"Unary base" exists, though. Google it. It's simply the "number 1" and "number 1" only.

You're describing base-1, which has a single symbol. That symbol can be "1", or it can be "0", or "@" -- whatever we want it to be.

The number 1 is being used in computers as a logic state.

Computers do their computations using voltage states, not logic states. Humans interpret the corresponding voltages states as logic states. The number 1 has nothing to do with any of this.

If it's not spatial, it's "non-dimensional," and if non-dimensional, there's no "existence" . . .

This is an assumption, not a given.

BTW, since you're keen on saying that most people would agree with you, I'd point out that the current tally on this thread stands at: zero agree, two disagree.

 

And knowing what I "mean" and insisting I use the "proper words" when you know I don't share parity of intellect but NOT education with you is unfair and rather vain (as in "form over function"), in my estimation.

I don't insist on clarity of language as some form of punishment or one-ups-manship. I insist because otherwise rational discourse is not possible. You think that I "know what you mean", but most of the time I really don't. We need precision of language to have any hope about communicating about such heady things.

Especially after you insisted you would tabula rasa, per post #394, because you know I can't talk with you otherwise.

We both stopped being tabula rasa long ago. It's simply not practical to go full-on rasa.

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."

If you mean "shape", then use the word "shape", as it implies nothing more than the perceptions that we can all relate to. But if you say "geometry", or even "right triangle", you are now invoking a very well-defined, precise object from a formal system. Importantly, neither you nor I have ever seen a right triangle, so the only thing I can reasonably assume you're referring to is a mathematical construct. Otherwise, say "triangle-ish shape" to get out of the formal box.

Do you see the difference and why it matters?

You learned about "shape and form" LONG before you learned about vectors.

The thing is, I learned some very basic properties about shapes when I was a child. When I got older, I learned that there's a lot more to them than what a child thinks.

If "Feeling" is some innate LIVING concept with CONSCIOUS spatiality that involves grokking BEYOND math and "formal systems," well then those things "vectors and things" aren't necessarily relevant yet, are they?

Then focus on "feeling", "living", and "conscious", and stop invoking mathematics! I'm happy to explore those other areas with you without flashing my math police badge. Just keep the math out of it. ;--)

 

It's about ORDER. I got one for ya: Order is independent of its "representation." ;--)

Any ToE is going to connect FEELING, spatiality, and logic at some core.

The underlying structure of reason begins with FEELING physical space on some level. Then we learn how to count, add, combine, etc. after. Using spatial mapping with feeling, we can then use the number 1 as both spatial-based logic state and quantity. That is irrefutable and empirically provable, not with any powersets, but by direct order perception and observation.

Whatever reasoning process that is employed in any higher math must boil down to XOR and NAND’s, and addition of binary values, because this is sufficient to model propositional logic and sets. So whatever we have to say we can say it through that base logic ORDER system we’re employing in the machines we build. Whatever it is, "it has to ADD UP" or "make sense" to the innate order system.

You're excellent at explaining things, because you understand how to cut to the CHASE of what is being told. It's ALL based in those logic states somewhere, I don't care what or where.

The number sets are smoke and mirrors, and Kronecker would agree, and I all but proved it using very base logic of reducing numbers to truth states under the hood, and I bet Von Neumann would agree, considering his binary outlook. I never took a class on it, I can see through it like glass from a mile away. The ORDER is independent of its representation. If order wasn't the underlying stratum of communication, you wouldn't spend hours on this conversation.

So I want to talk to you at the core ORDER level the best we can. That means you "grok" what I'm talking about even if I'm not right on the terms. If you know what I "MEAN" it means the "ORDER“ is being employed, as we are exploring feeling. But feeling and meaning have to intersect at logic.

The fact is, the post in 1472 is elegant and simple and so to the point, but FEELING is the TRUTH and proof basis. It's very simple to see the baseline inferences formed in the mind through feeling, basic counting, then extremely basic logic and how they all interrelate. Any further proof propositioning is based on these learned elements of words, numbers, non-dimensional information and dimensional space.

