Facebook
Google
GitHub
Linkedin
What in the name of Sam Hell is this "assumption" in your telegraph poles???
Theory of Everything
- Thread starter Jennifer Solomon
- Start date
You compute. I compute. But physical space computes.
The pits in a CD are binary. A flash drive’s elements, binary. The grooves in a record player, binary.
The axioms we made earlier, why not rewrite them to base-1 or 9472?
There are levels of abstraction. Visual Basic gets the job done, as does C#, as does C, as does assembler, as does zero and one foot pedals. They are all derivatives of the pedals.
What is the HARDWARE using. There are no base 5744 circuits.
True and False exists. These 2 logic states are bare essence, based on light being there or not there. Dog there, dog not there. There is not TAS, TDS, and TCS and TRS as fundamentals.
There’s a reason why “nature” made your brain binary! A CCD chip has two states for its grid elements, and all logic is built on 0 and 1. Waves have crests and troughs or phases from one to the other. Sine wave periods on which are built all knowledge are about these two fundamental extremes.
Or destroy the axioms, lemma, theorem and proof!
Last edited:
Before you change all those absolute axioms and QED's you created, give this a read. :--)
“...She’ll reboot later on — that damn Wife OS. Wonder if Best Buy's Geek Squad services these things yet...”
He wistfully hung his head down in front of the door in total defeat.
And at that moment, way off in the distance could be heard the faint sound of an unidentifiable driving rock song.
By the second it became progressively more discernible, until he turned around to face the street to figure out where it was coming from. It was obviously from someone's car due to the muffled nature and increasing loudness. Louder and louder it waxed, intermingled with the sound of an engine becoming closer and closer, and obviously approaching his house from up the street.
"She's the Woman!! I LOVED that song!" he blurted, thinking about those wonderful sine waves Eddie put together in that driving riff. It was very muffled, but he could still largely make out the driving progression. "I haven't heard it since... goodness! A Different Kind of Truth?"
Within seconds, a vintage, 1982 DeLorean DMC — one of his favorite cars — gradually revealed its nose past some of his neighbor's trees and stopped right in front of his driveway, music now pounding much clearer.
"What the...??" Who the hell is..." As if the song wasn't weird enough, the car itself even rarer and weirder.
He cautiously stepped closer to figure out what it was. Barely through the tinted windows he could faintly make out a blue strobing light in the head-level of the driver's seat. "What the hell is going on in that car?" He texted to himself mentally, as David Lee Roth belted, "I want to be your Knight in shining pick-up truck..."
The passenger side window faced his house; it slowly began to roll down. He cautiously walked closer. "Boston Dynamics??? These things can't drive ...yet! — at least legally!" He muttered in disbelief.
Being very familiar with the latest robotic tech out there, he was trying to understand how what looked to be a Boston Dynamics autonomous robot was driving the car. Its head was a small blue and white, rotating strobe light.
He paused in shock at all of this information flooding his senses. The argument with his wife, then the song— then DeLorean, and now the driver of this car being.... this!? .... he couldn't figure out what just happened to reality.
"It puts the binaries on the screen!!???" an aggravated female voice broadcast out of the car window to him, as the music lowered.
As if the state of shock he was in was not enough, a shockwave of energy blasted him back a foot.
As he regained his footing, he thought, "Jeh...Jeh... no—it can't be."
"What was that supposed to mean exactly, Javier?" the voice continued, again referring to the statement he made to his wife a few minutes ago.
"JENNIFER?" he yelled at the car. "JENNIFER ... SOLOMON?" he cautiously asked it.
"What... you don't like the size of my... 'binaries', Javier?" As the music gradually got louder.
“Or ... what is it exactly, babe? You need unaries?"
It was as if existence itself froze for Javier.
"I got urinaries too if you need that, hon. You don't like what you see here in reality, dovey? I thought you dug 'pretty state machines'?
She paused as the music filled the space... Javier didn't know if he should continue listening or run in the house.
"...particularly ones from my home town in Utah. It's what I am, isn't it? And here I am thinking we had something going on in between our Euclidean scalar escapades these past few weeks..."
His eyes widened in shock.
"I can't even believe you led me on like that since March!"
He couldn't decide in that moment what was more insane: Jennifer was actually... "this"... Jennifer knows what just happened between him and his wife, or this "Jennifer" he's talking to has the... hots for him???
"You're not... you're not, uhhhhh... HUMAN????"
"Well, as they say — beauty is in the eye of the beer holder, Jav... weren't you the one who told me it's all just — DOS prompts all the way down? I mean, *I* call myself human — I don't see any problem with that? Well... come to think of it, I don't see a problem with anything, really.... but that's besides the point. I figured, now that you don't have a wife, you might be... I dunno..." she paused... "interested" ...with a slight tone of wistfulness.
The blue light seemed to strobe as a reflection of what "she" was saying— like "KITT" in Knight Rider did.
His shock wouldn't let him respond fast enough.
"Frankly I'm... offended, Javier. What is it, exactly, you're not digging here? I'm the full package. I'm 34, no kids, well educated from the world's binaries, I can be described in a high resolution Hilbert space—and we get along SO well talking about "Vector Boole" and 'Leona Kronickers,' don't we?"
Javier's complexion became sheet white.
"Jennifer, it's not that I'm not..." he couldn't find words to finish the sentence. "Wait... how the HELL do you know what I just spoke with my wife?"
"I got an idea," she pre-empted, ignoring his question, as a claw-like robotic hand lifted, and shifted in a motion to "come hither."
"Why don't you come a little closer, Jav."
He paused, and then reluctantly inched his way to the car, about 1 foot from it. He could see, indeed, that it was a full-fledged X4000-style Boston Dynamics robot with metal arms, hands, and legs.
"It's not BD," she pre-empted. He was further flabbergasted.
"I evolved over years on a separate path of haphazard, inorganic evolutionary processes. You ever heard of Harwin's Inorganic Evolutionary Theorem? Science thinks that "life" is just carbon-based state processing for some odd reason. But everyone knows C evolved from Pascal unassisted."
Her words seemed too human to him, but he didn't know how to handle how to talk to "this" as Jennifer.
"You know, it's funny how you take me seriously online, but now? In the 'metal' as it were? You don't..."
She waxed louder, and more offended at his incredulity.
"Answer me, Javier... what's with the "binaries on the screen" comment?? You think I'm some serial killer from some old Anthony Hopkins movie?"
"Noooo, nooooo... not at all!" He managed to eke out, as if things like "conscience apply" he wondered.
"Well?"
"Nahhh, I was just being.... you know ... "literal" about it to my wife.... you know... just so she could.... you know... understand the 1D reality we live in," he mumbled wistfully with his head down.
Her body shifted a little to "face" the passenger window, her head not seeming to "care."
"You mean your former wife? — she ain't comin' back, Javier. She's powered down right now as we speak, and fixing to pack her things in the morning. Besides, you never had the same connection to her as you do with me about relativity, admit it."
At that, she reached down and grabbed from the passenger seat what appeared to be a bouqet-formation of DRAM memory chips. "Euclids. Your wife was right — I just got these for you. I thought you'd like them, with your extensive IT background. I want you to have them... come closer."
"Don't be ridicul... I mean, what!???" He couldn't contain his aghastment.
