Can you build a computer using physical substances that can do all 16 logic operations on states that represent THINGS in reality?

I'm not sure I understand the question. Taken literally, the answer is "yes, of course, I'm using such a device right now." My computer is built using "physical substances" that can do all 16 binary logical operations on states. Some of these states represent THINGs (the "in reality" part is superfluous damnit).

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?

Dos the clock on your wall use two states? Nope. So . . . can you use, say, a 60-state clock to differentiates between instructions, addresses, results, etc.? Of course! If you can do it with 2 states, you can do it with 1 state or 60 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.

Huh? If we discovered that our brains were using 42-level states, we could still interact just fine with binary systems.

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)

In case it's not clear, Boole's "Laws of Thought" are not actually laws of thought. George was a bit presumptuous with that title, lol.

In a unary system, there is one symbol, which we'll call "@". A unary state consists of one or more @s. We can do anything we want with these @s, including, for example, map them to a three-state system:

@ → -1
@@ → 0
@@@ → 1

We can add, subtract, multiply, divide, take roots, take powers, and so on. We can make unary logical operators, and then combine them to make binary logical operators, or ternary logical operators, and so on.

Just like we can represent a gagillion different things with binary, which has just two symbols, we can represent a gagillion different things with just one symbol.

 

I'm not sure I understand the question. Taken literally, the answer is "yes, of course, I'm using such a device right now." My computer is built using "physical substances" that can do all 16 binary logical operations on states. Some of these states represent THINGs (the "in reality" part is superfluous damnit).


Dos the clock on your wall use two states? Nope. So . . . can you use, say, a 60-state clock to differentiates between instructions, addresses, results, etc.? Of course! If you can do it with 2 states, you can do it with 1 state or 60 states.


Huh? If we discovered that our brains were using 42-level states, we could still interact just fine with binary systems.


In case it's not clear, Boole's "Laws of Thought" are not actually laws of thought. George was a bit presumptuous with that title, lol.

In a unary system, there is one symbol, which we'll call "@". A unary state consists of one or more @s. We can do anything we want with these @s, including, for example, map them to a three-state system:

@ → -1
@@ → 0
@@@ → 1

We can add, subtract, multiply, divide, take roots, take powers, and so on. We can make unary logical operators, and then combine them to make binary logical operators, or ternary logical operators, and so on.

Just like we can represent a gagillion different things with binary, which has just two symbols, we can represent a gagillion different things with just one symbol.

Sorry that wasn't clear — I meant:

"Can you build a UNARY computer using physical substances that can do all 16 logic operations on states that represent THINGS?" And everything else below it goes back to that statement, including the clock in the system which is oscillating voltages that generates the release of the stored instructions from the flip flops (the reason I said "in reality" is because provisionally there's a difference between THINGS in "the MIND" vs. "THINGS in REALITY" — we haven't gotten there yet).

The mind can do this, but can we actually do it in physical space.

 

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.

I don't get it. How do you know you have a rational, inductive argument? Do 249,000 switches in one bank flicked high represent this "fact"(?) vs. the 44,000 flicked low? I don't get the partiality, and where it comes from, that one group and quantity of switches within that group matters over another vs. "any one argument over another." Your states output high or low — why are they not TRUE or FALSE, and what group of states represents "the end argument"? One group of states represent the result output and whether or not its cogent? 43,000 switches = cogent? 29,392 = not? And one group knows the difference? You use TRUE and FALSE to describe them in their intermediate state before the final output? The amount of qualitative capacity these switches have is mind-boggling!

 

Yes, yes, yes.


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.


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.


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".


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.

If we start from any premise, such as "LET THERE BE INFORMATION," we actually can't even create the premise without first saying "LET THERE BE LIGHT." (If you catch the religio-entendre). Because no light, no information. Point being, we have an immovable starting point for a reference — an "objective" (ahem) absolute that doesn't change. Even Einstein began with c as a constant for light's speed in his reasoning. Hell, we are insistent the mathematical "objects" which we use in discourse don't change. If they did, we'd have no capacity to communicate.

But I say we extend the constancy elements of light as our starting point to its information-carrying property, so that it be a supra-state that is independent of the states it reflects and carries. "The "master wave" that carries the wavelings." It is the camera we are using to take the pictures. The camera works. We don't need to replace it with a different model or question its dependable, functional constancy.

