Sine waves and Goldbach's conjecture are CONCEPTs, derived from other concepts that ultimately came from the counting concept. That's whence it came.

In my model, there are no magical states and no magically "non-physical" things.

Nah. You invoke 7GL when cornered.
There ain’t no infinite-bit sine wave concepts in no discrete dirtputer.

Btw, everything is “physical,” just not necessarily measurable.

 

Because of an innate intuition shared by the likes of Newton and Einstein (and I hate name-dropping, but I feel I have to fold others' names in that are scientifically respected so that I'm not "alone" in this presupposition), that there is more going on than just computation, and perhaps a "knower" or "feeler" element tied to "consciousness" and "meaning".

We're full of intuitions, but these are heuristics, a way for our brains to process information more efficiently. The antonym of intuition is intellect, i.e., rational analysis. But rational analysis takes a lot of time and energy, so our brains are constantly looking for shortcuts to make conclusions about our experiences. We call these intuitions.

History has well shown that when we base our theories on intuitions, we end up with broken theories. Just sayin'.

We do not know what "meaning," consciousness, and feeling "are," and we use them all day long.

Most people don't know what nuclear power is, but they use it all day long anyway. And like nuclear power, I believe consciousness and feeling can eventually be understood.

Let me ask you a question: is a cell alive? Each photoreceptor in my retina is a living cell. Does a photoreceptor have feeling and consciousness?

 

We're full of intuitions, but these are heuristics, a way for our brains to process information more efficiently. The antonym of intuition is intellect, i.e., rational analysis. But rational analysis takes a lot of time and energy, so our brains are constantly looking for shortcuts to make conclusions about our experiences. We call these intuitions.

History has well shown that when we base our theories on intuitions, we end up with broken theories. Just sayin'.

Do me a favor if you will, as part of tabula rasa. Consider for a moment there might be something more than your brain. You don't know this is a fact or not, especially with such unidentified words like "feel" and "meaning" and "life." So be open to it instead of just shooing it at the rip so we can have a tabula-rasa starting point.

To answer the question, intuition could also be seen as "imagination" or "conjecture." Feynman talks all about conjecture as the basis of science. Einstein declared imagination is most important. We do not CONCLUDE the theories based on intuition, but we can start it as a reasonable proposition. Where do you think most scientific postulates come from? Some inner sense that is often deeply hunched and then hashed out and pursued in a formal way.

Let me ask you a question: is a cell alive? Each photoreceptor in my retina is a living cell. Does a photoreceptor have feeling and consciousness?

I would say a minimal degree, yes. Because I link "consciousness" with feeling, which you've asked me about before. A nano-thesis here, which will have to be expounded upon:

Take a deeply felt performance of EVH (or whomever — pick another person so we can reference someone else, lol), versus a quantized version, where all the notes are "100% identical" but with 127-level MIDI velocity.

Which one is music to you?

The one that you "feel" employs variable force application upon each note using different velocities and articulations that convey a thing called "meaning" to you.

That tells us something about meaning. Meaning has something to do with feeling, and feeling has to do with variability of pressure contextualized over time by previous values. Even the way we piece words together here, in specific context where each word is contextualized by the previous to create "_TONE" or "_FEEL."

Every note played by EVH has "context" to the prior note. That context is not just a mechanical context, but a "feeling" context. The feeling of the piece can invoke other "feelings" that are tied to imagery. This imagery does NOT seem like 1D data in the being, especially when you can close your eyes and enter perceived 3D worlds. These are NOT just 1D states.

Where are these "3D" worlds in your living being and in your dreams where such music is playing?

 

Dammit, here we are again, Hilbert G. Realset & Sons. All of this "no, no, no"-rrhea is someone else's thoughts on the matter!

Someone else's thoughts on the matter? Mathematics is not a history of regurgitated ideas. When a mathematician reads the proof of a theorem, they are not memorizing the result. They are doing the math that allows them to understand the inevitability of the theorem. When I say that |ℕ| < |ℝ|, I am not regurgitating someone else's thoughts on the matter; I am telling you a conclusion that I have personally arrived at. There is literally no way you could convince me that "|ℕ| < |ℝ|" is not a true statement. I am certain that "|ℕ| < |ℝ|" is true.

I don't care what anyone "thinks," if I haven't said this 900 times.

Except, apparently, for what Newton and Einstein think.