Without allll of the extra complexity, there is a CLEAR intersection of reason between "binary addition" and "OR" at THE most basic of levels using spatial feeling. It's just so obvious. I don't care about other contexts, I want the BASEST of contexts employed RIGHT NOW in a unary or binary system at the most rasa of levels.

Von Neumann thought the brain was a binary device. We build binary machines and use propositional logic that reflects this most elementary of things as extreme evidence of this. Using this basis, we can connect our earliest concepts of playing with blocks and being shown what quantity and truth states are, and how they interrelate. To trust set theory beyond basic inferential feeling is truly intellectually unjustified in my estimation, given that no matter the proof-based mathematical approach one takes, innate grokability of principles and relationships with respect to spatiality is a separate, transcendent phenomena.

 

Whoa, wasn't expecting that.

Good, good, let's explore the distinction.


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?


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.

Here's just a question onslaught I have to make:

This isn’t a formal system of discourse to explore innately felt truths, correct?

So in all fairness, I’m curious as to why we can “feel out” or “explore” this topic in THIS manner, and if I say “well, I believe there’s a colocality of soul with physicality” and use innate grokkability techniques, but toddlers (that we all start out as) playing with spatial blocks and learning frameworks that undergird propositional logic and number attribution (as I explore in 1472) is not equally legit?

Why do we insist information has "no dimension"?? Because your "thought forms" say so? Why is this more "readily grokkable" than the fact that you can take out a ruler in space and measure 3 different dimensions in real life? My point is, whether in the brain or outside it, feeling is a “grok-ometer.”

If we insist information has NO dimension, but then use information to insist there ARE dimensions, then dimension must exist independent of information. This is a “felt” order. I believe the brain is a non-dimensional binary/quantum computing system with no spatial/shape perception. Then there is a “spatial feeling grokker” element that digitizes dimensional data and feeds it to the brain. The soul is a “good or bad” feeling “registrator”, and that’s where existence is.

 

Don't you see that no matter how complex, ALL of it can be done with 0's and 1's with logic gates?

You use this argument all the time, whether this specific example or something like everything is based on spatiality.

It is a fallacious argument, of affirming the consequent. That is the antecedent in an indicative conditional is claimed to be true because the consequent is true;

if A, then B; B, therefore A.

Just because most everything can be represented by 1s and 0s, does NOT mean 1s and 0s is the only make-up of everything.

 

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.

No, this is overcomplexity talking, I'm sorry—I don't need a Ph.D to see it. A computer does NOT need to know WHAT it's adding, or WHAT domain. You can sum A+B all day long in a computer and add to the cows come home using XOR's and NAND's. Claude Shannon built an adder with the most basic of concepts. All computers work on the same principles.

The BASE operator of "+" and OR overlap at the lowest of levels with binary states. 100% proven in hardware, and my post spells it out elegantly. But it's not complicated enough. Meh.

 

You use this argument all the time, whether this specific example or something like everything is based on spatiality.

It is a fallacious argument, of affirming the consequent. That is the antecedent in an indicative conditional is claimed to be true because the consequent is true;

if A, then B; B, therefore A.

Just because most everything can be represented by 1s and 0s, does NOT mean 1s and 0s is the only make-up of everything.

Empirically 100% proven—at least for information and logic—that from our perspective, all of it can be represented in Morse Code-like binary states.

ALL logic that we use on a daily basis is done in the computers we have built using Boolean principles. You can boil them down to 0's and 1's as discussed in Boole's Laws of Thought.

Seriously, if it wasn't so empirically in practice at this moment, it would be up for debate to me. But all knowledge and information on this globe is being represented by 0's and 1's through a global network of computers doing it. As for information goes, this is the simplest thing conceivable.

 

ALL logic that we use on a daily basis is done in the computers we have built using Boolean principles. You can boil them down to 0's and 1's as discussed in Boole's Laws of Thought.

But that may be true only because of the ubiquity of digital binary computers.

