What compiler? The one running on the dimensional object in physical space, neither of which we have defined? The one a load of non-dimensional photon bits sent to your informational brain is using words to reflect the dimensionality of?

This is an annoying tactic.

Every time I use a computer in my examples, I could just as easily use a human brain. I deliberately choose computers because you do not believe they have any magic sauce, and so, if I can demonstrate that a computer can do something, then I have demonstrated that the thing can be done without magic sauce.

If you insist on playing the dumb "what compiler?" game, then feel free to replace every example of compiler/computer/CPU with "human brain".

 

Huh? Non-dimensional bits are non-dimensional. No dimension in information!

I literally said: "The entire point of my 2D matrix example was to show that information processors can interpret data using any dimensions they wish." What are you confused about?

 

You're not to cognize the rational repeating decimal in any sections; it's supposed to be seen as one infinite term to represent the fraction, otherwise it loses its value.

WTF? I'm not supposed to write 1/3 that way? Did I just do something illegal?!? ROFL.

Hate to break it to ya, but the way I wrote it is exactly how you get the decimal expansion of 1/3. There's no mathematical trickery or sketchy sleight of hand, just an infinite sum of powers of 10. Which is exactly how we get the digits of Pi!

You cannot rationally compare sections of .333... to pi

I can't? Hold my beer.

The third digit of 1/3 is 3/100, the third digit of Pi is 4/100. Get ready for it...

3/100 < 4/100

I just compared them!

In the fraction 1/3, where the numerator is less than the denominator, this fraction is not to be seen as "1 divided by 3," because, again, 1 cannot be divided by 3 (see scripture II Kronecker 1:3).

LOL. Now you're dictating how a fraction should and should not be seen?

Next time you fill up your car with gas, make sure to re-fill it before it hits 1/3 of a tank, because clearly we cannot divide one into three.

The expression 1/3 is really one of dependent utility: "one times something else, and then divide THAT something by 3," that's why its repeating decimal representation is of no utility in and of itself.

No. If you multiply 1/3 by any number other than 1, you will have a different number. There is no "dependent utility"; that's complete nonsense.

The fraction 1/3 has no worth unless it's a fraction of something else.

"No worth" to whom? What does that even mean? Is 1/5 worthless, too? How about 1/2?

So it's hella different than something like 22/7, where 22 can be divided by 7 3 times, and there is a "dimmer switch left over with variable finiteness to fill in the remainder". 22/7 is saying "Take 3 finite whole numbers, and then ADD something left over that has modulatable rheostat-like finitude adjustability."

You really don't get the difference between a number and its base-10 representation. Where's the "dimmer switch" in the base-7 representation of 22/7? Ontologically speaking, how can the same number have a dimmer switch in one representation but not another?

Seriously, if pi's value can be defined as 3.14 OR 3.141592 OR 3.14159265358979

No, no, no. Neither 3.14 or 3.141592 or the other one are Pi. You'rve very confused if you think that Pi can be "defined" as those other numbers.

1) As a child, 42 was uttered to you and then written down when you were taught numbers and associated them with objects or drawings of them as a kid (or at least numbers leading up to it, to infer such). You only know what "42" means because you were taught "1" and then successive copies of "1" to yield integers as a child with dimensional blocks and writing its dimensional glyph down repeatedly, so you understood "42" meant "42 somethings." Then later on you divorced 42 from explicit somethings and made it a generic ascription device.

Ok, what's spatial about a googolplex? Or 0.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000002? Or the tenth Ackerman's number?

2) Love only exists when describing objects that are minimally some dimension to you in physical space. Humans are minimally 2 spatial dimensions or they don't exist.

Love is about objects? I have a very different conception of love.

3) Bb maj 7 is associated with vibrations coming from dimensional objects of guitar or piano, for example. Dimensional guitar or piano strings yielded the chord.

Uh, so is Bb maj7 dimensional or not?

4) Vector space can't be described without a Euclidean-esque plane having minimally 2 dimensional axes.