If you take the proven concept that all computation can be done in OBSERVABLE HARDWARE in a unary or binary system, and a string of infinite 0's and 1's can represent all of these "number sets" theoretically, if we had infinite physicality to store it on, then any one value can be considered a "bit" in an infinite continuum of bits.

No.

Any bit string, even if infinitely long, is countable. Proof: to each sequence of bits, assign a unique number in ℕ.

Every computable number is countable. Proof: there are a countable amount of possible Turing machines.

ℝ is uncountable. Proof: see Cantor's diagonalization argument.

Therefore, ℝ cannot be computed. QED.

The only numbers that we can represent on a binary computer are members of ℚ. Even with "infinite storage", we can't represent ℝ on a computer. So, whatever value you're considering a "bit", it is not representing the continuum.

If there is VALUE in the sine-wave, it can be considered a unit of information.

It's a weird strategy is to use values of sine as units of information. Given that sin(2)/sin(0.1) is roughly 9, does sin(2) hold nine times as much information as sin(0.1)? This doesn't make sense to me.

The sine waves in our minds with "infinite value" often create sine waves in nature.

There are no sine waves in nature.

We can discretize elements of those sine waves to get data from them. You can reference portions of the infinite sine wave in your mind. Those individual portions are data, or "bits" of some kind, I don't care what anyone says.

So much confusion. We don't discretize elements of a waveform, we discretize the waveform itself. As the waveform's shape carries information, we're effectively discretizing the information. We can of course represent this information in terms of bits. But there are no bits in the waveform.

In a quantum system, values in the system are occluded during the computation, but they are still "bits of information" being parsed until one final one is outputted!

No! You fail to understand that the information in the computation cannot be represented by bits. Your intuition is telling you that there is a stream of bits being used to calculate the final {0,1} answer of the qubit, but your intuition is 100% wrong.

Ugh, but you'll just keep playing Hilbert and the Spaces Band until I literally pass out. :--(

This is the cost of precision. It's as exhausting for me as it is for you.

 

And do you see that each one of those elements is represented SOMEWHERE in your brain or in a computer as a bit or bits to even discuss it???

Each of what elements? Are you talking about the terms in the series? The symbols we use to represent the terms? What is an element of the series? The values of x are definitely not represented in my brain or computer.

A sine wave is NOT just a function or PROCESS, it is a THING!

A sine wave is a "THING"? What does that mean?

And I am relating the VERY core elements of infinitum of a sine wave to the infinite Hilbert space. I'm talking about the extremely core elements of infinitum. Grok my zoom level if you will: INFINITE INFORMATION is there (as Feynman said, and which you do NOT want to to admit to. ;--) )

You say "the VERY core elements of infinitum" as if that has a precise meaning that i should know. But the fact that you are trying to relate sines to Hilbert spaces tells me that we're speaking very different languages! You're co-opting the words in my language (math) with your own personal meanings.

 

I would say since time is a given delimiter in every context, we don't need to specify it as part of the distinguishing component. It's always there, it's just that it becomes THE distinguishing component in a unary situation.

Except that time (or space) is the THE distinguishing component in binary, too. Without a delimiter of space, the binary string "010" literally becomes \( 0 \! \! \! 1 \! \! \! 0 \).

Without a delimiter of time, the same thing happens to a communications channel.

I'm aware of the difference. I really feel old x,y,z is hella sufficient to describe geometry in O space (I love "hella" as an adjective for some reason, it's hella versatile). Every single object.pixel of that dog can be mapped to a 3D observable O space that we all are born into, the same one a drone uses to map from. No?

3D is demonstrably not sufficient. It's hella insufficient. The geometry of special relativity is minimally 4D, and we can't accurately describe the phenomena of the universe without special relativity.

Because a human being that knows the difference between 1D information and 3D geometry programmed it to map 1D data to a "theoretical 3D model using 3D-to-1D spatial mapping." It wouldn't be able to do it unless a human being that knows the difference could give it the parameters required to represent true 3D spatial awareness as discrete 1D bits. Btw, there is no "true 2D" geometrically in O-space. There is always some amount of measurable z to every object.

Wait a second, if a human can teach a computer how to translate between 3D and "1D", then there must be an informational map between 3D and "1D", yes? We might even say that the "1D" structure is a representation of the 3D structure, yes?

Then, could we not equally say that the 3D structure is a representation of the "1D" structure? Information is independent of its representational form. How do you know which one is "fundamental"? You guess it is because that's how humans view the world?