Analog computers used to be used more frequently than digital computers. They didn’t use 1s and 0s. There’s the case that disproves your argument. Much of what you proselytize as foundation is merely one possible explanation of the universe. But, it’s not the only solution. And you falsely and repeatedly state that the world is made of 1s and 0s.

 

But that may be true only because of the ubiquity of digital binary computers.

Analog computers used to be used more frequently than digital computers. They didn’t use 1s and 0s. There’s the case that disproves your argument. Much of what you proselytize as foundation is merely one possible explanation of the universe. But, it’s not the only solution. And you falsely and repeatedly state that the world is made of 1s and 0s.

No, I have repeatedly said analog continuous computing is the other foundation, but its PURPOSE is to yield discrete values to us in the end ultimately. Even if a frequency output, the information must ultimately be a measurable value somewhere.

It’s either digital discrete (unary or binary at foundation) or continuous. Quantum computers use continuous phenomena to pump out discrete values for measurability.

 

Also, binary computers find their way back to Aristotle and logic systems crystallized by Boole in his book ”An Investigation of the Laws of Thought on Which are Founded the Mathematical Theories of Logic and Probabilities”:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Laws_of_Thought

Binary computers are employing laws of nature. Claude Shannon was inspired by its principles in the building of the first adder, and every digital system since that time uses the theories in there. What I discuss in post 1472 is just that.

 

Also, binary computers find their way back to Aristotle and logic systems crystallized by Boole in his book ”An Investigation of the Laws of Thought on Which are Founded the Mathematical Theories of Logic and Probabilities”:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Laws_of_Thought

Binary computers are employing laws of nature. Claude Shannon was inspired by its principles in the building of the first adder, and every digital system since that time uses the theories in there. What I discuss in post 1472 is just that.

To change the subject for a brief moment, are you familiar with cellular automata? Have you read “A New Kind of Science”?

Cellular automata successfully emulates mathematics, statistics, cryptography and biology. There are even cellular automata that can be programmed to simulate any other automata. Or even simulate a digital computer.

The simpler automata use binary, but the most powerful ones use various number bases.

My point is that there are more powerful systems that are much simpler than a digital computer through which our environment can be modeled. I present this as a counter example to your blind analysis.

 

You're describing base-1, which has a single symbol. That symbol can be "1", or it can be "0", or "@" -- whatever we want it to be.


Computers do their computations using voltage states, not logic states. Humans interpret the corresponding voltages states as logic states. The number 1 has nothing to do with any of this.

To change the subject for a brief moment, are you familiar with cellular automata? Have you read “A New Kind of Science”?

Cellular automata successfully emulates mathematics, statistics, cryptography and biology. There are even cellular automata that can be programmed to simulate any other automata. Or even simulate a digital computer.

The simpler automata use binary, but the most powerful ones use various number bases.

My point is that there are more powerful systems that are much simpler than a digital computer through which our environment can be modeled. I present this as a counter example to your blind analysis.

Yes, Von Neumann was one of the inventors, and he believed the brain that invented the theory was discrete binary. Call his analysis blind too I guess? If it came from the brain, it’s a binary concept at heart.

Number bases are based in unary or binary as their foundation. I showed that in 1472 if you read it. There are no higher bases without a core unary or binary element in a discrete unary or binary machine.

Informatiom is non-dimensional. A discrete brain has no spatiality that it “knows“ without some explanation.

Also, did you happen to see my original question I posed? If you close your eyes and consider a 3D cube with 8, rigid orthogonal corners, and possessing infinite points, where is that cube as described in a discrete cellular apparatus? Not “as represented,” but “specifically as the mind is describing it using words that insist on dimension.” It does not show up in a cat scan or any other scanner. There are no true 3D spatial objects as described, so where are they?

 

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.

One of the base formal definitions of geometry is shape. I am not being careless there. I am using the most rasa definition in any dictionary (Oxford, etc.) as “the shape and relative arrangement of the parts of something.” “The geometry of the house.” Given you know where I’m coming from, and you know what I meant, you need to chide me for being informal here??

