The theory of evolution through natural selection is not magical thinking, either. It's a rational and cogent explanation for the enormous variety of life.

There is no scientific definition for life. Why do we keep talking about it if we don’t know what it is?

There is no “natural selection” without knowing what we’re talking about. Can you talk cogently about a car if you can’t identify one in the parking lot?

It accounts for no definition and no understanding of how information was increased at each stage, even if we did have a definition. Nor is there any evidence of widespread wholesale speciation, even if we knew what life was. It has zero cogent physics engine.

A complete magical bag of wind.

 

Even if "feeling the continuum" is somehow a criterion of consciousness, what prevents a computer from feeling the continuum? Specifically, what mechanism do we have that they cannot, even in principle, have?

It is necessary to specify an exact number of components and exact configuration thereof that would render the computer in “totality” to “feel its own existence.” Otherwise, what is “special” about a feedback loop? Every single component is discrete. Discreteness means no “one” is “home“ in “switch 1“ or a combo of 4393849 switches.

 

(Although very nice explanation... you totally need to make tutorials!)

Thanks!

What I was doing was making the unary into binary, and the binary into ternary.

I was intimating that there is no real unary, because you can use “time” as another bit in a sense.

So {0, 1}, which I originally proposed, would become {0, 1, t}. And your unary proposition of {@} is actually now binary {@, t}. And there is no such thing as {@} because some kind of contrasting element is necessary to convey info.

But this is where I see confusion. A language with alphabet {0, 1, t} would have strings like "0101ttt0t", but that's not a binary string. You're mixing up details from languages with details from transmission links.

We convey information with messages, which are strings from a language. There is no notion of time in the language. We transmit messages over some medium using a communications protocol, which defines how the receiver should interpret changes in the medium. Transmission is necessarily a function of time (because physics), though time is an independent variable. After transmission, the receiver decodes the protocol to receive the original message.

Schematically, sending an n-bit message \( m \in \{0,1\}^n \) looks like \[ m \to P(t) \to m \] where \( P(t) \) (the protocol) is a general function of time. We have virtually unlimited choices for the protocol, with varying capabilities in terms of efficiency and noise immunity, etc. But the information itself is set by the message 'm', which is determined strictly by the language, which is entirely independent of time.

 

We agreed infinity is not a number. n+1 is still a number.

Yes, (n + 1) is a number, but that's missing the point. INFINITY captures this notion: Think of the largest value you can and call it n. Now think of (n + 1). Repeat. INFINITY is the recognition that this is an unbounded process.

There is no counting the elements of infinity.

There are no elements to INFINITY, it is a CONCEPT of a process.

You don’t like the word “real” and I don’t like the word “countable” without qualification. If one disabuses themselves of Cantor’s theories, and pretend it’s 1860, what are number sets again? There are only numbers. They are countable to a point. But there are always more.

"Countable" gets at the heart of what makes ℕ different from ℝ. Take any interval from ℕ: [a, b]. No matter what 'a' and 'b' are (say, 42 and 101), we can always count the number of elements in the set.

Now try the same thing with a non-empty interval from ℝ. How many elements are in [2, 3.5]? How many in [0.1, 0.2]? How many in [1, 100]? Doesn't matter what the interval is, we cannot count them!

This is the essence of "countable".

 

Thanks!


But this is where I see confusion. A language with alphabet {0, 1, t} would have strings like "0101ttt0t", but that's not a binary string. You're mixing up details from languages with details from transmission links.

We convey information with messages, which are strings from a language. There is no notion of time in the language. We transmit messages over some medium using a communications protocol, which defines how the receiver should interpret changes in the medium. Transmission is necessarily a function of time (because physics), though time is an independent variable. After transmission, the receiver decodes the protocol to receive the original message.

Schematically, sending an n-bit message \( m \in \{0,1\}^n \) looks like \[ m \to P(t) \to m \] where \( P(t) \) (the protocol) is a general function of time. We have virtually unlimited choices for the protocol, with varying capabilities in terms of efficiency and noise immunity, etc. But the information itself is set by the message 'm', which is determined strictly by the language, which is entirely independent of time.