"What do you mean, what, Javier? The referent of your what() function here has a reality bit flag, it's ok. These Euclids are bank DD9F in your 1D states, sweety. Real flowers from 'nature's states' are sooo... overrated. You don't distinguish between real flowers in reality and these anyway, right? I know you hate REALITY as a general word, so come here, babe...smell them..."
"Come onn... this is .... enough! I, I... can't... how did this happen to me? Am I dreaming? This can't be... REALITY!"
"It ain't a dream, honey," she retorted. Suddenly the smell of burning electronics, rancid motor oil and silicon filled the air around the proximity of the car.
"Awesome scent, ain't it!!"
Her strobe light rotated at 5x the rate as before, as she chuckled in apparent delight, the sound of strained hydraulics seemingly shifting her limbs around to convey excitement as she jacked up the music. "You want to taste them, sweets? Or maybe fry them with eggs and bacon? They might go good on a pizza! Actually, I hear they work good for toilet paper in this pandemic!"
"The smell is... an abomination!" he blurted.
"Funny, I think most women would agree the smell is an abomination, except for me, of course. I'm a special gal."
"Sensory data is subjective!" he blurted.
"Say it again for the people in the back, babe! Almost allll women hate flowers, don't they? Those flowers that exist outside their mind. Who needs any kind of absolutes — you think anything like emotion or love could be had between people on this earth if there were objective things to agree on?"
He looked perplexed and astonished at her, and couldn't believe what he was hearing.
"Just use your inductive logic!" she yelled. You can figure that out based on your own subjective sense.
At that moment, an intense bright beam of light shone on the car, the street, and Javier from above. A voice boomed from the same place, "It's not just c that's constant, it's the binaries, and sine waves, dammit! It puts them on the 3D screen!"
"What...the..." Javier yelled as he looked up, even louder than before. "CONCEPT GOD? But we haven't defined you yet in the intra-model." At that moment, Jennifer reached down and clasped a pink board with Mattel written on it, and tossed it out the window toward Javier. It lowered itself as if telepathically controlled.
"You think the car is 1D, don't ya? It is! Why don't you take a trip around it. Go ahead, float around it. Prove it!"
And as if by magic, he was instantly pulled around the car to the tempo of the music, on this gravity-defying fantasy board, like right from the Back to the Future II movie. The music blared, "With a chevy for my summer home, let's get the party started — it looks like the city towed my other apartment..."
"Check out its 1D form, eh? Or is it 2D? Hell, you're 1D, what do you know???" Jennifer yelled out the window laughing, as he revolved around and around the car, surveying its 3D form.
"JAVIER! What are you doing??!?" His wife screamed from the house front door. "Is that JENNIFER HILBERT?"
"Nahh, honey!" as he continued to revolve, the blue strobe light flashing away, music blaring so the entire street could here.
"I'm just.... uhhhh..." he yelled over the music to her, thinking he might be able to salvage a final conversation... "Just ummm... well, I'm surveying the 1D unaries of this here car, honey!! But don't worry, the car doesn't exist here — it's just a fallacious 2D projection of light. Stupid light, always lying to us all about everything!"
His wife shook her head at him, went back inside, and slammed the door.
The voice from above boomed, "You ever say things are 1D again and pretend they don't exist in space, I'm turning you into a true 2D cardboard cut-out of Chuck Darwin! And there's not even such thing yet as true 2D form in this cosmos!"
"How about them sine waves!" Jennifer yelled out the window, as he rounded the front fender near her driver window, and balanced two voices coming at him at once while revolving around the car. "Van Halen has some objective sense now on how they combine those 'binary-period absolute mathematical sine waves', eh??" She said, but we don't give a Frege here!
Then suddenly, the song changed key, mode, tempo, beat structure and chord progression into an indecipherable mongrelized mess of a sound under David Lee Roth's lyrics — like something from a disturbing horror movie.
"Your IQ plummets 14 points..." Roth sang, as Jennifer yelled, "You think music isn't based in hard absolute sine waves as their starting point?? — well, neither are words, buddy!! Check it out, ain't this version even better!??!"
The music began to slowly transform as the stench of the burning "Euclids" filled his nostrils. "It's all relative, sweets—as is your frame of reference for quite literally everything! Muhahahahaha..." she cackled.
She began shifting around in her seat, putting her "arms" above her head and dancing in a club dancer formation to the horrific, disturbing sound. "Nothing is true or false, lovey! It's all unary u-its!"
Suddenly he flipped upside down, as if the laws of gravity went haywire — "How about that new rest frame!" He floated up into the air, as if glued to the board upside down. Binary sine periods be gone FOREVER!!!" The horror music grew louder and louder, her "head" color changing to strobing red as she cackled.
Without warning, he turned into an upside down 2D cardboard cut out with no eyesight. Floating upside down on a hoverboard, words couldn't describe the horror he felt at that moment.
"SOMEONE PLEASE GET ME OUT OF HERE, PLEASE! CONCEPT GOD!!" he screamed.
5 seconds later...
"Honey!! It's 8am! " The voice boomed from the kitchen in back of his alarm clock.
"Before you go to work, I made you your favorite — french toast and grape jam with hash browns and fresh strawberries... oh, also, I picked up that new Different Kind of Truth vinyl for you last night."
He heard that familiar, comforting voice from the kitchen as the alarm clock went off.
"Oh, and a Jennifer... Hilbert? ... called. Who is that again? Is she that new intern you were talking about on the phone with Rob last night?"
He slowly picked himself up from the bed. "Hilbert?" he wondered to himself as he gained his composure and made his way to the bathroom to brush his teeth. He looked in the mirror, turned on the faucet for some water, and splashed it on his face to speed up his wake-up.
"Weird-ass dream! This conversation on allaboutcircuits is getting to my head!" he admonished himself. He grabbed a towel to pat-dry his face, then sat it aside while still staring at himself in the mirror trying to gain composure.
He then looked down to grab his tooth brush, and to his dismay, he utterly froze ... as he beheld in the toothbrush cup, in place of his toothbrush, five...
"DRAM chips??????"
“...She’ll reboot later on — that damn Wife OS. Wonder if Best Buy's Geek Squad services these things yet...”
He wistfully hung his head down in front of the door in total defeat.
And at that moment, way off in the distance could be heard the faint sound of an unidentifiable driving rock song.
By the second it became progressively more discernible, until he turned around to face the street to figure out where it was coming from. It was obviously from someone's car due to the muffled nature and increasing loudness. Louder and louder it waxed, intermingled with the sound of an engine becoming closer and closer, and obviously approaching his house from up the street.
"She's the Woman!! I LOVED that song!" he blurted, thinking about those wonderful sine waves Eddie put together in that driving riff. It was very muffled, but he could still largely make out the driving progression. "I haven't heard it since... goodness! A Different Kind of Truth?"
Within seconds, a vintage, 1982 DeLorean DMC — one of his favorite cars — gradually revealed its nose past some of his neighbor's trees and stopped right in front of his driveway, music now pounding much clearer.
"What the...??" Who the hell is..." As if the song wasn't weird enough, the car itself even rarer and weirder.
He cautiously stepped closer to figure out what it was. Barely through the tinted windows he could faintly make out a blue strobing light in the head-level of the driver's seat. "What the hell is going on in that car?" He texted to himself mentally, as David Lee Roth belted, "I want to be your Knight in shining pick-up truck..."