 

In the end, any proof, no matter how complex, has to FEEL good or bad to have any worth. It has to “sit right” in the being. It either works (T) or it doesn’t (F). This is why all propositional logic is based in binary notions.

Digital computers, and even analog are an extension of how we reason. In the end, we need a VALUE. That value is “good” or “bad” feeling-wise. This arbiter is what ascribes weight to one value of knowledge over another. If it’s in “meh“ purgatory, then we work to bracket the value into one of these camps ultimately, because “experiential legitimacy” is the “grokkometer.”

“Presence of goodness“ or “absence of goodness“ I believe is therefore the underlying meaning “differentiatior” of any order system. If we consider goodness the basis of a logic state, we can see how we can use these two contrasting states to create an entire binary structure that can yield logic states and then numbers as conglomerations of those states.

As a toddler, “feeling the goodness” of playing with a spatial block is the basis, then a “presence” indicator is attributed. Then a quantity concept is attributed. ”A good feel“ is the unifying, distinguishing element. I think the above is a rational starting place for a ToE and basic starting model for reason, yes?

This was my endgame goal in post 1472. Perhaps see it from that place and it might be more anchored reason-wise.

 

How about...

Axiom 1: Information is a measurable quantity
Axiom 2: Feeling is an experiential sensation of goodness or absence thereof
Axiom 3: Meaning is feeling from information
Axiom 4: Information may be denoted as TRUE (T) or FALSE (F) and is a reflection of the presence or absence of meaning

?

 

There appear to be 3 different “types” of what we might call “truth”... don’t think you’re expecting this either. Lol. What is your feeling on this:

Non-dimensional informational truths: These are born out of innate mathematical theorems that use “innate” laws to derive proofs from the relationships of sets of items and their characteristics to others using formal language to delineate axioms and inferences from them. This is a form of knowledge unto itself that only involves the senses as a utility but not as the final arbiter of what is deemed truth. E.g., “ℕ is the set of counting numbers. Prove the TRUTH that any two numbers when added yields another element of set ℕ.” Nothing to do with physical space as an entity separate from information as the basis. Information itself contains the question and the “answer.”

Qualitative, personal truths: “The apple is good!” “That was a great ride!” These involve “physical space” and the use of information to report on the value of what a thing in this space means. “Was is it TRUE that the apple was good to you? Yes!”

Spatial truths: The “physical space” in which we live, where one might even use the term “reality” and “real” with them, but they’re born in what we perceive to be true based in what information waves and photons carry to us concerning the referrent. Information is used as a means to an end: ”There is a block on the ground. It is TRUE there is a REAL block “there.” I have “one block”. The use of the term ”proof” in this case (as in consensual “court”) is again perceived based on direct sensory feedback from stimulus. It involves “objects” and what one might call “OJBECTive“ truth, since we all share access to the same physical space and objects. ”It is TRUE the boss’ last name is Realman. He is a REAL person, not just informational concept. He works at 123 Spatial Avenue in Jupiter, Fl. He has a dog named Banach. He likes LCD Zeppelin. He rubs lotion on his skin before he goes to bed.” Post #1472 is exploring this definition of truth (And a good question to explore is why this can’t hold equal value to the first definition of truth above).

In all 3 cases, experiential value of feeling to ascribe weight to the data is the arbiter of truth value.

Agreed?

 

Any ToE is going to connect FEELING, spatiality, and logic at some core.

This points to a large disconnect between our worldviews, which seems to boil down to a disagreement on how anthropocentric a ToE should be.

To me, a ToE is a fundamental explanation of how the universe works. ToEs describe what the foundation is like, not the top floors of the buildings. And to me, the human notion of "feeling" is very much a top-floor feature.

You, on the other hand, believe that "feeling" is foundational to the universe itself. This is strange to me, as I believe that the universe is very old. Relative to its age, humans ("feeling") have only just appeared in the last couple of seconds. I don't see how it's reasonable to characterize "feeling" as foundational when the universe has gone on without it for practically the entirety of its existence!