Nope. We use vector spaces to define Euclidean geometry, not the other way around. We can make a vector space with any number of basis vectors. So, what is spatial about a 0D vector space or a 1024D vector space?

 

I’d bet $10K 5 people can’t be found, I am that sure no one shares this notion

It is completely insane to bet $10,000 that five people on an electronics forum would not agree that a compiler knows the difference between a variable and its value. I'm glad for you that internet bets aren't legally binding.

 

That sounds interesting. So basically you’d say the signal is the hours you’re talking here in this thread, and the
noise is your job? :—)

The SNR seems to fluctuate daily, mostly depending on what maddening mathematical claims some crazy lady decides to make that day. ;--)

 

It is completely insane to bet $10,000 that five people on an electronics forum would not agree that a compiler knows the difference between a variable and its value. I'm glad for you that internet bets aren't legally binding.

Find them, for real! Even our learned friend here has a problem with the word “Know”... thats why he responded with “ummm.” “Know” is difficult to ascribe to telegraph poles on a timer, an augmented Light Bright or an iPhone. Straight up.

 

Signal vs. noise is tied directly to this issue of meaning vs. meaninglessness. Both signal and noise are effectively signal. One signifies direct meaning, one signifies indirect meaning in its direct meaninglessness. The latter is signal that doesn’t signify knowable order in and of itself.

Noise is that which is not signal, and signal is whatever we're interested in. In other words, signal or noise is in the eye of the beholder. That's it, nothing fancier than that.

 

The SNR seems to fluctuate daily, mostly depending on what maddening mathematical claims some crazy lady decides to make that day. ;--)

 

Noise is that which is not signal, and signal is whatever we're interested in. In other words, signal or noise is in the eye of the beholder. That's it, nothing fancier than that.

Agreed, meaning vs. meaningless to the beer-holder.

 

You just described all of it using spatiality though!!

There are no "strings" without writing them out in a 2D screen or paper to describe the hierarchy. The CEO is a 3D dimensional person within a 3D company, and to accurately describe a hierarchy, you'd typically label him above the others on an organization chart, or somewhere spatially set-off from the rest to denote the meaning, or you would somehow gesticulate the spatiality with your hands.

No spatiality, no meaning.

Sigh. I'm using "bit string" as an abstract notion. If you insist on framing things in terms of human experience, then -- duh -- we experience things spatially in three dimensions. That does not in any way imply that the objects of our experience are three dimensional. I'm not even saying they're not three dimensional. I'm pointing out that we cannot simply assume that they are.

As for the word "hierarchy", if you're incapable of separating the abstract organizational aspect from the way we draw them on a piece of paper, then let's use a different word.

From now on, I'll refer to the states-of-states phenomenon as the powerset of states. In set theory, the powerset P of a set A is the set of all subsets of A. For example, if A is the set {1, 2, 3}, then the powerset of A is the set {{}, {1}, {2}, {3}, {1,2}, {1,3}, {2,3}, {1,2,3}}.

Sets have no dimension and no spatiality, so this should be sufficiently removed from everyday experience to make the abstraction clear.

 

Sigh. I'm using "bit string" as an abstract notion. If you insist on framing things in terms of human experience, then -- duh -- we experience things spatially in three dimensions. That does not in any way imply that the objects of our experience are three dimensional. I'm not even saying they're not three dimensional. I'm pointing out that we cannot simply assume that they are.

As for the word "hierarchy", if you're incapable of separating the abstract organizational aspect from the way we draw them on a piece of paper, then let's use a different word.

From now on, I'll refer to the states-of-states phenomenon as the powerset of states. In set theory, the powerset P of a set A is the set of all subsets of A. For example, if A is the set {1, 2, 3}, then the powerset of A is the set {{}, {1}, {2}, {3}, {1,2}, {1,3}, {2,3}, {1,2,3}}.

Sets have no dimension and no spatiality, so this should be sufficiently removed from everyday experience to make the abstraction clear.

