That you would even suggest this is telling. My point was not that I learned a bunch of facts; my point was that I have personally struggled with these things and have an intimate understanding of what's involved. I am talking about my experience.

For example, your FIRST response to 1472 is that it "doesn't hold up to different frameworks." I've said a million times, I don't care about them in this investigation. It's your default response. Some of this stuff literally can be conceptually entangled at levels NO education or prior investigation has unified! This is why I espouse RAW REASONING and observation and the only thing we work with to the level we can. THEN we see how our observations and combined observational power WORK into existing frameworks. It's essential, or we need to hang it up now, because you're just going to continue to try to educate me on existing frameworks. Honestly, I could not give a flying f*ck if there are "logic systems" vs. "mathematical systems" when working from the baseline notions.

 

Newton did not equate god or energy with the mathematical concept of infinity. That's my point.

No, he thought it was the stuff that INFORMED the mathematics, that's my point, and ONLY my point!

 

So where's the line? You say it's not an issue of complexity, but then what is an issue of? Does a blood cell feel? A virus? Where's the line?

It's an issue of life, which has innate spatiality as one of its properties, in my estimation. Part of that definition of "form" is an uncalculated concept of continuous infinity that is not a function or process. For example, assume a line of infinite points actually exists. Then bend that line into some form. I believe this concept needs to be investigated.

 

Vector spaces are more fundamental than geometries.

You THINK they are! What if life is an actual spatial, infinite, geometric entity that points and vectors derive from in some extra-dimension, again, a view shared by "mathematicians and scientists™" who are NOT "crackpot ladies on the Internet?" THIS is the only reason I bring up the "God" starting point, because it has relevance in terms of actual functional integration to the reasoning here, and I bring up these names ONLY to counter the view against "the implicit crackpottery element."

 

Talk about using "senses only" to make a claim though (as in, "JUST an animated machine")!?

I never said "just".

The chief property of ALIVE I would say is spatial-based experience. The capacity to report on this is a separate matter.

That's a weird qualification "spatial-based". Feels more like a hedge against future arguments than a genuine property.

How do we know that a frog has spatial-based experience? If a super intellgient alien came to Earth, showed us how to settle peace in the Middle East, and then mentioned it doesn't have spatial-based experience (it had to devise a complex abstraction to be able to understand what we meant by spatiality), we can throw it in the trash because it's not alive?

 

Mathematics is about points and machinery that maps points to other places, and shifting of points over time. The machinery is arithmetical in nature, and all arithmetic is addition at different rates in disguise. There's nothing more going on there.

You couldn't be more wrong. Mathematics is about abstraction and generalization, and finding deep connections between those abstractions and generalizations. In your simplistic view, it all boils down to addition, as if there were a single, elemental form of addition.

But mathematics starts with the recognition that there are many forms of addition. The kind of addition you learn in kindergarten is just one way to add things, but mathematics shows us that there are many more, each different depending on the kinds of things we're adding. Adding whole numbers is different than adding complex numbers, is different than adding matrices, is different than adding functions. We explore the resulting structures and formalize the resulting consequences and end up with number sets and operator theories and all manner of very precise yet very abstract things.

You seem to think, screw all that extra stuff, let's just focus on the basic numbers and addition that everyone knows. But that's like saying, "I want to focus on cellular metabolism, but I don't want to bother with molecular biology."

You seem to think that, because we can express any computable number in base-1, that base-1 ("unary") holds some foundational key to unlock the secrets of consciousness. But that's equivalent to thinking that, because we can express every human utterance in English, the English language -- as opposed to Spanish or French -- holds some foundational key.

It's naive to think that one can replace number theory without actually knowing and understanding number theory. If you want a tabula rasa understanding of numbers, start reading history of math books to see how it actually went down. I can recommend several good ones. The history of how humans slowly came to understand numbers is both fascinating and enlightening. The key, though, is not to stop at the 14th century.

Vector spaces are not "spaces" in my estimation.

That's fine. Your world is one of concrete conceptions. The world of math is much, much larger.

 

I never said "just".