I believe that a ToE must be able to account for the fundamental mechanism that can -- eventually -- lead to "feeling", but it doesn't make sense to try to bake "feeling" itself into the ToE pie. Perhaps you can address why you think it does.

Using spatial mapping with feeling, we can then use the number 1 as both spatial-based logic state and quantity.

What's a "spatial-based logic state"? A logic state is foremost an abstraction. We can intepret certain spatial-based symbols -- voltage low, for instance -- as representing a logic state, but we can equally interpret the same symbol in myriad other ways. The "logic state" is an abstraction, not a physical thing.

Whatever reasoning process that is employed in any higher math must boil down to XOR and NAND’s, and addition of binary values, because this is sufficient to model propositional logic and sets.

It is sufficient but not necessary, and this is where you lose the plot. Why do you mention XOR? We only need NAND (or NOR) gates to implement every boolean function. But, as I have repeated countless times, computation need not use boolean components. Analog computers are a thing.

Furthermore, propositional logic and set theory are insufficient to express general statements about math or computation. They simply don't have enough expressive power. We can't, for instance, use propositional logic and set theory to make simple statements about arithmetic with natural numbers.

So whatever we have to say we can say it through that base logic ORDER system we’re employing in the machines we build.

You speak of a "base logic" as if such a thing existed. There is no "base logic". We have various formal logic systems that each have their strengths and weaknesses in terms of what they can or cannot express.

The number sets are smoke and mirrors, and Kronecker would agree, and I all but proved it using very base logic of reducing numbers to truth states under the hood, and I bet Von Neumann would agree, considering his binary outlook.

I'd take that bet in a heartbeat.

So I want to talk to you at the core ORDER level the best we can.

It'd help if you explained what you mean by "ORDER".

But feeling and meaning have to intersect at logic.

The opposite of true, and it's very important that you understand this. A logic system specifically divorces meaning from statements. We know that "A OR B" is a valid statement of propositional logic, even though we have no idea what it means. We know that negating that statement gives us an equivalent statement "NOT-A AND NOT-B". Whatever A and B might mean doesn't matter, logic only speaks to the syntax of its expressions.

Logic is about syntax, not semantics.

The fact is, the post in 1472 is elegant and simple . . .

If you don't say so yourself. ;--)

Without allll of the extra complexity, there is a CLEAR intersection of reason between "binary addition" and "OR" at THE most basic of levels using spatial feeling. It's just so obvious.

What's so obvious? What you call a "CLEAR intersection of reason" between binary addition and XOR has nothing to do with spatiality. It is quite literally a mathematical coincidence that the "+" operator of a boolean ring is compatible with the truth table of XOR. This is not some profound deep connection, it's simply a matter of statistical probability: every binary operator has only four possible outcomes, so it's not hard to find many binary operators that have compatible sets of outcomes.

Because binary addition is compatible with boolean XOR, and binary multiplication is compatible with boolean AND, we can conveniently design digital circuits that can be interpreted as having done either a logic operation or an arithmetic operation. This is convenient, but it is not fundamental. You're either reading way too much into the coincidence, or you're making a category error by assuming that we can do arithmetic on truth states.

 

This isn’t a formal system of discourse to explore innately felt truths, correct?

I'm not sure what you mean by "innately felt truth", but it sounds fishy as hell.

So in all fairness, I’m curious as to why we can “feel out” or “explore” this topic in THIS manner, and if I say “well, I believe there’s a colocality of soul with physicality” and use innate grokkability techniques, but toddlers (that we all start out as) playing with spatial blocks and learning frameworks that undergird propositional logic and number attribution (as I explore in 1472) is not equally legit?

You have to define what "innate grokkability techniques" means, because I have no idea. You assume that we learn logic and such from playing with blocks as children, but I don't. Test a child's logic and you'll find that it's almost invariably inconsistent. Humans in general are logically inconsistent. We have to force logic upon ourselves through great effort and practice.

