theory of motion.

My criterion is simple and effective: a fact is not scientific unless it comes from a scientific theory. Otherwise, the epithet is innacurate. Of course, we can still talk about observations and historical facts, but these are of a different type.

So, uhhhh... you want me to see the above as an.... objective truth, or.....? ;—)

 

This deserves its own post about "flat earth":

Though I hearily agree with your sentiment, I feel the need to point out that Euclidean geometry cannot describe Earth, where parallel lines do meet and the angles of triangles sum to less than Pi. Why should we hold Euclidean geometry as "most fundamental" if it doesn't even apply to the space around us?

 

INFORMATION and REALITY are not defined, but both are essentially the base tokens of existence.

If you haven't inferred it by now, I despise the word "REALITY". It's entirely vague in everyday speech, and entirely empty in formal discourse. The only legitimate use for the word is when pointing out its illegitimacy.

Pretend both INFORMATION and REALITY do not exist.

Pretend that everything does not exist? I know some of my meditative friends try to do just that, but I can never get very far. There's always something.

REALITY That which exists outside of INFORMATION, triangulated as THINGS in SPACE
INFORMATION A mechanism for reflecting the states of THINGS in observable reality

Eh, I don't think of information as a mechanism. It's more like energy in physics, a property of the universe itself. As such, it doesn't seem logical to separate a property of the universe (information) from the universe itself (reality).

 

Can you build a computer using physical substances that can do all 16 logic operations on states that represent THINGS in reality? How do you propose a clock that’s generating the instructions to not use two states, to generate and differentiate between the instructions, the addresses, the data, the check bits, the results? How do you propose representing the data on 2D illuminative grids (screens) without binary states?

Empirically, the voltages are high or low in the brain, or we couldn’t build binary systems to move cursors on screen by thought.

The Laws of Thought as Boole/Frege did in fact show, are binary ... TRUE (voltage there) or FALSE (voltage not there). Even a state transformation is assuming minimally 2 states! You can’t store info in your own brain if it’s all unary “true!” QED (lol)

 

But from what I'm seeing literally everywhere I look about it, Langranian mechanics are quantifying the energies in a system rather than the forces themselves.

Yup.

And what is energy? The ability to do work or exert force over time.

Again, energy as "force over time" is a physics 101 definition. This isn't just a linguistic quibble -- the concept of energy is completely different.

If you need a simple model to calculate the amount of energy required to move a piano, the "force over time" model will most likely do. But all you are doing is calculating a very specific form of kinetic energy in a very specific frame of reference. This kinetic energy is not conserved; in fact, if you change the underlying coordinates, you can get any value for kinetic energy, including zero! This is an enormous red flag that, whatever you are caclulating, it is not a fundamental quantity of the universe.

The modern concept of energy is that it's a physical invariant, the value of which is independent of the particular model or choice of coordinates used to calculate it.

"Forces" might be "old tech semantically" — which I fully see here and appreciate, in the same way most don't program in assembler—because it's better to look at the energy dynamics themselves at "4GL" levels—but to say "forces don't exist" is an utter blue screen of death.

Forces exist only as conceptual abstractions. This is easy to see if you actually sit down and calculate some force values -- they will always be dependent on the choice of coordinates. Sometimes we only need to consider a single set of static coordinates, in which case using a "force" model gets the job done simply. But whatever you calculate is entirely dependent on the model; it is not some fundamental aspect of the universe, This less of a high-level versus low-level thing, and more of a "convenient fiction" thing. The "centrifugal force" you feel in a car is not some invisible hand pushing you, but sometimes it's convenient to treat pretend that it is.

If there are invisible agents responsible for the movement of the smallest of particles in various fields, these things themselves must be part of the ToE at the zero-and-one-foot-pedals level.

"Agents" is a loaded word, as it suggests "agency". In quantum physics, some fields interact with each other because that's how the universe works. Why they interact is unanswerable; all physics can say is how they interact.

In my model, there are states and state transformations. Why there are state transformations -- why things change -- I make no hypothesis. I simply recognize that change seems fundamental in the universe, and I represent these changes with state transformations.

What if forces are discrete, geometrically describable THINGS that move in accordance with specific laws and our math is "charting their path or highest probable path"?

Replace "forces" with "particles" and you literally have quantum mechanics. Quantum field theories are a small (some might say quantum) leap away.

 

So, uhhhh... you want me to see the above as an.... objective truth, or.....? ;—)

Hell no. I don't even know what "objective truth" means. I offered a rational, inductive argument. Like most inductive arguments, I would not describe it as being TRUE or FALSE.