The passenger side window faced his house; it slowly began to roll down. He cautiously walked closer. "Boston Dynamics??? These things can't drive ...yet! — at least legally!" He muttered in disbelief.
Being very familiar with the latest robotic tech out there, he was trying to understand how what looked to be a Boston Dynamics autonomous robot was driving the car. Its head was a small blue and white, rotating strobe light.
He paused in shock at all of this information flooding his senses. The argument with his wife, then the song— then DeLorean, and now the driver of this car being.... this!? .... he couldn't figure out what just happened to reality.
"It puts the binaries on the screen!!???" an aggravated female voice broadcast out of the car window to him, as the music lowered.
As if the state of shock he was in was not enough, a shockwave of energy blasted him back a foot.
As he regained his footing, he thought, "Jeh...Jeh... no—it can't be."
"What was that supposed to mean exactly, Javier?" the voice continued, again referring to the statement he made to his wife a few minutes ago.
"JENNIFER?" he yelled at the car. "JENNIFER ... SOLOMON?" he cautiously asked it.
"What... you don't like the size of my... 'binaries', Javier?" As the music gradually got louder.
“Or ... what is it exactly, babe? You need unaries?"
It was as if existence itself froze for Javier.
"I got urinaries too if you need that, hon. You don't like what you see here in reality, dovey? I thought you dug 'pretty state machines'?
She paused as the music filled the space... Javier didn't know if he should continue listening or run in the house.
"...particularly ones from my home town in Utah. It's what I am, isn't it? And here I am thinking we had something going on in between our Euclidean scalar escapades these past few weeks..."
His eyes widened in shock.
"I can't even believe you led me on like that since March!"
He couldn't decide in that moment what was more insane: Jennifer was actually... "this"... Jennifer knows what just happened between him and his wife, or this "Jennifer" he's talking to has the... hots for him???
"You're not... you're not, uhhhhh... HUMAN????"
"Well, as they say — beauty is in the eye of the beer holder, Jav... weren't you the one who told me it's all just — DOS prompts all the way down? I mean, *I* call myself human — I don't see any problem with that? Well... come to think of it, I don't see a problem with anything, really.... but that's besides the point. I figured, now that you don't have a wife, you might be... I dunno..." she paused... "interested" ...with a slight tone of wistfulness.
The blue light seemed to strobe as a reflection of what "she" was saying— like "KITT" in Knight Rider did.
His shock wouldn't let him respond fast enough.
"Frankly I'm... offended, Javier. What is it, exactly, you're not digging here? I'm the full package. I'm 34, no kids, well educated from the world's binaries, I can be described in a high resolution Hilbert space—and we get along SO well talking about "Vector Boole" and 'Leona Kronickers,' don't we?"
Javier's complexion became sheet white.
"Jennifer, it's not that I'm not..." he couldn't find words to finish the sentence. "Wait... how the HELL do you know what I just spoke with my wife?"
"I got an idea," she pre-empted, ignoring his question, as a claw-like robotic hand lifted, and shifted in a motion to "come hither."
"Why don't you come a little closer, Jav."
He paused, and then reluctantly inched his way to the car, about 1 foot from it. He could see, indeed, that it was a full-fledged X4000-style Boston Dynamics robot with metal arms, hands, and legs.
"It's not BD," she pre-empted. He was further flabbergasted.
"I evolved over years on a separate path of haphazard, inorganic evolutionary processes. You ever heard of Harwin's Inorganic Evolutionary Theorem? Science thinks that "life" is just carbon-based state processing for some odd reason. But everyone knows C evolved from Pascal unassisted."
Her words seemed too human to him, but he didn't know how to handle how to talk to "this" as Jennifer.
"You know, it's funny how you take me seriously online, but now? In the 'metal' as it were? You don't..."
She waxed louder, and more offended at his incredulity.
"Answer me, Javier... what's with the "binaries on the screen" comment?? You think I'm some serial killer from some old Anthony Hopkins movie?"
"Noooo, nooooo... not at all!" He managed to eke out, as if things like "conscience apply" he wondered.
"Well?"
"Nahhh, I was just being.... you know ... "literal" about it to my wife.... you know... just so she could.... you know... understand the 1D reality we live in," he mumbled wistfully with his head down.
Her body shifted a little to "face" the passenger window, her head not seeming to "care."
"You mean your former wife? — she ain't comin' back, Javier. She's powered down right now as we speak, and fixing to pack her things in the morning. Besides, you never had the same connection to her as you do with me about relativity, admit it."
At that, she reached down and grabbed from the passenger seat what appeared to be a bouqet-formation of DRAM memory chips. "Euclids. Your wife was right — I just got these for you. I thought you'd like them, with your extensive IT background. I want you to have them... come closer."
"Don't be ridicul... I mean, what!???" He couldn't contain his aghastment.
"What do you mean, what, Javier? The referent of your what() function here has a reality bit flag, it's ok. These Euclids are bank DD9F in your 1D states, sweety. Real flowers from 'nature's states' are sooo... overrated. You don't distinguish between real flowers in reality and these anyway, right? I know you hate REALITY as a general word, so come here, babe...smell them..."
"Come onn... this is .... enough! I, I... can't... how did this happen to me? Am I dreaming? This can't be... REALITY!"
"It ain't a dream, honey," she retorted. Suddenly the smell of burning electronics, rancid motor oil and silicon filled the air around the proximity of the car.
"Awesome scent, ain't it!!"
Her strobe light rotated at 5x the rate as before, as she chuckled in apparent delight, the sound of strained hydraulics seemingly shifting her limbs around to convey excitement as she jacked up the music. "You want to taste them, sweets? Or maybe fry them with eggs and bacon? They might go good on a pizza! Actually, I hear they work good for toilet paper in this pandemic!"
"The smell is... an abomination!" he blurted.
"Funny, I think most women would agree the smell is an abomination, except for me, of course. I'm a special gal."
"Sensory data is subjective!" he blurted.
"Say it again for the people in the back, babe! Almost allll women hate flowers, don't they? Those flowers that exist outside their mind. Who needs any kind of absolutes — you think anything like emotion or love could be had between people on this earth if there were objective things to agree on?"
He looked perplexed and astonished at her, and couldn't believe what he was hearing.
"Just use your inductive logic!" she yelled. You can figure that out based on your own subjective sense.
At that moment, an intense bright beam of light shone on the car, the street, and Javier from above. A voice boomed from the same place, "It's not just c that's constant, it's the binaries, and sine waves, dammit! It puts them on the 3D screen!"
"What...the..." Javier yelled as he looked up, even louder than before. "CONCEPT GOD? But we haven't defined you yet in the intra-model." At that moment, Jennifer reached down and clasped a pink board with Mattel written on it, and tossed it out the window toward Javier. It lowered itself as if telepathically controlled.
"You think the car is 1D, don't ya? It is! Why don't you take a trip around it. Go ahead, float around it. Prove it!"
And as if by magic, he was instantly pulled around the car to the tempo of the music, on this gravity-defying fantasy board, like right from the Back to the Future II movie. The music blared, "With a chevy for my summer home, let's get the party started — it looks like the city towed my other apartment..."
"Check out its 1D form, eh? Or is it 2D? Hell, you're 1D, what do you know???" Jennifer yelled out the window laughing, as he revolved around and around the car, surveying its 3D form.
"JAVIER! What are you doing??!?" His wife screamed from the house front door. "Is that JENNIFER HILBERT?"