Therefore, we must treat the mailman separate from the mail.

The mail items are states carried by the mailman, and the mailman perhaps is one itself, but nobody questions his ability to deliver the mail, since it's foot-shootingly crazy to, and we end up in a recursive padded room. So the mailman is simply the mother reference frame of all other frames that is a chameleon samurai Matrix "character" that can morph into photons and waves as it "sees fit" to maintain ORDER (perhaps another token we should get to sometime last week).

Since that is the case, the binary component is now entirely concretized: because the fact is, when the light bounces off the dog, the dog isn't really changing states with respect to its presence or absence in the space. We just need the light to tell us the dog is there, deliver the mail, and then carry on to the other houses and carry requisite information about other dogs to other people needing it. If light "decided" to not be a mathematical constant, there would be zero reference point anywhere, and hence why I'm so bent on objectivity, and perhaps that's just another way of saying light(!) as a starting state reference point. The math and logic is a direct extension of light. It's that or a padded room. Light gives us the ability to perceive objects and get information to do anything further about information, so information and light are inextricably "peanut butter and jelly." (I know you can't stand "REALITY" but I don't know why you can't stand REAL just the same (well maybe you do, but you still use it). Why can't we define REALITY as Rene did REAL to top-off the madness? They are SO connected! "Because I don't want to make the same mistake Rene did." Heh.)

So now with that constant reference point, can we agree that light is a "reserved keyword" used as our baseline, and we can say dog's "TAS State on the corner of Johnson Blvd at 3pm is 1" and when he leaves that bounded space, his presence on the corner is now a 0 (empty) which is also TDS at 1. And of course, since we have 9 million boulevards and just as many dogs, we are using GB's worth of "binary strings" to denote one specific dog and boulevard over another. But the denotation is simply concatenated "amalgamations" of "presence and absences" (amalgamative partiality being that magical "conscious" property in my estimation!).

From this we can see how {0, 1} with constant c (and even sound, which is most likely just a derivative somehow) as the primary set can represent all knowledge of THINGS and their binary states within spaces in existence and their logical evaluations.

Agreed?

 

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?

Yes, but how does what() know the difference between reality.dog() and nonreality.dog() (ok, physicalspace.dog() vs. conceptualspace.dog()). It prompts with these things very specifically in mind for a reason, and I would argue WHY() is a C# “interface” masterclass driving the what()’s state predisposition. We cannot under_rug_sweep() this immense binary differentiation for literally every THING and ACTION for all 6 interrogatives and expect to makesense() of anything() anywhere().

 

Though I heartily 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?

I don't understand why this is an issue. If we have x, y, z axes and massive resolution between points, we can represent ANY object, curved or otherwise on the Cartesian plane.

If we graph a sphere on the thing, and we bifurcate the sphere with a horizontal line at its equator, we can do the same at any y value to create parallel lines. Parallel lines are defined as parallel because they don’t touch! If they touch at some point, they were never parallel to begin with—one of the lines is biased at some angle to the other.

The angles of triangles sum to less than Pi because Matrix. Pie is irrational. Every unbounded thing is discretized here so we can effectively work with it.

 

I'd also like to add something about our beloved Kronecker here, and why he's 100% right that there are only integers in observable reality.

Take any integer. What is it? 1, 5, 478, 298477?

How far can they go? Using light as the basis of information, they are essentially some named “portion” of countless INFINITY, the “numberless continuum.” There are infinite instantiations of infinity!

On the x, y, and z axis with infinite points, every single point could have a unique integer name! On a line with 10ths, 1.1 could simply be called 2, and 1.2 could be called 3, etc.!

So if you put a decimal to the right of any integer, and you start tacking on numbers, what do you have?

4284.293928?

Just another integer that is a named portion of INFINITY. This time, INFINITY represents the endless integers on the left, and a unique integer on the right “representing” to “us” a fractionation of the unique labeling on the left of the decimal. But it’s just another integer! The mind has a “nomenclature generator” for every TAS, and these are just integers.

So, INFINITY #58,345 really (there’s “real” again) is just (continuous, in the mind) thought-form TAS #58,345.