Can't remember if we're talking about a parrot in O space, but the same would apply:

The one internally to you is in "M space" (mind-space) which is a theoretical space within the being that has 3D continuous mathematical objects in it that you can KNOW through mystery token _FEELING that needs hard-ass rigorous definition.

The one externally to you would be in "O space" which is an observable space that we are all born into that has 3D discrete componental objects that find their origin in M space substance.

My imaginary parrot lives in "mind-space", which is different from "physical space"? What are the respective spaces made of? Presumably they interact at the brain somehow; how does a non-physical thing interact with a physical thing?

 

Except, apparently, for what Newton and Einstein think.

I quote them both because they are established names that have legitimate lines of thinking and have established pillars in science, so I'm not just a "renegade cowgirl alone in the desert" on X topic. I only quote them (or anyone else) when I feel there is parity of thought there. I disagree with Einstein's presumptions about space. Math has no worth to me unless it has ontological significance. For the record, I don't disagree with Newton on anything.

No.

Any bit string, even if infinitely long, is countable. Proof: to each sequence of bits, assign a unique number in ℕ.

Every computable number is countable. Proof: there are a countable amount of possible Turing machines.

ℝ is uncountable. Proof: see Cantor's diagonalization argument.

Therefore, ℝ cannot be computed. QED.

No no no™. Here's a Grunt® OS proof:

Any bit string, even if infinitely long, is countable up to a point that a living human, and only a conscious, living (whatever THAT is) human made out of a finite amount of dirt, can come the f*ck up with "unique names" for them, because that's the origin point of the thinking on the matter.

So to call it "countable" is another confusion-riddled use of the term "countable," like our friend Rene's use of REAL (wink, wink). Good luck on coming up with unique nomenclature for grunt googolplex^99999, though. So it's "countable" until you run out of terms to "count with," since you're not an infinite nomenclature generator, you're a literal finite bag o’ dirt.

Proof: to each sequence of bits, assign a unique NAME in the ONE AND ONLY GruntSet™ called "GTFO here, Cantor, and get back to your transfinite hyperreal room E409 at your earliest convenience."

Every computable number is countable within the 2^n amount of DIRT we have to work it. Proof: there is a countable number of possible contrivances in showing bizarre-ass partiality to grunts across fantastic 20GL sets that don't exist.

ℝ is uncountable, because ℝ doesn't exist to the DIRT until it creates it out of elemental grunt concatenations.

Proof: Everyone uses grunt or grunt0 and grunt1 to do anything worthwhile in math, and ℝ simply doesn't "count." QED.

Oh, and from Grunt OS, "|ℕ| < |ℝ|" isn't true because the sets don't exist as separate grunt groups first to even ask the question.

See how that works when we simplify with Grunt® OS?

You jibe my dirt-grunt proof?

 

Except that time (or space) is the THE distinguishing component in binary, too. Without a delimiter of space, the binary string "010" literally becomes \( 0 \! \! \! 1 \! \! \! 0 \).

Without a delimiter of time, the same thing happens to a communications channel.

Preach it! Ergo, time is the "universal wildcard delimiter" which enables us to assign some kind of contrast of value to terms. No contrast, no reasoning. What reasoning can be done if every QED is true regardless of its ACTUAL truth value? If you refuse to call every statement TRUE, then there's no such thing as "true unary" from this perspective, just urinary only. QED on that?

If so, back to TDS and TAS — FTW!

 

3D is demonstrably not sufficient. It's hella insufficient. The geometry of special relativity is minimally 4D, and we can't accurately describe the phenomena of the universe without special relativity.

Not according to Grunt® OS (For the geometric portion):

Funny how a human uses the term "feel" as pretty much the "opposite" of what a machine "does" (functions). To "feel" is to not be machine-like. They are considered polar opposite semantics. Curious AF that a machine insists on such differentiations, eh??

To ignore this built-in element is to ignore the difference between life-like, fluid, continuous movement and zombie-like, digital abrupt movement. If your wife began making jerky-esque zombie movements for every movement of her limbs with NO feeling, you'd think she's a machine there's something not HUMAN about her, or she has a disorder. I don't care what kind of 2-piece she's in, if she started moving like a square-wave, and yelling words touretically with no variable feel or tone, you'd want to call 1-800-UNDEAD1 and have her committed. This sooo can't be understated, and needs to be a veritable PILLAR of this discourse. It's the difference between a LIVING human and NON-LIVING morgue-bound one. Feeling is a MAJOR basis of meaning for a LIVING, CONSCIOUS human.