This is not a debate tactic, but a point of reference, that no matter WHAT we use to describe and cognize hierarchy using human words, spatiality is implicitly employed by default, because physical space is minimally something non-dimensional.

You used curly braces above. They are not non-dimensional. Numeric glyphs. Not non-dimensional.

My point is that, as a child, we learn the “meaning” of the very words we’re using by mapping them to “unknowables” in physical space. The space and the things are NOT non-dimensional information, correct? Then words are built-in referential elements to this bizarreness that we cannot intellectually escape.

I see no partiality capacity to make non-dimensional points dimensional without hardcore explanation, and not “well a drone does it.” To the drone, it’s all non-D, including its own existence.

 

Let’s work on one solitary precept at a time for a ToE. First? How about:

Information... to the best of your ability, defined as?

 

Spatiality implies a meaning. The meaning doesn’t imply spatiality. Suppose you had a list of employees sorted by title. The Assistant to the HR Director is not more important than the CEO. Let’s color code the levels of a hierarchy. No Spatiality, but there is meaning. Once again, you’re confusing representation with value.

But folks!

The very list is 2D on a page! You are referencing dimensional elements called “people” that are minimally 2D!

The very words you use to describe this “non-spatial” hierarchy have some kind of spatiality, referenced in physical space!

I am not confusing representation with value... I am insisting on zero partiality when you have not defined the partiality-making mechanism magically exists in a living human vs. a dead one or anything else!

!

(lol)

 

The thing is, you want to say the representation is different from the value, but it’s all non-dimensional information” (0-length points) at the same time.

You continue making the same category errors. A 0-length point is a geometric object; it exists only within the domain of geometry, a formal language. There is no valid definition of "point in physical space".

That means you are showing partiality to certain groups of bits vs. others. And sure, a “compiler” does that.

You keep using "partiality", which is a weird choice of words. A compiler -- like a human -- organizes information by distinguishing between groups of bits. The compiler is not more "partial" to one group than another. Grouping bits only means that the compiler -- or human -- uses different sets of bits for different sets of tasks.

But a human who knows the difference programmed it to do this very thing.

So what? A human programmed the compiler to know how to organize bits. The compiler does the organization on its own -- if it didn't, if a human had to program every step explicitly, then the compiler would only know how to compile one program!

To the compiler, it’s all the same, and to the human it’s different.

No, it's not all the same to a compiler. That would make the compiler useless at translating arbitrary high-level languages into functioning machine-level languages. A compiler reads a program that's been written in a language that the compiler understands. The program itself might be 20 bytes worth of information or 20 million bytes worth of information -- the compiler has to organize the information, determine what the program is trying to do, and translate that intent into a much smaller set of machine instructions that run efficiently.

Tell me again how a compiler can do this if the bits are "all the same".

Humans use tokens “meaning” to distinguish “Value and representation” because representation is the gateway to any value’s meaning.

int x = 42;

To the compiler, symbol 'x' means integer value 42. What other way is there of interpreting this?

Meaning to a human is only found when things map to elements of spatiality *somewhere*.

If this were true, then concepts that are not spatially map-able could not have meaning. But humans have tons of concepts that are not spatially-derived. What are the dimensions of justice? It's quite literally impossible for us to map \( 2^{|\mathbb{R}|} \) to any notions of spatiality, yet it has meaning!

When I say the compiler doesn’t exist, we are FORCED to use a slightly anthro-centric view here, because a compiler was MADE by a human that had within it spatiality awareness.

That's not slightly anthropocentric, that's full on anthropocentrism. You're in effect saying that the compiler doesn't exist as a compiler, rather it is an extension of humans. So the compiler is human? Nah, I don't buy it.

There’s a big difference between a drone flying, and a human that can build things from a first-order awareness of spatiality that is separate from any n bits of data.

Not in terms of navigating physical space there's not. If the drone is flying around buildings, then it must have spatial awareness. Otherwise it would crash! You say that a human "gave" the drone spatial awareness, but that does not change the fact that a presumably unconscious, simple information processor with no magic sauce has spatial awareness!