The next TAS that exists is thought-form #58,346, in the mind as an undivided INFINITY first, but maps to TAS 58,346 in digital, bounded, physical space. But instead of just calling the next TAS THAT, we might invoke the invented ℝ and call it 58345.1 by tacking another integer on with a decimal place. We don’t need the decimals really. We don’t run out of integers! The reason why we decimalize is because it’s convenient to break numbers up in measurements with a ruler, where the same fraction names apply to each integer. 2 and 5/8 or 324 and 5/8. Otherwise we’d need many more unique integer names for every single “fraction” of each unique integer!

Again, instead of calling it 9 and 1/8 (9.125) we’d need a unique integer token for that vs. 234 and 1/8, which too would need another unique integer token. Fractions are inventions of measurement convenience only, which allow us to add a “little more” to a number without having to invoke new labels for each. They are just essentially another unique group of wildcard universal integer names we tack on. They make the statement -1 < n < 0 and -∞ < n < ∞ very mysterious, but all that statement is saying, is that each TAS is a unique infinity in the mind, and 1 and 0 are the same thing as the infinity sign, just unique labelings for the base reserved ontological numbers of {0, 1} that every single number set is based on {TDS, TAS} with light as the reference for all.

And signing a number is yet another invention. What are the integers to the left of the 0 on the axis? Just the same integers! We just insist that every Cartesian plane we invoke starts at 0,0. That forces us to invent “negatives”. Proof that negatives are an illusion is how we can build an adder to subtract using fancy bit shifting. All arithmetic is adding the integers 0 and 1 in disguise, and this is proven with every Turing device we call a computer (or “stored adder.”).

If we make the resolution of the x, y, and z access infinite-bit, we simply need a unique integer name for every point represented. It’s impractical, so we invented ℝ to deal with this inconvenience.

This is why .9 repeating is 1. And the mathematical function that generates real numbers equates INFINITY to 1. 1 and 0 are the only true numbers, bits and logic states all in one. And they also represent the presence of a unique infinituum. And the integers are the unique simple names for unique incarnations of INFINITY or “TDS” and “TAS”, at absolute Light’s behest.

The ability to NAME the integers or DEFINE them with unique names beyond the very bit capacity of the brain, and associate them with true dimension above 1D is the mind and REALITY 3D thought-form consciousness magic.


Hopefully you see why my graphic earlier is showing the binary O set and INFINITY as the basis of information when LIGHT is the absolute reference point.

 

Sorry that wasn't clear — I meant:

"Can you build a UNARY computer using physical substances that can do all 16 logic operations on states that represent THINGS?"

Of course! Since you have yet to be convinced, I'll be more explicit. There are 16 binary boolean operations, i.e., functions of the form \( f:\{0,1\}^2 \to \{0,1\} \). An example is binary AND: \[ \begin{align} f(0,0) &= 0 \\ f(0,1) &= 0 \\ f(1,0) &= 0 \\ f(1,1) &= 1 \end{align} \] A unary representation of boolean logic might use the map \[ \begin{align} 0 &\to @ \\ 1 &\to @@ \end{align} \] With this map, we will call a unary operation a function of the form \( g:\{@\} \to \{@,@@\} \). There are precisely two such functions: \[ g_1(@) = @ \qquad \text{and} \qquad g_2(@) = @@ \] We'll define the composition of these functions as concatenations of their outputs. For example, \[ g_1 \circ g_2 = @@@ \] In this way, we can form arbitrary strings of "@" symbols. Of course, we can treat these compositions of g as functions themselves: \( h: \{@\}^n \to \{@,@@\} \).

With an appropriate map for h, we can implement any boolean function. For example, let's suppose we want to implement boolean AND with our unary system. Well, \[ \begin{align} h(g_1 \circ g_1) &= h(@@) &\to @ \\ h(g_1 \circ g_2) &= h(@@@) &\to @ \\ h(g_2 \circ g_1) &= h(@@@) &\to @ \\ h(g_2 \circ g_2) &= h(@@@@) &\to @@ \end{align} \] In other words, whenever the input is @@@@, the output is @@, else the output is @. This is, of course, the unary equivalent to boolean AND.