Example, I touch the dog on it's left side, its right side, its back, its front. I can see the dog is tall, wide, and long. I can FEEL the dog exists as 3D, dog exists in my mind as 3D. I am not going to pretend there's "more observable, macro-level geometry to the dog that isn't there." I'm not going to ignore the "knowing element of the term FEEL" which is inextricably connected to my sight of the dog as well. Did I "sample" the dog via my hands? Was I discretizing at every second the "continuous movement" around the dog? Or was there perhaps a continuous process there called FEEL using variable force to create the value, and now the actual continuous event was stored in my being not as discrete bits, even though at any moment I can "zoom in" on a portion of the "feel" event and "number it as an n-bit string?" In this reckoning, there’s 3 3D dimensions, and 1 4D informational dimension called “time” which is like a “concatenation of NOWS.”

I know you'll have n-tuple cows until it's super defined, but to ignore "feel" as one of the key essential "continuous" elements of knowing, reasoning, and understanding existence is to ignore what it means to be human and not a cast member of Night of the Living Dead.

 

Each of what elements? Are you talking about the terms in the series? The symbols we use to represent the terms? What is an element of the series? The values of x are definitely not represented in my brain or computer.

Said the brain talking about a function that generates such values that have meaning to it!! Call 1-800-WTF-NOWW for more information!

A sine wave is a "THING"? What does that mean?

A function is an object in OOP programming, no? It means you can relate to it not just as a process but as an addressable object in your mind. Draw a sine-wave on a white board. It's some "thing" you can relate to in time and space, not just sine() generator, and "feel" the "meaning" of the wave on the board vs. the one inside you that you can further distinguish as discrete or continuous.

 

Question:

INFINITY not as a process, but as the description for the continuous VALUES (plural) of a Euclidean line or a sine wave:

“Values” = uits to you? If not, why do you call these “values” plural? And are these values also “states?”

(For the record, the “infinite dimension” I was referring to in a Hilbert space was the same concept and question)

 

No! You fail to understand that the information in the computation cannot be represented by bits. Your intuition is telling you that there is a stream of bits being used to calculate the final {0,1} answer of the qubit, but your intuition is 100% wrong.

Huh? And you know what the true infinite nature of ℝ is? A set of values/bits/uits but you can’t know them? How do you know they’re not discrete and continuous at the same time? Funny how you can address elements of R, but then it’s also uncountable and infinite and nebulous AF! See #971 above.

Things that make you go Kronecker.

 

Nothing has a "purpose" to you, as I assume? Purpose is some kind of utility to things in space, or even to itself. Everything has a purpose or nothing has one. It could be said it's presumptive AF to say it doesn't have one.

Is there a universal "purpose" for everything being the way it is? I truly have no idea, but even if I suspected that there were, I would have no reasonable way to infer what that purpose is.

In a much more zoomed-in level, we can anthropomorphically describe various phenomena as if they had a "purpose". We might say that the purpose of DNA is to make more DNA. I might say that the purpose of my autonomous car robot was to avoid walls. This is a conceptual heuristic, as it allows information processors like us to organize phenomena by their presumptive purpose, which helps our prediction algorithms. We might even say that ascribing "purpose" to things is a local optimization for our DNA to make more DNA.

 

When I say "bits," from now on in this kind of context, I mean "u-it" values. I don't care HOW you cut the cake, if classical bits are going into a set of Qubits, the qubits are working WITH some kind of values. Call them "u-its"if you want. It is "keeping track of the values" in some way as to yield a result that has computative value relevant to the human parameters used to set up the computation.

Like all machines, the "values" that quantum computers work with are physical states, and computations on those values are carried out by simply obeying the laws of physics. The trick, of course, is preparing the physical states in a way that adequately reflects the problem trying to be solved.

With classical machines, we can interpret the physical states as a set of bits (because classical physical states map to classical notions of information). But at the quantum level, we cannot represent physical states as a set of bits. Why not? Because there are an uncountable number of physically valid states and only a countable number of bit strings.

So perhaps classical bits in, u-its on the continuum, and classical bits out.

That model only works for a subset of computations (i.e., the subset of problems that can be modeled as a string of bits). But there are more models! For example, optimization problems solved by an adiabatic quantum computer do not fit that model.

If the qubits only popped out 1's, do you think we'd be able to understand what it determined??

You still haven't grokked the most fundamental property of information. Repeat after me: information is independent of any particular representation. Independence means zero dependence. A quantum computer outputs information, and that information can come in the form of unary, binary, ternary, or on an analog dial. It doesn't matter.