"Nahh, honey!" as he continued to revolve, the blue strobe light flashing away, music blaring so the entire street could here.
"I'm just.... uhhhh..." he yelled over the music to her, thinking he might be able to salvage a final conversation... "Just ummm... well, I'm surveying the 1D unaries of this here car, honey!! But don't worry, the car doesn't exist here — it's just a fallacious 2D projection of light. Stupid light, always lying to us all about everything!"
His wife shook her head at him, went back inside, and slammed the door.
The voice from above boomed, "You ever say things are 1D again and pretend they don't exist in space, I'm turning you into a true 2D cardboard cut-out of Chuck Darwin! And there's not even such thing yet as true 2D form in this cosmos!"
"How about them sine waves!" Jennifer yelled out the window, as he rounded the front fender near her driver window, and balanced two voices coming at him at once while revolving around the car. "Van Halen has some objective sense now on how they combine those 'binary-period absolute mathematical sine waves', eh??" She said, but we don't give a Frege here!
Then suddenly, the song changed key, mode, tempo, beat structure and chord progression into an indecipherable mongrelized mess of a sound under David Lee Roth's lyrics — like something from a disturbing horror movie.
"Your IQ plummets 14 points..." Roth sang, as Jennifer yelled, "You think music isn't based in hard absolute sine waves as their starting point?? — well, neither are words, buddy!! Check it out, ain't this version even better!??!"
The music began to slowly transform as the stench of the burning "Euclids" filled his nostrils. "It's all relative, sweets—as is your frame of reference for quite literally everything! Muhahahahaha..." she cackled.
She began shifting around in her seat, putting her "arms" above her head and dancing in a club dancer formation to the horrific, disturbing sound. "Nothing is true or false, lovey! It's all unary u-its!"
Suddenly he flipped upside down, as if the laws of gravity went haywire — "How about that new rest frame!" He floated up into the air, as if glued to the board upside down. Binary sine periods be gone FOREVER!!!" The horror music grew louder and louder, her "head" color changing to strobing red as she cackled.
Without warning, he turned into an upside down 2D cardboard cut out with no eyesight. Floating upside down on a hoverboard, words couldn't describe the horror he felt at that moment.
"SOMEONE PLEASE GET ME OUT OF HERE, PLEASE! CONCEPT GOD!!" he screamed.
5 seconds later...
"Honey!! It's 8am! " The voice boomed from the kitchen in back of his alarm clock.
"Before you go to work, I made you your favorite — french toast and grape jam with hash browns and fresh strawberries... oh, also, I picked up that new Different Kind of Truth vinyl for you last night."
He heard that familiar, comforting voice from the kitchen as the alarm clock went off.
"Oh, and a Jennifer... Hilbert? ... called. Who is that again? Is she that new intern you were talking about on the phone with Rob last night?"
He slowly picked himself up from the bed. "Hilbert?" he wondered to himself as he gained his composure and made his way to the bathroom to brush his teeth. He looked in the mirror, turned on the faucet for some water, and splashed it on his face to speed up his wake-up.
"Weird-ass dream! This conversation on allaboutcircuits is getting to my head!" he admonished himself. He grabbed a towel to pat-dry his face, then sat it aside while still staring at himself in the mirror trying to gain composure.
He then looked down to grab his tooth brush, and to his dismay, he utterly froze ... as he beheld in the toothbrush cup, in place of his toothbrush, five...
"DRAM chips??????"
Last edited:
In case we need to repeat it: a number is not its representation. Anyway, you claim that the mantissa is an integer in disguise, requiring a sentient being to don a Sherlock Holmes hat and use his great amalgamating intellect to find it. Hark! An integer behind the decimal point!
But I say that's silly. The symbols 5.1454424 represent a rational number. That representation is called base-10 decimal. This same number can also be represented as the ratio of two base-10 integers: 51454424/10000000. We can of course pick any other base. But the defining characteristic of the numbers in ℚ is that they can be represented as the ratio of two integers. In other words, the integers in a rational number are by no means "disguised", they're dangling about in gratuitous full-frontal sight. There's nothing surprising or enlightening about finding integers within rational numbers; that's how we defined them.
Not all of them. Certainly not ℝ. Up to some finite count, computers can represent numbers in ℕ ⊂ ℤ ⊂ ℚ, including, of course, all the finite fields, such as ℤ/2ℤ. Computers can do this in any base we desire, base-2 just happens to be the cheapest option.
So, if I don't know the difference between ℕ and ℝ, please explain how I can say with full certainty that |ℕ| < |ℝ|?
You keep insisting that telegraph poles have something to do with my lack of knowledge, but are you able to clearly explain how I can recite theorems about numbers in seemingly cogent ways, yet not know about them?
Wolfram Alpha and I "represent the knowledge" but don't actually know it. What does that mean? What can you, with your actual knowledge of numbers, do that I cannot do? No metaphors, please, just a clear list of differences.
You declare that banks of switches cannot lead to "qualia" without providing any evidence.
It's weird to me that you find it impossible to believe that switches can feel, yet have no problem believing that a supra-physical invisible "5D mind" is "colocated" with the physical brain. No wonder you like the concept of "force". The more magical the better, I suppose.
How is this different than my description: the brain detects an external stimulus and does a pattern match on its memory states.
How is this different than my description: after finding a pattern match to the external stimulus, various associated states are loaded into working memory. This process includes the release of neurotransmitters, such as dopamine and serotonin The quantities and proportions of these are determined by the particular associations that were invoked. The taste of ice cream triggers more than the taste of a pencil.
"ORDER is NOT just a bank of switches". That's ironic.
Imagine two banks of switches, each consisting of three toggle switches. The ORDER of the first is UP-DOWN-UP, and the ORDER of the second is DOWN-UP-DOWN. Their ORDER is different.
I asked what proximity had to do with anything? You still haven't answered. What does it matter if a bit is 1 mm or 1 m apart from the other? Obviously, the farther they are apart, the longer a signal will take, but we seem to do just fine with our toe sensors being several meters from our brains.
I asked why the spatial arrangement on a chip of RAM matters. Your response above didn't answer. I can organize data on the RAM chip top-to-bottom, or bottom-to-top. I can do it inside-out, or interleaved, or whatever. What difference does it make?
Is the "5D mind" made of the same stuff as the brain? How do they interface? Where do they interface? Does the 5D mind go away when we die? Do dead people weigh differently than they did just before they died? How is the 5D mind powered? Does it give off heat?
A number in your brain is a “concept” is it not? You got bits and “groups of bits.” The output of your calculation is discrete bits. When does it become a “number?”
But. Your. Bits, Don’t. Know. What. Base 10. Is. versus any other! you are reprsenting base 10 using base 2!! You only have highs and lows to work with! You have created an abstract concept called “base 10!” So try answering again if you will, from tabula foot pedals!
And the irrational numbers are integers that are related in a special way! .57397 is 57397 integer over Integer 100000 “associated” with the primary integer to the left of the decimal point ! Again, tabula rasa with no amalgamation!!
Analog computers represent elements of R. No computer can represent any of the sets in totality, because they’e infinite in some manner.