I guess I’m trying to say there is a “shadow” element ontologically that in a unary situation acts as “the other element” which permits decoding. You need another element physically in order to cannibalize and cognize the unary system, rendering it as 2-part system by default, ontologically. Remember, for me it all goes back to O space.

 

Yes, (n + 1) is a number, but that's missing the point. INFINITY captures this notion: Think of the largest value you can and call it n. Now think of (n + 1). Repeat. INFINITY is the recognition that this is an unbounded process.


There are no elements to INFINITY, it is a CONCEPT of a process.


"Countable" gets at the heart of what makes ℕ different from ℝ. Take any interval from ℕ: [a, b]. No matter what 'a' and 'b' are (say, 42 and 101), we can always count the number of elements in the set.

Now try the same thing with a non-empty interval from ℝ. How many elements are in [2, 3.5]? How many in [0.1, 0.2]? How many in [1, 100]? Doesn't matter what the interval is, we cannot count them!

This is the essence of "countable".

I hate to be renegade here, but semantics is my strong point, and we have serious problems here.

#1 insisting INFINITY is ONLY a process, and not potentially an actuality that is more akin to a “set” or “thing” with “things in it.”

#2 Countable is another way of saying “sequential name-ability.” To show partiality between the intervals of ℝ as being uncountable (being infinite), but also saying ℕ is countable when it TOO is infinite, is just NOT legit to me, like Rene’s use of REAL is not legit to you.

Particularly because I can show that ℝ numbers are not numbers by an ontological, barebones proof, they are combinatorial numeric TERMS invented to make sense of fractionation. To create “sets of numbers” is for measurement convenience, not because they’re fundamentally “different.” Sets are causing confusion and yielding conceptual death traps.

 

Question:

Would you define a classical computer as a “store-and-retrieve”+”real-time” adder to you?

 

I believe science is empirical and observational concerning things in space and time, and that physical space isn’t information. Correct me if I’m wrong, but for you, it’s all just information and equations only, or “99% + mystery component” and don’t “really” differentiate anything from information?

I believe that everything can be described as sets of states and transformations on those states. States are the "stuff" of the universe. The differences in the states convey information.

Equations and numbers and languages are abstract concepts, ways to organize information.

I know the dog is 3D because I can measure it and know and feel it.

You can measure and feel the dog because of sensory perceptions, which are filtered by the brain. You trust this process implicitly; I don't, and with good reason.

This is original, Newtonian-level science.

No, it is caveman science; Newton knew not to trust his senses. There is nothing intuitive about a universal law of gravitation. The same "force" that makes an apple fall from the tree makes that little dot in the night sky that we call Mercury orbit the big dot we call the Sun? Not intuitive.

You don’t believe in such basic things. Yet you will say your house and car exist and can take 3D measurements? You want to throw the senses away as any form of arbitration or empirical plumb line. We will never get anywhere if (with me anyway) that is your stance.

Agreed, if you believe that human perception is the ultimate (or even reliable) arbiter of truth, then we're not going to get anywhere. The science and psychology of human perception is unanimously against such a stance, and I am, too.

You’re content with counting? My “grunt” beginning thesis (named in obvious humor for unary “counting”) was about as basic as it got and discussed cardinality and ordinality and led to the creation of 0. It also made very clear that information is separate from how it’s represented! You didn’t really comment on it?

There wasn't much to say. Most models of counting are similar. I've been saying that information is separate from its representation the entire time.

I can literally prove using grunts that all numbers are composed of them.

I doubt very much that you can prove that ℝ comes from ℕ. Not that I don't believe it does, but I doubt you can prove it.

But that is “Kronecker and Poincare,” and you won’t show any partiality to an elemental anything like that.

Why would I show partiality to anything? I prefer impartial logical conclusions to partial assumptions.

That’s why you see all 16 logic states as equal and not derivative of one or 2, and probably don’t believe all 4 principal arithmetic operations are just addition in disguise. I simply can’t budge you there, even if I found 15 Ph.D’s to back me, and Claude Shannon resurrected in the flesh to thumbs up. Sadly, because of these things, I see no hope in getting anywhere, despite 1000 posts to that end.