Why won't you accept this easily verifiable fact?

 

Like all machines, the "values" that quantum computers work with are physical states, and computations on those values are carried out by simply obeying the laws of physics. The trick, of course, is preparing the physical states in a way that adequately reflects the problem trying to be solved.

With classical machines, we can interpret the physical states as a set of bits (because classical physical states map to classical notions of information). But at the quantum level, we cannot represent physical states as a set of bits. Why not? Because there are an uncountable number of physically valid states and only a countable number of bit strings.


That model only works for a subset of computations (i.e., the subset of problems that can be modeled as a string of bits). But there are more models! For example, optimization problems solved by an adiabatic quantum computer do not fit that model.


You still haven't grokked the most fundamental property of information. Repeat after me: information is independent of any particular representation. Independence means zero dependence. A quantum computer outputs information, and that information can come in the form of unary, binary, ternary, or on an analog dial. It doesn't matter.

Why won't you accept this easily verifiable fact?

Because you, as a discrete dirt-based digital system, and most likely Von Neumann-sanctioned discrete state processor from Utah, truly have no business(!) drawing partiality between anything of the kind other than binary or unary grunts without a full-on magical abstraction continuum device. Claude Shannon just stuck his thumbs up through the grave dirt to corroborate.

Not to be combative, but for some reason you don’t see yourself as different than “information itself,” so that’s why you can still exist over the Atlantic in 9 trillion 3D parts that are no longer connected, no offense (and I have never met any scientific man of the cloth that would argue such). And then call upon utterly undefined Darwinian magical 18th century terms like “evolved” that say you “evolved” to do this, but you literally have zero definition for life or consciousness, or what capabilities these things impart, and your iPhone doesn’t qualify equally as being “an iPhone” cremated over the Atlantic.

So you won’t grok that you have a magical Consciousness “concept bit amalgamater” in your being that you employ to make discrete 1D bits that have ZERO to do with each other into “concepts” that you “know and feel to create meaning” reflective of a magic 3D space where you can’t scientifically identify either your parrot or yourself, and yet don’t know what what these terms mean whatsoever vs. a gurney-bound version of yourself.

When you grok that you are an earthen machine that’s doing this incredibly strange thing, I will grok what you said above about information, which maybe true ONLY when you yourself admit there’s more to yourself than discrete and unrelated dirt.

And then we shall visit the Grok in Lord of the Rings and be granted a ToE.

And just because we can’t represent the data as “bits” *ourselves* doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist as such. We can represent portions of it as bits, in the case of ℝ; in fact trillions of bits of tasty apple “pi.”

 

"Universally obvious to the most complex form of reason and awareness." In your model, orangutans just haven't evolved enough to "know" as much as us. So you can't use them or dogs and cats, or spiders in this example, because #ridiculous.

Your counter-argument is literally "becasue #ridiculous". That's not what I'd call a strong argument.

Not only can I use orangutans and dogs in my arguments, I can use computers as we currently know them, which are far less sophisticated than dogs or cats. To my way of thinking, dogs, cats, computers, and humans are all information processors.

I'm not talking about grey areas here. I'm talking about starting points. Sorry to be such an "absolutist," but there are base-line universal "obviousness" elements to every human reasoning system, and we are trying to model human reason as part of this.

You are starting with the assumption that some (most!) things are obvious, which I am firmly disputing. The fact that I disagree about the obviousness of things is a clear example of the lack of obviousness of things! I honestly cannot think of anything that is "obvious". Mathematical and logical truths come the closest, but they're not obvious -- we have to work to find them. "Facts" about the world around us are far from obvious; indeed, the history of science shows that we're very much still figuring things out. And perception is the mother of all non-obvious things, as there is simply no way for me to know what "red" looks like to you.

So you know what words are to use them with me right now.

Just in this discussion, how many times have we explicitly not known what the other meant, despite using words for which we both know the definition. That's just the explicit stuff -- it's more typical that we think we know what the other means but have only a vague understanding.

The meanings of words -- just the definition part -- is not obvious. We have books dedicated to enumerating the various possibly meanings and uses, and even then we're not always clear. And that's just the definition aspect; there's an entire subtext of ambiguous, personal concepts behind every sentence. This is the primary reason why humans are far more successful communicating face-to-face -- we can use body language as an extra information channel to help fill in the enormous communicatory gaps left by just words.

Words are not obvious.

It's obvious in 2 seconds if someone can't spell or use words properly.