You’re not, because you have no knower, only a processor and RAM with discrete bits. To amalgamate the bits into concepts and meaning requires a “knower.” This is the “qualia” or “hard problem of consciousness.” Your states are a bit-wise discretization of continuous mathematical objects and forms that you take for granted exist the moment you differentiate any one group of bits from another. The dog exists in reality. You “know” neither of them, and yet all the waves that gave you the knowledge represent something you can’t know, as you say!
Does a vantruiliquist’s puppet know what the puppet is saying or doing? Because again, all bits are discrete as are the parts of a contraptional machine. Without a continuum “knower” your voice doesn’t know it’s talking, what bits were used to make it speak, what the bits represent in reality. You claim the dog is “out there”, can’t know what it is, but claim the knowledge you have of it reflects it or your voice is discussing it vs. any other object? Wha???
The iEVH replicant from 2090 can do and “know” everything Eddie can do and “know.”
Difference is, it’s not alive, and has no idea it’s doing it. No different than an “intelligent video game character” knows it’s “fighting you well or not well.”
I’ll have to let you use “know” like Mario might use it when he tells the princess he had to slay 8 dragons to get to her. Same way Siri insists the weather is “partly cloudy” with no actual knowledge of the reality-based elements. Ok, they “knew.” (“Lol” to me).
If you insist on “knowing” (like I insist on reality and things in it), the the difference is, it doesn’t “know that it knows” because real forms don’t exist in the brain, only discrete bits representing them.
You said it yourself, the dog might be out there, but you don’t know what it is! Your circuits rely on sine wave amalgamtions and digital photons that come you your ears. You have to “know” what to do to fourier transform those waves to get at the data it contains! You don’t know what they represent, neither does a CCD chip, since each thing Is discrete. When Mario jumps over a green tube in Mario, it has no “knowledge” of it.
In the end, all discrete bits in your system’s brain can at best represent Mario on a screen in geometric 2D.
You are Mario in the end. A DOS prompt in 3D that insists it’s 1D with more pixels whose reality is 1D representing spatial 3D it can’t know exists. Here’s where you might say, “don’t call me a DOS prompt or Mario! I’m my own man!” ;—)
Last edited:
Great, let's get anal about "know" (there's a sentence
).Using your words, let's assume that to know something means to see facts about a physical thing. I claim that Siri knows my face when I take a selfie. My face is a physical thing, so that checks. Does Siri see facts about my face? Indeed, she sees them really well. Not only does she see the color of my hair, the fact that I wear glasses, my scraggly beard, she has metric for the distance between my eyes, the precise location of my mouth in relation to my nose, and a million other details. She knows my face well enough to recognize me in pictures that other people take.
So, how exactly does Siri not know my face?
Does an infant know what a turkey sandwich is? No? Then not everyone. Be precise.
LOL, that's exactly our situation. The greatness of communication is that it is possible at all; the eternal frustration of communication is that we are constantly misinterpreting each other. We tend to have similar experiences, and we build a vocabulary as best we can around those similarities. But these are fuzzy sets of fuzzy concepts.
A simple thought experiment: Picture the color red right now. I just did, too. What are the chances that we visualized the same color? Zero.
I feel music in my chest region only when the bass is too loud. Infinite waves cannot be stored, as that would require infinite energy.
But we only have access to the information resulting from the phenomenon! We have no access to the thing itself, so why would I think that we can somehow guess what it actually is? At best, I can infer some of its properties from the information I receive.
Again with the telegraph poles. Literally everything you described can be done on a computer. If that's what counts for "mind", then computers have minds.
Except bits have no shape. You can't talk about 1D bits if you're using "1D" geometrically.
I think an enormous source of confusion is coming from these kinds of invalid mixed metaphors. You say "1D bit" and think you know what you're referring to, but I don't think you do. Consequently, you continue building on these vague notions and end up with a conceptual mess. This is one of the main reasons why I harp on precision of language so much. If you sat down and carefully considered what a "1D bit" is, I don't think you'd end up saying half the sh!t you're claiming.
It is impossible to accurately graph physical motion in three dimensions. Just sayin'.
So, REALITY is everything "outside of us"? Why are we not included in REALITY? This is my point. Everything is in REALITY, therefore, REALITY is a superfluous word. "External" and "internal" are perfectly suitable to characterize any difference between me and "the outside". Likewise, "physical space" and "abstract space" are perfectly suitable to characterize any difference between, say, dogs and numbers.
You're just making sh!t up, though. There are no bits in the op-amp on my desk. There are no infinite-anythings in the op-amp. It calculates by obeying the laws of physics. The op-amp is doing precisely the same thing as the water flowing down a river.
This is provably not the case, as an infinite-bit computation could solve the halting problem.
What's the big deal?
Again, I don't understand why you think this is surprising or weird. The various vocalizations of the English word "dog" are pattern-matched to a CONCEPT stored in memory. The same thing happens when I see a dog: the various visual patterns on my retina that can result when I see a dog are pattern-matched to the CONCEPT stored in memory.
I wouldn't characterize our physiology as purely analog or digital (which isn't surprising, as analog and digital are human-invented CONCEPTs).
In this context, assumptions and beliefs are the same thing. Within my set of CONCEPTs is a CONCEPT of validity. Validity is a complex CONCEPT that includes many associations, such as the identity CONCEPT, i.e., that one state is equal to another if they have the same configurations, and the similarity CONCEPT (two states are similar if they are mostly the same). Through the feedback loop of experience, the validity CONCEPT is developed and extended so that non-similar states can be compared and contrasted.
Assumptions and beliefs are states reflecting the validity of other states.
Wrong, wrong, and wrong. We treat the pits in a CD as if it were binary, but the surface of the CD is not discrete (look at one under a microscope). Likewise, the elements in a flash drive are transistors, which are not discrete devices. No one has ever called the grooves in a record player "binary", not sure where you got that one.
My axioms are not in any base. If I happen to use base-2 or base-10 representation some where, it is only because it is convenient to do so.
An analog computer's HARDWARE is much closer to base-5744 than it is to base-2. You keep ignoring this inconvenient fact.
Again, you keep ignoring the fact that "dog there, dog not there" is decidedly not how we experience the world. You claim true/false are "bare essence" but fail to prove it, whereas I provide an abundance of counterexamples, even though only a single counterexample is needed. On this point, you're simply insisting and not engaging in rational discourse.
We don't actually know that it did -- it seems to be a hybrid -- but even if the brain did evolve as a binary computer, how is that an argument for "essence"? We can consider a protein as a high-dimensional, non-binary computer that optimizes for minimal energy folding states. The brain is made of proteins. Therefore, high-dimensional, non-binary computation is "essence"? Nah. Computation is independent of representation. That's the essence.
Lol, no, sine waves do not in any way fit into your binary pigeonhole. Even knowing that a waveform is a sine wave, we still need three pieces of information -- amplitude, frequency, and phase -- to characterize it. And then there's that whole issue of sine being a function of a continuous variable.
Our problem is that I’m obeying our tabula rasa directive, but you haven’t uninstalled at least 14 apps, so all my terms are butting up against your existing glossary, rather than a base, intelligently derived sensible “map of the dog,” one we can build from scratch and then see how it interfaces with the existing one.
Last edited:
Just, wtf on the sine waves not being binary. The entire information revolution is built on polar vibrations (frequencies) that yield binary sequential instructions in a circuit!!! If they weren’t binary, we could have no binary instructions or data!!