We can continue this way and define every other boolean operation (e.g., OR maps "@@@" inputs to "@", and all other inputs to "@@"). And these maps are all we need to implement the logic physically. Remember, mathematically we're just concatenating a single "@" symbol. Electronically, this could be represented by a voltage; we might design the system such that anything larger than 1V is considered a "@". Anything less than 1 V is undefined (just like the transition voltages between HIGH and LOW binary states).

So, to physically implement our unary operators, all we need is the ability to isolate "channels" of voltage, each channel representing a single "@" at the input. There are a million ways to do this. To make a unary AND gate the way we defined it, we need four input pins and two output pins. A network of diodes can be used to ensure that both output pins have greater than 1V only when each of the four inputs have greater than 1 V.

Just as with boolean logic, we simply interpret what the pattern of voltages means.

 

Of course! Since you have yet to be convinced, I'll be more explicit. There are 16 binary boolean operations, i.e., functions of the form \( f:\{0,1\}^2 \to \{0,1\} \). An example is binary AND: \[ \begin{align} f(0,0) &= 0 \\ f(0,1) &= 0 \\ f(1,0) &= 0 \\ f(1,1) &= 1 \end{align} \] A unary representation of boolean logic might use the map \[ \begin{align} 0 &\to @ \\ 1 &\to @@ \end{align} \] With this map, we will call a unary operation a function of the form \( g:\{@\} \to \{@,@@\} \). There are precisely two such functions: \[ g_1(@) = @ \qquad \text{and} \qquad g_2(@) = @@ \] We'll define the composition of these functions as concatenations of their outputs. For example, \[ g_1 \circ g_2 = @@@ \] In this way, we can form arbitrary strings of "@" symbols. Of course, we can treat these compositions of g as functions themselves: \( h: \{@\}^n \to \{@,@@\} \).

With an appropriate map for h, we can implement any boolean function. For example, let's suppose we want to implement boolean AND with our unary system. Well, \[ \begin{align} h(g_1 \circ g_1) &= h(@@) &\to @ \\ h(g_1 \circ g_2) &= h(@@@) &\to @ \\ h(g_2 \circ g_1) &= h(@@@) &\to @ \\ h(g_2 \circ g_2) &= h(@@@@) &\to @@ \end{align} \] In other words, whenever the input is @@@@, the output is @@, else the output is @. This is, of course, the unary equivalent to boolean AND.

We can continue this way and define every other boolean operation (e.g., OR maps "@@@" inputs to "@", and all other inputs to "@@"). And these maps are all we need to implement the logic physically. Remember, mathematically we're just concatenating a single "@" symbol. Electronically, this could be represented by a voltage; we might design the system such that anything larger than 1V is considered a "@". Anything less than 1 V is undefined (just like the transition voltages between HIGH and LOW binary states).

So, to physically implement our unary operators, all we need is the ability to isolate "channels" of voltage, each channel representing a single "@" at the input. There are a million ways to do this. To make a unary AND gate the way we defined it, we need four input pins and two output pins. A network of diodes can be used to ensure that both output pins have greater than 1V only when each of the four inputs have greater than 1 V.

Just as with boolean logic, we simply interpret what the pattern of voltages means.

This is very fascinating; however, wouldn’t the mysterious concatenation mechanism itself in the mind still be employing a binary framework to evaluate if the @@@ represent TRUE OR FALSE that you need more or less @‘s to indicate a meaningful result?

So you are using a binary differentiator to determine h’s very functionality. You don’t know to concatenate unless you can determine if the existing string is sufficient OR not.

And I think because you just specified an “undefined” moniker you are in fact contrasting it from the defined, which is binary in nature. Where is there a unary computer in existence? Never heard of one.

No matter how you cut the cake, the dog is there or it’s not. @ for there or @@ for not there is still essentially TRUE or FALSE.

 

I don't get it. How do you know you have a rational, inductive argument? Do 249,000 switches in one bank flicked high represent this "fact"(?) vs. the 44,000 flicked low? I don't get the partiality, and where it comes from, that one group and quantity of switches within that group matters over another vs. "any one argument over another." Your states output high or low — why are they not TRUE or FALSE, and what group of states represents "the end argument"? One group of states represent the result output and whether or not its cogent? 43,000 switches = cogent? 29,392 = not? And one group knows the difference? You use TRUE and FALSE to describe them in their intermediate state before the final output? The amount of qualitative capacity these switches have is mind-boggling!