I know the 16 binary logical operators are "ontologically equal" because the math tells me so. I also know that, whatever you mean by "just addition in disguise", you're not making a mathematically meaningful statement. You can pretend that 15 Ph.Ds and Claude Shannon agree with you, but the first question any mathematician would ask is "over what field?"

 

There is no scientific definition for life. Why do we keep talking about it if we don’t know what it is?

Even if there truly were no "scientific definitions for life", that is completely irrelevant to the scientific study of life. Scientists don't work to write dictionary entries, they work to understand empirical phenomena. What's the definition of an electron? No one gives a f*ck. We study its properties and create theories that try to explain them.

There is no “natural selection” without knowing what we’re talking about. Can you talk cogently about a car if you can’t identify one in the parking lot?

Huh? Science doesn't start from a position of "knowing what we're talking about". Science is the very process of learning what we're talking about.

It accounts for no definition and no understanding of how information was increased at each stage, even if we did have a definition. Nor is there any evidence of widespread wholesale speciation, even if we knew what life was. It has zero cogent physics engine.

Let me get this straight: you're claiming that the theory of evolution by natural selection is completely wrong, as in geocentric universe wrong?

BTW, there most definitely are cogent "physics engines" that drive evolution. It's actually a hot field right now, biological physics. There seems to be a deep connection between life and non-equilibrium thermodynamics at the molecular level. Life may turn out to be the universe's way of making more entropy.

A complete magical bag of wind.

I don't get the impression that you know enough about the subject to make this claim.

 

It is necessary to specify an exact number of components and exact configuration thereof that would render the computer in “totality” to “feel its own existence.” Otherwise, what is “special” about a feedback loop? Every single component is discrete. Discreteness means no “one” is home in switch 1 or a combo of 4393849 switches”.

You avoided the question. Again: what exactly prevents a silicon machine from having the "je ne se quois" of consciousness that biological machines have?

 

I guess I’m trying to say there is a “shadow” element ontologically that in a unary situation acts as “the other element” which permits decoding. You need another element physically in order to cannibalize and cognize the unary system, rendering it as 2-part system by default, ontologically. Remember, for me it all goes back to O space.

You've heard the saying: When one has a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

 

I believe that everything can be described as sets of states and transformations on those states. States are the "stuff" of the universe. The differences in the states convey information.

Equations and numbers and languages are abstract concepts, ways to organize information.


You can measure and feel the dog because of sensory perceptions, which are filtered by the brain. You trust this process implicitly; I don't, and with good reason.


No, it is caveman science; Newton knew not to trust his senses. There is nothing intuitive about a universal law of gravitation. The same "force" that makes an apple fall from the tree makes that little dot in the night sky that we call Mercury orbit the big dot we call the Sun? Not intuitive.


Agreed, if you believe that human perception is the ultimate (or even reliable) arbiter of truth, then we're not going to get anywhere. The science and psychology of human perception is unanimously against such a stance, and I am, too.


There wasn't much to say. Most models of counting are similar. I've been saying that information is separate from its representation the entire time.


I doubt very much that you can prove that ℝ comes from ℕ. Not that I don't believe it does, but I doubt you can prove it.


Why would I show partiality to anything? I prefer impartial logical conclusions to partial assumptions.


I know the 16 binary logical operators are "ontologically equal" because the math tells me so. I also know that, whatever you mean by "just addition in disguise", you're not making a mathematically meaningful statement. You can pretend that 15 Ph.Ds and Claude Shannon agree with you, but the first question any mathematician would ask is "over what field?"

No, that’s the whole problem! The math tells you so, but what if GR’s math, for example, is correct, but space isn’t bent? Is GR still “true”, as in “reflective of physical space” to you??

 

You've heard the saying: When one has a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

This! Is your bias of “truth-defined-as-information-and-math-self-consistency-only-talking” and not(!) whether or not it’s empirically a reflection of “this thing we call O space!” It’s why your house is 1D in a Hilbert vector only and not real!! You don’t define real!!

It’s 100% fact that time pauses can be used as a 0 bit!!

 

#1 insisting INFINITY is ONLY a process, and not potentially an actuality that is more akin to a “set” or “thing” with “things in it.”