Also, btw, when you’re thinking about nullifying those QED’s using words built out of waves superpositioned with symmetrically undulating sine waves, please tell me precisely how you plan on generating the sequential instructions from your unary computer? I.e., you need a clock source (quartz?) that vibrates with binary polarity (crest and trough) at a certain “frequency” that allow you to generate the sequential binary address codes to release the u-its. Do you have access to a crestless wave that vibrates, or can we admit that the heartbeat of your unary computer would require binary sine waves?
??
Also, btw, when you’re thinking about nullifying those QED’s using words built out of waves superpositioned with symmetrically undulating sine waves, please tell me precisely how you plan on generating the sequential instructions from your unary computer? I.e., you need a clock source (quartz?) that vibrates with binary polarity (crest and trough) at a certain “frequency” that allow you to generate the sequential binary address codes to release the u-its. Do you have access to a crestless wave that vibrates, or can we admit that the heartbeat of your unary computer would require binary sine waves?
??
Last edited:
Be careful what you poo-poo on the integer-speak, because, as Kronecker’s secretary, you might end up eating Crow(necker). Kronecker went tabula rasa on that. You aren’t as of yet!
I find we often end up agreeing often once terminology is found on parity. A friend of mine tracking the thread recommended we make a shared doc with things we agree on + elements of discussion.Be careful what you poo-poo on the integer-speak, because, as Kronecker’s secretary, you might end up eating Crow(necker). Kronecker went tabula rasa on that. You aren’t as of yet!
You deftly QED’d information and state transfer and computation based on 2^n. I’ve been rolling from that place. Now you want to say it’s not “legit” and are arguing for base 9843 for info processors. What’s up, dude?
Now either you nullify that with a new QED or bust, and stop blaming me for following the playbook you made, buster! QED!
Someone you know might have written these at some point... if you have any info on his whereabouts, please call 1-800-DI-LEMMA:
Axiom 1: Information is a measurable quantity.
Axiom 2: A state is a particular configuration or arrangement of measurable quantities.
Axiom 3: A process is a mapping between states. Some process P transforms state A to state B according to some rule.
As a measurable quantity, information can be processed. Examples of information processes are transferring and storage, wherein state is copied and saved. Let I represent some particular configuration of information. To transfer and store I, then, means to configure the storage state S to that of I: \[ S \to P(I) \to I \] Axiom 4: A bit is a discrete unit of information; we measure information by counting bits.
A convenient representation for bits is sequences of 1s and 0s; we call such sequences bit strings. There are precisely two possible 1-bit bit strings: "1" and "0".
The information capacity of a state is the amount of information that can be stored in the state. This is equivalent to the count of possible configurations of the state.
Lemma 1: There is a one-to-one correspondence between any state of n possible configurations and a bit string of log2(n) bits.
Proof: A string of n-bits can represent \( 2^n \) different configurations. Taking the base-2 logarithm of both sides gives us the lemma. QED.
Theorem 1: The information capacity of a state is given by the count of bits in its corresponding bit string.
Proof: Using Lemma 1, map the state to a k-bit bit string. Then, by axiom 4, the state has k bits of information. QED.
Axiom 1: Information is a measurable quantity.
Axiom 2: A state is a particular configuration or arrangement of measurable quantities.
Axiom 3: A process is a mapping between states. Some process P transforms state A to state B according to some rule.
As a measurable quantity, information can be processed. Examples of information processes are transferring and storage, wherein state is copied and saved. Let I represent some particular configuration of information. To transfer and store I, then, means to configure the storage state S to that of I: \[ S \to P(I) \to I \] Axiom 4: A bit is a discrete unit of information; we measure information by counting bits.
A convenient representation for bits is sequences of 1s and 0s; we call such sequences bit strings. There are precisely two possible 1-bit bit strings: "1" and "0".
The information capacity of a state is the amount of information that can be stored in the state. This is equivalent to the count of possible configurations of the state.
Lemma 1: There is a one-to-one correspondence between any state of n possible configurations and a bit string of log2(n) bits.
Proof: A string of n-bits can represent \( 2^n \) different configurations. Taking the base-2 logarithm of both sides gives us the lemma. QED.
Theorem 1: The information capacity of a state is given by the count of bits in its corresponding bit string.
Proof: Using Lemma 1, map the state to a k-bit bit string. Then, by axiom 4, the state has k bits of information. QED.
Dear Euclid-definitions-suck, Tesla-was-a-syphilitic-addict, and Rene-DesCartes-had-no-sense-in-nomenclature,
Hexadecimal is base-16 and represents the binary-states of the flip-flops and is derivative of them. Same is true for any other bases — they're based on what's in the flip-flops. QED.
We have to f*ck this abstractive cloudy lollygaggery here. Your QED reflects the hardware. The hardware uses piezoelectric effect of an oscillating phenomenon (high and low!) to create a clock signal that generates the flip-flop switches to unlock the flip-flop-stored-high-or-low-binary-state instructions at them. No clock? No digital computer. Full stop. Quantum or otherwise. Unary computers don’t exist because you need a binary clock signal to generate unique binary strings that represent addresses. QED.
Oscillation is about "oscillating from high to low." Binary. QED.
Any one on this board would agree. QED. Anyone watching want to disagree, speak up!
Hexadecimal is base-16 and represents the binary-states of the flip-flops and is derivative of them. Same is true for any other bases — they're based on what's in the flip-flops. QED.
We have to f*ck this abstractive cloudy lollygaggery here. Your QED reflects the hardware. The hardware uses piezoelectric effect of an oscillating phenomenon (high and low!) to create a clock signal that generates the flip-flop switches to unlock the flip-flop-stored-high-or-low-binary-state instructions at them. No clock? No digital computer. Full stop. Quantum or otherwise. Unary computers don’t exist because you need a binary clock signal to generate unique binary strings that represent addresses. QED.
Oscillation is about "oscillating from high to low." Binary. QED.
Any one on this board would agree. QED. Anyone watching want to disagree, speak up!
Last edited:
To any scientist watching this discourse:
Please pull up a chair and let us examine the undisputed Father of Modern Science, Sir Isaac Newton, and his eminent approach to "doing science".
Like Tesla, Isaac Newton was a documented meta-physicist and alchemist before he was a naturalist scientist.
He wrote more words on those things than physical phenomena, because like Tesla, who said,
He innately understood this very tenet of how to inquire about existence, in that it is metaphysics that INFORMS natural world inquiry. Einstein could also be called a metaphysicist, who said intuition and imagination was more important than knowledge. Einstein was driven to prove his notion of "God" does not throw dice, or is random, and "he wanted to know his thoughts?" While his understanding of God was more Spinozan, it is why he pursued to his death a unification of all force systems as 1 parent, homogenized description.
These 3 men pushed science the furthest in the last 300 years, and they all have this metaphysics-bent in common.
My friend-in-discourse here doesn't well care for Tesla either.
That's OK though; I respect his (bogosort/Javier's) cowboy buck-it-all approach — the same I myself do, but from a more an intuition-driven than academic one (in that we sometimes have to stop learning from others, "tabula rasa" — or "clean slate" in latin" — before we can start thinking and observing, and question EVERYTHING to its core, no matter how crazy it may seem!).
In order for a logician giant such as Kronecker to fearlessly say,
Such a statement as INCREDIBLE implication. It means the ℝ, ℂ, ℙ, ℚ and other number sets are derivative, inventive abstractions — they're all "manufacturered for a purpose," and not the BASE awareness of what is driving core computational phenomena of nature itself.