That's a weird qualification "spatial-based". Feels more like a hedge against future arguments than a genuine property.

How do we know that a frog has spatial-based experience? If a super intellgient alien came to Earth, showed us how to settle peace in the Middle East, and then mentioned it doesn't have spatial-based experience (it had to devise a complex abstraction to be able to understand what we meant by spatiality), we can throw it in the trash because it's not alive?

To clarify something (that I was going to address in another reply, will do it here):

I actually do believe all physical life on the planet is 100% programmatic and actually non-spatially aware. "What???" Yeah, it's an import distinction. The physical brain and body are calculating devices working with discrete, non-dimensional data-points. Yes, basically a very advanced drone. That IS "just machinery."

However, I make two very important distinctions in my thoughts on the matter.

1) The life is ITSELF a "form" that is experiencing the magnitude of some experiential element as a function of the computations. I might deem that a "soul." It's simply a "thing" in space that is ferried around with the body/brain and is the very "life" essence within the "being" that separates a "being" from a "machine" alone.

2) A component of life is some kind of innate "spatial generator/interpreter." If physical space exists and it is independent of information, then there is some kind of construct of "space" and "experiencer thereof" that is not explainable using points in any model. It's some kind of spatial, continuous phenomenon. I.e., the concept of a sine-wave being a "thing" vs. a function. It has infinite values throughout it that give a "shape" in an "environment." The "dog" is an indivisible "thing" made of infinite indivisible stuff, and this is the first-order definition that informs all mathematical machinery, words, and order vs. disorder in the being vs.

So if a human is a "programmed" entity, "whatever" programmed it is making some distinction between information and the very notion of "something in space." And the capacity to "feel" is innate to this phenomenon.

 

If you simply read 1472 from a very basic clean-slate place, and uninstall everything, you will find it is insanely on-point. And I'm not bragging. It just is.

Lol, you can't even entertain the idea that I'd genuinely disagree with 1472.

 

You couldn't be more wrong. Mathematics is about abstraction and generalization, and finding deep connections between those abstractions and generalizations. In your simplistic view, it all boils down to addition, as if there were a single, elemental form of addition.

But mathematics starts with the recognition that there are many forms of addition. The kind of addition you learn in kindergarten is just one way to add things, but mathematics shows us that there are many more, each different depending on the kinds of things we're adding. Adding whole numbers is different than adding complex numbers, is different than adding matrices, is different than adding functions. We explore the resulting structures and formalize the resulting consequences and end up with number sets and operator theories and all manner of very precise yet very abstract things.

You seem to think, screw all that extra stuff, let's just focus on the basic numbers and addition that everyone knows. But that's like saying, "I want to focus on cellular metabolism, but I don't want to bother with molecular biology."

You seem to think that, because we can express any computable number in base-1, that base-1 ("unary") holds some foundational key to unlock the secrets of consciousness. But that's equivalent to thinking that, because we can express every human utterance in English, the English language -- as opposed to Spanish or French -- holds some foundational key.

It's naive to think that one can replace number theory without actually knowing and understanding number theory. If you want a tabula rasa understanding of numbers, start reading history of math books to see how it actually went down. I can recommend several good ones. The history of how humans slowly came to understand numbers is both fascinating and enlightening. The key, though, is not to stop at the 14th century.


That's fine. Your world is one of concrete conceptions. The world of math is much, much larger.

Computers are doing every kind of mathematical computation using gates. I'm not born yesterday here. I have taken formal classes in math in college. Abstract algebra and propositional logic is being done in computers. I know enough about all of it to see it is adding. Adding is adding, period. Different ways of adding points. You are making math something higher than it is in my estimation. We have points and sets of points, arithmetical relationships. The core is not difficult. In the end, show me an equation that doesn't involve arithmetic on some level using variables, and it's not math.

 

Lol, you can't even entertain the idea that I'd genuinely disagree with 1472.

I totally could, if you could approach it without 14 levels of category-error-inducing framework interrelations. You're not even open to seeing a possible unity of logic and mathematics unified under FEELING, which is what it's about. Incredible to me.