I hope that you'd agree that most non-formal arguments we come across in daily life are neither strictly TRUE nor strictly FALSE. Whether or not someone has made a "rational inductive argument" is not a fact, it's an opinion, a belief. We might say that the Platonic ideal of an inductive argument is a deductive argument. We might measure the strength of someone's "rational inductive argument" based on how close it gets to that ideal, i.e., to what extent the conclusion seems to be driven by the premises. This is all a matter of degree -- one might be more convinced than another.

My belief in something is a complex association of states. Some of these states represent various definitions assumed in the belief, others represent various experiences I've had related to the belief, and yet others represent entirely different beliefs that tie in through other associations. My belief that an inductive argument is rational is not characterized by a simple, single state. I don't get why this is surprising or difficult to comprehend.

 

This is very fascinating; however, wouldn’t the mysterious concatenation mechanism itself in the mind still be employing a binary framework to evaluate if the @@@ represent TRUE OR FALSE that you need more or less @‘s to indicate a meaningful result?

What exactly is "mysterious" about concatenation? Presumably you don't find it mysterious that we can concatenate binary values to form binary sequences, so why should you find it mysterious to concatenate unary values to form unary sequences?

Also, note that there is no TRUE or FALSE in the language I devised. All I did was create maps between "@" symbols.

So you are using a binary differentiator to determine h’s very functionality. You don’t know to concatenate unless you can determine if the existing string is sufficient OR not.

You clearly don't understand h. By definition, h is not binary, it's n-ary: \[ h: \{@\}^n \to \{@,@@\} \] More importantly, the only purpose of h is to demonstrate how to implement binary logic using unary operations, which was what you asked me to do. We can make a computer without binary logic, in which case we wouldn't need h. But since you specifically asked if the 16 boolean binary operations can be implemented in unary logic, I created h to show one possible implementation.

And I think because you just specified an “undefined” moniker you are in fact contrasting it from the defined, which is binary in nature.

Huh? Then a binary gate is actually a ternary gate, because every binary gate specifies three voltage levels: HIGH, LOW, and UNDEFINED.

You can't have it both ways. If you accept that UNDEFINED is not a logic state in binary logic, then UNDEFINED is not a logic state in unary logic, either.

Where is there a unary computer in existence? Never heard of one.

No one makes unary computers because unary representation is terribly inefficient. With a binary computer, you can store a million things in 20 bits; with a unary computer, you'd need a million "u-its"!

Do not confuse inefficiency with impossibility.

No matter how you cut the cake, the dog is there or it’s not. @ for there or @@ for not there is still essentially TRUE or FALSE.

You're not understanding the situation. I used {@, @@} specifically to emulate boolean logic, to show that unary operations can be combined to do anything that binary operations can do. Had you asked me to emulate quaternary computation, I would have used {@, @@, @@@, @@@@}.

You are missing the forest for the trees, or something. Do me a favor and right now consider that other forms besides boolean binary computation are possible. An obvious example is analog computation, which can be done electrically with op-amps or hydraulically with water pressure. There are no bits in an analog computation, no 0s or 1s, no two-level states. Everything that a binary computer can do an analog computer can do. And if we could somehow get rid of noise, an analog computer could do significantly more than a binary computer.

If you need to, go google "analog computer" to convince yourself that they are physically possible.

So, with that in mind, how does analog computation jibe with your "only TRUE or FALSE" computing paradigm?

 

I hope that you'd agree that most non-formal arguments we come across in daily life are neither strictly TRUE nor strictly FALSE. Whether or not someone has made a "rational inductive argument" is not a fact, it's an opinion, a belief. We might say that the Platonic ideal of an inductive argument is a deductive argument. We might measure the strength of someone's "rational inductive argument" based on how close it gets to that ideal, i.e., to what extent the conclusion seems to be driven by the premises. This is all a matter of degree -- one might be more convinced than another.

My belief in something is a complex association of states. Some of these states represent various definitions assumed in the belief, others represent various experiences I've had related to the belief, and yet others represent entirely different beliefs that tie in through other associations. My belief that an inductive argument is rational is not characterized by a simple, single state. I don't get why this is surprising or difficult to comprehend.