It takes great courage to do this, because he's questioning centuries of what he sees as "scientific dogma" in his mind. To do this, he has to plumb the BASE DRIVER phenomena and utterly dismiss everyone's thoughts on the matter.
Like, for example seeing if potentially nature uses a base-2 ("high and low oscillation") bias as its default system before it uses others.
Plenty of evidence shows this to be true, as every physical substrate can represent two states of "high or low" and the piezoelectric oscillation (clock in every computer) generates 2 states repeatedly that can be concatenated to create binary strings that permit sequential addressing, data, and instructions based on it.
With respect to Newton's explorations of nature, he decided to examine first what would be considered "default lexical notions" in the mind (and in his mind, the mind was separate from the physical brain). The same mind, which has mystery tokens, such as FORCE and FIELD, that would ordinarily be "thought to be" as existing within the binary state machine of the brain. But the truth is, both of these notions are invisible "magic elements," as is tokens like infinity, meaning, reason, something, nothing, sense, order, disorder, and many others that I'm seeking to triangulate in definition as Newton did below:
One day when Newton saw an apple fall, he considered that there was a something (for him it was literally the hand of the God of Jacob!) making it happen. He might as well have said "5D divine cause". Instead he said, "Let's use the simple innate term "FORCE" to see if we can triangulate the knowledge of the unknowable by using existing knowable tools, like "mass" and an "acceleration constant."
That's right: He said, "let's use a term we can clearly see is built into our mind" — a vibratory element, a WORD, that mysteriously reflects something that essentially has no discernible properties, but seems to exist outside of our self as quantifiable, since we effortlessly use the term all day long.
"Open the door, and put some FORCE" into it. Don't FORCE the matter. FORCE the nail through the wood. FORCES of attraction are intense! The magnetic FORCE is real."
To DEFINE the FORCE, he had to do something special. Something that scientists of today might spurn.
He had to treat this property-less enigmatic, unobservable element as a discernible, knowable "SUBSTANCE" in space, as our mind innately does.
And that's precisely what he did. He set out to triangulate a definition of "FORCE" by seeing the "NATURE of forces." And that's why every high school teaches today the laws of MOTION, that still LARGELY apply to macro-level phenomena, by studying the NATURE of FORCES. Not the FORCES themselves—because we can't!– but their TRIANGULATED NATURE with respect to how they behave, and assuming they're "REAL!"
How did he do this? He defined a Force in terms of 2 quantities: MASS and ACCELERATION.
He then created an imaginary UNIT called a NEWTON to denote the amount of MASS and ACCELERATION equivalency of it. And thus the "NEWTON" metric was born. And though my friend here thinks they're 100% obsolete, he as also thinks Euclid's definitions suck, and Des Cartes's nomenclature does as well (I respect him for his iconoclasm, as I said! It's why I'm still interesting in working with him!). But, as we can see:
A newton (N) is the international unit of measure for force. One newton is equal to 1 kilogram meter per second squared.
For centuries his equation was used accurately to great effect in EVERY DAY LIFE. It's why we still teach it. It's based on defining object's properties in terms of "18th century terminology" which still exists in our minds.
But what we need to see is that FIELDS were defined by a man who had similar thinking processes. Michael Faraday defined a field as "lines of force." And he was insistent the physical universe was ONE FORCE, a "macro substance" that infuses everything. Fields are essentially "localized sets of spatially cordoned-off-force-fields with specific properties."
But my friend here doesn't really believe in forces either. ;--)
The point of this discourse in my estimation is to approach the bevy of undefined principles that originate FIRST in the mind. The mind can even make "sense" of what a force is, because to Newton, the mind was not a "simple state machine." It was a 5D world of the soul and spirit, and their "unknown" analog and digital elemental data processing capacities. Einstein himself believed such extra-dimensional phenomena exists.
It is my personal desire to start unencumbered with bare reasoning power and honest observation into the workings of the mind to see what other tokens can be defined to see the true nature of its observation upon reality.
If the mind could be compared to an oscilloscope, perhaps we know 15% of the readouts and dials. But we are still using this oscilloscope to reason about the physical space it is examining. I believe 85% of it can be plumbed and triangulated as Newton did, where we can create true principled definitions for things like Newton did with FORCES without invoking nebulous philosophical abstractions.
SENSE and MEANING and even REASON and "KNOW" are things that involve potentially continuous 2D and 3D form, are things that are ALIEN to a 1D state processor such as the brain. The mind can create or "think" about these "continuous" forms in between a person's ears, and they are NOT represented in physical space by its own description: A cube with 8 orthogonal hard corners and infinite Euclidian points does NOT exist in the grey matter AS the mind is describing them spatially.
This is a QED, a scientific fact. We can continue to deny that this is true, but then we are no longer doing science. We are no different than the religious institutions we rightly insist on being separate from.
Please pull up a chair and let us examine the undisputed Father of Modern Science, Sir Isaac Newton, and his eminent approach to "doing science".
Like Tesla, Isaac Newton was a documented meta-physicist and alchemist before he was a naturalist scientist.
He wrote more words on those things than physical phenomena, because like Tesla, who said,
"The day science studies metaphysical phenomena is
the day it will make more progress than at any other time in its history"
the day it will make more progress than at any other time in its history"
He innately understood this very tenet of how to inquire about existence, in that it is metaphysics that INFORMS natural world inquiry. Einstein could also be called a metaphysicist, who said intuition and imagination was more important than knowledge. Einstein was driven to prove his notion of "God" does not throw dice, or is random, and "he wanted to know his thoughts?" While his understanding of God was more Spinozan, it is why he pursued to his death a unification of all force systems as 1 parent, homogenized description.
These 3 men pushed science the furthest in the last 300 years, and they all have this metaphysics-bent in common.
My friend-in-discourse here doesn't well care for Tesla either.
That's OK though; I respect his (bogosort/Javier's) cowboy buck-it-all approach — the same I myself do, but from a more an intuition-driven than academic one (in that we sometimes have to stop learning from others, "tabula rasa" — or "clean slate" in latin" — before we can start thinking and observing, and question EVERYTHING to its core, no matter how crazy it may seem!).
In order for a logician giant such as Kronecker to fearlessly say,
"God created the integers, the rest is man's invention"
Such a statement as INCREDIBLE implication. It means the ℝ, ℂ, ℙ, ℚ and other number sets are derivative, inventive abstractions — they're all "manufacturered for a purpose," and not the BASE awareness of what is driving core computational phenomena of nature itself.
It takes great courage to do this, because he's questioning centuries of what he sees as "scientific dogma" in his mind. To do this, he has to plumb the BASE DRIVER phenomena and utterly dismiss everyone's thoughts on the matter.
Like, for example seeing if potentially nature uses a base-2 ("high and low oscillation") bias as its default system before it uses others.
Plenty of evidence shows this to be true, as every physical substrate can represent two states of "high or low" and the piezoelectric oscillation (clock in every computer) generates 2 states repeatedly that can be concatenated to create binary strings that permit sequential addressing, data, and instructions based on it.