 

For example, your FIRST response to 1472 is that it "doesn't hold up to different frameworks."

Misquoting me again. I never said those words.

This is why I espouse RAW REASONING and observation and the only thing we work with to the level we can.

What do you think the purpose of formal systems is?! RAW REASONING. If you want to do raw reasoning, then you can't do better than a formal system because that's exactly what they are. It's unbelievably naive to suppose that you can "out-reason" the carefully, painfully laid out implications and constraints of formal systems.

What about observation? No one does it better than science! But f*ck scientific theories, what good are they?!

Honestly, I could not give a flying f*ck if there are "logic systems" vs. "mathematical systems" when working from the baseline notions.

You feel this way because you don't have enough experience to realize that, to get anywhere cogently, you actually need to give a flying f*ck. Your use of language, for example, is incredibly sloppy. I know that, as a language person, you take pride in your sensitivity to language. But you don't even notice how frequently insensitive you are with it, simply because you're not used to communicating at the level of precision required by such discourse. Formal systems help us do precisely that! You're not yet sensitive enough to the extremely subtle and extremely important distinctions between symbols like "1" and "T".

You think I'm being obstinate, or that I'm close-mindedly clutching my beloved systems, but I'm all too aware of the intellectual massacres that happen when we don't pay strict attention to wtf we're talking about. Thinking on 24 levels at once is not kid's play; we need serious tools.

 

God created the Integers: All else is a derivative invention for convenience
AKA: Objects in mirror understand numbers, representations, and theory wayyy the f*ck more than thought; please kindly read carefully. ;--)

As toddlers, we learn what a number means.

When we’re born, we begin to make conscious, sensory observations upon reality immediately. We begin playing with 3D objects, and we start to understand what space means without any words to describe it. We develop a framework of reference for “feeling” as “knowing,” the basis of all knowledge and scientific inquiry.

We have a built-in, congenital, innate intelligence which permits the capacity to grok size and shape before we describe these things numerically. With a combination of tactile, visual and audio sense, we begin forming a framework for what a number even is.

The basis of knowledge is first in describing the presence of something spatially there.

”Mama” is there. She is the first word we utter typically, in recognition that her presence is there. The truth value, or logic value of her presence registers, or is known to the being without describing it yet.

This presence ALSO doubles as a fundamental quantity. She is THERE (true) and there is ONE of her.

This is the basis of what the number 1 means to a human. 1 is first even cognized as a spatial mapper to objects in physical space as the basis of all meaning. It is why we go on to use the number, once we spatially map its meaning, to other things. We hand the child a block and say, “1 block” repeatedly, until the number’s cognizance registers as meaning.

After the baby registers “1” with the block, and can say “1 block” confidently, we hand it another block, and say “2 blocks.” It then registers and spatially maps the innate “2“ to the second block as both another presence that it can ordinally label as the “2nd block” in the set, and also the cardinal value of “2 blocks.” We continue with 3, 4, 5 etc. The child groks counting, ordinality and cardinality via repetitive mappings to spatial elements.

Note that we do this typically in base 10 for convenience only, most likely because we have 10 fingers, and we can map a unique vocal utterance to each.

But if we had base 1 only to work with, we’d only use ”1“ as our presence mapper. We’d tell the baby “one block” and then “one-one block” and then “one-one-one block.” This is the identical fundamental value as using base n, and most commonly base 10, because the base n numbers are unique vocal utterances for groupings of successive copies of ”1” in disguise. “One“ is logic “presence of blocks” “Two” is short-hand for logic “presence presence” and “three” is “presence presence presence”.

The most important takeaway to the above is that numbers are first learned as spatial presence mappers, and that they double as logic states for this purpose. If I have “1” block, it is logic TRUE that a block is there. No block? No number. No block we attribute “0” to, which also doubles as a logic state. It is TRUE that no block is present, which is also understood as FALSE that a block is present.

This is the beginning of numerical reasoning. All numbers therefore get their identity and meaning as presence-mappers to 2D and 3D objects.