Because you are either married or divorced. You have a daughter or you don’t. You got married or you didn’t. You flushed the toilet or you didn’t. You won the chess game or you didn’t. You ate at 3pm or you didn’t. You were caught speeding or you weren’t. You cheated on your husband or you didn’t. You heard the song or you didn’t. You scored a goal or you didn’t. You own a car or you don’t. These are states flicked high or low. You have no “beliefs.” You are discrete(!!) state machine. You don’t believe() these things. You’re a LITE Bright with bulbs high or low that don’t know or believe dogs exist!

Can you drive? “Depends”. The “depends” is the sense or contextualization where it becomes an absolute. Yes, I have my license. No, it got suspended. Yes, I was trained. No, every time I drive I hit something.

Binary AF. That’s why computers model base reasoning well, and with sufficient binary bits, we can get fuzzy clouds moving like Watson.

Qualitative arguments flow from baseline mathematical objects from unwavering Light that create undeniables that we massage into higher abstractions and beliefs based on unknowns, where we can become certain later on once the data is in. “BELIEF” is an intermediary state BEFORE all facts are in, where it becomes TRUE or FALSE.

 

What exactly is "mysterious" about concatenation? Presumably you don't find it mysterious that we can concatenate binary values to form binary sequences, so why should you find it mysterious to concatenate unary values to form unary sequences?

Also, note that there is no TRUE or FALSE in the language I devised. All I did was create maps between "@" symbols.


You clearly don't understand h. By definition, h is not binary, it's n-ary: \[ h: \{@\}^n \to \{@,@@\} \] More importantly, the only purpose of h is to demonstrate how to implement binary logic using unary operations, which was what you asked me to do. We can make a computer without binary logic, in which case we wouldn't need h. But since you specifically asked if the 16 boolean binary operations can be implemented in unary logic, I created h to show one possible implementation.


Huh? Then a binary gate is actually a ternary gate, because every binary gate specifies three voltage levels: HIGH, LOW, and UNDEFINED.

You can't have it both ways. If you accept that UNDEFINED is not a logic state in binary logic, then UNDEFINED is not a logic state in unary logic, either.


No one makes unary computers because unary representation is terribly inefficient. With a binary computer, you can store a million things in 20 bits; with a unary computer, you'd need a million "u-its"!

Do not confuse inefficiency with impossibility.


You're not understanding the situation. I used {@, @@} specifically to emulate boolean logic, to show that unary operations can be combined to do anything that binary operations can do. Had you asked me to emulate quaternary computation, I would have used {@, @@, @@@, @@@@}.

You are missing the forest for the trees, or something. Do me a favor and right now consider that other forms besides boolean binary computation are possible. An obvious example is analog computation, which can be done electrically with op-amps or hydraulically with water pressure. There are no bits in an analog computation, no 0s or 1s, no two-level states. Everything that a binary computer can do an analog computer can do. And if we could somehow get rid of noise, an analog computer could do significantly more than a binary computer.

If you need to, go google "analog computer" to convince yourself that they are physically possible.

So, with that in mind, how does analog computation jibe with your "only TRUE or FALSE" computing paradigm?

I do fully understand h. I fully understand your argument, too. I am making the claim that your BRAIN that just “created h” is binary (high and low voltages) and you’re assuming, with a binary brain, that unary is how things work!!

Your brain doesn’t even “know” anything but high and lows!

The analog computer’s purpose is to yield discretization. Discretization is “bits that are discretely storable” from continuous “analog phenomena.” The valve is high or low, the in-between states are discretized for computation purposes of TRUE OR FALSE concatenations at various intermediate states. The water is on or NOT before it is at variable pressure. Analog to digital conversion is discretizing the “water pressure” of sound. Same stuff. Without discretization somewhere, there is no boolean logic.

There is no “awareness” any switch has concatenated anything! What is the 2D output of your brain that knows the LITE Bright bulbs have anything to do with each other?? Discrete means discrete all the way down!!! There is no meaning to 95839 switches that “represent” some arbitrary concatenations, because the f*cking dog in the light is separate from them, or you wouldn’t ask the question, “where is the dog in the light”! (Lol)

 

If we start from any premise, such as "LET THERE BE INFORMATION," we actually can't even create the premise without first saying "LET THERE BE LIGHT." (If you catch the religio-entendre). Because no light, no information. Point being, we have an immovable starting point for a reference — an "objective" (ahem) absolute that doesn't change.