Why do we insist information has "no dimension"?? Because your "thought forms" say so?

The statement "information has no spatial dimension", like all such statements, is a hypothesis. We scrutinize the hypothesis against empirical and logical tests and see if it falls. So, far it has not fallen. In contrast, accepting the null hypothesis -- "information has spatial dimension" -- leads to many problematic questions, such as:

What are the dimensions of information?
If information is specifically m-dimensional, then how can we account for the fact that we can represent it in (n+m) or (n-m) or even non-dimensional forms?
If information has physical dimension, then where is it? It must take up space, so how much does it weigh, how long is it, what color is it?

Given the two alternatives, the choice is so far clear for me. Strengthening this choice is the close parallel information seems to have with the physical concept of energy. Based on how we define energy, we attribute what we call physical dimensions to it -- squared-length-mass per squared-time -- but energy has no spatial extent. It's not reasonable to say that energy has spatial dimension. I believe it is likewise the case for information.

Why is this more "readily grokkable" than the fact that you can take out a ruler in space and measure 3 different dimensions in real life?

First, that information has no spatial dimension is not "readily grokkable". It takes careful, deliberate effort to arrive at that conclusion. Indeed, "readily grokkable" is absolutely NOT a criterion of truth for me. In my experience, the readily grokkable stuff was either not actually grokked, or was just plain wrong.

We invented science specifically to fix our very faulty sense of "readily grokkable".

My point is, whether in the brain or outside it, feeling is a “grok-ometer.”

And feeling has proven itself to be a terrible arbiter of truth.

If we insist information has NO dimension, but then use information to insist there ARE dimensions, then dimension must exist independent of information.

I do not insist that there are spatial dimensions in the way that you do. I believe that spatial dimension is a human abstraction; I believe spatial dimensions exist as an abstraction that we apply to our experience. I do not insist that our spatial abstraction is accurately reflective of how physical space actually is.

 

No, this is overcomplexity talking, I'm sorry—I don't need a Ph.D to see it. A computer does NOT need to know WHAT it's adding, or WHAT domain. You can sum A+B all day long in a computer and add to the cows come home using XOR's and NAND's. Claude Shannon built an adder with the most basic of concepts. All computers work on the same principles.

The BASE operator of "+" and OR overlap at the lowest of levels with binary states. 100% proven in hardware, and my post spells it out elegantly. But it's not complicated enough. Meh.

You are wrong. Let A and B represent natural numbers. Your circuit will add them. Now let A and B represent rational numbers; your circuit will fail to add them. Now let A and B represent complex numbers; your circuit will fail to add them. Now let A and B be square real-valued matrices; your circuit will fail to add them.

In order to properly implement addition, a computer needs to know how to perform the computation, and that depends on the types of things being added. You need to let go of the mistaken idea that "+" means one thing and one thing only. Arithmetic is bigger than what you learned in elementary school.

 

This points to a large disconnect between our worldviews, which seems to boil down to a disagreement on how anthropocentric a ToE should be.

To me, a ToE is a fundamental explanation of how the universe works. ToEs describe what the foundation is like, not the top floors of the buildings. And to me, the human notion of "feeling" is very much a top-floor feature.

You, on the other hand, believe that "feeling" is foundational to the universe itself. This is strange to me, as I believe that the universe is very old. Relative to its age, humans ("feeling") have only just appeared in the last couple of seconds. I don't see how it's reasonable to characterize "feeling" as foundational when the universe has gone on without it for practically the entirety of its existence!

I believe that a ToE must be able to account for the fundamental mechanism that can -- eventually -- lead to "feeling", but it doesn't make sense to try to bake "feeling" itself into the ToE pie. Perhaps you can address why you think it does.

But no matter how you cut the cake, you are divorcing information from physical space, correct? What is the true nature and origin of this divorcement, and how is it being made? Further, if you will say that physical space is the origin of information, how is it that information seems to hearken back to physical space as a referent? Is it intellectualy "legal" to divorce them and make the arbiter of truth just information's self-consistency?