Therefore, numbers have innate connections to qualities within physical spatiality, or we wouldn’t know what they mean. They are unique tokens that confer logic presence as well as quantity as well as weight, which are all qualia of experiential FEELING independent of the number itself.

Once the baby can count blocks using numbers, we can then have it map basic arithmetic to them using typically base 10, to map the sounds and feel of numbers to spatial quantity, which yields the framework of meaning for information acquisition using the congenital tokens of “who/what/when/how/where/why” which have their basis in physical space as meaning.

Example: Who has the blocks? Mama. 1 mama. What are the blocks? Here, look at it and feel one to KNOW one. When are we talking about blocks? At 9am on Tuesday, a block on the calendar. How are we discussing them? By attributing presence values and quantity to them. Where are we discussing them? In a physical, spatial classroom. Why? Because it’s GOOD to know and learn on some experiential level. Every event stores this spatial information in context to these questions. (A side-note: numeric qualia value of feeling or experience can be assigned to the event, and each reason could have their own number, and the “experiential” magnitude on a scale can be compared to other experiences numerically)

We then divorce numbers from their original spatial mapping, and consider them as independent phenomena. But their original sense of meaning is how they map to spatial things. So we start having the baby using the same numbers to count apples, puppies, kittens, etc.

Later we take the counting integers and create numeric expressions based in the number 1 to denote easier measurement.

If we have 1 apple and we divide it in half, we can say we have 2 elements now. Both are apple-borne objects, and there are now 2 things numerically. But to denote it as a function of the same apple, we create a short-cut expression called “division” or ratio. We have 1 apple, and we now two parts of that 1. We call it 1/2. If we did it in 3 cuts, it would be 1/3, 4 is 1/4, etc. These are using integers to create measurement expressions based on 1 thing divided.

When you divide something, you have more numbers of things, but if you divide it and want to reference the new elements as a function of the original element, you place the original element as the numerator, and the denominator reflects how many new elements out of that parent one. Therefore, fractions are derivative number relationships COMPOSED of numbers, but they are not numbers (integers) themselves. We call them numbers out of convenience. But they are expressions of utility designed to confer fractions of another whole.

The decimal system is simply fractions based on 10ths, 100ths, 1000ths, etc. and have NOTHING to do with any other number until we artificially concatenate them to any given integer to the left of an artificial decimal point. A floating point number is therefore a manufactured expression. 5.4 is two concepts in one. The integer number 5, and the added concept of 4 1/10ths. “If we divide 1 into 10 parts, we want 4 of those 10 parts to be considered an “add on” to 5.” .4 is not a number. It is a fraction of 1 into 4 1/10th parts.

As shown above, all numbers in reference to counting are fundamentally built on the number one as a presence and quantity indicator, and zero as an absence and quantity indicator. Base 1 (unary) is therefore the most elementary base that all other bases are derived from for counting. Unary represents BOTH logic of presence AND singular quantity, therefore it is the only system where representation IS effectively value(!) and is transparent, and can employ any symbol or sound as “groupings.” Its “representation” IS an elementary truth state. This is incredibly important. Because outside of this (in higher bases) is where the representation/value issue becomes relevant as value and representation become separate from their constituent/conglomerative values!

All bases above unary permit more efficient counting by grouping 1 into implicit logic strings. If I have 1 block, and it’s TRUE (T), I can have a second block (2) and it’s unary TT, a third (3) and it’s unary TTT, etc.

Base 2 is base 1 in disguise, by permitting the number and logic state of 1 to reflect the logic truth of the ABSENCE of a block. We term this logical “false“ or “zero,” the “absence of a block.“

If I have one block or “TRUE that I have a block‘s presence there,“ denoted as “1”, and FALSE that I have another block also denoted as 0, we can add one block (or its truth value) to the absence of another block (denotes as false) and yield a result of 1 block (True). In the end, we are saying we have 1 block OR (not exclusive) we don’t have another block, and that leaves us with one block in both quantity and logic!