But light does change. If it didn't, we wouldn't be able to see anything! When light reflects off the dog, the light becomes entangled (correlated) with the dog, i.e., after reflecting off the dog, the state of the light contains information from the state of the dog. This is precisely how information is transferred.

Even Einstein began with c as a constant for light's speed in his reasoning.

But Einstein used the constancy of light to determine that there are no absolute reference frames. In my formulation, we'd say "there are no absolute reference states". This is cogent, as any information I have about external states is necessarily internal to me. I have no mechanism that allows me to know an external state "as it is". When I see the dog, my eyes interact with light that has interacted with the dog. I have no direct, absolute reference to the dog.

But I say we extend the constancy elements of light as our starting point to its information-carrying property, so that it be a supra-state that is independent of the states it reflects and carries.

The phenomenon that we associate with light is a set of states. Giving it a higher ontological status seems arbitrary, at best.

Therefore, we must treat the mailman separate from the mail.

Yes, but only insofar as we consider the state of the light. The light prior to striking the dog has some state; after striking the dog, it has another state. We've separated the mailman from the mail without imbuing either with arbitrary super powers.

Since that is the case, the binary component is now entirely concretized: because the fact is, when the light bounces off the dog, the dog isn't really changing states with respect to its presence or absence in the space. We just need the light to tell us the dog is there, deliver the mail, and then carry on to the other houses and carry requisite information about other dogs to other people needing it.

Re-consider this. When the light bounces off the dog, it tells us not just that the dog is there, it also tells us how far, what color, what breed, where it's facing, if it looks angry, etc. There is quite literally a ton of information about the dog being carried by the light, yet you ignore all of it except for some putative "presence" aspect.

Note well that all the dog information transferred by the light -- it's color, size, etc. -- is suitable to indicate "presence" without any actual "presence bit" being transferred. I claim that this is far closer to what actually happens in our brains. We see a bunch of data (at the same time), which our brain coalesces into the image of a dog, which is the only indication we need of its presence.

 

Answer me this:

A person uses a Lite-Brite to light up the “image” of the cloud. The light bulbs are not connected. Would you say the “Lite-Brite” knows what a cloud is? And what is the cloud the Lite-Brite’s bulb states are reflecting in “physical reality?”

The amalgamator I’m referring to is the “meaning behind the concatenations” that allow you as a living person to say the cloud on the Lite-Brite’s discrete bulbs is a “state machine of 85 bulbs lit up” that REPRESENT a REAL cloud that is either “there or not.”

There is no meaning until a 2D screen lights up pixels in sufficient proximity to reconstruct the 1D to the discernible 2D second order (First order being the 3D object). Pray tell, where TF is your screen, Hector? There is no meaning (amalgamation!) in your discrete bits otherwise!

Do you agree to that, or should I continue this conversariom with a Lite-Brite?

 

But Einstein used the constancy of light to determine that there are no absolute reference frames. In my formulation, we'd say "there are no absolute reference states". This is cogent, as any information I have about external states is necessarily internal to me. I have no mechanism that allows me to know an external state "as it is". When I see the dog, my eyes interact with light that has interacted with the dog. I have no direct, absolute reference to the dog.

THIS right here. Run with this or die! (Jk)

But you still insist the dog exists independent of your states that reflect its existence, correct???

 

Yes, but how does what() know the difference between reality.dog() and nonreality.dog() (ok, physicalspace.dog() vs. conceptualspace.dog()).

Huh? How is a token (or data structure) supposed to "know" anything?

You walk up to your neighbor's fence and see a dog. "What kind of dog is that?"
You're watching a Disney movie with your friend and Pluto comes on the screen. "What kind of dog is that?"

The "what" doesn't distinguish between physical or conceptual, it only points to a referent, which itself may be physical or conceptual.

 

Huh? How is a token (or data structure) supposed to "know" anything?

You walk up to your neighbor's fence and see a dog. "What kind of dog is that?"
You're watching a Disney movie with your friend and Pluto comes on the screen. "What kind of dog is that?"