And if we acknowledge that an unconscious, simple information processor with no "magic sauce" can have spatial awareness, then why do we need "magic sauce" to explain spatial awareness in humans? <-- answer please.

All the greatest minds of the past believed in a “dimensionalizer” that can map non-D points to spatialized multi-D.

Sigh. Whenever you do this -- invoke the "greatest minds of the past" -- I immediately assume you're grasping at straws.

“But a drone does it.” No, a human does it, because a human knows and feels vs. just computes and built a spatial drone to do it. It’s what I’m aimed at identifying.

I'm trying to get at precisely what the difference is between "knows and feels" and "just computes". If you believe they are entirely different things, then offer an argument for that belief. Stating "a computer doesn't feel" and calling it a day is neither informative nor productive.

 

Find them, for real! Even our learned friend here has a problem with the word “Know”... thats why he responded with “ummm.” “Know” is difficult to ascribe to telegraph poles on a timer, an augmented Light Bright or an iPhone. Straight up.

Uh, if a compiler did not know the difference between a variable and its value, then every program that used variables would be invalid.

If you disagree, show me how I'm wrong.

 

We are FORCED to use a degree of anthro-centricism as our reference, because we are the only ones using words, meaning, “know,” “feel” etc. and these mechanisms and differentiations are in the human mind only that we can tell(!)

There is a “degree” of the term “know” you can colloquially use to describe a compiler... but I have the same linguistic rigidity as you with this. It is not happening for me. “Match” and “compute” are better term for me. “Know” evokes consciousness, meaning, feeling, etc. Category error or me :--)

When I invoke names of the past, I do so only to reduce the “crazy lady” element you think I project. Newton would be all over this, and somehow I think no one would think he’s crazy for insisting “computers don’t know” or mind-brain duality exists, or even approaches to infinity, sets, pi, or other assertions. So I defend my stance in that way, because I am not a lone ranger in these assertions.

 

Uh, if a compiler did not know the difference between a variable and its value, then every program that used variables would be invalid.

If you disagree, show me how I'm wrong.

Yes, I “know” what you’re saying here, but “know” as I said does not work for me, because it oozes feeling, conscious, meaning, morals, reason, choice... this is why I GUARANTEE you most would not want to use the term. It’s generally a reserved keyword for “the living.”

 

This is not a debate tactic, but a point of reference, that no matter WHAT we use to describe and cognize hierarchy using human words, spatiality is implicitly employed by default, because physical space is minimally something non-dimensional.

But that is an empty endeavor. Human brains interpret their experience in three spatial dimensions. We use spatial references because that's how we're designed (whether or not it's accurate is a different issue). Great! We already know this. We already know that our symbols are embedded in the spatial scaffolding of our experience.

Are you suggesting that we cannot think abstractly, that we are incapable of conceiving without spatial reference? If so, argue that. Otherwise, recognize the difference between the necessarily spatial aspect of our communication and the abstract ideas contained therein, and get over the "braces have spatial dimensionality" schtick.

My point is that, as a child, we learn the “meaning” of the very words we’re using by mapping them to “unknowables” in physical space.

Mapping is one modality of learning. But is it a fundamental aspect of the universe or just a peculiarity of certain biological organisms on Earth? This is why I dislike the human-centric approach, it is far too easy to think "this is the way we do it, therefore it must the only way it can be done".

The space and the things are NOT non-dimensional information, correct?

Information is not a geometric object. We apply geometric concepts to physical space to help us reason about physical space. The geometry of space is a model of space, it is not space itself.

 

Let’s work on one solitary precept at a time for a ToE. First? How about:

Information... to the best of your ability, defined as?

Same as in the beginning. It's an axiom of my system: Information is a measurable quantity.

 

Same as in the beginning. It's an axiom of my system: Information is a measurable quantity.

So then the immeasurable concept of infinity is not?