1 block + 0 block = 1 block
also written as
1 block OR 0 block = 1 block
also written as
“Is it TRUE I have a block OR (not XOR) I don’t have another block, then it’s true I have a block“
T + F = T​

If we have 1 block, and we add another block to have 2 blocks (11 or TT in unary), then we have a spatial issue only to represent this in binary. In base 2, where we have two numbers and logic states (0 and 1) to work with, we have to fill up one column with one of two values before going on to the next column.

So we have to say it’s false we have 1 block and now true we have two, which means we need to denote the first column as the presence or absence of a single block, and the next left column as the logical presence or absence of 2 blocks!

1 block + 1 block = 10 blocks
also written as
1 block OR 1 block = 0 “truth presences” for 1 block and 1 truth presence for 2 blocks
also written as
“Is it TRUE I have a block OR (not XOR) I have another block, then it’s FALSE I have 1 block and TRUE I have 2 blocks“
also written as
T or T = TF (False that 1 block is present, and true 2 blocks now is)​

when we add another block, we do the exact same evaluation to determine the truth value of whether or not we have 2 blocks and evaluate against and each column grows exponentially in unary truth value groupings, with a presence of absence of each so that, for example:

101
TFT
Or, reduced further from right to left:
“True we have 1, false we have 2, true we have 4”
or in unary counting from left to right
”true + (false + false) + (true + true + true + true)”
or 5 (which is higher representative, amalgamative decimal notation that stands for 5 truth states)
​

For each column, we are doubling the truth value comparisons from the prior column. To add two binary numbers together, we use the same approach.

All additional arithmetic operators such as multiplication, division, subtraction, square roots, exponents, etc. are born from variations of the elementary concept above.

All logic evaluations can be performed using compounded OR operations and the NOT operator (which inverts a value from 0 to 1 and vice versa) which yields XOR, and therefore NAND operators.

We can now see why both logic and quantity are intersecting concepts, from early-age spatial meaning mapping to the number 1, and why propositional logic is born in TRUE/FALSE elemental dichotomy, and why we can build binary computers as fundamental adding and logic evaluation devices based solely on contrasting states of voltage to denote such.

All numbers and number sets can therefore be represented by 0 and 1 as fundamental logic states and also as numbers. All sets are derivative of a 1-to-1 bijection between proposed logic set L {0, 1} and a proposed new number set called O {0, 1}. O stands for ontological, and is based on the empirical observation of how humans understand numbers first as spatial mapping concepts. It is from O that we derive a more efficient set ℕ for counting, and all other sets are numerical processes on elements of ℕ.

This is proven every day in Boolean-based digital computers. QED.

From a fundamental binary or unary representation, where numbers and expressions are logic states, all irrational expressions involving two parts (integer and fraction), such as pi, are in a state of perpetual escalating finitude, and every term adds greater resolution to an unattainable state of integer wholeness (which is a natural number). All “fractions” can be seen as dimmer switches of added finitude to the integer in question. Irrational numeric expressions have “infinite” resolution potential.

First, I have major problems with your concept of a unary base. You can’t compare it to logical states, such as TT because a base-1 number can only be 0.

I cannot bring myself to accept spatiality as a foundation concept. As 3D beings, it may be the basis for our perceptions. But spatiality is constructed of even more atomic concepts. Start with location and distance for the base concepts of spatiality. So it becomes difficult to attribute anything to spatiality alone, as that is then constructed of location and distance. And likely other parameters, in a “collection” that describes spatiality.

And what about a 4D being? They would perceive their environment as an intersecting group of “pink tubes” (Robert Heinlein). Then, in this situation, time becomes another attribute in the collection. Again, proving that “spatiality” is not atomic.

 

Misquoting me again. I never said those words.


What do you think the purpose of formal systems is?! RAW REASONING. If you want to do raw reasoning, then you can't do better than a formal system because that's exactly what they are. It's unbelievably naive to suppose that you can "out-reason" the carefully, painfully laid out implications and constraints of formal systems.

What about observation? No one does it better than science! But f*ck scientific theories, what good are they?!