The "what" doesn't distinguish between physical or conceptual, it only points to a referent, which itself may be physical or conceptual.

Then you must assume every referent is carrying a reality/non-reality bit flag, yes? And that is not connected to “what”’s ability to file it? Dog on screen is carrying a non-real bit-flag? One in reality is real? Where’s the flag stored?

 

I don't understand why this is an issue. If we have x, y, z axes and massive resolution between points, we can represent ANY object, curved or otherwise on the Cartesian plane.

We can represent a 2D object, such as the surface of a sphere, on a 2D plane, but we cannot do so without introducing distortion. There is no bijective map between a sphere and a plane that preserves the relationships of lengths and angles (this is why maps of the world always have some level of distortion, such as Greenland appearing as large as Africa). The way we say this categorically is that spheres and planes have different geometries.

If we graph a sphere on the thing, and we bifurcate the sphere with a horizontal line at its equator, we can do the same at any y value to create parallel lines. Parallel lines are defined as parallel because they don’t touch! If they touch at some point, they were never parallel to begin with—one of the lines is biased at some angle to the other.

What you've described are not parallel lines. First, let's agree that, in any particular geometry, all lines must be the same length (line segments can have any length). Second, let's agree that, in any given geometry, the length of a line maximizes the space. This encapsulates the notion that y = mx + b for all x to all geometries.

With these two principles, we can now see that any line on a sphere is a great circle, i.e., the line that results from slicing the sphere in half with a plane. If we consider Earth a sphere, the equator is an example of such a line, but the rest of the "lines of latitude" are not geomtetric lines (they can't be as they are not maximal); we might call them spherical line segments. The "lines of longitude", however, are all geometric lines. And these all converge at precisely two points, the poles.

So, we can either take the definition of parallel to be "lines that never intersect", in which case there are no parallel lines on a sphere, or we must accept that parallel lines converge on a sphere. Either way, the Euclidean notions don't work on spheres.

The angles of triangles sum to less than Pi because Matrix. Pie is irrational. Every unbounded thing is discretized here so we can effectively work with it.

Huh? In Euclidean spaces, the sum of the angles in any triangle is Pi radians (better known as 180 degrees). The irrationality of Pi is irrelevant.

 

Take any integer. What is it? 1, 5, 478, 298477?

How far can they go? Using light as the basis of information, they are essentially some named “portion” of countless INFINITY, the “numberless continuum.” There are infinite instantiations of infinity!

No, an integer is a named portion of a countable INFINITY. The continuum is ℝ, not ℤ.

On the x, y, and z axis with infinite points, every single point could have a unique integer name! On a line with 10ths, 1.1 could simply be called 2, and 1.2 could be called 3, etc.!

If x, y, and z are real number lines, then this is not true. The most straightforward proof is Cantor's diagonalization argument. In fact, the situation is much, much more dire than you might expect. The amount of numbers in ℝ that we can label (like 4 or Pi or 74.239484) is essentially zero percent. Almost all numbers in ℝ are uncomputable and unnameable.

And signing a number is yet another invention. What are the integers to the left of the 0 on the axis? Just the same integers! We just insist that every Cartesian plane we invoke starts at 0,0. That forces us to invent “negatives”. Proof that negatives are an illusion is how we can build an adder to subtract using fancy bit shifting. All arithmetic is adding the integers 0 and 1 in disguise, and this is proven with every Turing device we call a computer (or “stored adder.”).

Lol, I appreciate the attempt, but nah. In the domain of integers, -3 has different properties than 3 -- it's not just a "regular" 3 with the "-" symbol in front of it.

Without the negatives, a question such as "What is four minus seven?" is unanswerable. So, unless you believe that "What is four plus seven" is more "real" than "What is four minus seven", ℤ is no more illusory than ℕ.

If we make the resolution of the x, y, and z access infinite-bit, we simply need a unique integer name for every point represented. It’s impractical, so we invented ℝ to deal with this inconvenience.

Not impractical, impossible.

This is why .9 repeating is 1. And the mathematical function that generates real numbers equates INFINITY to 1.

There is no function that generates ℝ, so whatever you think is equating INFINITY to 1 doesn't exist.