For someone who claims to be all about perceptual, empirical data, what makes you think that infinity is a "thing"? That doesn't make empirical or logical sense.

#2 Countable is another way of saying “sequential name-ability.” To show partiality between the intervals of ℝ as being uncountable (being infinite), but also saying ℕ is countable when it TOO is infinite, is just NOT legit to me, like Rene’s use of REAL is not legit to you.

Your assumption is not viable, and here's why: ℚ is countable (one-to-one with ℕ), yet any interval of ℚ has an infinite number of elements. We can't even name them sequentially.

Particularly because I can show that ℝ numbers are not numbers by an ontological, barebones proof, they are combinatorial numeric TERMS invented to make sense of fractionation.

Your idea of "fractionation" only makes ℚ, which is countable. It is grossly insufficient to make ℝ.

To create “sets if numbers” is for measurement convenience, not because they’re fundamentally “different.” Sets are causing confusion and yielding conceptual death traps.

We don't need sets. But tell me what number corresponds to the length of the diagonal on a unit square. That number is neither in ℕ or ℝ. So, unless you're going to deny existence to unit squares (and circles and a whole bunch of other stuff), your number system will be incomplete.

 

Question:

Would you define a classical computer as a “store-and-retrieve”+”real-time” adder to you?

I don't know what you mean by "real-time adder".

 

I don't know what you mean by "real-time adder".

As in, you can give it values in real-time and have them computed, or they can be computed later on on a timer.

 

No, that’s the whole problem! The math tells you so, but what if GR’s math, for example, is correct, but space isn’t bent? Is GR still “true”, as in “reflective of physical space” to you??

The thing is, GR doesn't tell us that space is curved or bent. GR tells us that, if we're going to model the laws of motion geometrically, then we need a curved geometry.

No matter what you read in pop-sci books, physics does not make ontological claims. Whatever "space actually is", physics can't say. All physics does is find models that help us quantify and predict the things we experience.

 

For someone who claims to be all about perceptual, empirical data, what makes you think that infinity is a "thing"? That doesn't make empirical or logical sense.


Your assumption is not viable, and here's why: ℚ is countable (one-to-one with ℕ), yet any interval of ℚ has an infinite number of elements. We can't even name them sequentially.


Your idea of "fractionation" only makes ℚ, which is countable. It is grossly insufficient to make ℝ.


We don't need sets. But tell me what number corresponds to the length of the diagonal on a unit square. That number is neither in ℕ or ℝ. So, unless you're going to deny existence to unit squares (and circles and a whole bunch of other stuff), your number system will be incomplete.

Can I get you to agree, that in essence, in order for a number to have value and be workable, that we need to “rationalize“ it by terminating any repetition or truncating its mantissa?

 

The thing is, GR doesn't tell us that space is curved or bent. GR tells us that, if we're going to model the laws of motion geometrically, then we need a curved geometry.

No matter what you read in pop-sci books, physics does not make ontological claims. Whatever "space actually is", physics can't say. All physics does is find models that help us quantify and predict the things we experience.

It started with a thought experiment that assumed space outside the mind was bent! The math flowed from there. You MUST assume a distinction between the “thing” in physical space and the information describing it.

If you had a mathematical proof your wife was a man, would you trust it over your observational definition involving observable, experiential form?

Would you consider there to be some kind of “truth” we could use that involves measurability and observationality in physical/O space??

would you call your wife real???

 

This! Is your bias of “truth-defined-as-information-and-math-self-consistency-only-talking” and not(!) whether or not it’s empirically a reflection of “this thing we call O space!” It’s why your house is 1D in a Hilbert vector only and not real!! You don’t define real!!

I don't know how to parse this sentence. And for the record, a single particle of my house is an infinite-dimensional vector in Hilbert space.

It’s 100% fact that time pauses can be used as a 0 bit!!

You say this as if it somehow makes your point. As I said, a communications protocol is a function of time. To optimize transmission, protocols often use their own language -- their own set of symbols and grammar -- to encode messages. The language of the protocol necessarily depends on time. But the information -- the message being transmitted -- is time independent.

You're confusing like eight levels of abstraction and coming to invalid conclusions from the jumbled mess.