With respect to Newton's explorations of nature, he decided to examine first what would be considered "default lexical notions" in the mind (and in his mind, the mind was separate from the physical brain). The same mind, which has mystery tokens, such as FORCE and FIELD, that would ordinarily be "thought to be" as existing within the binary state machine of the brain. But the truth is, both of these notions are invisible "magic elements," as is tokens like infinity, meaning, reason, something, nothing, sense, order, disorder, and many others that I'm seeking to triangulate in definition as Newton did below:
One day when Newton saw an apple fall, he considered that there was a something (for him it was literally the hand of the God of Jacob!) making it happen. He might as well have said "5D divine cause". Instead he said, "Let's use the simple innate term "FORCE" to see if we can triangulate the knowledge of the unknowable by using existing knowable tools, like "mass" and an "acceleration constant."
That's right: He said, "let's use a term we can clearly see is built into our mind" — a vibratory element, a WORD, that mysteriously reflects something that essentially has no discernible properties, but seems to exist outside of our self as quantifiable, since we effortlessly use the term all day long.
"Open the door, and put some FORCE" into it. Don't FORCE the matter. FORCE the nail through the wood. FORCES of attraction are intense! The magnetic FORCE is real."
To DEFINE the FORCE, he had to do something special. Something that scientists of today might spurn.
He had to treat this property-less enigmatic, unobservable element as a discernible, knowable "SUBSTANCE" in space, as our mind innately does.
And that's precisely what he did. He set out to triangulate a definition of "FORCE" by seeing the "NATURE of forces." And that's why every high school teaches today the laws of MOTION, that still LARGELY apply to macro-level phenomena, by studying the NATURE of FORCES. Not the FORCES themselves—because we can't!– but their TRIANGULATED NATURE with respect to how they behave, and assuming they're "REAL!"
How did he do this? He defined a Force in terms of 2 quantities: MASS and ACCELERATION.
He then created an imaginary UNIT called a NEWTON to denote the amount of MASS and ACCELERATION equivalency of it. And thus the "NEWTON" metric was born. And though my friend here thinks they're 100% obsolete, he as also thinks Euclid's definitions suck, and Des Cartes's nomenclature does as well (I respect him for his iconoclasm, as I said! It's why I'm still interesting in working with him!). But, as we can see:
A newton (N) is the international unit of measure for force. One newton is equal to 1 kilogram meter per second squared.
For centuries his equation was used accurately to great effect in EVERY DAY LIFE. It's why we still teach it. It's based on defining object's properties in terms of "18th century terminology" which still exists in our minds.
But what we need to see is that FIELDS were defined by a man who had similar thinking processes. Michael Faraday defined a field as "lines of force." And he was insistent the physical universe was ONE FORCE, a "macro substance" that infuses everything. Fields are essentially "localized sets of spatially cordoned-off-force-fields with specific properties."
But my friend here doesn't really believe in forces either. ;--)
The point of this discourse in my estimation is to approach the bevy of undefined principles that originate FIRST in the mind. The mind can even make "sense" of what a force is, because to Newton, the mind was not a "simple state machine." It was a 5D world of the soul and spirit, and their "unknown" analog and digital elemental data processing capacities. Einstein himself believed such extra-dimensional phenomena exists.
It is my personal desire to start unencumbered with bare reasoning power and honest observation into the workings of the mind to see what other tokens can be defined to see the true nature of its observation upon reality.
If the mind could be compared to an oscilloscope, perhaps we know 15% of the readouts and dials. But we are still using this oscilloscope to reason about the physical space it is examining. I believe 85% of it can be plumbed and triangulated as Newton did, where we can create true principled definitions for things like Newton did with FORCES without invoking nebulous philosophical abstractions.
SENSE and MEANING and even REASON and "KNOW" are things that involve potentially continuous 2D and 3D form, are things that are ALIEN to a 1D state processor such as the brain. The mind can create or "think" about these "continuous" forms in between a person's ears, and they are NOT represented in physical space by its own description: A cube with 8 orthogonal hard corners and infinite Euclidian points does NOT exist in the grey matter AS the mind is describing them spatially.
This is a QED, a scientific fact. We can continue to deny that this is true, but then we are no longer doing science. We are no different than the religious institutions we rightly insist on being separate from.
Last edited:
Once upon a time there was a puddle of water in a forest. It was not a very big puddle, and it could see only what was reflected on it. It would see the reflections and think, "This is how the world is."
The puddle had friends that lived nearby, other puddles of varying shapes and sizes, and they all reflected the same trees above them.
On moonless nights, when there were no reflections to be seen, the puddles would tell each other stories to pass the time. Some times they would tell scary stories, other times they would tell stories of love or adventure. Occasionally, however, they would tell fantastical stories. One puddle had a particularly vivid imagination and would regale the other puddles with tales of a three dimensional world, where somehow a reflection could step out of its plane. The other puddles would squeal with delight at this absurdity.
Eventually, the puddles dried, and the wind continued to blow through the trees.
Until one day a few more drops fell and created another puddle.
Its name was Javier, and it insisted that it didn't exist, because the light that gave it information about its surroundings was constantly lying to it about it, and it was the only thing it could use to determine about the existence of itself in a reality it thought didn't exist outside its states.
Yes, a number is a CONCEPT. You say "the output of your calculation" . . . what calculation? I don't need to calculate to conceptualize number. Indeed, I can't calculate until I first have numbers.
The concept of number is derived from the concept of counting, which I've outlined before.
WTF are you talking about? If a binary computer can use base-10 -- and they clearly can, or are you entering "10010 + 1010111" in your calculator? -- then how can it not "know" base-10? How the is it possible to use a number representation without knowing it?
Binary computers -- including, perhaps, me -- can know base-10.
No. An irrational number is most definitely not an integer or a pair of integers or anything of the sort. You're making stuff up.
Analog computers do not represent numbers at all. They calculate with the laws of physics.
This is called begging the question. Instead of assuming your conclusion, why don't you try being open to the possibility that a set of states can exhibit all the properties that you associate with consciousness? Isn't that the intellectually honest thing to do, start with the most basic assumption? All you need is a single counterexample to show that consciousness cannot emerge from a state machine. If it truly is impossible, it shouldn't be too difficult to find one.
I would say no, but not because of bits or discreteness or anything like that. The puppet is one of the simplest machine that can be made, simpler even than a telegraph, so I wouldn't expect it to know much. But this is a strawman, since I am very clearly not a simple machine. So, once again, how am I and Wolfram Alpha able to recite true properties about things such as numbers that supposedly we cannot know?
You're invoking magical spirits in place of addressing the supposed flaw in my reasoning. What part of talking is not mechanical?
I said that I'm guessing that there is a dog "out there". If there is, I cannot know it directly, only what my senses tell me. Other objects cause my senses to react differently, so what's the big deal? You act like differentiating objects requires super powers, when it's utterly pedestrian. Computers do it all the time.
That's quite presumptuous. How do you know what iEVH knows or does not know? And, matter of fact, the "AI" characters in some games do know how well they are doing, and will change tactics accordingly. Adaptive AI is a big deal in game design.
You still haven't addressed the weather aspect. What exactly can you know about the weather that Siri can't?
Does a baby know how to Fourier transform? No, it learns to associate a growing set of CONCEPTs with the sensory data it receives.
Demonstrably false. Movies are digital now, ya know. And how do you think drones fly through space?
Nah, here's where I say, You are Meta-Luigi, a DOS prompt that thinks it knows the difference between 3D and 1D, and insists it has a "knower" inside of it somewhere. ;-)