You feel this way because you don't have enough experience to realize that, to get anywhere cogently, you actually need to give a flying f*ck. Your use of language, for example, is incredibly sloppy. I know that, as a language person, you take pride in your sensitivity to language. But you don't even notice how frequently insensitive you are with it, simply because you're not used to communicating at the level of precision required by such discourse. Formal systems help us do precisely that! You're not yet sensitive enough to the extremely subtle and extremely important distinctions between symbols like "1" and "T".

You think I'm being obstinate, or that I'm close-mindedly clutching my beloved systems, but I'm all too aware of the intellectual massacres that happen when we don't pay strict attention to wtf we're talking about. Thinking on 24 levels at once is not kid's play; we need serious tools.

So then why, precisely did you agree to a tabula rasa appraoch as indicated initially:

1) Bare reasoning
2) Bare raw inference
3) Basic arithmetic
4) Basic observation

You AGREED to abandon formal systems! Somewhere I will find the thread where you do!

What do you think we're doing with "feeling" here? We're using synergistic intellect to observe and explore the topic using the innate intelligence system, where much scientific understanding is attained! We are able to come to understandings together with basic discourse.

My words are "sloppy" only in light of 19 frameworks. But you know just what I mean when I clarify, or we wouldn't have been able to agree on any points!

 

Post 394:

So, here’s what I propose:

1) using bare reasoning power
2) no use of existing number theory outside basic counting and fractions
3) you can count and infer
4) you have access to basic set symbology and relations
5) access to basic boolean algebra and arithmetic
6) higher calculus not necessary until later

I'm good with this.

I guess you're simply not in the end?

 

You THINK they are! What if life is an actual spatial, infinite, geometric entity that points and vectors derive from in some extra-dimension, again, a view shared by "mathematicians and scientists™" who are NOT "crackpot ladies on the Internet?" THIS is the only reason I bring up the "God" starting point, because it has relevance in terms of actual functional integration to the reasoning here, and I bring up these names ONLY to counter the view against "the implicit crackpottery element."

Sigh. Actual mathematicians know that you need a vector space to define a geometry. The only reason Euclid didn't invent linear algebra first was because he just assumed a linear vector space. Call it his 0th postulate.

"What if life is an actual ... geometric entity?" Please consider how ridiculous this sounds to me. A geometric entity, whatever that means, is geometric, which means it belongs to a geometry. A geometry is a formal system invented by humans to formalize the notions of spatial relations. So, according to you, I should wonder if life might be a formal system invented by humans?

I know you didn't mean that. But see what I mean by sensitivity to language? You carelessly use the word "geometry" in a context for which it can never make sense.

 

First, I have major problems with your concept of a unary base. You can’t compare it to logical states, such as TT because a base-1 number can only be 0.

I cannot bring myself to accept spatiality as a foundation concept. As 3D beings, it may be the basis for our perceptions. But spatiality is constructed of even more atomic concepts. Start with location and distance for the base concepts of spatiality. So it becomes difficult to attribute anything to spatiality alone, as that is then constructed of location and distance. And likely other parameters, in a “collection” that describes spatiality.

And what about a 4D being? They would perceive their environment as an intersecting group of “pink tubes” (Robert Heinlein). Then, in this situation, time becomes another attribute in the collection. Again, proving that “spatiality” is not atomic.

"Unary base" exists, though. Google it. It's simply the "number 1" and "number 1" only. The number 1 is being used in computers as a logic state. I don't like base-1, as I said — Javier said we should use it, but I have that exact problem with that.

Spatiality is empirically implied in existence. No matter how you cut it. Everything you know to be "knowledge" is born of interrogatives that reflect "things in space" that we measure as minimally 3 dimensions. If it's not spatial, it's "non-dimensional," and if non-dimensional, there's no "existence", which means you are no different than information, which is non-dimensional.

 

Sigh. Actual mathematicians know that you need a vector space to define a geometry. The only reason Euclid didn't invent linear algebra first was because he just assumed a linear vector space. Call it his 0th postulate.