This actually isn't obvious. I've gotten texts from friends -- that I know to be literate -- that others would call illiterate. A forum member might make a drunk post and appear to be a fool; a troll might intentionally misspell and misuse words. Without extra information, it isn't obvious that a person is illiterate.

You know what a smile is when someone smiles. You know what it means when they cry.

Do I know what every smile means? No, of course not. Smiles tend to be signs of pleasure, but there's a lot of variation in what pleases people! "Evil smile" is a thing!

You say that I know what it means when a person cries, but do I really? I might have a strong sense that they are "sad", but what does that mean? Sometimes grief is causally clear -- someone finds out their mother has just died. Sometimes it is causally mysterious -- someone starts crying for no apparent reason. But, whatever the cause, grief is an intensely personal thing. And sometimes the reason for grief is not obvious to the person who is grieving!

You know what it means to move in space.

No I very much don't! I have experiences that I associate with the notion of movement in space, but I'm also aware that it's a simplified model fabricated by my brain. The physics of motion are far more nuanced (and non-obvious) than my brain's working model. Sitting in my chair, my brain tells me I'm still though I'm actually moving at every possible speed depending on which reference I choose. My butt tells me that I'm touching the chair, even though physics tells me I'm floating above the chair electromagnetically.

Tell me, could any technology be built by humanity if there wasn't an immense degree of starting places of discourse? No.

We work with what we have. Imperfect knowledge, imperfect communication, imperfect perception are the rule. We investigate and analyze and try to make sense of it all. That's our starting place.

As a coping mechanism, our brains developed intuition. Your intuition tells you that things are obvious, because that's your intuition's job -- to make the world less confusing. But when we investigate, examine, and analyze the things that we think are obvious, invariably we find that they are not obvious at all. There is subtlety and complexity in everything.

 

You're just as unrecognizable as the iPhone example. Assume the iPhone was cremated as you. I don't get the partiality in the reasoning here.

What "partiality"? Cremate me or the iphone and very quickly all of our low entropy, organized states become high entropy states. Whatever organization was there that allowed us to be recognized is gone.

Bury me or the iphone in a landfill and this disorganization process occurs much more slowly. You can dig up me or the iphone in a year and still find enough organziation to recognize either of us.

Also, by your definition, there's no distinction between evolve or devolve, correct?

What do you mean by "devolve"? (According to you, it should be obvious what you mean!) I typically think of time evolution as a thermodynamic process, in which case "time devolution" isn't a thing.

 

How’s this: it’s impossible to use unary, now that I’ve pointed out that time is the “other” communication element. So it’s binary as the minimum all the way down.

This is frustrating. Please recognize this simple fact: a formal language has an alphabet, which is the set of symbols that can be used in the language. The alphabet for a binary language has two elements; the alphabet for a unary language has one element. Understand? Time is NOT a symbol; it is not a part of the language. Whether we are using a unary or binary or an n-ary language, we communicate within time. BUT TIME IS NOT PART OF THE LANGUAGE.

 

Nah. You invoke 7GL when cornered.

Whatever helps you sleep at night.

Btw, everything is “physical,” just not necessarily measurable.

You said that "mind-space" is distinct from "physical-space", so is mind physical or not?

 

Is there a universal "purpose" for everything being the way it is? I truly have no idea, but even if I suspected that there were, I would have no reasonable way to infer what that purpose is.

In a much more zoomed-in level, we can anthropomorphically describe various phenomena as if they had a "purpose". We might say that the purpose of DNA is to make more DNA. I might say that the purpose of my autonomous car robot was to avoid walls. This is a conceptual heuristic, as it allows information processors like us to organize phenomena by their presumptive purpose, which helps our prediction algorithms. We might even say that ascribing "purpose" to things is a local optimization for our DNA to make more DNA.

This is frustrating. Please recognize this simple fact: a formal language has an alphabet, which is the set of symbols that can be used in the language. The alphabet for a binary language has two elements; the alphabet for a unary language has one element. Understand? Time is NOT a symbol; it is not a part of the language. Whether we are using a unary or binary or an n-ary language, we communicate within time. BUT TIME IS NOT PART OF THE LANGUAGE.

Obvious is it, to you? Einstein said time is an illusion, and not even a clock cycle. I happen to grok that myself. Time is used as “t” all the time, the “edge of the clock” used all the time.

Time is part and parcel of the information, or it does not exist! So why can’t time be part of the info? Why is info different than time to you?

Why not {0, 1, t} and {@, t} ?