"What if life is an actual ... geometric entity?" Please consider how ridiculous this sounds to me. A geometric entity, whatever that means, is geometric, which means it belongs to a geometry. A geometry is a formal system invented by humans to formalize the notions of spatial relations. So, according to you, I should wonder if life might be a formal system invented by humans?

I know you didn't mean that. But see what I mean by sensitivity to language? You carelessly use the word "geometry" in a context for which it can never make sense.

And knowing what I "mean" and insisting I use the "proper words" when you know I share parity of intellect but NOT education with you is unfair and rather vain (as in "form over function"), in my estimation. Especially after you insisted you would tabula rasa, per post #394, because you know I can't talk with you otherwise.

Geometric as in SHAPE as in FORM, as in "right triangle", but as existing as a stand-alone entity within this thing called "physical space."

You learned about "shape and form" LONG before you learned about vectors. If "Feeling" is some innate LIVING concept with CONSCIOUS spatiality that involves grokking BEYOND math and "formal systems," well then those "vectors and things" aren't necessarily relevant yet, are they?

 

I actually do believe all physical life on the planet is 100% programmatic and actually non-spatially aware. "What???" Yeah, it's an import distinction. The physical brain and body are calculating devices working with discrete, non-dimensional data-points. Yes, basically a very advanced drone. That IS "just machinery."

Whoa, wasn't expecting that.

Good, good, let's explore the distinction.

1) The life is ITSELF a "form" that is experiencing the magnitude of some experiential element as a function of the computations. I might deem that a "soul." It's simply a "thing" in space that is ferried around with the body/brain and is the very "life" essence within the "being" that separates a "being" from a "machine" alone.

Let's assume that physical space is 3D like we experience it. Where in physical space is the soul (let's just call it that for now, unless you prefer a different word) located?

2) A component of life is some kind of innate "spatial generator/interpreter." If physical space exists and it is independent of information, then there is some kind of construct of "space" and "experiencer thereof" that is not explainable using points in any model. It's some kind of spatial, continuous phenomenon. I.e., the concept of a sine-wave being a "thing" vs. a function. It has infinite values throughout it that give a "shape" in an "environment." The "dog" is an indivisible "thing" made of infinite indivisible stuff, and this is the first-order definition that informs all mathematical machinery, words, and order vs. disorder in the being vs.

So if a human is a "programmed" entity, "whatever" programmed it is making some distinction between information and the very notion of "something in space." And the capacity to "feel" is innate to this phenomenon.

Correct me if I'm interpreting you wrongly: the brain receives external data, but the soul gives it meaning. To the brain, the data is dimensionless rawness, which the soul uses to formulate spatial experience.

 

I'm not born yesterday here. I have taken formal classes in math in college.

Please note that I'm not insulting you. My wife doesn't know sh!t about math and I love her way more than I love math. I'm only saying that your conceptions of math are naive. Having naive conceptions about math is neither a crime nor a measure of intelligence! It just means you haven't studied a lot of math. I'm guessing that, of the math classes you did take, none of them were proof-based? I mention it only because, in my experience, proof-based math classes are typically the first place that actual mathematics happens. I know that I personally didn't know sh!t about math until I started taking proof-based classes.

Adding is adding, period.

Sorry, but this is patently false. You cannot tell me what A + B sum to unless I first tell you what types of things A and B are. The behavior of the "+" operator changes depending on domain.

You are making math something higher than it is in my estimation.

And I'm saying you haven't studied enough math to estimate how high it goes.

In the end, show me an equation that doesn't involve arithmetic on some level using variables, and it's not math.

Hmm, \[ \frac{d}{dx} f(x) = f(x) \] That's a pretty important equation. Here's another, for an nxn matrix A: \[ \det(A) \ne 0 \; \implies \; \text{rank}(A) = n \]

 

Post 394:
I guess you're simply not in the end?

Sigh. On page 394 you hadn't introduced ℝ, Pi, infinity, and all the rest. I'm pretty sure you remember that I specifically said not to bring ℝ into this. But you did, trying to use it to argue some of your points. What am I supposed to do, pretend I don't anything about ℝ and take your word for it? C'mon.